Guns Bills and Firearm Laws to Watch in 2026

Firearm policy in the United States is shifting rapidly in 2026, with new federal rules already in effect, major Supreme Court cases on the docket, and state legislatures moving in opposite directions on access and regulation. From suppressor taxes to red-flag laws and storage mandates, the legal environment that governs who can own guns, what they can own, and where they can carry them is being rewritten in real time.

For gun owners, advocates, and public officials, the key is understanding which changes are already locked in and which proposals and court fights could reshape the rules again before the year is out. The following sections track the most significant federal and state firearm laws and bills in play in 2026, along with the court decisions that could determine how far those measures can go.

Federal shifts: the National Firearms Act and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The most immediate nationwide change this year comes from the National Firearms Act, the nearly century-old statute that regulates items such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons. A Congressional research brief explains that P.L. 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, took effect on January 1, 2026, and reset the tax rate for making or transferring many NFA-regulated firearms to zero dollars for items that are not machineguns or destructive devices.

For decades, buyers who wanted to add a suppressor to a rifle or register a short-barreled rifle had to pay a 200 dollar tax stamp, submit fingerprints and photographs, and wait months for approval. Reporting on the new rules notes that the 200 dollar tax on suppressors and other weapons is now eliminated, with the tax reduced from 200 dollars to 0 dollars for items covered by the updated law, which has been described as the start of an era of the 0 tax stamp for many NFA items. The same coverage indicates that the tax relief applies to suppressors, certain short-barreled firearms, and so-called “any other weapons,” while machineguns and destructive devices remain subject to the traditional NFA tax and registration framework.

Legal analysis of the NFA changes emphasizes that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act does not repeal the registration or background check requirements. Instead, it removes the financial barrier created by the tax while leaving in place the requirement that NFA items still be registered and approved before transfer or manufacture. Commentators who walk through the new rules explain that lawful owners must still file the relevant forms, but they no longer need to attach a payment, and they must still ensure that their items fit within the categories that qualify for the zero-dollar rate.

This shift has practical and political implications. On the practical side, suppressors and short-barreled rifles may become more common among recreational shooters and hunters, since the upfront cost of compliance has fallen. Politically, the move has energized both gun-rights advocates, who see the tax cut as long overdue, and gun-control supporters, who argue that making NFA items cheaper to obtain could increase the risk that they are misused. That tension is now colliding with other federal efforts that seek to tighten access to firearms for people considered dangerous.

New federal gun safety proposals in Congress

While the One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduces costs for certain firearms, other federal proposals in 2026 aim to expand tools that courts and families can use to temporarily disarm people who pose a threat. Ranking Member Lucy McBath has announced a package of gun safety legislation that includes The Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2026, which would create a nationwide framework for what are often called red-flag orders. According to her office, The Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2026 would allow family members, household members, and law enforcement to petition a federal court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others, building on state-level models that already exist in several jurisdictions.

The same announcement describes how the proposal is intended to complement existing state laws rather than replace them. It would offer federal grants and a standardized process so that states without their own extreme risk protection laws could opt into a federal system. The legislation is promoted as a way to prevent suicides, domestic violence shootings, and mass attacks by intervening when warning signs appear. Supporters, including GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown, argue that a federal standard would close gaps between states and help ensure that warning signs in one jurisdiction are not ignored simply because a person lives in another.

Opponents, including some gun-rights groups, have raised concerns about due process and the potential for false or retaliatory petitions. They question whether temporary firearm removal orders could be issued too easily or without sufficient evidence, and whether the proposed federal structure would respect state-level choices about gun policy. The debate over The Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act of 2026 illustrates the broader split in Washington, where some recent laws have expanded gun access or reduced costs, while others seek more tools to restrict access for specific individuals.

Federal and state measures highlighted for 2026

Outside the NFA changes and new federal proposals, several other federal and state measures are drawing attention this year. A detailed guide to Guns Bills and to watch in 2026 points out that several federal and state firearm bills could significantly affect gun owners, instructors, and dealers if they are enacted or fully implemented. That overview notes that some measures are already in effect, while others are pending in legislatures or awaiting court review.

At the federal level, the same guide highlights how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is scheduled to be fully implemented in 2026, reinforcing the removal of the 200 dollar NFA tax for many items. It also notes that federal agencies are updating their guidance and forms to reflect the new zero-dollar tax rate, which can create temporary confusion for applicants and dealers who must navigate both old and new documentation. For example, some forms may still list the tax amount even though payment is no longer required, which has led practitioners to advise applicants to rely on current agency instructions rather than outdated paperwork.

On the state side, the guide organizes key developments in a table of Federal and State Gun Laws and Bills to Watch in 2026, listing each State or Federal entry alongside the relevant Bill or Law and topic. The table covers issues such as storage mandates, permit-to-purchase requirements, expanded background checks, and new training standards. It also explains that some states, including New Jersey and Rhode Island, are part of a group of jurisdictions that already have some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and that they are continuing to refine those statutes in response to recent court decisions and public pressure.

The same resource provides 2026 Gun Law FAQs that address how new and existing laws in states such as New Jersey and Rhode Island interact with federal rules, and how residents and visitors should navigate overlapping requirements. For example, a person who lawfully owns a firearm in a permitless carry state may still face stringent transport and storage rules when traveling through or staying in a state with more restrictive laws, and the guide underscores that ignorance of those rules does not prevent prosecution.

State-level crackdowns: storage, reporting, and new restrictions

Several states are moving in the direction of tighter gun regulation in 2026, particularly around storage and reporting duties. In Washington, new storage laws took effect at the start of the year. Reporting on these changes explains that the state of Washington now requires firearms in a home or car to be stored in a locked container or with a locking device when they are not under the direct control of the owner. The coverage describes these rules as part of a broader effort by Washington to double down on gun restrictions in 2026, with the goal of reducing unauthorized access, especially by children and prohibited persons.

California is also tightening its framework. Guidance from the State of California Attorney General notes that AB 725 (Stats. 2023, ch. 239) relates to Firearms and the reporting of lost and stolen firearms. Effective July 1, 2026, the law expands the definition of who must report a lost or stolen firearm and clarifies the timelines and procedures for that reporting. The summary explains that the new rules are intended to close loopholes that allowed some owners or dealers to avoid timely reporting, which made it harder for law enforcement to trace guns used in crimes.

These state actions fit into a broader pattern in which some legislatures are layering new requirements on top of federal law. Washington’s storage rules, for example, sit alongside existing background check and waiting period requirements, while California’s AB 725 builds on previous mandates for dealers and owners to track inventory and report losses. Supporters argue that such measures help prevent theft, straw purchases, and accidental shootings. Critics respond that they place additional burdens on lawful owners and may be difficult to enforce in private homes.

State-level pushback: preemption and local control fights

Not all states are moving toward tighter regulation. In Georgia, lawmakers are using state preemption to block local governments from adopting their own storage rules. Coverage of the first bill passed in the Georgia Senate in 2026 reports that the chamber approved legislation that bans local gun storage laws. The Georgia Senate voted along party lines Tuesday to prevent cities and counties from requiring gun owners to store firearms in a particular way, effectively rolling back or blocking ordinances that were proposed in response to local shootings.

Supporters of the Georgia measure argue that firearm regulation should be uniform statewide and that local storage mandates could criminalize ordinary behavior by responsible gun owners. They also contend that local rules might be used to harass or target gun owners in politically hostile jurisdictions. Opponents, including some local officials and gun safety advocates, counter that communities should have the flexibility to respond to specific patterns of gun thefts or accidental shootings in their areas.

This clash between state preemption and local control is not limited to Georgia. The broader debate reflects a national divide in which some states, such as Washington and California, are tightening rules, while others are moving to shield gun owners from what they see as overreach by local or federal authorities. The result is a patchwork in which the legal obligations of a gun owner can change dramatically when crossing a state line, sometimes even when moving from one county to another.

Court battles that could redefine gun rights in 2026

Even as legislatures act, courts are weighing in on how far gun regulations can go under the Second Amendment and related constitutional provisions. Federal appeals courts this year are considering a series of major gun cases that pose questions about what kinds of weapons and restrictions are consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. Legal analysis notes that judges must now assess not only whether a law serves public safety, but also whether it aligns with historical analogues, a test that has already led to conflicting decisions in different circuits.

One high-profile dispute involves the scope of gun possession guidelines in publicly accessible private locations. A detailed blog post explains that The Supreme Court considers expanding gun possession guidelines in a case where The Fourth Circuit had earlier evaluated historical laws cited by the state of Maryland, including a 1771 statute, to justify restrictions on carrying firearms in certain places. The Fourth Circuit’s analysis of Maryland’s justifications is now under review, and the Supreme Court’s eventual decision could clarify how far states can go in limiting carry rights on private property that is open to the public, such as shopping centers or parking lots.

Another major case is Wolford v. Lopez. A legal update titled When Property Rules Shape Gun Rights describes how The Supreme Court Considers Wolford v. Lopez to examine whether states can declare large categories of public and quasi-public spaces to be “sensitive places” where firearms are broadly banned. In Wolford, the Supreme Court is reviewing a law that designates a wide range of locations, including some private businesses that are open to the public, as off-limits for concealed carry. In Wolford, the Supreme Court must weigh property rights, public safety claims, and the right to bear arms in deciding whether such broad sensitive-place designations are permissible.

Separately, another report notes that the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two cases that test the limits of gun rights, including one involving concealed carry restrictions and another that concerns bans on gun possession by drug users. The plaintiffs in both cases claim that these laws violate the Second Amendment, and the decisions could affect how states craft eligibility rules that tie firearm possession to other behaviors or statuses.

These cases sit alongside a broader set of The Major Supreme Court Decisions in 2026 that also touch on executive power, administrative law, and other constitutional questions. While the high court’s docket includes issues such as Trump-related policies, Tariffs, Fed Board Firing, Regulator Firings, and Birthright citizenship, the gun-rights cases are poised to have direct consequences for how lower courts evaluate firearm regulations for years to come.

How the NFA changes affect suppressors and other NFA items

For everyday gun owners, the most tangible federal shift this year is the elimination of the 200 dollar tax on many NFA items. A detailed explainer titled How the New Law Affects Suppressors, SBRs, and Other NFA Items describes how Big changes are coming for lawful gun owners on January 1, 2026, when the new rules took effect. The analysis explains that suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other qualifying NFA items are now subject to a 0 dollar tax, which dramatically reduces the cost of compliance.