On April 30, 2025, Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) reintroduced the federal Assault Weapons Ban, reviving a decades-old gun control effort aimed at eliminating what Democrats call “military-style assault weapons” from civilian hands. In a video posted on X (formerly Twitter), Schiff declared, “It’s time for the assault weapons ban of 2025.” The proposed legislation would prohibit the sale, manufacture, import, and transfer of a wide range of semiautomatic firearms, including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America.
The announcement comes at a politically charged moment, despite Democrats lacking the votes to pass the bill. Republicans currently control both chambers of Congress and the White House. Still, as Schiff made clear, the bill is not just about immediate legislative success – it’s a messaging tool and a rallying point. “We must act now,” Schiff urged, referencing the original 1994 Assault Weapons Ban passed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, which expired in 2004.
Schiff Cites Shooting Stats – But Critics Dispute Them
In his X video, Schiff claimed that since 2006, there have been 486 mass shootings involving assault weapons, leading to “hundreds and hundreds” of deaths. He credited the 1994 ban with reducing mass shootings and stated that after it expired, gun violence increased by 236%.
However, gun rights advocates like William from the YouTube channel Copper Jacket TV challenged those claims. He pointed to research by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which concluded that the 1994 ban had no measurable effect on overall gun violence. “He just says it, and you’re supposed to believe it,” William remarked. “The NIJ literally found no evidence of its effectiveness.”
Democrats Rally With Gun Control Advocates
Schiff was joined at a Capitol Hill press event by Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Alex Padilla (D-CA), as well as Representative Lucy McBath (D-GA). Backed by advocacy groups like Giffords and the Newtown Action Alliance, the lawmakers spoke passionately about the trauma caused by mass shootings.
Senator Blumenthal recounted his own decades of advocacy in Connecticut, saying that even state-level bans are insufficient because “guns know no borders.” Padilla echoed that sentiment, arguing that a national ban is necessary because state laws “stop at the state line,” leaving communities vulnerable.
Survivor Testimony Reinforces Emotional Appeal
Perhaps the most emotionally charged moment came from Matt Holden, a survivor of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Holden, now 18 and a student at George Washington University, recalled hiding in his classroom as a gunman wielding an AR-15 killed 20 of his classmates and six teachers in less than five minutes.
“I’ve spent every day since trying to live in a world that still allows those weapons of war to be sold legally to civilians,” Holden said. He urged lawmakers to pass the bill, declaring, “These are not tools of self-defense. These are tools of mass murder.”
NRA and News2A Fire Back
The reaction from gun rights organizations was immediate and fierce. The National Rifle Association replied to Schiff’s X post with a simple but potent phrase: “Shall not be infringed.” News2A, a 2A-focused news profile on X, added, “That is unconstitutional. You cannot disarm law-abiding Americans. We will fight you with EVERY resource we have.”
This sentiment was echoed across conservative media, where the bill was labeled not just unconstitutional, but ineffective. Critics argued that such bans do not address the root causes of crime and only penalize lawful gun owners.
Republican Inaction Fuels Gun Rights Frustration
Pro-gun voices didn’t just target Democrats. Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy blasted congressional Republicans for failing to codify gun rights when they held power. “When you had the House, the Senate, and the White House, why didn’t you do something?” he asked. Langley warned that Democrats are playing the long game: “They’ll file this same bill every year until they have the votes.”
Langley argued that even though the current bill is “symbolic,” it remains a dangerous political tool. “It’s plug-and-play. The second they have power again, they’ll jam it down our throats.”
A Bill with No Path Forward – For Now
As The Hill’s Alexander Bolton reported, the bill stands no realistic chance of passing in the current Congress. Republicans hold a governing trifecta, and the political appetite for federal gun bans is minimal. Even some moderate Democrats may balk at voting for such a sweeping restriction on firearm ownership.
Nevertheless, Schiff and his allies framed the bill as a necessary “marker” in the ongoing debate. “We know these bans can save lives,” said Senator Padilla, adding, “We’re still at risk without a national ban.”
Is Public Opinion Really on Their Side?
Senator Murphy argued at the press event that public opinion favors an assault weapons ban. “By increasing numbers, [Americans] tell Congress it’s time,” he said. But this is not universally accepted. In fact, Gallup polling from late 2024 shows only 52% support for such a ban, down significantly from the 1990s.
Copper Jacket TV’s William challenged the narrative, noting that many mass shootings involve handguns, not rifles. “They make the AR-15 the boogeyman because it looks scary,” he said. “But the data doesn’t support the focus.”
Symbolic Moves, Real Consequences
While the 2025 bill is unlikely to become law, many Second Amendment advocates see it as more than symbolic. They believe it reflects a long-term strategy to chip away at gun rights incrementally.
“Democrats know it won’t pass, but they want to normalize the idea,” said Langley. “They launch these bills from safe blue seats like Schiff’s and wait for a shift in power.”
Constitutional Concerns Loom Large
One of the biggest sticking points remains the U.S. Constitution. As News2A and others noted, the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision has significantly raised the bar for what gun laws can pass constitutional muster. Any new ban would face near-immediate legal challenge, likely ending up before a conservative high court.
“They know it’s unconstitutional,” said Langley. “They don’t care. It’s about the optics, the headlines, the fundraising emails.”
Emotional Politics vs. Evidence-Based Policy
There’s no question that mass shootings leave a deep scar on the American psyche. The testimonies from survivors like Matt Holden are deeply moving. But critics argue that the policy proposals often don’t match the facts. As William from Copper Jacket TV pointed out, “It’s about emotion, not evidence.”
And that raises the central tension: how can a democracy balance legitimate safety concerns with constitutionally protected freedoms?
The Fight Isn’t Over – On Either Side
Senator Schiff closed his announcement by invoking the legacy of Dianne Feinstein. “We are proud to carry on her work,” he said. The sentiment was shared by Senator Blumenthal, who described the bill as honoring the victims of gun violence “with action.”
But gun rights advocates are just as resolved. “We’re not going anywhere,” said News2A. “We will fight this – politically, legally, culturally.”
In the end, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2025 may go nowhere in Congress. But as both sides dig in, the political, legal, and emotional war over America’s most iconic rifle is far from over.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.