This Act establishes a new federal crime with life imprisonment for mass killings using specific semiautomatic weapons in public places and mandates increased federal reporting on terrorism-related charges and surveillance results.
Seth Moulton
Representative
MA-6
The End Domestic Terrorism Act establishes a new federal crime with severe penalties for mass killings committed using specific semiautomatic weapons in sensitive locations. It also mandates annual reporting by the Attorney General on terrorism-related charges, including detailed demographic data for those charged. Furthermore, the bill requires the DOJ to publicly report on the financial impact and government response following charges filed under the new weapons of mass destruction statute.
The “End Domestic Terrorism Act” is a major piece of federal legislation focused on creating a new, severe federal crime aimed squarely at mass killings. If passed, this bill would establish a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment (or any term of years) for anyone who kills three or more people in a single incident using a machinegun, a destructive device, or what the bill strictly defines as a “covered semiautomatic weapon.” This new crime would apply anywhere the incident has even a minimal connection to interstate commerce, such as if the weapon crossed state lines at any point, or if the killer traveled across state lines to commit the offense.
Section 2 of the bill spends serious time defining the “covered semiautomatic weapon,” and this is where the policy gets technical. It targets semiautomatic rifles and shotguns that have a detachable magazine and certain features that are often associated with military-style weapons—think pistol grips, folding stocks, or threaded barrels. Crucially, the definition also includes any AK or AR type weapon, or variants, with the same capabilities. For the average person, this means the law is specifically designed to federalize and severely punish the use of a wide range of commonly available modern sporting rifles if they are used in a mass killing. The penalty is mandatory life in prison, and the jurisdiction is federal, even if the state already has its own murder charges.
The bill establishes federal jurisdiction over these crimes in locations like schools, places of worship, medical facilities, malls, and even office buildings. This federal reach is triggered by the slightest connection to interstate commerce. For example, if you live and work in the same state, but the weapon you used was manufactured in another state and shipped to your local dealer, the federal government can step in and charge you with this new crime. This is a classic move to use the federal power over commerce to enforce criminal law, effectively bypassing state jurisdiction when it comes to these specific, high-casualty incidents.
Beyond the new crime, this Act significantly expands government data collection and reporting. Section 3 mandates that the Attorney General must submit an annual report to Congress detailing every single case where charges were filed under this new mass killing statute or the existing material support for terrorism statute. For every person charged, the report must include their age, gender, race, ethnicity, and nationality. If you’re a busy professional, this means that the federal government is now required to collect and report highly specific demographic data on every single person involved in these major terrorism and mass violence cases, a move that raises questions about how this sensitive data might be used or interpreted.
Section 5 introduces a major transparency requirement that will hit close to home for communities affected by these crimes. Whenever the DOJ files charges under the new mass killing statute, the Attorney General must publish a detailed public report online within 180 days. This report must quantify the total financial impact of the incident. This isn’t just about police costs; it must detail all money spent by federal, state, and local governments responding to the offense, including medical bills, mental health services, and aid to businesses. Perhaps most notably, the report must state the total amount of revenue that businesses lost because of the offense. For a small business owner whose store is shut down for weeks after an incident, this public accounting could provide crucial context about the economic devastation caused by these acts, but it also creates a complex, potentially premature, financial assessment that the government must undertake.