Keep Americans Safe Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 27, 2025
Bottom line
The bill establishes a federal ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines, with specific exceptions and a voluntary buy-back program funded by existing grants.
What it actually does
This bill prohibits the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCADs) that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It includes exceptions for law enforcement, military, nuclear facilities, and licensed manufacturers for testing, and grandfathers in devices lawfully possessed before the bill's enactment. Additionally, it authorizes the use of existing Byrne Justice Assistance Grants for state and local buy-back programs for these devices.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that banning large capacity ammunition feeding devices is a critical step to reduce gun violence, particularly in mass shootings, where these devices enable shooters to inflict more casualties more quickly. They contend that restricting access to these devices will save lives and enhance public safety by limiting the lethality of firearms.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms for self-defense. They argue that such bans are ineffective at deterring crime, as criminals will not comply, and that they unfairly penalize responsible gun owners while failing to address the root causes of violence.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, making it accessible for a quick read and evaluation.
Section 2
Definition of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device
This section defines a 'large capacity ammunition feeding device' (LCAD) as any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, helical feeding device, or similar item with an overall capacity of, or readily convertible to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It specifically excludes attached tubular devices designed for and operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. This definition is crucial as it sets the scope for the entire bill's prohibitions.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a clear and concise definition of LCADs is essential to effectively regulate these devices and prevent their proliferation, thereby enhancing public safety by limiting the capacity for rapid, high-volume gunfire.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this definition is overly broad and encompasses commonly used magazines, effectively criminalizing accessories widely owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, sport, and hunting.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between defining a device broadly enough to be effective in preventing mass casualties and narrowly enough to avoid infringing on what some consider common and constitutionally protected accessories for self-defense.
Section 3(a)
Prohibition on Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
This provision makes it unlawful to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess large capacity ammunition feeding devices (LCADs) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. It includes a 'grandfather clause' allowing individuals to possess LCADs that were lawfully owned before the bill's enactment. Several exceptions are made for specific entities and individuals, including federal, state, and campus law enforcement officers (on or off-duty), the United States military, nuclear facility security personnel, and licensed manufacturers for testing purposes.
Section 3(b)
Identification Markings for New Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices
This section amends existing law to require that any large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the bill's enactment must be identified by a serial number and the date of manufacture. These markings must be legibly and conspicuously engraved or cast on the device. The Attorney General is also authorized to prescribe additional identification regulations.
Section 5
Use of Byrne Grants for Buy-Back Programs
This section amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to explicitly allow Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds to be used by states and localities for compensation in buy-back programs for large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This means that existing federal grant money, which states and localities already receive for various criminal justice purposes, can now be allocated to fund programs that offer payment for surrendered LCADs.
The bill defines 'qualified law enforcement officer' by referencing section 926B of title 18, United States Code, rather than providing the full definition within the bill text.
Section 2(39)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid repeating lengthy statutory definitions and to ensure consistency with existing law.
Case for: Referencing existing definitions streamlines legislative text and ensures legal consistency across different statutes, avoiding potential conflicts or ambiguities.
Case against: A reader unfamiliar with 18 U.S.C. 926B would need to consult external legal resources to fully understand who is exempt from the LCAD prohibition, making the bill less self-contained.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the scope of law enforcement exemptions, affecting all federal, state, and local law enforcement personnel.
The bill provides a specific, multi-part definition for 'campus law enforcement officer' to ensure they are also exempt from the LCAD prohibition for law enforcement purposes.
Section 3(a)(4)
Why it matters:This level of detail is necessary to precisely define who qualifies for the exemption, preventing ambiguity and potential misuse. It's standard for establishing specific eligibility criteria.
Case for: Including campus law enforcement officers in the exemption ensures that security personnel at institutions of higher education have the necessary tools to protect their campuses, aligning with their responsibilities.
Case against: Some critics might argue that expanding exemptions to campus law enforcement, particularly those employed by private institutions, could lead to less oversight or inconsistent application of gun laws, though this is not a common specific objection.
Estimated impact: Extends the law enforcement exemption to a specific category of security personnel, impacting private institutions of higher education and their officers.
This section amends 18 U.S.C. 924(a)(1)(B) to include violations of the new LCAD prohibition (subsection (v)) under existing federal penalties for firearm-related offenses.
Section 4
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to integrate new prohibitions into existing enforcement frameworks, ensuring that violations are subject to established penalties without creating entirely new sentencing guidelines.
Case for: Integrating the new prohibition into existing penalty structures ensures that violations are treated with appropriate legal gravity and provides clear enforcement mechanisms for federal authorities.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against the technical application of existing penalties to new prohibitions, though opponents of the underlying ban would naturally oppose the penalties as well.
Estimated impact: Ensures that individuals who violate the LCAD ban face federal criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to 10 years, impacting those found guilty of unlawful import, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession.