This bill amends 18 U.S.C. §924 to reestablish a mandatory sentencing regime for defendants convicted under 18 U.S.C. §922(g) who have three or more previous serious felony convictions. It replaces subsection (e) of §924, sets a 15-year minimum and 30-year maximum term of imprisonment, and bars suspension of the sentence or probation for the §922(g) conviction.
Critically, the bill alters how prior convictions qualify: it uses a statutory‑maximum test (offenses with a statutory maximum of at least 10 years) and treats grouped convictions where a court imposed a combined term of 10 years or more in the same or consolidated proceedings as a single qualifying “serious felony conviction.” The amendments apply prospectively to offenses committed after enactment and include a non-challenge clause limiting collateral attacks on sentences imposed under the new subsection.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires a 15-to-30-year federal prison term for anyone who unlawfully possesses a firearm under §922(g) and has three or more prior serious felony convictions. It revises the statutory tests that determine which prior offenses qualify, including a statutory maximum rule and a rule treating consolidated long sentences as qualifying convictions.
Who It Affects
Federal prosecutors, defense counsel, and district courts handling §922(g) prosecutions; the Bureau of Prisons (because of longer mandatory terms); and people with prior state or federal felony convictions that could now qualify as 'serious felony convictions.'
Why It Matters
The bill reintroduces a mandatory sentencing tool that changes charging and plea calculus in firearms prosecutions, broadens the universe of qualifying priors, and removes judicial discretion to suspend or probation a covered §922(g) sentence — shifting power toward prosecutors and away from sentencing judges.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill focuses on one statutory corner: 18 U.S.C. §924, which implements enhanced penalties for certain firearms offenses. It rewrites subsection (e) so that anyone who knowingly violates §922(g) and has three or more prior 'serious felony convictions' faces a mandatory prison term of at least 15 years and up to 30 years.
The court must not suspend that sentence or grant probation for the §922(g) conviction.
Rather than relying on complex guideline or state-court practice tests, the bill defines qualifying prior crimes by reference to the statute’s own maximum term: an offense qualifies if its statutory maximum is at least 10 years. The bill explicitly says to ignore any post‑conviction reductions or guideline adjustments when determining whether a prior offense meets that statutory‑maximum threshold.
It also creates a separate path to qualification: where a court imposes, in the same proceeding or consolidated proceedings, a total prison term of 10 years or more across multiple convictions, that group counts as a 'serious felony conviction' regardless of how many years the defendant actually served.The bill also inserts a technical change into subsection (a)(2) of §924 to ensure §922(g) is treated as a predicate for the enhanced penalty, subject to the new subsection (e). Finally, the statute applies only to offenses committed after the date of enactment by defendants who, on the date of the new offense, already have three or more prior qualifying convictions.
The bill includes an explicit rule saying it does not create a new right to challenge sentences imposed under the new subsection (e).
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes possession under 18 U.S.C. §922(g) punishable by a mandatory minimum of 15 years and a maximum of 30 years if the defendant has three or more prior 'serious felony convictions.', It bars courts from suspending the §922(g) sentence or imposing probation for that conviction — judges must impose imprisonment within the 15–30 year range.
A 'serious felony conviction' includes any conviction for which the statute’s maximum penalty at the time of sentencing was at least 10 years, irrespective of later guideline calculations or shorter effective sentences.
The bill treats a group of convictions that received a combined sentence of 10 or more years in the same or consolidated proceedings as a single qualifying serious felony conviction, regardless of how many years the defendant actually served.
The amendments apply only to offenses committed after enactment by defendants who already have three or more qualifying prior convictions on the date of the new offense, and the statute says it does not create a right to challenge sentences imposed under the new subsection.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act’s short name: 'Restoring the Armed Career Criminal Act.' This is purely stylistic but signals intent: the statutory changes that follow aim to restore a prior sentencing regime rather than create a novel policy framework.
Technical change to §924(a)(2) predicate list
Amends the list of predicate provisions referenced in §924(a)(2) to ensure §922(g) is included among the listed subsections, with an express caveat referring to the new subsection (e). That insertion is procedural but important: it ensures the enhanced penalty framework explicitly contemplates §922(g) convictions as predicates under the statute’s structure while pointing readers to the special rules in the new subsection (e). Practically, it clarifies statutory cross‑references used by prosecutors and courts when invoking the enhancement.
New subsection (e): mandatory 15–30 year term and definitions
Replaces the prior text of subsection (e) with a more prescriptive sentencing rule. Subsection (e)(1) creates the 15‑ to 30‑year mandatory range for §922(g) violators with three or more qualifying prior convictions and eliminates judicial authority to suspend the sentence or impose probation for that conviction. Subsection (e)(2) contains two definitional hooks: it (A) restates the 'statutory maximum' test for offenses punishable by a maximum of at least 10 years and instructs courts to ignore guideline or other reductions when applying the test, and (B) defines 'serious felony conviction' either as an individual conviction meeting the statutory maximum test or as an aggregate of convictions in the same or consolidated proceedings where the total term imposed is at least 10 years. Those mechanics change how prosecutors assemble predicate lists and how sentencing courts assess prior-record eligibility.
Prospective application and non-challenge clause
Section 3(a) limits application to offenses committed after enactment by individuals who already have three or more qualifying prior convictions on the date of the new offense. That makes the statute non-retroactive by its terms. Section 3(b) adds a rule of construction stating the Act does not create any right to challenge a sentence imposed under the new subsection (e), which constrains collateral attack strategies and signals congressional intent to limit post‑conviction litigation tied specifically to sentences under this enhancement.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Criminal Justice across all five countries.
Explore Criminal 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
- U.S. Attorneys’ Offices — The bill broadens the set of prior convictions that qualify and restores a mandatory minimum tool, strengthening prosecutors’ leverage in charging and plea negotiations for §922(g) defendants.
- Federal law enforcement agencies (FBI, ATF) — Longer statutory sentences for repeat offenders increase the legal consequences for unlawful firearm possession, aligning statutory penalties with enforcement priorities focused on habitual offenders.
- Victims and victim advocacy groups — The mandatory, non‑suspendable sentences reduce the likelihood of probation or lenient dispositions for persons with multiple serious felonies, offering a more predictable punitive outcome.
Who Bears the Cost
- People with prior state or federal felony convictions — Individuals who previously avoided being counted under narrower tests may now trigger enhanced federal penalties and face significantly longer mandatory terms.
- Federal public defenders and defense counsel — Defense teams must adjust strategies, pursue more complex prior‑conviction records work, and face reduced ability to negotiate diminished sentences for qualifying clients.
- Federal Bureau of Prisons and DOJ budget managers — The statute’s longer mandatory terms will increase average federal terms for a subset of defendants and impose planning and funding pressures for housing and long‑term incarceration costs.
- District courts — Judges lose sentencing discretion in covered cases and will need to devote additional time to resolving factual disputes about whether prior convictions qualify under the statutory‑maximum or consolidated‑sentence tests.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between the policy goal of incapacitating repeat serious offenders through a clear, mandatory enhancement and the competing need to preserve individualized sentencing and judicial oversight; the bill simplifies predicate tests and strengthens prosecutorial tools but does so by constraining judges and creating fact‑intensive qualification disputes that will shift case load and discretion upstream to prosecutors and record‑gathering processes.
The bill resolves the predicate‑counting problem by moving to a bright‑line statutory‑maximum test and by treating consolidated long sentences as qualifying convictions, but both moves create practical frictions. The statutory‑maximum test requires courts to examine the penalty provisions in the statutes of prior convictions as they stood at sentencing — an evidence‑intensive inquiry when prior convictions are old, foreign to federal law, or arise under varied state statutes.
That increases litigation over medical records, sentencing judgments, and statutory history. The consolidated‑sentence rule similarly invites disputes over what counts as 'the same proceeding' or 'consolidated proceedings,' and whether plea agreements or concurrent sentences should be aggregated to reach the 10‑year threshold.
Implementation also shifts significant power to prosecutors. Charging decisions will determine whether a defendant hits the three‑strike threshold; prosecutors may have leverage to bundle or not bundle state counts to shape federal exposure.
On the administrative side, the combination of mandatory minimums and the ban on suspended sentences will raise incarceration projections and strain Bureau of Prisons capacity. Finally, the statute’s explicit instruction to ignore guideline or post‑conviction sentencing reductions when testing prior convictions leaves open difficult questions about how to treat modernized statutes, expungements, or cases where the defendant served little or no time on the underlying conviction — the text says the term counts 'regardless of how many years of that total term the defendant served,' but courts will still face messy record‑reliance issues.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.