GOSAFE Act
Introduced April 9, 2025 · Last action April 9, 2025
Plain English Summary
This bill bans the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines (holding more than 10 rounds). Existing legally owned firearms are grandfathered in but cannot be transferred except to immediate family members through licensed dealers. The bill creates a federal list of prohibited firearms and requires new semi-automatic designs to receive Attorney General approval before manufacture.
Who benefits
Gun violence prevention advocacy organizations (Everytown, Brady Campaign, Giffords); cities and municipalities with existing assault weapon bans or seeking to reduce gun homicides and mass shooting injuries; law enforcement agencies authorized to use federal grant funds for buy-back programs; licensed firearms dealers compliant with new regulations; public health agencies focused on firearm injury reduction; Democratic-voting suburban and urban constituencies with higher net support for semi-automatic restrictions.
Who pays / loses
Gun manufacturers producing gas-operated semi-automatic rifles (AR-15 platform manufacturers, AK-pattern manufacturers, MSI Defense, Ruger, Sig Sauer rifle divisions, Mossberg, Savage Arms, Remington); gunowners currently possessing gas-operated semi-automatics who cannot transfer them outside immediate family; ammunition manufacturers and retailers dependent on high-capacity magazine sales; gun dealers whose inventory of prohibited models becomes unsellable; rural and conservative constituencies where semi-automatic rifle ownership is widespread; hunters and sport shooters using gas-operated semi-automatics; Second Amendment advocacy groups (NRA, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation).
Fiscal note: Not specified in bill text. Appropriations authorized as 'such sums as may be necessary' for Attorney General to carry out regulatory duties and maintain Firearm Safety Trust Fund.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
This bill is sponsored by House Democrats including Lucy McBath (GA), representing constituencies with strong gun violence prevention support. Financial beneficiaries include gun violence prevention nonprofits (Brady United Against Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords Law Center) and Democratic-allied advocacy groups. Financial losers are firearms manufacturers—particularly mid-market and large producers of AR-15 and AK-pattern rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and high-capacity magazine manufacturers. Ammunition magazine makers (MagPul Industries, Troy Industries, Lancer Systems) have direct financial stake in blocking this legislation. The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation—primarily funded by gun manufacturers and membership dues—will oppose. No sponsor finance data provided in bill text, but sponsors represent urban/suburban Democratic districts where gun violence prevention donors concentrate.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Approximately 20-25 million U.S. households own at least one semi-automatic rifle (RAND Corporation firearms surveys); rural and exurban counties with lower population density where semi-automatic rifles are common for self-defense and hunting; gun owners in constitutional carry and permitless carry states; law-abiding firearm owners in states without existing semi-automatic restrictions (approximately 30 states); licensed firearms dealers, particularly in rural and conservative-leaning counties; manufacturers and retail distribution networks for AR-15, AK-pattern, and semi-automatic shotgun platforms; suburbs and cities with populations experiencing gang violence and mass shooting incidents where constituents support restrictions.
Political Subtext
Proponents argue the bill reduces mass shooting deaths by eliminating the most commonly used weapons in school and public mass shootings (Virginia Tech, Parkland, Uvalde, Buffalo, Las Vegas all involved semi-automatic rifles) and prevents rapid-fire capability that exceeds self-defense needs. They cite data that mass shooting casualties increase with semi-automatic platforms. Critics and the gun rights constituency argue the bill violates the Second Amendment as clarified by District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which protected semi-automatic firearms as in common use for lawful purposes including self-defense. The Supreme Court's Bruen decision established that firearm regulations must be rooted in historical tradition—a test under which categorical bans on the most popular rifle in America face significant constitutional challenges. Legal scholars on the left argue regulations can survive Bruen if designed narrowly around genuine public safety mechanisms; those on the right argue any categorical ban fails because semi-automatics are 'in common use.' No definitive consensus exists on Bruen's precise application to semi-automatic bans. The empirical relationship between semi-automatic rifle restrictions and overall gun homicide rates is contested—studies show mass shooting casualty reduction potential but face debate over whether restrictions on one weapon category meaningfully reduce total gun deaths if alternate firearms remain available.
Real-World Stakes
If enacted, this bill would make approximately 10-20 million currently legal semi-automatic rifles illegal to possess (though grandfathered owners retain them), create an ongoing federal enforcement mechanism via ATF, and expose violators to criminal penalties. Similar state-level bans have faced sustained constitutional challenges: California's 1989 assault weapons ban (upheld pre-Bruen under rational basis review) was partially struck down post-Bruen in Duncan v. Bonta (2023) for failing to justify magazine capacity limits under historical analogy; New York's 2022 enhanced assault weapons ban faces active Bruen-standard litigation in NYSRPA v. Hochul. Colorado's 2013 magazine ban survived legal challenge but faced intense enforcement debates. The practical effect of this federal ban would likely include: (1) ATF creating and maintaining a prohibited firearms list subject to litigation over which specific models qualify; (2) federal prosecution of violations, particularly in non-compliant rural and red-state jurisdictions; (3) potential state non-enforcement and conflict with federal law in constitutional carry states; (4) buy-back programs requiring substantial Byrne Grant reallocation from crime prevention to gun surrender compensation; (5) immediate constitutional litigation in the Supreme Court, which since Bruen has shown skepticism toward categorical firearm bans; (6) manufacturing relocation of production to other countries or states (if possible); and (7) continued robust secondary market and private transfer of grandfathered weapons. Australia's mandatory buy-back of semi-automatic firearms (1996-1998) purchased approximately 650,000 weapons and cost AUD $500 million (approximately $375 million USD), with unknown compliance rate for voluntary surrender pre-confiscation.
Sponsor
Sponsor information not available.
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
No campaign finance data available yet.
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.