H.R.6035, the "Second Amendment Restoration Act of 2025," directs Congress to repeal the firearm‑related portions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Public Law 117–159). Specifically, it strikes Title II of Division A and Subtitle D of Title III of Division A of that Act, and it orders a statutory reversion of every statutory provision those parts altered back to the text that existed immediately before the BSCA's enactment.
The bill also removes a specific appropriations reference that would have funded grants to help states provide disqualifying juvenile records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). For practitioners and compliance officers, the measure would undo a set of federal changes that altered background‑check related statutes, grant programs, and certain education‑sector provisions — requiring agencies and grantees to unwind recently implemented rules, systems, and grant commitments if the repeal takes effect as written.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill repeals two named parts of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and directs that each statutory amendment made by those parts be reverted to the wording that existed immediately before the BSCA. It also removes a clause from the BSCA supplemental appropriations heading that authorized grants to help states submit disqualifying juvenile records to NICS.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies that implemented BSCA changes (notably DOJ components and NICS), states that updated record‑reporting systems or accepted related grants, local educational agencies covered by the ESEA amendment, and parties whose background‑check outcomes depend on juvenile‑record reporting.
Why It Matters
This is a surgical statutory rollback: it does not rewrite the entire BSCA but targets provisions that changed federal firearms statutes, grant language, and an education statute; its legal effect is to restore pre‑BSCA text rather than to replace it with a new regulatory regime. That creates immediate operational and legal questions for agencies, states, and institutions that began implementing the 2022 changes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H.R.6035 tells Congress to tear out the portions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that touched firearms law and certain education provisions. It identifies two pieces of the 2022 law by name — Title II of Division A and Subtitle D of Title III of Division A — and removes them in full.
The bill does not craft replacement language; instead it directs that every statutory amendment those parts made be rewritten to read exactly as they did before the BSCA took effect.
Those restoration instructions reach across several statutes. The bill lists specific titles and sections — including multiple provisions of title 18 (the federal criminal code), portions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, parts of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, a clause in title 28, and an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — and requires each to be amended back to its pre‑BSCA wording.
It also orders clerical changes to the table of sections in chapter 44 to remove items added by the BSCA.Separately, the bill excises language from a BSCA supplemental appropriations heading that had authorized grants to help states provide disqualifying juvenile records to NICS. That change eliminates the statutory authorization for those specific grants but does not expressly address funds already obligated or grants already awarded.
The textual approach here is corrective: the statute would be returned to its earlier form rather than substituted with new policy alternatives.On the ground, the measure will force administrative unwinds if implemented: agencies and grantees that adopted or relied on BSCA provisions would need to identify which rules, databases, grant conditions, or intergovernmental arrangements depend on the now‑repealed text and then rescind, modify, or stop implementing them. The bill leaves those implementation details to agencies, grants managers, and, where relevant, future appropriations acts.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill repeals Title II of Division A of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in its entirety.
The bill repeals Subtitle D of Title III of Division A of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in its entirety.
It directs that each statute amended by those provisions (including identified sections of title 18, the Brady Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, title 28, and an ESEA provision) be reverted to the text that existed immediately before BSCA's enactment.
The bill requires clerical edits to chapter 44's table of sections by striking entries added for sections 932, 933, and 934.
It removes the BSCA appropriations language authorizing grants to assist States in providing disqualifying juvenile records under subsection (g) or (n) of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (the NICS expansion item).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the act's name: the 'Second Amendment Restoration Act of 2025.' This is purely nominal but signals the bill's policy framing; it does not alter substantive legal mechanics.
Findings
Sets out Congress's stated rationales for the repeal — including a constitutional framing of the Second Amendment and a claim that the BSCA's firearm provisions impose burdens without demonstrable public‑safety benefit. Findings carry no operative legal force, but they provide interpretive context that courts and agencies sometimes use when construing ambiguous statutory language or deference to agency actions tied to the legislation.
Repeal of named BSCA parts
Directs the repeal of Title II of Division A and Subtitle D of Title III of Division A of Public Law 117–159. This is a direct, textual deletion: the named parts of the BSCA would be removed from the United States Statutes at Large and U.S. Code if the bill becomes law.
Restoration of prior statutory text
Commands a statutory reversion: every provision of the listed statutes that the now‑repealed BSCA parts changed must be amended back to the wording that existed immediately before the BSCA. The bill identifies specific statutory targets (selected sections of title 18, provisions of the Brady Act, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, title 28, and an ESEA provision) and orders both conforming and clerical edits. Practically, that means agencies would treat the pre‑BSCA statutory language as controlling going forward; it does not on its face settle questions about regulations, agency guidance, or past administrative actions taken under the BSCA language.
Elimination of NICS juvenile‑record grant language
Alters the supplemental appropriations language by striking a clause that authorized grants 'to assist States in providing disqualifying juvenile records under subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code.' That change removes a specific statutory authorization for funding assistance tied to expanding juvenile‑record reporting to NICS; it does not explicitly rescind previously appropriated amounts or resolve the status of pending grants.
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
- Individuals whose background checks relied on statutory changes: Restoring pre‑BSCA text may remove new disqualification pathways created or clarified by the BSCA for some juvenile records, potentially changing eligibility outcomes for certain purchasers.
- State governments that declined BSCA‑style reporting: States that resisted the BSCA's reporting or infrastructure changes avoid the administrative and technical obligations the BSCA would have imposed.
- Organizations opposing federal firearms regulation: Advocates and trade groups that argued the BSCA expanded federal reach will gain a statutory environment closer to the pre‑BSCA status quo, simplifying advocacy and compliance positions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies (DOJ, ATF, NICS administrators): Agencies will need to review, withdraw, or revise rules, operational protocols, and IT changes made to implement BSCA provisions and reprogram databases and forms to match restored statutory text.
- States and local entities that invested in compliance infrastructure: Jurisdictions that already spent funds to collect and transmit juvenile records or to comply with BSCA grant conditions may suffer sunk costs and lose anticipated federal grant support.
- Grantees and contractors tied to BSCA programs: Entities that bid on or received BSCA‑linked grants (for record‑sharing, crisis intervention, or school safety measures linked to the repealed provisions) may see project funding evaporate or contractual uncertainty.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: restore the pre‑BSCA statutory baseline to reduce perceived federal intrusion on firearms rights and administrative obligations, or keep the BSCA changes that aimed to expand background‑check completeness and create new grant programs intended to reduce firearm violence. Repealing the statutory tools eases certain rights‑based and administrative burdens but also removes federally authorized mechanisms proponents of the BSCA view as necessary to strengthen background checks and intergovernmental data flows.
The bill takes a text‑first approach: it repeals named provisions and orders the statutory language to be rolled back to what existed earlier. That creates a cluster of implementation issues the bill does not resolve.
First, it does not expressly address regulations, guidance, memoranda, or interagency agreements promulgated under the BSCA's authority; agencies will need to decide whether those instruments lose legal footing automatically or require affirmative rescission. Second, the bill removes a specific grant authorization for assisting states with juvenile‑record reporting to NICS but does not clarify the fate of funds already appropriated or awards already made — a gap that will require further administrative or appropriations guidance.
A second set of trade‑offs concerns operational timing and legal exposure. Reverting statutory text can change the legal basis for ongoing prosecutions, administrative determinations, or licensing decisions that relied on the BSCA amendments; courts may be asked to decide whether pre‑BSCA text applies to conduct that happened while the BSCA was in force.
Finally, the bill's unilateral rollback raises public‑safety trade‑offs: restoring prior law may reduce federal capacity to collect certain records that states and many public‑safety organizations argued improve background‑check completeness, but the measure proponents argue it restores prior constitutional protections. The bill leaves unresolved how to reconcile those competing operational and legal consequences in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.