Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text: CR S795)
The bill (SECURE Firearm Storage Act) amends 18 U.S.C. §923 to require federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers to secure on‑premises inventory and paper records when the business is closed, prescribes methods of storage, authorizes Attorney General regulations for additional security measures, and creates civil penalties, suspensions, and revocations for noncompliance. It also requires license applications to describe how the applicant will comply.
Left emphasizes public‑safety gains; right emphasizes regulatory burden
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes new substantive regulatory obligations for federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers, with specific technical storage requirements and a graduated enforcement scheme.
The bill (SECURE Firearm Storage Act) amends 18 U.S.C. §923 to require federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers to secure on‑premises inventory and paper records when the business is closed, prescribes methods of storage, authorizes Attorney General regulations for additional security measures, and creates civil penalties, suspensions, and revocations for noncompliance.
It also requires license applications to describe how the applicant will comply.
Initial storage rules take effect one year after enactment; paper record rules take effect 90 days after enactment.
Narrow, administrable approach and phased timing help, but subject matter sensitivity and regulatory burdens reduce overall chances without broad cross-aisle support.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes new substantive regulatory obligations for federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers, with specific technical storage requirements and a graduated enforcement scheme. It integrates into existing statutory sections and assigns regulatory and enforcement responsibility to the Attorney General.
Left emphasizes public‑safety gains; right emphasizes regulatory burden
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes public‑safety gains; right emphasizes regulatory burden
Generally supportive; sees the bill as practical, evidence‑based steps to reduce firearms theft and illicit diversion.
Would favor stronger enforcement and assistance for compliance, while wanting robust AG rulemaking to close security gaps.
Cautiously favorable: supports theft‑reduction goals and clear standards but worries about implementation costs, regulatory clarity, and administrative fairness.
Will seek measurable cost estimates and phased assistance.
Skeptical or opposed: views the bill as federal micromanagement imposing costly, prescriptive mandates on lawful businesses.
Prefers voluntary incentives, state control, or less prescriptive standards.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrable approach and phased timing help, but subject matter sensitivity and regulatory burdens reduce overall chances without broad cross-aisle support.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes public‑safety gains; right emphasizes regulatory burden
Narrow, administrable approach and phased timing help, but subject matter sensitivity and regulatory burdens reduce overall chances without…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes new substantive regulatory obligations for federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, and dealers, with specific technical storage requirements…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.