S-726-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
What it does
This bill would make it a federal offense to store a firearm in a residence when the owner knows, or reasonably should know, that a minor could access it without parental permission, or that a resident is legally prohibited from possessing firearms. Exceptions apply when the firearm is secured with an approved storage device, kept in a location a reasonable person would consider secure, or kept on or within immediate reach of the owner's person. Violations would carry a $500 civil fine per incident, rising to up to 5 years imprisonment if an unsecured firearm is obtained and causes injury or death. The bill also creates a federal grant program to help states and tribal governments enforce functionally identical state laws, and expresses Congress's view that violations should constitute negligence and proximate cause in civil liability cases.
Who benefits
Children in households with firearms, who face reduced risk of accidental shootings, suicide, or access by prohibited residents. Families and communities affected by school shootings, given the bill's finding that 65% of school shooting firearms came from the attacker's home or a relative's. Neighborhoods experiencing gun theft-related violence, as secure storage may reduce the estimated 238,000 firearms stolen annually. Victims of crimes committed with stolen firearms. States and tribal governments that have already enacted similar laws, who would receive federal grant funding and enforcement support. Civil plaintiffs injured by improperly stored firearms, who would benefit from the negligence and proximate cause provisions.
Who is hurt
Firearm owners who would face new federal criminal and civil liability, including those who may not be aware of the law's requirements. Owners in rural areas who rely on quick firearm access for property protection and may find secure storage impractical. Low-income gun owners who may be unable to afford approved storage devices. Firearms retailers who sell storage devices may face compliance-related market shifts. Owners of multiple firearms who face logistical challenges securing all weapons while maintaining accessibility. Defendants in civil litigation who could face expanded liability under the bill's negligence and proximate cause provisions, even when a third party's intentional act was the direct cause of harm.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the bill directly addresses a documented public safety crisis: an estimated 4.6 million minors live in homes with unsecured firearms, and over 75% of firearms used in youth suicides and unintentional shootings came from the victim's own home or a relative's. They contend that the bill's tiered penalty structure — a modest $500 fine for storage violations, with enhanced penalties only when harm actually results — is carefully calibrated to encourage compliance without unduly burdening responsible gun owners, who are already exempt if they keep firearms secured or on their person. They further argue that the grant program incentivizes states to adopt parallel laws, creating a nationwide floor of protection while respecting federalism.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill imposes a federal storage mandate that could conflict with the Second Amendment right to keep firearms readily accessible for self-defense in the home, as recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which struck down a D.C. law requiring firearms to be kept locked or disassembled. They contend that the "reasonably should know" standard and the "location a reasonable person would believe to be secure" exception are vague enough to create unpredictable criminal liability for law-abiding gun owners. They further argue that the civil liability provision — deeming storage violations the proximate cause of harm even when an intentional act intervenes — upends traditional tort causation principles and could expose owners to unlimited civil damages for the criminal acts of others.
Constitutional context
The bill invokes the Commerce Clause as its constitutional basis, consistent with existing federal firearms law under 18 U.S.C. § 922. However, the most significant constitutional tension is with the Second Amendment: in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring firearms in the home to be kept locked or disassembled, holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms ready for self-defense. Post-Bruen (2022), any firearms regulation must also be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation, and the constitutionality of mandatory storage laws is actively contested in lower courts.
Checks and balances
The bill expands federal executive branch enforcement authority through the DOJ and ATF; Congress sets the storage standard and penalty structure, courts review constitutional challenges under the Bruen text-history-tradition framework, and a severability clause limits the impact of any provision struck down.
Historical precedent
The District of Columbia's Firearms Control Regulations Act (1976) required firearms to be kept locked or disassembled and was struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); several states, including California and Massachusetts, have enacted safe storage laws that have faced ongoing constitutional challenges post-Bruen.