This bill creates a federal mechanism that lets a person harmed by someone else’s use of a firearm in a jurisdiction that bars public carry sue the State or local government if that harmed person would have been authorized to carry in their state of residence and could have averted or reduced the harm by carrying. The remedy is a civil claim for compensatory damages and damages for pain and suffering against the governmental entity that maintains the gun‑free rule.
Rather than directly preempting local rules, the bill conditions receipt of federal law‑enforcement grants on conformity with its rule: States and localities must conform their laws and policies to the bill’s standard to remain eligible for formula and discretionary grants under the Byrne/JAG and COPS programs. Failure to comply triggers severe funding reductions and reallocation of withheld funds to compliant states — a coercive funding lever that shifts legal and budgetary risk from individuals to substate governments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes a private cause of action against a State or unit of local government when a person lawfully authorized to carry in their home State is harmed by a firearm in a locale where public carry is prohibited and could have avoided or mitigated that harm by carrying. It also makes conformity with that rule a condition of eligibility for certain federal law‑enforcement grants.
Who It Affects
State and local governments that receive Byrne‑JAG and COPS grants, and residents who hold carry authorization in their State of residence but travel to other jurisdictions. Grant administrators, municipal attorneys, and civil‑liability insurers also face new exposure.
Why It Matters
The bill uses federal grants as leverage rather than an express federal ban — forcing substate change through possible litigation exposure and large funding cuts. That combination changes the calculus for jurisdictions weighing local carry restrictions and creates new litigation and fiscal risk for public entities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two linked pressure points to reduce or eliminate areas where the public may not carry firearms. First, it gives a private right of action: if someone is injured by another person’s firearm in a place where carrying is prohibited, and that injured person was authorized to carry in their State of residence and could have averted or reduced the injury by carrying, that person may sue the State or local government that maintains the prohibition for compensatory and pain‑and‑suffering damages.
The statute defines “gun‑free zone” broadly as any geographic area where public carry is prohibited by federal, State, or local law.
Second, the bill conditions federal law‑enforcement assistance on compliance. States and local governments that want funds under specified parts of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act must “conform their laws and policies” to the private‑suit rule.
The bill makes conformity a prerequisite for receiving grants under subpart 1 of part E (Byrne/JAG‑related programs) and part Q (COPS programs), and directs reallocation of withheld funds to jurisdictions that do comply.The bill sets a compliance date: the first full fiscal year after enactment is the start of the required conformity period. If a State or unit of local government does not conform, the statute authorizes substantial reductions in otherwise‑allocated grant funds and reallocates those withheld amounts to jurisdictions that do conform.
The text does not add procedural rules for the new tort claim (such as statute of limitations, standards of proof, or immunities), nor does it specify administrative enforcement steps — it relies on private litigation and grant‑administration decisions to implement the substantive rule.Practically, the bill forces local policymakers to weigh exposure to private suits and the potential loss of federal grant funding when they decide whether to retain or repeal prohibitions on public carry. It also creates insurable and budgetary risk for municipalities and might shift how law enforcement grant dollars are distributed across States.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill gives a private right of action against a State or unit of local government when an individual lawfully authorized to carry in their State of residence is harmed by a firearm in a gun‑free zone and could have averted or mitigated the harm by carrying.
Damages available under the new cause of action are compensatory damages and damages for pain and suffering; the bill does not set a cap or add procedural limits on those awards.
A compliance deadline is the first full fiscal year after enactment; after that year a noncompliant State or unit of local government becomes subject to funding reductions under the grant programs named in the Act.
The statute authorizes reductions of up to 99 percent of funds otherwise allocable under the enumerated Byrne/JAG subpart and the COPS program for jurisdictions that fail to conform.
Amounts withheld from a noncompliant State under the Byrne/JAG subpart or COPS program are to be reallocated to States that have not failed to comply.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Declares the Act’s short title, the “Shall Not Be Infringed Act of 2026.” This is purely nominal but ties the bill’s provisions together for citation and reference.
Private cause of action tied to ‘gun‑free zones’
Subsection (a) creates the substantive private remedy: any person who is harmed by another’s use of a firearm in a ‘gun‑free zone’ may sue the State or unit of local government if (1) the harm occurs in a gun‑free zone, (2) the harmed person is authorized to carry in that person’s State of residence, and (3) the harmed person could, if allowed to carry, have averted or mitigated the harm. The remedy specified is compensatory damages and damages for pain and suffering. Practically, this provision imposes liability directly on governmental entities that maintain public‑carry prohibitions rather than on the individual who used the firearm.
Definition of ‘gun‑free zone’
The bill defines ‘gun‑free zone’ as any geographical area where public carrying of firearms is prohibited under federal, State, or local law. This is a broad, location‑based definition that captures municipal ordinances, State statutes, and any federal prohibitions in areas open to the public. The breadth of the definition matters because it determines the universe of places where the private cause of action can arise.
Grant condition, compliance date, funding reductions, and reallocation
Subsection (b) sets the compliance timetable (the first full fiscal year after enactment) and makes conformity with subsection (a) a condition for receiving grants under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (the Byrne/JAG family of programs). For fiscal years after the compliance date, a State or unit of local government that fails to conform ‘shall be subject to a reduction of not more than 99 percent’ of the funds otherwise allocable under the specified program; subsection (c) requires reallocating withheld funds to States that have not failed to comply. Those mechanics create a financial penalty that can be nearly total and a redistribution incentive for compliant jurisdictions.
Extension of the requirement to COPS funding
Section 3 applies the same conformity requirement and funding reduction mechanics to grants under part Q of title I (the COPS program). The text tracks the Section 2 structure and the same compliance date, making both Byrne/JAG and COPS grant streams contingent on adopting the bill’s rule.
Incorporation of statutory definitions
Section 4 imports definitions from section 901 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 for other terms used in the Act. The clause limits definitional ambiguity for cross‑references to the grant statutes but leaves several operative terms in the bill (for example, evidentiary standards for the tort) undefined.
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
- Individuals authorized to carry in their State of residence who are injured in another jurisdiction — they gain a route to recover compensatory and pain‑and‑suffering damages if they can show they would have averted or reduced the harm by carrying. This turns certain travel‑related injuries into potential tort claims against the host jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs’ attorneys and personal‑injury plaintiffs — the bill creates a new class of municipal tort claims and expands potential client bases for lawyers who litigate against governments.
- States and localities that repeal gun‑free prohibitions — jurisdictions that conform to the bill’s standard become eligible for reallocated federal grant money and avoid exposure to the new suits, creating a financial incentive to change local policy.
- Compliant States receiving reallocated Byrne/JAG or COPS funds — the reallocation provision directs withheld dollars to jurisdictions that comply, producing a potential budgetary windfall for those States and municipalities.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and units of local government that have enacted or maintained gun‑free zones — they face new civil liability exposure and a forced policy choice: retain prohibitions and risk near‑total loss of certain federal grant dollars and litigation, or change policy to preserve funding and avoid suits.
- Local law enforcement agencies and programs relying on Byrne/JAG and COPS grants — these grant recipients may see significant budget cuts if their governing State or locality is found noncompliant, disrupting operations and grant‑funded initiatives.
- Municipal insurers and taxpayers — increased exposure to municipal liability claims and potentially large damage awards could drive up public entity insurance premiums or shift costs to local taxpayers to cover judgments and settlements.
- Civil‑defense budgets and legal offices — municipalities will incur new compliance costs (legal review, potential ordinance revision) and litigation expenses defending novel suits brought under the Act.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between compensating and empowering individuals harmed by firearms in places that bar carry and the use of federal funding power to coerce substate policy change: the bill seeks to make victims whole and deter 'gun‑free' rules it deems harmful, but it does so by imposing severe fiscal pressure on States and localities and by creating broad municipal liability — a trade‑off that pits private redress against state sovereignty, budget stability, and local policy autonomy.
The bill leaves several implementation questions unresolved and creates sharp trade‑offs. It does not establish procedural rules for the new tort: there is no statute of limitations, no venue rule, no explicit waiver of sovereign immunity, and no evidentiary standard for proving that the harmed person ‘could, if allowed to carry, have averted or mitigated’ the harm.
Those omissions create immediate litigation questions: courts will need to decide whether States retain immunities against these claims, what causation standard applies, and how to handle cross‑jurisdictional permit recognition. The bill’s broad definition of ‘gun‑free zone’ also invites litigation over whether private or limited‑access spaces are covered.
On the grant side, the bill authorizes reductions up to 99 percent but does not set an administrative enforcement process for determining compliance. That gap forces reliance on grant‑administrator rulemaking or litigation to resolve compliance disputes, and it risks abrupt funding shocks to law enforcement operations.
The reallocation mechanism redirects withheld dollars to compliant States, but the statute is silent on how granular reallocations will be calculated, how local grantees within States are prioritized, or whether multi‑jurisdictional grant recipients will be disadvantaged. Finally, the bill creates perverse incentives: a jurisdiction could remove narrow prohibitions primarily to protect grant funds and avoid suits without addressing underlying safety concerns, while other jurisdictions might keep bans and accept the fiscal pain based on local policy priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.