S.2813 amends chapter 44 of Title 18 to bar any federal officer or employee from prescribing or enforcing regulations that impose limits on a firearm magazine based on how many rounds it holds, and to declare state and local capacity-based magazine laws void. The bill also adds straightforward definitions for “firearm magazine” and “capacity,” and takes effect 30 days after enactment.
This is a narrow but consequential rewrite of the regulatory landscape: it removes magazine-capacity limits as a tool for both federal regulators and state or local lawmakers while leaving other kinds of magazine regulation theoretically available. That change alters compliance responsibilities for manufacturers, sellers, and law enforcement and creates immediate questions about preemption, enforcement pathways, and how courts will interpret the statutory language.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 926 that forbids federal officers from prescribing or enforcing any regulation that limits a magazine based on its capacity, and it amends 18 U.S.C. 927 to strip state and local capacity‑based magazine laws of legal effect. It also inserts definitions for “firearm magazine” and “capacity” into 18 U.S.C. 921(a).
Who It Affects
Federal regulatory agencies (notably ATF) that issue or enforce magazine rules, state and local governments that maintain capacity caps, firearm manufacturers, importers, and retailers who comply with or rely on those laws, and owners of magazines whose capacity previously exceeded statutory limits. Criminal defendants and defense counsel may use the statutory changes in litigation.
Why It Matters
By targeting ‘capacity’ as a forbidden regulatory axis, the bill removes a central, widely used policy lever for reducing magazine size nationwide. That produces immediate compliance and litigation issues — including preemption disputes and interpretive battles over what counts as a capacity‑based restriction — and changes the practical tools available to policymakers and law enforcement who regulate firearms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The FIRE Act rewrites three places in Title 18. First, it tells any federal officer or employee they may not create or enforce rules that single out magazines because of how many rounds they hold.
That language covers both regulatory rulemaking and actions taken by federal agents, though the statute does not specify an enforcement mechanism like a private right of action; enforcement will be litigated in courts. Second, the bill says state and local laws that limit, ban, or penalize magazines on the basis of round count have “no force or effect,” a flat preemption that reaches statutes, ordinances, and presumably administrative rules.
Third, it adds plain definitions: a “firearm magazine” can be fixed or detachable and “capacity” means the number of rounds it can store.
Practically, the bill leaves other regulatory approaches intact. It does not, on its face, alter prohibitions that target magazines or firearms for reasons other than capacity (for example, safety standards, registration schemes keyed to make/model, or bans tied to specific design features not defined by capacity).
Likewise, the statute does not create a new criminal offense or expressly authorize private lawsuits; it simply removes capacity as a lawful basis for government regulation. That creates an enforcement gap: states and federal agencies lose a tool but the bill does not create a standalone private cause of action to enforce the new rule.Timing matters.
The bill’s protections apply to conduct starting 30 days after enactment; it is silent about how to treat existing convictions or pending prosecutions that relied on capacity-based rules. Courts will confront questions about retroactivity and whether invalidated state laws require reopening past cases.
The bill’s definition of capacity (rounds the magazine can store) is simple, but edge cases remain: devices that are modifiable, magazines with spacers or restrictors, and hybrids between fixed and detachable magazines will invite litigation over technical fit to the statutory definition.Finally, the scope of the prohibition — aimed squarely at capacity — will shape regulator responses. Agencies and jurisdictions seeking to restrict magazine-related risks can shift to non‑capacity mechanisms (e.g., regulating detachable magazines by locking mechanisms, prohibiting distribution to certain purchasers, or banning specific devices by model or feature).
Expect legal fights over whether those alternative measures are genuinely feature‑based or an indirect attempt to achieve the same end the statute forbids.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 18 U.S.C. 926(d), which forbids any federal officer or employee from prescribing or enforcing regulations that limit firearm magazines based on capacity.
It amends 18 U.S.C. 927 to declare that any state or local law imposing a limitation, prohibition, or penalty on a magazine because of its capacity has no force or effect.
S.2813 inserts two definitions into 18 U.S.C. 921(a): ‘firearm magazine’ (fixed or detachable device that stores and feeds ammunition) and ‘capacity’ (number of rounds the magazine can store).
The amendments apply to conduct occurring 30 days after enactment; the text does not address past convictions or pending prosecutions tied to capacity-based rules.
The bill targets only capacity-based restrictions; it does not expressly ban or authorize other regulatory approaches aimed at magazines (such as bans by model, safety requirements, or purchaser-based controls).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the statute the “Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement Act” or the “FIRE Act.” This is purely caption language that does not affect substantive interpretation but signals the bill’s intended framing for courts and commentators.
Ban on federal capacity‑based regulations
Adds a new subsection to 18 U.S.C. 926 that tells federal officers and employees they may not prescribe or enforce any regulation that limits a firearm magazine on the basis of capacity. That phrasing reaches both promulgation of administrative rules and enforcement actions taken by federal agents, but the statute does not spell out remedy mechanisms. Agencies will face immediate limits on rulemaking that uses round count as a regulatory criterion; enforcement actions or guidance that effectively impose capacity limits will be vulnerable to challenge.
Preemption of state and local capacity bans
Introduces a distinct clause that declares state or local laws imposing limitations, prohibitions, or penalties tied to magazine capacity to have no force or effect. This is an explicit federal preemption of a specific category of state regulation rather than a general supremacy provision. The provision raises procedural questions—who can invoke the invalidation in court, and whether courts will apply the change retroactively to pending enforcement or convictions—but it creates a statutory basis for state-law challenges and defense arguments in prosecutions tied to capacity caps.
Definitions for magazine and capacity
Adds a concise statutory definition: ‘firearm magazine’ covers fixed or detachable devices that store and feed ammunition, and ‘capacity’ means the number of rounds the magazine can store. The definitions are deliberately technical and narrow; they will control how courts treat borderline devices (for example, integral magazines on certain firearms, hybrid storage/feeding systems, and after-market modifications that alter round count).
Effective date
Specifies that the amendments apply only to conduct occurring on or after 30 days after enactment. The clause does not address legal effects on prior convictions, existing regulatory actions, or pending enforcement; those gaps will be litigated, particularly where defendants seek collateral relief based on invalidated state provisions.
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
- Owners of high‑capacity magazines — Individuals who possess magazines that exceed prior state capacity limits will no longer be subject to capacity-based prohibition under federal law, and they can assert the statute as a defense where state bans are the only basis for prosecution.
- Firearm manufacturers and importers — Companies that design, produce, or import magazines with larger capacities gain regulatory certainty that federal agencies may not use capacity as a basis for limiting production or importation, reducing compliance costs tied specifically to round-count restrictions.
- Retailers and online sellers — Dealers who previously curtailed sales to comply with state capacity bans may be able to resume broader sales territories without capacity‑based constraints, simplifying inventory and shipping decisions pending litigation outcomes.
- Gun-rights advocacy groups — National organizations that litigate to expand firearm access gain a clear statutory ground to challenge state and federal capacity restrictions and to argue for broader possession rights.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and localities with magazine-capacity bans (e.g., jurisdictions that rely on 10‑ or 15‑round limits) — Those governments lose a widely used policy tool and may face legal costs defending their laws or rewriting regulatory schemes to achieve public‑safety goals without using capacity as the criterion.
- State and local law enforcement and prosecutors — Agencies must adjust enforcement priorities and charging decisions where capacity-based offenses previously formed the basis for arrests and prosecutions, potentially redirecting resources to other investigatory tools.
- Federal regulatory agencies (including ATF) — Agencies lose capacity-based rulemaking and enforcement levers and may confront litigation over past guidance or determinations that used capacity as a regulatory axis.
- Public‑safety NGOs and municipal governments — Organizations and local officials that rely on capacity limits as part of a harm‑reduction strategy lose an evidence-based intervention and may face political and operational costs while seeking alternative measures.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core dilemma is straightforward: the bill promotes national uniformity for magazine capacity (protecting owners and sellers) at the cost of removing a state and federal regulatory tool intended to limit the lethality of firearms; it forces a trade‑off between individual access rights and states’ ability to tailor public‑safety measures, with no one‑size‑fits‑all resolution and significant litigation likely over where the line between banned capacity‑based rules and permissible non‑capacity regulations falls.
The bill’s precision creates both clarity and new ambiguity. By singling out ‘capacity’ as the forbidden criterion, S.2813 sharply constrains one regulatory axis while leaving others untouched.
That invites regulatory workarounds: jurisdictions and agencies can pursue model‑ or feature‑based bans, purchaser‑based restrictions, storage and safety requirements, or limitations on distribution and transfer. Expect litigation over whether such alternative measures are genuine feature- or conduct‑based rules or de facto capacity limits cloaked in different language.
Several unresolved implementation questions will drive early litigation. The statute does not provide a private cause of action, so enforcement of the new rule will largely depend on courts entertaining challenges from affected parties (manufacturers, retailers, or defendants).
The effective‑date clause excludes retroactive application to conduct before 30 days post‑enactment, but it is silent on whether past convictions under now‑invalid state laws are voidable — defendants will press for relief, and courts will confront separation‑of‑powers and final‑judgment doctrines. Technical ambiguities in the definitions—how to treat modifiable magazines, restrictors, or devices that alter round count—will generate fact‑intensive disputes that influence both criminal and civil litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.