New gun laws and proposed changes for 2025-2026

Like it or not, new gun laws are proposed in nearly every legislative session, on both the state and federal level. You may argue that the Second Amendment is clear in its intent that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that any additional laws regulating or restricting the rights of free American citizens to own or bear whatever arms they wish count as unlawful infringement. However, history has shown that American courts, along with state and federal governmental bodies, regularly enact and uphold laws restricting and regulating the purchase, manufacture, and ownership of firearms, and it can be confusing at times for people who wish to obey the law to keep up with all the changes.

This is doubly true because Americans are subject both to federal firearms laws as well as any state or even county-level jurisdictional laws applicable to where they reside, and firearms laws can and do differ widely from state to state.

Let’s go over some of the important new decisions and laws that are relevant in 2025, on both the federal and state level, and help shed some light on these important issues.

Please note: Neither the author nor Liberty Safe assumes any liability regarding the accuracy of the information below. We are not lawyers or legislators. We have made a reasonable effort to provide accurate information regarding various proposed and implemented gun laws at the time of publication. However, this article is for informational purposes only and is not intended to be an exhaustive or comprehensive list, nor should it be considered legal advice. Consult your local laws and/or a licensed attorney in your state.

New Federal gun laws effective 2025 (ghost guns and bump stocks)

Federal gun laws are historically difficult to change in the US, as both Congress and the Senate have to pass a particular bill by majority vote, and the president also may either veto or sign it. If the president vetoes a bill, it must then pass both the House and Senate by a 2/3rds majority.

However, in recent years, the ATF (shorthand for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives) has been empowered by the Department of Justice to make decisions that effectively outlawed certain types of firearms or firearm accessories, outside of the approved legislative process. Let’s look at these decisions and their relevance today.

SCOTUS upholds federal ATF rule regulating so-called Ghost Guns March 2025 (Bondi v. VanDerStok decision)

Quick summary:

• On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld the Biden-era ATF’s 2022 rule requiring serial numbers and background checks for 80% receivers and kits. (The anti-gun media calls these items ghost guns.)
• The rule had been successfully challenged (Garland v. VanDerStok, which became Bondi v. VanDerStok) in both district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by November 2023, but the government appealed these decisions and the case was sent for SCOTUS review.
• The Supreme Court’s decision effectively permits ATF to continue to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished receivers, including so-called ghost gun kits.
• All-in-one receiver or frame kits are required to be marked with serial numbers, and may not be sold by firearms dealers without the purchaser undergoing the usual background checks applicable to any fully completed, newly manufactured firearm.
• Polymer 80 frames (and similar products that are deemed as easy to complete as Polymer 80 frames) also need to be provided with serial numbers either from the manufacturer or by any FFL dealer selling them, and are subject to background checks when sold by a dealer, the same as any fully completed, newly manufactured handgun.
• This ruling has no bearing on any lawful US citizen’s ability to make guns yourself. By federal law, you may still manufacture firearms for personal use. You are not required to put serial numbers on any firearms you make for your own use.
• Ghost guns are not banned outright by federal law.
• 80% frames and kits may still be owned and completed by current owners, and any resulting completed firearms may be sold between private parties in states where such firearms sales are permitted without the involvement of an FFL.
• If an 80% frame/kit OR completed frame/kit/firearm is to be transferred/sold by an FFL, that item must be given a serial number by the FFL beforehand, and the purchaser must undergo a background check, the same as if purchasing a standard, manufactured firearm.
• 80%-complete AR-15 receivers are apparently unaffected by this decision (at least when sold without jigs or completion kits, and at least for now).
• AK, Mac, and other incomplete firearm receiver flats, tubes, blanks, forgings, etc are all apparently unaffected by this decision (at least for now).

Discussion:

Through a series of steps taken by the Department of Justice under several presidents’ terms, the ATF has been given authority to regulate items that were previously not regulated under the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act of 1934. This included Polymer 80-style firearm receivers and completion kits. Previously, a firearm frame or receiver that was less than 80% of the way complete was not legally considered a firearm. If only 80% of the mill work, inletting, shaping, drilling, etc. was performed, the item was not considered a firearm (for obvious reasons), and could be made and sold without any of the restrictions or laws applicable to a completed firearm.

Some of these 80% kits were sold with jigs, spacers, drill bits, and other components necessary for converting the frame or receiver into a completed, functional firearm as defined by federal law. These Buy/Build/Shoot kits are now legally considered to be firearms, even in their incomplete state. This may sound ridiculous to some, but the SCOTUS decision has now upheld the ATF’s 2022 rule, as Justice Gorsuch, writing the majority opinion, states:

(a) Section 478.11’s provisions addressing weapon parts kits are not facially invalid under §921(a)(3)(A). That subsection contains two requirements: a “weapon” must be present, and that weapon must be able to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, designed to do so, or susceptible of ready conversion to operate that way. Some weapon parts kits meet that description. Consider, for instance, Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” kit, which contains all necessary components to build a semiautomatic pistol and can be assembled in about 20 minutes using common tools. That kit qualifies as a “weapon” because: (1) artifact nouns like “weapon” often describe unfinished objects when their intended function is clear, as with a disassembled rifle; (2) the statute treats starter guns as weapons though they require conversion work; and (3) the statutory text contemplates that some things short of fully operable firearms qualify as “weapons.” The kit also satisfies the statute’s second requirement, as it requires no more time, expertise, or specialized tools to complete than a starter gun, which the statute treats as readily convertible into a functioning firearm. While other kits may be so incomplete or cumbersome to assemble that they cannot fairly be described as weapons capable of ready conversion, the facial challenge fails because kits like Polymer 80’s clearly qualify. Pp. 7–17.

Additionally, the decision upholds a nebulous standard concerning what qualifies as “readily convertible” rather than relying on more concrete or measurable standards. Thus, the decision retains ATF’s authority "to regulate at least some incomplete frames or receivers that take minutes of work with common tools to complete."

One potentially dangerous precedent set by this SCOTUS decision is that the Supreme Court has essentially validated the ATF’s authority to redefine what constitutes a firearm, at least in some cases. Note that this is independent of Congress, the Senate, or Presidential authority granted by the constitution. Of more concern is the reliance on very flexible terms like some, common, minutes, and readily convertible, all of which are open to very different interpretations by different people. Semantics plays an important part. Let’s look at another section of Justice Gorusch’s opinion, which was upheld by the majority of 5 votes to 2:

Here, again, our reasoning has its limits. In saying that a product like Polymer80’s qualifies as a “frame,” we do not suggest that the GCA reaches, and ATF may regulate, any combination of parts susceptible of conversion into a frame or receiver with sufficient time, tools, and expertise. Like the term “weapon,” the artifact nouns “frame” and “receiver” have their bounds. Some products may be so far from a finished frame or receiver that they cannot fairly be described using those terms. But this case requires us to explore none of that. The plaintiffs do not challenge ATF’s new rule as applied to particular products. They argue only that §478.12 is facially inconsistent with the GCA. And, here again, we have no trouble rejecting that unqualified view.

Justice Alito and Justice Thomas were the only ones to dissent. Justice Thomas pointed out that the GCA only regulates complete frames and receivers, which are the key unfinished part included in the build kits. “Congress could have authorized ATF to regulate any part of a firearm or any object readily convertible into one,” Thomas wrote. “But, it did not. I would adhere to the words Congress enacted…. The Government asked this Court just last Term to ‘rewrite’ statutory text so that it could regulate semiautomatic weapons as machineguns…. We declined to do so. The Government now asks us to rewrite statutory text so that it can regulate weapon-parts kits. This time, the Court obliges. I would not.”

Justice Thomas further cautioned that according to the newly affirmed law, the mere inclusion of tools or jigs alongside unfinished parts now automatically transforms the regulatory status of those parts. He included images of one unfinished AR-15 receiver, and an identical unfinished receiver included in a kit with a jig and some drill bits. One becomes a regulated item, and one does not. “Both lack machining and indexing in the key areas,” Thomas wrote. “The only difference is the presence of a jig and drill bits. Yet, according to the Rule, these extraneous items make an unfinished receiver a regulable firearm. The presence of items such as jigs or ‘marketing materials’—that are not, and never could be, part of a frame or receiver—has no bearing on whether a piece of metal or plastic constitutes ‘the basic structure and principal component of a firearm.’” He argued that the most straightforward reading of the GCA would be that anything that can’t function as a frame or receiver isn’t regulated as one. He noted the ATF agreed with that assertion under its previous interpretation of the law, which stood for decades.

For now, the ATF may continue to regulate some weapon parts kits and unfinished receivers, including so-called ghost gun kits and related incomplete frames. SOME items that weren’t legally considered firearms before the date of this ruling are now legally considered firearms. And for now, the ATF retains their new, rule-endorsed ability to make arbitrary decisions that effectively act as law and permit prosecution by federal authorities.

From a federal legal perspective, here’s the bottom line from the ATF’s webpage on PMF (privately made firearms)

• Individuals who make their own firearms may use a 3D printing process or any other process, as long as the firearm is “detectable” as defined in the Gun Control Act. You do not have to add a serial number or register the PMF if you are not engaged in the business of making firearms for livelihood or profit.
• Federal firearm licensees [dealers or manufacturers] must mark PMFs with a unique serial number within seven days or prior to disposition, whichever is sooner. [Emphasis added]

As of March 2025, these rules apply to incomplete Polymer-80 style 80% frames, as well as any 80% frame or receiver sold in a build kit.

Which states specifically ban or regulate ghost guns?

Due to the political hype resulting from the 2022 ATF decision and the Department of Justice’s pursuit of appealing related lawsuits, several states have since added laws to the books to ban or regulate so-called ghost guns:

• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Massachusetts
• Maryland
• New Jersey
• New York
• Nevada
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington, D.C.
• Washington State

Federal ban on bump stocks reversed by 2024 SCOTUS decision, but multiple states now ban them (Garland v. Cargill decision)

Quick summary:

• On June 14, 2024, SCOTUS overturned the 2019 Department of Justice/ATF rule banning bump stocks.
• The Supreme Court’s decision on Garland v. Cargill ruled that ATF exceeded its authority and enacted a ban without legislative basis.
• The federal court decision effectively re-legalized bump stocks in states without specific and clear prohibitions.
• Several states have now added specific laws banning bump stocks (see list below)

Discussion:

In a somewhat similar situation to that above, in 2024 SCOTUS was asked to rule on the legality of a 2019 DOJ/ATF rule prohibiting bump stocks at the federal level. Bump stocks are devices that may be attached to some semi-automatic rifles that can help the shooter mechanically accelerate the process of pulling the trigger. On December 18, 2018, the acting Attorney General announced that the Department of Justice had amended the regulations of the ATF, clarifying that bump stocks fall within the definition of “machine gun” under federal law. The argument was that such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger, harnessing the recoil energy of the firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. The rule went into effect on March 26, 2019.

Once again, items that were completely legal to sell and possess one day were deemed unlawful (a federal felony) the following day. Several lawsuits resulted, and on June 14, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its final decision. By a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS overturned the 2019 ATF bump stock ban for lacking a legislative basis, effectively re-legalizing bump stocks in states without specific and clear prohibitions. Justice Thomas, in his majority opinion, stated:

ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19. (a) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machine gun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF, therefore, exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machine guns. P. 6. (b) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism. No one disputes that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is not a machinegun because a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger. ATF argues that a shooter using a bump stock must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots. This initial trigger pull sets off a sequence—fire, recoil, bump, fire—that allows the weapon to continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary trigger. Moreover, ATF’s position is logically inconsistent because its reasoning would also mean that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is capable of firing more than one shot by a “single function of the trigger.” Yet, ATF agrees that is not the case. ATF’s argument is thus at odds with itself. Pp. 7–14. (c) Even if a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock could fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger,” it would not do so “automatically.” Section 5845(b) specifies the precise action that must “automatically” cause a weapon to fire “more than one shot”—a “single function of the trigger.” If something more than a “single function of the trigger” is required to fire multiple shots, the weapon does not satisfy the statutory definition. Firing multiple shots using a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock requires more than a single function of the trigger. A shooter must maintain forward pressure on the rifle’s front grip with his nontrigger hand. Without this ongoing manual input, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock will not fire multiple shots. ATF counters that machine guns also require continuous manual input from a shooter: The shooter must both engage the trigger and keep it pressed down to continue shooting. ATF argues there is no meaningful difference between holding down the trigger of a traditional machinegun and maintaining forward pressure on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock. This argument ignores that Congress defined a machine gun by what happens “automatically” “by a single function of the trigger.” Simply pressing and holding the trigger down on a fully automatic rifle is not manual input in addition to a trigger’s function. By contrast, pushing forward on the front grip of a semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not part of functioning the trigger. Moreover, a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock is indistinguishable from the Ithaca Model 37 shotgun, a weapon the ATF concedes cannot fire multiple shots “automatically.”

The 6-3 decision makes it clear that the ATF’s definitions were contradictory and its ban of bump stocks exceeded its authority since it lacked a legislative basis. In light of the more recent SCOTUS decision that upheld that the ATF does have the authority to regulate in at least some cases, this bump stock decision may seem surprising. Regardless, by federal law, bump stocks are not illegal in 2025. However, as in the case with 80% kits and similar incomplete frames, several states have responded to federal intervention by enacting laws specifically banning bump stocks.

Which states have banned bump stocks?

Due to the political fallout and media coverage resulting from the 2019 ATF ban on bump stocks, several states have since added laws to the books to ban bump stocks:

• California
• Colorado (pending; expected to pass)
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Massachusetts
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Nevada
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington

New state-level gun laws effective 2025 (Colorado, Oregon, Washington)

As noted above, even when it’s difficult for new gun laws to be enacted federally due to the checks and balances designed into the legislative process, in some cases, federal agencies and legal authorities can create or clarify laws that result in bans or restrictions of certain items on a federal level. But even in cases where national lawmakers are unwilling or unable to get more restrictive firearms laws passed, state legislatures often enact their own new firearms laws. Let’s look at a couple key examples that are relevant for 2025-2026.

Colorado Assault Weapons Ban 2025 (SB25-003; Senate Bill 3)

Quick summary:

• On March 24, 2025, the Colorado House passed Senate Bill 3 with some final revisions. It was then reapproved by the Senate, and Governor Polis signed it into law on 4/10/25.
• The bill prohibits knowingly manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, or purchasing any specified semiautomatic firearm; except that a person may transfer a specified semiautomatic firearm to an heir, an individual residing in another state, or a federally licensed firearm dealer.
• The bill defines a “specified semiautomatic firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun with a detachable magazine or a gas-operated semiautomatic handgun with a detachable magazine. It excludes certain types of firearms and specified models of firearms from the definition (see discussion below). A “Detachable magazine” does not include an attached tubular magazine located under a firearm's barrel.
• .22 caliber or lower rimfire firearms are excluded from the restrictions unless they have a separate upper and lower receiver (like an AR-15).
• Also excluded from the new regulations are any firearm that has a permanently fixed magazine that cannot accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition. This includes semiautomatic firearms that have been converted to have a permanently fixed magazine that cannot accept more than fifteen rounds of ammunition.
• Single or double-action semiautomatic handguns that use recoil to cycle the action of the handgun are excluded from the bill’s new restrictions.
• The bill allows certain manufacture, transfer, sale, and purchase of these “specified semiautomatic firearms” by law enforcement agencies and peace officers, the department of corrections, armored vehicle businesses, military forces, gunsmiths, educational programs, as well as any transfer that occurs by operation of law or because of the death of a person, and certain firearms for use solely as a prop for a film.
• Additionally, the prohibition does not apply to the transfer or sale of a specified semiautomatic firearm to, and receipt or purchase of a specified semiautomatic firearm by, a person who: 1. Completed a hunter education course certified by the division of parks and wildlife and, within 5 years before making the purchase, completed a basic firearms safety course; or 2. Within 5 years before making the purchase, completed an extended firearms safety course; or 3. Completed an extended firearms safety course more than 5 years before making the purchase and completed a basic firearms safety course within 5 years before making the purchase.
• The bill sets the requirements for a basic firearms safety course and an extended firearms safety course.
• In order to enroll in a basic or extended firearms safety course, a person must hold a valid firearms safety course eligibility card (firearms course card) issued by a sheriff.
• The bill sets the requirements to be issued a firearms course card, which include completing a fingerprint-based criminal history record check to determine that the applicant satisfies the criteria to receive a firearms course card.
• The bill makes the unlawful sale, transfer, or possession of a large-capacity magazine a class 1 misdemeanor. By Colorado’s definition, this is any detachable magazine with a capacity greater than 15 rounds.
• Existing law prohibits the possession of a dangerous weapon. The bill defines “rapid-fire device” and classifies rapid-fire devices as dangerous weapons under Colorado law. “Rapid-fire device” means any device, part, kit, tool, accessory, or combination of parts that has the effect of increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm above the standard rate of fire for the semiautomatic firearm that is not otherwise equipped with that device, part, or combination of parts.

Discussion:

There is a lot of strangeness in this Colorado bill, and not just the fact that it appears to be effectively a pay-to-play system. Ostensibly lawmakers are concerned about all of the “specified semiautomatic firearms” enough to vote for the bill, but by the wording of the bill, essentially anyone with enough money to pay the fees to obtain a firearms course card and take expensive, multi-day advanced training courses every 5 years can still purchase and own these types of firearms without restriction.

In addition to specifically exempting from the ban “any single or double action semiautomatic handgun that uses recoil to cycle the action of the handgun,” the bill fails to exempt any gas-delayed semi-auto handguns such as the H&K P7, Walther CCP, Steyr GB, Laugo Alien, or S&W M&P 5.7. The lawmakers also include a pretty weird and woefully incomplete list of specified exceptions to the prohibited “specified semiautomatic firearms,” several of which wouldn’t be considered illegal by the bill’s own definitions, but are still specifically excluded from the ban:

AG42 Ljungman; Benelli Argo E Pro; Benelli R1 big-game rifle; Browning BAR mk 3; Browning BAR Longtrac rifle; Browning BAR Shorttrac rifle; Fabrique Nationale Model 49, Fusil Automatique Modele 1917, also known as RSC M 1917; Gewehr 43; Globco Mohawk; Hakim rifle; HK SL6; HK SL7; M1 Carbine; M1941 Johnson rifle; Marlin Camp Carbine; MAS49; Remington Model 4; Remington Model 8; Remington Model 740; Remington Model 742; Remington Model 750; Remington 7400; Ruger Deerfield Carbine; Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle; Ruger Mini Thirty rifle; Ruger Model 44; Springfield Armory M1a standard issue rifle; SVT 40; Valmet hunter M88; vz.52; Winchester Model 100; Winchester Model 1905; Winchester Model 1907; and Winchester Model 1910.

Anyone with a passing understanding of firearms models and types will note that this list is laughably incomplete, arbitrary, and capricious, to the point of being nonsensical. But it appears that the Colorado legislature isn’t concerned about that.

One other significant problem is the new law will require the Colorado division of parks and wildlife to develop and maintain a complicated new firearms training and safety course record system. This system must include records of people who hold a valid firearms course card and who have completed a hunter education course, a basic firearms safety course, or an extended firearms safety course. The system must allow the instructor of a basic or extended firearms safety course to request and receive information about whether a person holds a valid firearms course card, the instructor of a hunter education course or a basic or extended firearms safety course to electronically enter into the system information about each student who completes a course, and a federal firearms licensee to electronically request and receive information about whether a person has completed the courses necessary to purchase a specified semiautomatic firearm. Sounds simple and efficient, right? Riiight. 

The financial burden of managing this new, complicated system is expected to add at least a quarter of a million dollars annually to a state budget shortfall that already exceeds $1.2 billion. Yep, that’s billion with a B. Maybe they expect to make up the shortfall by charging lots of money to law-abiding firearms owners so they can keep their semi-auto firearms.

Incidentally, Colorado also recently enacted Proposition KK, which imposes an additional 6.5% excise tax on the retail sale of all firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a lawsuit in Denver County District Court, arguing the measure is an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights.

Oregon Ballot Measure 114 passed/ruled constitutional 2025

Quick summary:

• On March 12, 2025, Oregon Ballot Measure 114 was ruled constitutionally valid.
• Plaintiffs in the lawsuit have 35 days to seek further appellate review. They are expected to appeal the ruling to the Oregon Supreme Court.
• Measure 114 had been tied up in state and federal court since it was narrowly approved by 50.7% of voters in November 2022. It was temporarily blocked from taking effect after a lawsuit was filed claiming the measure violated citizens’ right to bear arms under the Oregon Constitution. A circuit court judge agreed, ruling that the law violated the state constitution. The Oregon attorney general’s office appealed the ruling, and on March 12 the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the law’s permit-to-purchase program and high-capacity magazine ban do not “unduly frustrate” the right to armed self-defense under the state constitution.
• In a separate 2023 lawsuit an appeals court judge ruled that the measure did not violate the state constitution. It’s likely that the plaintiffs’ Supreme Court review will be unsuccessful.
• Once in force, this measure will require that anyone purchasing a firearm must first complete a firearms safety training course, successfully pass a full background check (including fingerprinting and photographing), and only then will an individual be granted a state-issued permit to purchase a firearm.
• There is no exception for private sales between lawful individuals, or for gun shows. All firearms transfers or purchases require a licensed gun dealer, and the transferee (buyer) must obtain and display a permit-to-purchase.
• Each firearms purchase must include a firearms transaction thumbprint form, including the thumbprints of the purchaser/transferee.
• Detachable magazines are limited to no more than 10 rounds. Unlawful manufacture, importation, possession, use, purchase, sale or otherwise transferring of a “large-capacity magazine” is a class A misdemeanor. Magazines and ammunition feeding devices already in owners’ possession at the time of the enactment of the law are exempt.
• Permit-to-purchase fee processing may cost up to $65, by the terms of the measure. Permits are valid for 5 years. Renewal fees may cost up to $50. There’s no stipulation limiting the cost of the required firearms safety training course.

Discussion:

Since Measure 114 has been ruled constitutionally valid by the Oregon Court of Appeals, further appeals to the state supreme court are forthcoming. The state supreme court could either reverse the ruling, or send the case back to the court of appeals and let that court’s ruling stand, in which case Measure 114 would be considered law.

Oregon’s law would be among the most stringent in the country, requiring people to undergo a criminal background check, get fingerprinted and photographed, and complete a gun safety training course in order to even obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. There are no exceptions for private sales between lawful citizens. All sales/transfers must involve an FFL and require the purchaser to hold a valid permit-to-purchase. The measure also effectively bans detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Oregon’s new measure requiring a permit-to-purchase is very similar to Illinois’ Firearms Owner Identity card system (FOID), which was recently found to be unconstitutional (for the third time) due to the requirement of a $10 fee for citizens to exercise their constitutional rights. Oregon’s fee structure appears to be much higher, as well as the untold costs of the required firearms safety training courses, but it’s certainly possible that the measure will be found constitutional by Oregon courts.

However, since a separate trial claiming that the measure is unconstitutional is still partially in limbo, waiting to see how a similar California case pans out, there’s still a chance that the US Supreme Court might eventually see the case. If this happens, SCOTUS’s prior rulings and opinions limiting states’ rights to restrict Second Amendment freedoms may reverse Oregon’s law.

However, as of right now it seems likely that Measure 114 will be put in force within the second half of 2025, pending decisions by the state and federal courts.

Washington House Bill 1163 passes House, advances in Senate 2025 (HB 1163 - 2025-26)

Quick summary:

• Washington already has enacted a 10-day waiting period and more stringent background checks, in addition to a law prohibiting the sale, attempted sale, manufacture and distribution of high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. HB 1163 would require prospective gun buyers to first apply for a five-year permit from the Washington State Patrol, including fingerprinting.
• To get the permit, applicants must have completed a certified firearms safety training program within the past five years. Applicants for a Concealed Pistol License (CPL) must also complete a certified firearms training program.
• If passed, this new Washington law would be similar to Oregon’s stringent Measure 114, requiring enhanced background checks, fingerprints, training courses, and permits-to-purchase for all firearms buyers. (There are exceptions for law enforcement and active duty military.)

Discussion:

Proponents of the bill argued that a license to purchase a firearm is similar to requiring a driver’s license before someone can operate a motor vehicle. Opponents of the bill argued in committee:

A license to drive is not a constitutionally protected right. The Second Amendment limits the government's ability to infringe on an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Under this bill you need to obtain a permit, but to obtain a permit, you need a firearm to pass the required live-fire safety training. Permit to purchase requirements deter current and future firearm owners from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Firearm classes generally cost between $100 and $150 per hour, and those costs are likely to go up under this bill. There are not enough firearm instructors to accommodate the requirements of this bill. Constitutional rights may not be converted into a privilege and a fee associated with it. Access to arms is central to the right to bear arms. This bill is rife with unconstitutional provisions under the auspice of public safety. The Washington State Patrol is already suffering from a backlog of firearm background checks and this bill will only exacerbate the situation. Violent crime in Washington has skyrocketed while the national average has trended down. Supporting this bill will make it more difficult for victims of domestic violence to exercise their Second Amendment right. Domestic violence victims will never find the time or money to apply for this permit or do the required training. This bill will be deadly to women. Delaying a citizen’s right to purchase a firearm puts them at great risk. Criminals are not going to go through a safety course and suddenly think twice about the crime they intend to commit. This bill will not reduce crime. Ninety percent of firearms used in crimes are stolen, and this bill will not affect that statistic. The unconstitutional aspect of this bill will open the state to costly lawsuits and civil liability.

That last point is certain, as civil rights groups have promised to appeal to state and federal supreme courts if HB 1163 is passed.

Stay informed about your local laws, and secure your firearms in a Liberty Safe

We always advocate for US citizens staying informed and involved in the legislative process on both a local and federal level. If you’re not happy with your state or federal firearms laws, then work to change them. Let your representatives know how you feel. If you have firearms and feel strongly about the Second Amendment, then be sure to make your voice heard. And of course it’s always wise to help keep your firearms secure from damage, unauthorized access, theft, and fire in a quality US-made gun safe from Liberty. Check out our interactive online catalog or visit a Liberty showroom near you.