A new bill has been introduced by Congressman Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) in the United States House of Representatives that would repeal the Hughes Amendment. The bill, titled the “Firearm Freedom Act of 2026,” would undo the restrictions Congress placed on machine guns in 1986.
In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), a measure intended to reform certain aspects of federal gun control laws and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, during a late-night session, Democrats added the Hughes Amendment. This addition effectively closed the machine gun registry and banned the transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The amendment was passed by a highly contested voice vote, with questions later raised about its procedural legitimacy.
The new legislation seeks to reverse what many view as an unconstitutional stripping of rights from American citizens by once again allowing the legal transfer and ownership of newly manufactured machine guns by civilians.
Proponents argue that fully automatic firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. However, federal courts have generally been hostile to challenges against regulations on automatic weapons. Judges have often cited the Supreme Court’s reasoning in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), describing machine guns as “dangerous and unusual” weapons not in common use for lawful purposes, thereby justifying the ongoing restrictions.
The Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, but it also included language noting that certain “longstanding prohibitions” and regulations on “dangerous and unusual weapons” remain permissible.
Lower courts have leaned heavily on this language to uphold the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns. As a result, it is widely considered unlikely that the judicial branch will overturn the restriction on its own. This judicial pushback underscores why legislative action may be the most viable path forward. The best, and perhaps the only realistic way to eliminate these decades-old restrictions on machine guns is through a direct change in federal law.
Despite strong support for Second Amendment rights among many conservatives, the bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. While most Republicans publicly champion gun rights, a significant number draw the line at machine guns, viewing them as excessively powerful tools better suited for military use than civilian ownership.
Even if the Firearm Freedom Act manages to pass the House of Representatives, it is likely to encounter stiff opposition in the Senate. There, procedural rules often require a supermajority of 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance most legislation, making passage particularly challenging in a divided chamber.
Bills like this usually fail upon their first introduction. The strategic purpose behind reintroducing such measures in successive congressional sessions is to gradually build awareness, secure cosponsors, and cultivate broader political support over time until there are enough votes for successful passage. Whether the Firearm Freedom Act can achieve this momentum over the next few years remains to be seen. The odds are currently stacked against it due to entrenched political divisions, competing legislative priorities, and lingering Democrat concerns about firearm accessibility.
Nevertheless, the introduction of this bill by Rep. Patronis marks a notable development in the ongoing national conversation about gun rights. Backed by groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA), it represents the first comprehensive legislative effort to fully repeal the Hughes Amendment. Supporters see it as a long-overdue correction to what they describe as an infringement on constitutional liberties.
Find this article on Ammoland.
READ NEXT: The Unlikely Country Training To Defeat One Of The World’s Largest Militaries
The 2nd Amendment clearly makes it a necessity for Americans to be able to protect our country with whatever weapons are necessary to do the job.
BUT, at the same time it is also necessary to be sure that those weapons are not allowed into the hands of those who would use them for a ‘bad purpose’.
People who are among the good and moral people of this country should never be restricted from having such guns, but it MUST be made as sure as possible for the ATF to keep such guns out of the hands of anyone who espouses terrorist and/or other violent rhetoric.
A stringent examination ( a vigorous NICS ) of the intent of a buyer of such a weapon is extraordinarily necessary.
I know people who have machine guns ( legally owned ), and I trust them completely with those guns. But I’m sure that there are those who should never even possess a sharp pair of scissors.