New Bill Blocks President and HHS from Using Emergency Powers to Enact Any Gun Control

The “Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2025” is a very direct piece of legislation that essentially puts up concrete walls preventing the executive branch—the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)—from restricting firearms using emergency powers. It’s designed to ensure that the process for regulating guns stays strictly within the hands of Congress, even during the most chaotic crises.

No Emergency End-Runs Around the Second Amendment

This bill is all about limiting executive power when it comes to firearms. Section 2 specifically blocks the President from using the National Emergencies Act or the Stafford Act (the law used for disaster relief) to impose any form of gun control. Think about it this way: if a massive civil disturbance or a catastrophic natural disaster occurred, the President couldn't declare an emergency and then immediately issue an executive order banning the sale of certain rifles or limiting magazine capacity. This provision ensures that, regardless of the crisis, the President cannot bypass the legislative process to enact new gun regulations.

Section 3 does the same thing for the Secretary of HHS. It forbids the Secretary from using the authority to declare a public health emergency—like the one we saw with COVID-19—as a backdoor way to push gun control measures. For example, if a public health official wanted to argue that gun violence constitutes a public health crisis and use that declaration to justify new regulations, this bill explicitly says, “No, you can’t do that.”

Guns Stay Available, Even During Disasters

Perhaps the most practical, real-world impact for folks living in disaster-prone areas comes from Section 4. This section amends the Stafford Act to explicitly forbid federal disaster declarations from prohibiting the possession, manufacture, sale, or transfer of firearms, ammunition, magazines, or accessories. Historically, during the aftermath of major disasters like Hurricane Katrina, there were instances where local or federal authorities temporarily seized lawfully owned firearms from residents.

This change means that if a massive hurricane hits your town and the federal government steps in to manage the recovery, they cannot use that disaster declaration to stop you from possessing your legally owned firearm or even buying new ammunition or accessories. For the average person, this means that the right to self-defense remains fully intact, even when the power is out and first responders are stretched thin. However, it also means that local or state authorities who might want to temporarily secure weapons during extreme civil unrest or looting incidents—which sometimes follow major disasters—can't rely on federal disaster rules to help them do so.

The Trade-Off: Speed vs. Checks and Balances

What we have here is a clear move to prioritize the protection of Second Amendment rights over the speed and flexibility of executive action during a crisis. The potential benefit is that it prevents future administrations from weaponizing emergency declarations to enact policy that bypasses Congress. This is a win for legislative checks and balances.

The challenge, however, is that crises often demand swift action. By completely stripping the President and HHS of the ability to temporarily restrict firearms in any way during a declared emergency—whether it’s a national security threat or a public health crisis—the bill could tie the hands of officials trying to manage an unstable situation. It forces regulators to sit on the sidelines when it comes to gun restrictions, even if a temporary measure might be deemed necessary for immediate public safety during an unprecedented emergency event.