Magazine ban carves out broad exemptions for law enforcement, creating two-tier gun rules.

What it does

This bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, import, and possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines (holding more than 15 rounds) for civilians, with exceptions for law enforcement, military, retired officers, and devices lawfully owned before enactment. It requires serial numbers and manufacturing dates on new magazines, allows seizure and forfeiture of illegal devices, and creates federal penalties. It also authorizes federal crime-control grants to fund buy-back programs for existing magazines.

Why we flagged it

The bill's core mechanism is a civilian prohibition on large-capacity magazines with law-enforcement and pre-enactment exemptions, paired with a buy-back grant program. It is a public-safety regulation, not a tax measure, subsidy, or commemorative act.

What the text implies

• The exemption for 'qualified law enforcement officers' and 'campus law enforcement officers' creates a two-tier legal regime: civilians face criminal penalties for possession, while government agents and private campus security retain access, potentially widening the gap between state power and citizen rights.
• The 'readily restored, changed, or converted' language in the definition may capture devices not currently over 15 rounds but capable of modification, creating enforcement ambiguity and potential for prosecutorial overreach.
• Buy-back programs funded under Byrne grants are voluntary surrenders; citizens who do not participate remain in violation if they possess pre-enactment magazines, creating a long-term compliance and enforcement burden.
• Serial-number and date-marking requirements on new magazines create a registry-like tracking mechanism that, combined with seizure authority, may facilitate identification and confiscation of non-compliant devices.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

Who it affects

The bill restricts civilian access to a firearm accessory in the name of public safety, which may reduce mass-shooting lethality (a public benefit), but it also restricts a category of property lawfully owned before enactment and imposes criminal penalties on civilians for possession, while carving out broad exemptions for government and law enforcement (a cost to citizens' property rights and equal treatment under law). The balance between public safety and property/liberty restrictions is genu

Named in the bill

U.S. Department of Justice (Attorney General), Law enforcement agencies (federal, state, local), Campus law enforcement, Atomic Energy Act licensees, Byrne Grant program (Office of Justice Programs)

Where it stands

145 cosponsors: 145 Democrats.

• Feb 27, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 27, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

4 lobbying clients named this bill on 7 disclosure filings across 2 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $610,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 11 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 72% of bills with at least one filing.

Diana DeGette, the sponsor, reported $915,500 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• National Propane Gas Association — $380,000 on 2 filings
• Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence — $80,000 on 2 filings
• San Bernardino County Transportation Authority — $80,000 on 2 filings
• Solvay Chemicals Inc. — $70,000 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 20, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.