Chapter 16 of the 8 HARPS book, available on Amazon

The Firearms Safety Amendment

The Firearms Safety Amendment

I. An Epidemic Without an Institution

Six of the other ten amendments in this book create or strengthen a federal institution: an Office, an Authority, a Commission. Because rights without an enforcement mechanism are just words. Firearm violence has no such institution. It has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an agency Congress has deliberately denied the authority most regulators take for granted: no national licensing standard, no mandate for insurance, no unified point-of-sale requirement, and, since 1986, a specific statutory prohibition on the one tool that would let ATF do its job the way every other federal regulator does, a searchable national registry.

The result shows up in the numbers. In the first half of 2026, the country recorded 6,458 gun deaths and 11,781 gun injuries, the lowest six-month total in a decade, real progress. But still averaged more than one mass shooting a day, and 2024 alone saw 27,593 gun suicides and 15,364 gun homicides. No other developed country accepts a baseline like this as normal, and no other developed country regulates firearm ownership as loosely as the United States does.

II. Borrowing What Already Works

This amendment does not invent new regulatory machinery. It takes tools that already exist somewhere in American law or American policing practice, and makes them universal and constitutional rather than optional and local.

The excise tax model is ninety years old. The Pittman-Robertson Act has taxed every firearm and box of ammunition sold in the country since 1937, at 10 to 11 percent, dedicating the proceeds to wildlife conservation, a tax nobody seriously argues amounts to a ban. This amendment applies the identical mechanism to a different, equally overdue purpose: funding direct compensation and trauma care for the victims of the violence firearms cause.

The insurance model already exists in early form at the state level. Washington’s HB 1504 would require firearm owners to carry $25,000 in liability coverage, but nowhere does it apply nationally. The storage model is moving the same direction: California and Illinois tightened their requirements for 2026, and Virginia’s pending legislation would mandate biometric-locked storage for loaded firearms. The vehicle-shooting restriction in this amendment is not new policy invention at all, it is the Police Executive Research Forum’s own use-of-force guidance, already followed informally by most of the country’s largest police departments, made uniform and constitutional instead of department-by-department and reversible by the next chief. And the federal-registry question is already settled law in the opposite direction of what many assume: the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act has barred a national gun registry since 1986, and this amendment does not disturb that, it continues to let states decide for themselves whether to share their own licensing records with Washington.

The newer provisions in this amendment borrow the same way. Extreme Risk Protection Orders is a court process for temporarily separating a genuinely dangerous person from a firearm, before rather than after a tragedy, is not a novel proposal. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia already operate some version of one. The minimum age this amendment sets for ownership, and the narrow exceptions that let a minor still fire a rented firearm at a supervised range or use a parent’s firearm for hunting, track federal law that has stood since 1994. The Youth Handgun Safety Act already bars anyone under eighteen from possessing a handgun, with the same kind of parental-consent exception for hunting and target practice that this amendment extends to every firearm. The domestic-violence and mental-illness disqualifications built into this amendment’s definition of a “prohibited person” are not new either. They restate categories federal law has used since the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment. And the requirement that a new firearm ship with a trigger lock in the box has been federal law for licensed handgun dealers since 2005; this amendment simply extends a requirement that has already survived two decades without controversy to every firearm and every seller, matching what Massachusetts and Oregon already require at the state level.

Where this amendment does break from current practice, it breaks from practice that has already been tested and found wanting. The 2024 Supreme Court decision striking down the federal ban on bump stocks, Garland v. Cargill, turned entirely on a technical reading of the phrase “single function of the trigger” in a decades-old statute. Not on any finding that bump stocks serve a legitimate purpose. This amendment’s prohibition on rate-of-fire enhancement devices is written to avoid that exact trap, defining the prohibited conduct by what a device does rather than by how its trigger mechanism is engineered. And the protection this amendment gives a traveler passing through a state with different gun laws is not an invention, it strengthens a federal protection that already exists on paper. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act’s “safe passage” provision, which courts have read so narrowly that a fully compliant traveler can still be arrested, jailed, and made to fight the charge after the fact. This amendment closes that gap by barring the arrest itself, not merely providing a defense once the arrest has already happened.

III. What This Amendment Does

The amendment establishes twenty-six interlocking sections, which fall into four groups: who may own a firearm, how it must be stored and carried, what happens at every point of sale and transfer, and how the amendment enforces itself.

Ownership starts with the same national licensing system as before. A background check, safety training, periodic renewal, but now sets a floor no one under eighteen may cross, while preserving the traditional, supervised uses that floor was never meant to disturb: a minor may still fire a rented firearm at a licensed range, use a parent’s or guardian’s firearm for hunting or target practice with that parent’s or guardian’s consent and direct supervision, or take a certified safety course, exactly as federal law already permits for handguns today. With the adult bearing full responsibility throughout. The amendment also, for the first time, defines who is disqualified from owning a firearm at all, a felony conviction, a domestic-violence conviction or active protective order, an adjudicated serious mental illness, unlawful drug use, or an active Extreme Risk Protection Order. And creates the court process behind that last category: a State-run system letting a law enforcement officer or family member petition a court to temporarily remove a dangerous person’s access to a firearm, with real due process built in from the start. An emergency order without notice only for a genuinely urgent threat, capped at two weeks, followed by a full hearing with a meaningful evidentiary standard before any extended order can issue, capped at one year, with a path back to eligibility once the danger has passed.

Storage and carry are tightened at both ends. Every firearm still has to live in a container secured by a biometric lock, but that lock has to include a non-biometric backup, because a lock that answers to only one living person’s fingerprint stops working the moment that person dies. And this amendment adds the process for what happens next: an executor can access the safe, the family can inherit a firearm directly without a dealer if the heir is licensed, or the estate can sell it through a licensed dealer instead, with a ninety-day insurance grace period while that gets sorted out. An owner who loses a firearm, or has one stolen, now has to report it within five days. Closing the loophole that currently lets someone who illegally sold a gun to a prohibited buyer simply claim, if the gun is ever traced, that it was stolen. Negligent storage that lets a minor obtain a firearm and cause death or serious injury is now its own separate felony, on top of whatever else applies. And in public, a State that allows a firearm to be carried openly must now require it to be carried unloaded and trigger-locked; concealed carry is untouched by this amendment entirely, and a State keeps full authority to write its own rules for it, including whether a concealed firearm may be loaded.

Every sale private or commercial, new or used, still has to go through a state-licensed seller who verifies the buyer’s license and runs the background check, but three things are new. A waiting period of at least seventy-two hours now sits between that background check and the moment the buyer takes the firearm home. Ammunition sales are now held to the identical licensing and verification standard as the firearm itself. And every firearm now has to leave the seller’s hands with a trigger lock already in the box, at no charge to the buyer, extending a requirement federal law has already applied to licensed dealers selling handguns since 2005 to every firearm and every seller.

A fifteen percent excise tax on every firearm and unit of ammunition sold, structured the same way the ninety-year-old federal tax on hunting equipment already works, continues to fund a Gun Violence Victims Trust Fund providing direct compensation, trauma care, and survivor support. The Fund is administered, as this amendment now specifies, through a Department of Justice office modeled on the real federal office that already runs the analogous Crime Victims Fund.

States retain the authority to go further and prohibit handguns or multi-shot rifles outright within their own borders, and a person may still transport a firearm across state lines, unloaded, locked, and secured without fear of arrest for the simple act of passing through a state with stricter rules than their own. No one, including a law enforcement officer, may fire into or at a moving or stationary vehicle, except to save a hostage’s life or to stop an active shooter firing from in or near that vehicle. States are not required to share their own licensing records with the federal government, and this amendment continues to bar a national gun registry, just as federal law has since 1986. Though a State must still turn over information about a specific firearm when a Federal Agency or other State already has that firearm in its possession, when the serial number is tied to a crime, or when a judge orders it. Firearms and firearm components produced by three-dimensional printing or other additive manufacturing are prohibited unless they meet the same licensing, serialization, and detectability standards as any other firearm, and the design files used to make them are restricted the same way. Bump stocks and any other device whose function is to increase a semiautomatic firearm’s rate of fire are prohibited outright, defined by what they do rather than by the mechanical trigger-pull test a 2024 Supreme Court decision used to strike down the federal version of this same ban.

And because several of these provisions cannot coexist with the individual right recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the amendment says so directly: to the extent of any conflict, it supersedes the Second Amendment.

The remainder of the amendment is the machinery that keeps the rest of it from being read out of existence by a hostile court or ignored by a reluctant official: a standard of review that presumes a law implementing this amendment is constitutional while subjecting any law that weakens it to the opposite presumption; a private right of action letting anyone harmed by a violation sue directly; a preemption clause that stops a state from evading the floor this amendment sets while leaving states free to exceed it; an anti-evasion clause closing the door on compliance in name only; broad standing so a challenge does not have to wait for a tragedy to be heard; a rule against courts narrowing this amendment by reference to a right it has already superseded; a bar on cost or inconvenience as a defense; and a right to a real remedy: injunction, damages, and expedited Supreme Court review when it is violated.

IV. Addressing the Objections

“This amendment bans guns.” It does not. Section 26 says so explicitly: an owner who obtains a license, secures their firearm, and carries insurance keeps every right they have today. What changes is not whether a person may own a firearm, but what is required of them while they do, the same bargain this country already strikes with drivers, pilots, and physicians.

“A red-flag order lets the government take my guns without a trial.” It requires more due process than most people assume, and this amendment writes that process into the Constitution rather than leaving it to statute. An emergency order without notice is available only on an affidavit showing immediate danger, and it expires in two weeks unless a court holds a real hearing. Notice, the right to appear, the right to counsel, and a clear-and-convincing evidentiary standard before any extended order can be issued. And even then, it is capped at one year with a built-in path to end it early. This is closer to the process a domestic violence protective order already requires than a unilateral seizure.

“This amendment violates the Second Amendment.” This is the one objection this amendment does not attempt to argue around. The individual right the Supreme Court recognized in Heller and reaffirmed in Bruen, to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, largely free of licensing and registration burdens is real, and several of this amendment’s provisions, particularly the state authority to prohibit handguns and multi-shot rifles in Section 11, cannot coexist with it as currently interpreted. Rather than draft around that conflict, this amendment confronts it directly in Section 17: to the extent of any conflict, it supersedes the Second Amendment. That is a heavier constitutional lift than anything else in this book proposes, and it should be evaluated with that weight in mind, not folded quietly into a list of routine reforms.

“This creates a national gun registry the government can use against owners.” It does the opposite. Section 14 preserves the same rule federal law has followed since 1986: no national registry, and no requirement that a State hand its own licensing records to Washington. The narrow exceptions: a firearm the Federal government or another State already physically holds, a serial number tied to a crime, a judge’s order, all reach a single named firearm, not a State’s database as a whole.

“Officers need to be able to stop a fleeing vehicle by any means necessary.” The departments that have prohibited shooting at moving vehicles for decades, New York City among the first, did not see officer safety get worse. They saw it improve, because a vehicle with a dead or wounded driver does not stop; it becomes a heavier, faster, less predictable threat than the one the shot was meant to end. This amendment’s narrow exception for an active shooter firing from the vehicle preserves the one scenario where returning fire genuinely protects a life.

“Letting a minor near a firearm at all is reckless.” This amendment does not lower the floor for ownership; it raises one that federal law, remarkably, does not currently set for anything but handguns. What it preserves is what most American families already do safely and lawfully every hunting season and every trip to a supervised range: a minor using an adult’s firearm, under that adult’s direct supervision and consent, with the adult bearing full legal responsibility if anything goes wrong.

“Requiring a trigger lock in the box doesn’t stop anyone determined to misuse a gun.” No single provision in this amendment is meant to. The lock is a floor, not a solution by itself, paired with licensing, storage, insurance, and background checks, it closes a specific and avoidable failure: a firearm changing hands with no safety device included at all. It is the same modest requirement federal law has already applied to handgun dealers, without controversy, for twenty years.

“Requiring an unloaded, locked firearm defeats the purpose of open carry.” This is a fair criticism, and this book does not pretend otherwise. For a person who carries openly for immediate self-defense, an unloaded, locked firearm is not a functional deterrent in the moment it might matter most. This amendment does not touch concealed carry at all, a State remains free to set its own standards there, including whether a concealed firearm may be loaded. But the open-carry rule reflects a considered judgment that a firearm displayed in public, where anyone including a child may be near it, should not also be instantly ready to fire. Reasonable people who carry for self-defense will disagree with that judgment, and they are entitled to.

V. Why This Belongs in the Constitution

Every other amendment in this book adds a right, a protection, an institution, layered onto the existing Constitution without displacing anything already there. This one is different, and honesty requires saying that plainly rather than burying it in Section 17’s text. Firearm violence in the United States is not a policy failure this country has simply neglected to address; it is a policy outcome the current constitutional order, as interpreted by the current Supreme Court, makes extraordinarily difficult to address at the level of licensing, insurance, and sale that every other dangerous, regulable activity in American life is subject to. Security of person, the first and foundational right this book opens with, cannot be fully realized while that gap remains. Closing it is worth the most direct amendment this book proposes.

PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT