HR 3576 to prevent enforcement of state-local gun control laws more restrictive than federal laws

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, was passed by Congress nearly 226 years ago on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the (citizens’) Bill of Rights. It says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But that’s exactly what state and local governments have done — infringe on “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” with unceasing gun control laws.

On July 28, 2017, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) introduced a bill, H.R. 3576: Second Amendment Guarantee Act, which, if passed into law, will prevent all state, county and city governments from enforcing gun control laws that are stricter than those at the federal level.

Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York — a state famous for strict gun control — went postal, declaring that HR 3576 would put “millions of people at profound risk.” Calling HR 3576 “a blatant political ploy,” Cuomo accused Rep. Collins of being “beholden to no one but the gun lobby and entrenched special interests.” In a phone interview, Lindsay Nichols of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence called the bill “one of the more dramatic and extreme bills out there” which “would really impact almost every state in the nation.” (Source)

As an example, in California, although HR 3576 would not overturn any local rules on handguns, the bill would lift the state’s ban on many types of assault weapons and large-capacity gun magazines, as well as relax strict licensing requirements for buyers and sellers of rifles and shotguns.

Here’s what HR 3576: Second Amendment Guarantee Act says:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the authority of States and localities to regulate conduct, or impose penalties or taxes, in relation to rifles or shotguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Second Amendment Guarantee Act’’ or the ‘‘SAGA Act’’
Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) by striking ‘‘No’’ and inserting ‘‘(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no’’; and
(2) by adding after and below the end the following:
‘‘(b)(1) A State or a political subdivision of a State may not impose any regulation, prohibition, or registration or licensing requirement with respect to the design, manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, possession, or marking of a rifle or shotgun that has moved in, or any such conduct that affects, interstate or foreign commerce, that is more restrictive, or impose any penalty, tax, fee, or charge with respect to such a rifle or shotgun or such conduct, in an amount greater, than is provided under Federal law. To the extent that a law of a State or political subdivision of a State, whether enacted before, on, or after the date of the enactment of this subsection, violates the preceding sentence, the law shall have no force or effect. For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘rifle or shotgun’ includes any part of a rifle or shotgun, any detachable magazine or ammunition feeding device, and any type of pistol grip or stock design.
‘‘(2) In an action brought for damages or relief from a violation of paragraph (1), the court shall award the prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to any other damages or relief awarded.’’.

On the same day as it was introduced, HR 3576 has been referred to the House Judicial Committee.

Tell your critters in Congress to support HR 3576! Click here.


10 responses to “HR 3576 to prevent enforcement of state-local gun control laws more restrictive than federal laws

  1. This is a brilliant use of the supremacy clause: states may grant more protections to their citizens than federal law allows–but they may not restrict freedoms that the Constitution and federal laws grant. I can’t believe I haven’t seen this tried before!

    Liked by 5 people

  2. Well, that’s absolutely consistent with legal principles. I’ve been advocating something similar for years but nobody seems to listen to me.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. I advocated this very thing, just a couple of days ago, in one of my comments, a blogg.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. ManCavePatriot

    What impact does this bill have on the 1903 Dick Act?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Kevin J Lankford

    They still seem to be ignoring the fact that the second amendment is also a Constitutional prohibition on any and all ‘federal’ controls, influences, restrictions, licensing, permitting, or just plain subjective opinions. No where in the second amendment is there an “except” or an “unless”.

    They just need to honor the second amendment as written. Nothing else need be said. Then that also applies to the whole of the Constitution. Their debates only betray their lack of sincerity.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Indeed. It seems obvious that the wording was carefully chosen. They knew what weasel wording was even in the Eighteenth Century. All of these attempts to circumvent the Second Amendment are just that. They try to make infringement appear to be something else.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. …..and even those at the “federal level” are flagrantly unconstitutional.


  8. I suspect this is much ado about nothing, that is to say it gets lots of folks to look at it, but what else is going on in the bills etc. that we might want to notice? I don’t expect the government, senate, congress whatever other name the pluto-kakistocrats go by, to ever do anything truly beneficent without subterfuge or otherwise putting in an angle to work the devil’s plans in… and given congress etc. has a predictable voting record (IE always voting for nuclear non-proliferation enforcement on other countries while always voting to increase proliferation in the U.S and for the U.S. to ignore non-proliferation agreements.) How about this perhaps? something to do with Syria it looks like, it is an amendment to the NDAA for 2018… or this: “To provide for the overall health and well-being of young people, including the promotion of lifelong sexual health and healthy relationships, and for other purposes.” (I placed some emphasis with italics) There isn’t even any text for the thing online yet, however it already has 47 co-sponsors, how does that work? Why would the Committee on Energy and Commerce be the first group it gets sent to? Most peculiar… folks may want to watch this, and other less known bills such as the Intelligence Authorization Act… and then there is this: -“To amend title 18, United States Code, to make it a criminal offense to knowingly make a request to access classified information concerning a United States person to be unmimized pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for a reason other than an authorized reason under that Act, and for other purposes.”

    Suffice it to say, I don’t have high hopes for these things.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s