For the third time on April 14, Spanberger returned a gun bill to the House rather than signing it. SB348, the mandatory firearm storage bill, now joins HB99…
The bottom line
For the third time on April 14, Spanberger returned a gun bill to the House rather than signing it. SB348, the mandatory firearm storage bill, now joins HB99 and HB229 in legislative limbo. Eleven of 18 bills have been resolved tonight. Eight are now law. Three have been sent back. Read that again: the three she sent back are not the ones she found acceptable. They are the ones where she wanted changes that the existing text did not go far enough to deliver.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
What SB348 actually does
SB348 sounds, on its surface, like something a lot of people would call reasonable. If a prohibited person or a minor is present in your home, you have to store your firearm in a locked, government-approved container. Most people who don’t think carefully about what self-defense actually requires will hear that and shrug.
Here is what it actually means. If you have children, you cannot legally leave your firearm in your nightstand. You cannot keep it accessible in your bedroom. Unless the gun is physically on your person and you are consciously controlling it at that exact moment, it has to be in the box. When someone breaks into your house at 2 in the morning, when seconds count and police are minutes away, your gun is locked up and you are fumbling with a combination dial in the dark.
That is the law. That is what it does. It does not make children safer in any meaningful, empirical sense. The data on mandatory storage laws and accidental child deaths is genuinely mixed, and the mechanism by which this bill is supposed to work, discouraging negligent storage through criminal penalties, has no documented effect on the actual negligent behavior. What it does with certainty is put a barrier between a lawful gun owner and their ability to defend their family in the moment they need it most.
Before Spanberger’s intervention, the penalty was a Class 4 misdemeanor, which in Virginia is a $250 civil fine. That is not nothing, but it is at the low end of consequences. I don’t know yet exactly what changes she proposed. That information was not posted to the LIS site before I recorded this. But based on the pattern of her other amendments tonight, I would not expect her to have proposed weakening the penalty.
The three sent back are not the moderate bills
I want to be precise about something, because there is a narrative forming that Spanberger is playing to the middle, softening the hardest edges of the gun control package to avoid political blowback before the April 21 redistricting referendum.
Look at what she actually signed versus what she sent back.
She signed HB91, the expansion of Virginia’s red flag law to 18 categories of petitioners. She signed HB626, the campus carry ban that turns a parent picking up their kid at a college dorm into a criminal. She signed the ghost gun ban with no grandfather clause. She signed the concealed carry reciprocity gutting. These are not minor tweaks to existing law. These are structural changes to how gun ownership works in Virginia.
What she sent back were SB348 (mandatory storage), HB99 (election site gun-free zones), and HB229 (mental health hospital weapons ban). And in every case she sent them back not because they went too far, but because she wanted them to go further or be technically tightened in ways that catch more people.
With HB229, the mental health hospital bill, she removed the exemption for people involuntarily transported to psychiatric facilities. She removed the armed security carveout. She removed the hospital employee authorization. Every one of her proposed changes made the law more aggressive.
So when people tell you Spanberger is being careful or moderate, understand what is actually happening. She is not pulling back on the gun control agenda. She is sequencing it deliberately, processing the bills that do not generate major headlines first, and using the amendment process to make the rest of them more damaging before they come back for a final vote.
The redistricting factor
The timing here is not accidental. Virginia’s redistricting referendum was ten days away from tonight. Democratic operatives spent months pushing a congressional map that, based on the 2025 governor’s race results, would give Democrats a shot at picking up four additional U.S. House seats. It passed on April 21 by a margin of roughly 50.7 to 49.3 percent.
That vote was close. Every point of motivated Republican turnout mattered. Spanberger knows that signing an assault weapons ban or a sweeping semi-automatic carry ban the week before a referendum vote would have put the redistricting outcome at serious risk. Those are the bills that move people who don’t follow Virginia legislation closely. Those are the headlines that get shared.
So she is managing the sequencing. The bills that make big national headlines, the assault weapons ban, the carry ban, the under-21 purchase restrictions, are still in limbo. The ones she moved tonight are real and damaging, but they are not the ones that generate the kind of visceral response that drives people to the polls. HB91 expanding red flag petitioners from two categories to 18 is genuinely terrible, but it is not a headline that gets a million social media shares the week before an election.
This is not me speculating about her motives. This is the only coherent explanation for why she sent back the three bills she sent back. These are not the bills gun rights organizations were going to run campaigns on. The storage bill, the hospital bill, the election sites bill: all real harms to real gun owners, but not the kind of visceral, visible restriction that generates the level of political energy that would tank a redistricting referendum.
She is playing the long game. And she is playing it well enough that the mainstream political press barely noticed any of this tonight.
What the NRA got right
The NRA-ILA put out a statement tonight calling these “fake adjustments, real infringements.” John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, was direct: the amendments were “a desperate ploy to prop up her radical redistricting referendum by delaying action until after Election Day.” That reads as exactly right to me.
But I want to extend that analysis. It is not just that the amendments are being used as delay tactics. It is that the amendments themselves are designed to make the bills worse. She is not delaying and moderating. She is delaying and sharpening. That distinction matters for how we think about what the House votes on when these come back.
The Virginia House and Senate passed this legislation originally. They are likely to adopt her amendments. When they do, gun owners in Virginia will have bills that were already bad, made worse by amendment, signed into law after a political holding pattern designed to protect a congressional redistricting scheme. That is the sequence. That is what is happening.
Eleven down, seven to go
Out of 18 gun bills, 11 have been resolved as of tonight. Eight are law. Three are back with the House awaiting votes on Spanberger’s changes. Seven remain in limbo, and those seven include the most visible and explosive pieces of this package.
I have been saying all night that the assault weapons ban, SB749, is probably going to be sent back with amendments designed to survive a potential DOJ lawsuit, not killed. The semi-automatic carry ban, HB1524, is in similar territory. Both of those bills are the kind of legislation that the Trump DOJ, through Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has explicitly warned Virginia it will sue over if signed into law. Dhillon sent a formal letter warning that SB749 violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s precedent in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which requires gun laws to be rooted in the historical tradition of firearm regulation at the founding. Semi-automatic rifles in common use are not historically prohibitable. The DOJ knows it. Spanberger knows it.
The question is what she does with that knowledge. Tonight’s pattern suggests the answer: she will make cosmetic changes to the most vulnerable bills, call it compromise, send them back to the House, and let the House do the final work. The result will be laws that are still unconstitutional but designed to look less obviously unconstitutional to a casual observer.
We are watching Virginia’s Second Amendment get dismantled in real time, one carefully sequenced amendment at a time.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.