Overview
Title
To amend title 18, United States Code, to restrict the possession of certain firearms, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The GOSAFE Act is a rule that tries to stop people from having certain kinds of automatic guns that work with gas, except for special groups like the government, and it wants to give money to people who turn these guns in. It also talks about having labels on the guns to know which ones they are and getting some money if someone breaks the rule.
Summary AI
S. 1370, titled the "Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act" or "GOSAFE Act", proposes amendments to Title 18 of the United States Code to restrict the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that operate using gas. It seeks to prohibit the importation, sale, manufacture, and possession of certain gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with certain exceptions for government use and pre-existing possessions. The bill introduces penalties for violations and emphasizes marking and identification of such firearms and devices. It also allows funding for buy-back programs for these firearms and mandates the Attorney General to maintain a list of prohibited firearms.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
The proposed bill, known as the "Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act" or the "GOSAFE Act," seeks to amend title 18 of the United States Code to impose restrictions on certain firearms and related devices. It specifically aims to limit the possession, sale, and transfer of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with certain exceptions for government agencies and licensed entities. This legislation contains multiple complex technical and procedural provisions relating to firearm classifications, buy-back programs, penalties, and administrative processes.
General Summary of the Bill
At its core, the GOSAFE Act targets the regulation of firearms by defining and restricting ownership and use of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices that exceed a specific capacity. It seeks to limit the manufacture, sale, and transfer of these firearms and devices, setting penalties for non-compliance. The bill also proposes using federal grants for buy-back programs to encourage the surrender of such firearms and devices. Procedures for determining which firearms are prohibited are outlined, granting significant authority to the Attorney General for implementing these regulations.
Significant Issues
A significant issue identified in the bill is the technical complexity of the language used to define firearms and related devices. This complexity risks making the legislation difficult for the general public and even some lawmakers to fully grasp, possibly leading to misinterpretation and challenges in enforcement. Additionally, the bill provides broad exemptions for certain governmental and licensed entities, raising ethical concerns about unequal application of law and potential favoritism.
Penalties included in the bill for violations may not be stringent enough to deter serious offenses effectively. Imposing a maximum fine of $5,000 or up to one year of imprisonment for violating firearm restrictions seems insufficient, considering the potential danger posed by these firearms. Furthermore, the lack of detailed criteria for implementing buy-back programs and oversight leaves room for misuse of funds, which could undermine the bill's intentions.
Public Impact
If enacted, the GOSAFE Act might have a broad impact on firearm ownership and regulation in the United States. By restricting gas-operated semi-automatic firearms, the bill aims to enhance public safety by limiting access to firearms with potentially high rates of fire. It may reduce incidents of gun violence associated with these types of weapons.
The public might experience mixed reactions based on their views on gun control. Proponents of stricter gun laws may see it as a necessary step towards reducing gun violence. Conversely, individuals and groups advocating for gun rights might view the bill as an infringement on constitutional rights, particularly due to its detailed and broad restrictions.
Stakeholder Impact
Law Enforcement and Government Agencies: The bill allows exemptions for government entities, meaning law enforcement and certain government agencies might retain access to restricted firearms. This could be seen positively by those prioritizing security needs, although it may cause concerns regarding preferential treatment.
Gun Manufacturers and Dealers: This sector might face significant operational challenges. The new restrictions could impact sales, and requirements to mark products and submit applications for firearm designs add regulatory burdens. Furthermore, vague language regarding fees and decision-making criteria amplifies uncertainty and possible costs.
Gun Owners and Advocacy Groups: Individual gun owners might find this legislation controversial, perceiving it as an infringement on Second Amendment rights. Organizations advocating for gun rights could mobilize against the bill, whereas gun control advocates might support it as a move towards greater regulation.
In conclusion, the GOSAFE Act reflects ongoing efforts to regulate firearm possession and enhance public safety but raises implementation and fairness issues. The bill's success and acceptance may largely depend on addressing these concerns transparently and effectively to ensure balanced enforcement and public trust.
Financial Assessment
The proposed "Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act" implicates several financial aspects tied to the regulation of firearms. Below, we dissect the financial references within the bill, focusing on their implications and relation to identified issues.
Financial Penalties
Section 4 of the bill outlines financial penalties for those who violate firearm restrictions. A violation, such as the unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm or device, incurs a fine of not more than $5,000 and potentially up to 12 months of imprisonment. More severe violations, like committing another federal offense while possessing an illegal firearm, may result in a fine of up to $250,000 and imprisonment ranging from 2 to 10 years.
The issues lie in whether these penalties are sufficiently deterrent. While they are clear in amount, the fines may not weigh heavily against the potential gravity of offenses. A maximum fine of $5,000 for simple possession could be perceived as insufficient, failing to proportionally penalize or deter significant breaches of firearm law, raising questions of fairness and effectiveness.
Use of Byrne Grants
Section 3 references the allocation of financing under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The bill permits the use of Byrne grants as compensation for individuals surrendering prohibited firearms under buy-back programs. Such programs are financial endeavors aimed at reducing the presence of illegal firearms by offering monetary incentives for their surrender.
The lack of detail on the implementation and oversight of these buy-back programs poses issues of financial accountability. Without clear guidelines, there is potential for misuse or mismanagement of grant funds, leading to inefficient use of public financial resources. Ensuring transparency and proper use of these grants is vital for the program's success and public trust.
Fees and the Firearm Safety Trust Fund
The bill introduces an application fee structure linked to the approval of new firearm designs. These fees, yet unspecified, are designed to cover the costs associated with the review and approval process led by the Attorney General. Proceeds from these fees, along with certain taxes, are to be deposited into a newly established Firearm Safety Trust Fund.
This trust fund is expected to financially support the bill's regulatory activities. However, the absence of capped fees or detailed criteria for setting them, as highlighted in the issues, may result in unexpectedly high costs. This could impose financial burdens on manufacturers and create an environment of uncertainty, leading to potential resistance or dissatisfaction among stakeholders.
Conclusion
In summary, the financial components of the GOSAFE Act create pathways for regulation through penalties, funding for buy-back initiatives, and the establishment of a trust fund for operational costs. Nonetheless, the resolution of issues such as the adequacy of penalties, the management of buy-back programs, and clarity on fee structures is essential to ensure the financial integrity and efficacy of the Act.
Issues
The technical language used in the 'Restrictions' section (Section 2) of the bill is complex and may not be easily understandable by the general public or lawmakers without specific knowledge of firearms, potentially leading to misinterpretation and enforcement challenges.
The bill outlines a broad exemption for certain entities such as government agencies and licensees under the Atomic Energy Act in the 'Restrictions' section (Section 2), which may suggest favoritism and raise ethical concerns about unequal application of the law.
The penalties defined in Section 4 may not be sufficient to deter serious offenses, as a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for not more than 12 months might not be commensurate with the gravity of violating firearm restrictions, leading to questions of legal fairness.
The absence of specific details on the implementation and oversight of buy-back programs for gas-operated semi-automatic firearms in Section 3 could result in misuse or mismanagement of funds, raising financial accountability concerns.
The 'Prohibited firearm determinations' section (Section 5) lacks clear and detailed criteria for updating the list of prohibited firearms and setting fees, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions by the Attorney General and high costs without caps, which might not be transparent or fair.
The complexity and specificity of the definitions in the 'Restrictions' section (Section 2) could create loopholes or ambiguities in what is considered a 'gas-operated semi-automatic firearm', complicating enforcement and legal interpretation.
The lack of a clear definition of 'buy-back programs' in Section 3 leaves room for varied interpretations and implementations that may not align with the intended goals of the legislation, leading to potential misuse of allocated resources.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill provides the short title, stating that the act can be referred to as the “Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion Act” or the “GOSAFE Act”.
2. Restrictions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill defines several terms related to firearms, such as semi-automatic firearm, cycle the action, and large capacity ammunition feeding device, and places restrictions on the import, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of certain firearms and ammunition feeding devices. These restrictions include prohibiting gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices, with certain exceptions for government and specific licensed entities.
3. Use of Byrne grants for buy-back programs for gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends a part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow Byrne grants to be used for buy-back programs that provide compensation to individuals who surrender gas-operated semi-automatic firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
4. Penalties Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amended Section 924(a) of title 18 of the United States Code specifies penalties for violations related to certain firearms. A person who breaks specific laws about firearms, like owning certain semi-automatic guns, could face a fine up to $5,000 and/or up to one year in jail. If someone uses a restricted firearm while committing another serious crime, they could be fined up to $250,000 and/or face a jail term between two and ten years.
Money References
- Whoever violates subsection (v) or (w) of section 922 shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 12 months, or both, for each offense.
- Whoever, while in possession of a gas-operated semi-automatic firearm in violation of section 922(v), commits, or attempts to commit, any other Federal offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such offense, be fined not more than $250,000, imprisoned for a term not less than 2 years and not more than 10 years, or both.”.
5. Prohibited firearm determinations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill section establishes procedures for determining which semi-automatic firearms are prohibited, requiring the Attorney General to publish a list of these firearms. It outlines responsibilities for firearm design approvals, application fees, and provides a process for manufacturers to appeal application denials, including options for judicial review, funding provisions through a Firearm Safety Trust Fund, and specifies a right of action for individuals if the Attorney General removes a firearm from the list.
935. Prohibited firearm determinations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines the responsibilities of the Attorney General and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in determining which semi-automatic firearms are prohibited. It includes guidelines for firearm design approvals, the appeal process for denied applications, and the establishment of a fund for activities related to firearm safety.