H.R. 373 amends Title 18 to sharply limit state and local authority to regulate rifles and shotguns. It bars any state or political subdivision from imposing regulations, prohibitions, registration or licensing requirements, or penalties, taxes, fees, or charges on rifles or shotguns that are more restrictive or greater than federal law allows, and declares conflicting state laws void.
The bill explicitly defines “rifle or shotgun” to include parts, detachable magazines and ammunition feeding devices, and pistol-grip or stock designs, ties coverage to items that have moved in or affect interstate or foreign commerce, and creates a private right of action that awards prevailing plaintiffs reasonable attorney’s fees. For stakeholders, the result is a federal ceiling on state firearms rules that could nullify many state-level restrictions and invite litigation over scope and application.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts a new subsection into 18 U.S.C. §927 that forbids states and localities from enacting or enforcing any regulation, prohibition, registration, licensing requirement, penalty, tax, fee, or charge on covered rifles or shotguns that is "more restrictive" or "greater" than federal law. It treats conflicting state laws as void and permits civil suits with fee-shifting for prevailing plaintiffs.
Who It Affects
State and local governments, firearm manufacturers and interstate retailers, owners and transferees of rifles and shotguns, and makers of accessories (including detachable magazines, grips, and stocks). Regulators and attorneys who litigate federalism and preemption claims will also be directly involved.
Why It Matters
By establishing a statutory federal ceiling tied to interstate commerce, the bill aims to produce nationwide uniformity for rifles/shotguns and related parts. That reduces states’ ability to use registration bans, design-based prohibitions, taxes, or licensing regimes as policy levers, and shifts disputes into federal courts where fee-shifting increases the incentive to sue.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R. 373 operates as a preemption statute aimed specifically at rifles, shotguns, and a set of accessories and parts. It adds language to the federal criminal code that prevents states and their political subdivisions from imposing regulatory requirements or monetary burdens on those items if such measures are "more restrictive" than what federal law provides.
The text reaches both conduct—manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking—and the items themselves when they have moved in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.
The bill's definitional clause broadens covered items to include parts, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design. That phrasing targets common features and accessories that many state statutes have used as the basis for bans or enhanced restrictions, so those state measures will be subject to the bill’s preemptive rule when the commerce threshold is met.
The statute also says a conflicting state law "shall have no force or effect," signaling immediate invalidation rather than merely creating a federal defense in state proceedings.Enforcement is civil: the bill creates a cause of action for damages or injunctive relief for violations of the new subsection and requires courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff in addition to other relief. That fee-shifting is likely to change litigation dynamics by lowering financial barriers for challengers and increasing the risk of costly suits for jurisdictions that maintain contested laws.
The bill applies across time—laws enacted before or after the bill’s enactment are subject to invalidation if they conflict with the new federal standard.Two important limiting concepts are built into the text. First, the statute only applies to rifles or shotguns that have "moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce," which leaves open questions about wholly intrastate-made firearms or parts.
Second, the statutory test compares state action to federal law: states cannot be more restrictive than federal statutes or regulations, but the bill does not itself create new federal restrictions; it establishes a ceiling rather than new substantive federal firearms policy.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §927 by adding a new subsection (b) that bars state and local regulation of certain rifles/shotguns that is more restrictive than federal law.
It defines "rifle or shotgun" to include parts, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design, bringing common accessory features explicitly within the preemption scope.
Coverage hinges on a commerce connection: the rifle or shotgun must have moved in, or the conduct must affect, interstate or foreign commerce for the federal ceiling to apply.
The statute voids any conflicting state or local law—whether enacted before, on, or after the bill’s enactment—rather than merely providing a defense to enforcement.
H.R. 373 establishes a private cause of action for violations and requires courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees to prevailing plaintiffs in addition to other relief.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the bill’s names: "Second Amendment Guarantee Act" and "SAGA Act." This is the usual formal header and has no operative effect on rights or enforcement but identifies the package in legislative and legal references.
Creates an explicit federal ceiling on state regulation
The core edit introduces subsection (b) to §927 and establishes the substantive rule: a state or political subdivision may not impose any regulation, prohibition, registration or licensing requirement, or impose penalties, taxes, fees, or charges on a covered rifle or shotgun that are "more restrictive" or "greater" than federal law. Practically, this converts §927 into a preemption clause that compares state measures to federal baselines and nullifies state measures that exceed federal standards.
Defines covered items and ties scope to interstate commerce
Paragraph (1) specifies that "rifle or shotgun" includes parts, detachable magazines or ammunition feeding devices, and pistol-grip or stock designs. It also requires a nexus to interstate or foreign commerce—either the item has moved in commerce or the conduct affects commerce—so the preemption applies where federal commerce power is implicated. That combination broadens the physical objects covered while retaining the constitutional commerce-limitation framing.
Private enforcement with mandatory attorney’s fees
Paragraph (2) creates a private right of action for damages or equitable relief for violations of paragraph (1) and mandates that the court award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing plaintiff. Fee-shifting makes litigation a more attractive enforcement tool for challengers and increases the financial exposure for states and localities that continue to enforce contested regulations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Interstate firearm manufacturers and national retailers — the federal ceiling reduces the likelihood of an uneven patchwork of state-imposed design restrictions, registration requirements, or licensing regimes that complicate multi-state production and distribution.
- Owners and lawful possessors of rifles and shotguns in states with strict design-based bans or registration requirements — those individuals stand to have certain state or local restrictions invalidated where the commerce nexus exists.
- Accessory and parts manufacturers (detachable magazines, stocks, grips) — explicit inclusion of these items in the statute protects their market from some state-level prohibitions or taxes that single out such components.
- Litigants and trade groups seeking nationwide uniformity — the private right of action plus fee-shifting lowers the cost of bringing preemption challenges and can be used strategically to produce national rulings.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments — they lose regulatory tools and face the risk of costly litigation and fee awards if they retain statutes that federal law renders "more restrictive."
- Municipalities that have used excise taxes or fees on firearms and accessories as policy levers — such revenue measures may be labeled "greater" than federal law and be invalidated, exposing budgets to loss and potential refund claims.
- Public-safety agencies and state prosecutors — statutory limits on state regulatory options could constrain local policy responses and redirect enforcement priorities to other means.
- Advocacy organizations and states defending public-safety statutes — defending contested laws will now carry heightened litigation risk and fee exposure, increasing public legal expenditure burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between national uniformity for an interstate firearms market—achieved by imposing a federal ceiling tied to commerce—and the traditional state police power to experiment and respond to local public-safety risks. The bill chooses predictability and a single federal standard for rifles/shotguns and many accessories, but doing so narrows states’ ability to tailor rules to local conditions and shifts the dispute-resolution burden onto federal courts and private litigants.
The bill sets up several predictable battlegrounds. First, the commerce nexus is decisive: the statute applies only where a rifle or shotgun "has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce." Courts will have to decide how broadly to read that clause—whether it covers modern firearm components that cross state lines routinely, or whether truly intrastate-made items escape preemption.
That threshold could create uneven outcomes across jurisdictions depending on factual showings and judicial interpretation.
Second, the statutory standard—prohibiting state measures that are "more restrictive" or that impose penalties, taxes, fees, or charges "greater" than federal law—invites litigation over comparative baselines. Federal firearms statutes are not an all-encompassing regulatory code; they regulate specific features, transfers, and prohibited persons, but leave many areas to state law.
The bill establishes a ceiling relative to that federal baseline, not a federal floor, so disputes will center on whether a particular state restriction is actually "more restrictive" than federal law or simply different in kind.
Finally, the fee-shifting private enforcement mechanism changes incentives. Plaintiffs challenging state or local laws can recover attorney’s fees if they prevail, which encourages preemption litigation and may pressure jurisdictions to settle or repeal contested laws.
But fee awards also raise concerns about litigation-driven policy change and the administrative burden on state budgets and courts. Implementation will require courts to resolve novel statutory construction questions and balance federalism principles against the statute’s clear text.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.