HB4546, the FIRE Act (Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement Act), would prohibit federal, state, and local governments from imposing or enforcing restrictions on firearm magazines based on magazine capacity. The bill amends federal firearms law to bar federal officers and employees from regulating magazines by the number of rounds they hold, and it would also nullify any state or local law that limits, prohibits, or penalizes magazines because of their capacity.
The bill defines “firearm magazine” broadly as either a fixed or detachable device used to store and feed ammunition into a firearm, and defines “capacity” as the number of rounds a magazine can hold. Its provisions would take effect 30 days after enactment and would apply prospectively to conduct occurring after that date.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly preempt existing and future state and local magazine-capacity laws, including common “large-capacity magazine” bans or limits. It would also restrict federal agencies from issuing or enforcing capacity-based magazine regulations under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code. In practical terms, the bill would alter the balance of firearms regulation by removing a category of gun-control authority from state, local, and federal governments and by creating a federal statutory definition of firearm magazine and capacity.
Sentiment
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s sponsors and its title, the measure appears to be supported by lawmakers favoring broader firearm rights and opposed by those who support magazine-capacity restrictions as a public-safety measure. The bill was introduced and referred to the House Judiciary Committee.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether governments should be allowed to regulate firearm magazines by capacity. Supporters are likely to argue that such limits burden lawful gun ownership and are inconsistent across jurisdictions, while opponents are likely to argue that capacity limits are a legitimate tool for reducing gun violence and improving public safety. Another likely dispute is federal preemption: the bill would override state and local authority in an area where many jurisdictions currently maintain their own rules.