The United States has a national ban on assault weapons.
Executive summary
No — the United States does not currently have a standing, comprehensive national ban on assault weapons; the 1994 federal ban expired in 2004 and while Congress has repeatedly introduced new federal assault-weapons bills since then, none has become permanent law as of the sources provided [1] [2]. Instead, federal proposals have resurfaced in multiple sessions (including bills introduced in 2023 and 2025), and a patchwork of state and local bans exists alongside ongoing litigation over state restrictions [3] [4] [5].
1. The historical federal ban existed but lapsed
A federal statute popularly known as the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act — the 1994 federal assault weapons ban — prohibited manufacture for civilian use of certain semiautomatic firearms and large-capacity magazines while it was in force, but that statutory prohibition expired in 2004 and did not remain a standing federal restriction thereafter [6] [1].
2. Congress has repeatedly tried to reinstate or expand a federal ban
Multiple assault-weapons bills have been introduced in recent Congresses proposing to criminalize importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, or possession of defined semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity feeding devices, including H.R. 698 , S.25 , and bills in the 119th Congress such as S.1531 and H.R.3115 , but these texts are proposals rather than enacted federal law as reflected in the legislative records [3] [7] [4] [8].
3. States and localities fill the regulatory gap with varied bans
In the absence of a standing federal ban, ten states plus the District of Columbia have enacted assault-weapon prohibitions in some form, while additional states regulate large-capacity magazines, creating a mosaic of rules that differ by jurisdiction and definition of “assault weapon” [5] [1].
4. The legal landscape is unsettled and actively litigated
State assault-weapon bans have been subject to sustained Second Amendment litigation, with recent appellate decisions upholding some state laws while the Supreme Court has shown interest in the issue and denied certiorari in select cases even as Justices signaled potential future review; this means the constitutionality and scope of state bans remain contested and evolving [5] [9].
5. Evidence on public-safety impact is mixed and debated
Evaluations of the 1994 federal ban produced mixed findings: some official reviews and academic work concluded any measurable short-term effects on overall gun violence were small or unclear, while other analyses and advocacy organizations point to reductions in mass-shooting fatalities and argue bans on high-capacity magazines can save lives; both the empirical evidence and methodological interpretations remain contested in the literature [6] [10] [9] [11].
6. Definitions, grandfathering, and enforcement shape any practical ban
Proposed federal bills and state laws commonly use either a “name list” of banned models or a feature-test to identify covered firearms and typically include grandfathering for weapons lawfully possessed before enactment, serial-number requirements, and buyback or compensation provisions — details that determine the real-world reach and enforceability of any ban [4] [8] [2].
7. Political and advocacy agendas drive competing narratives
Proponents — including public-health groups and gun-safety advocates — emphasize reducing mass-shooting lethality and public-safety benefits and thus press for federal reinstatement or state bans, while opponents raise Second Amendment, enforcement, and efficacy concerns and seek legislative or judicial limits; both sides have clear organizational and political incentives that shape messaging in public debates [11] [9] [2].
8. Bottom line for readers: status and what to watch next
The bottom-line fact is simple: there is no comprehensive, current national assault-weapons ban in force; observers should track pending federal bills (such as those filed in 2023 and 2025), state legislative changes, and major court decisions that could alter the legal landscape and either reinstate a federal prohibition or constrain state-level restrictions [3] [4] [5].