Nine Virginia gun bills are signed into law. Nine more were sent back to the House, and most of them came back worse than they went in. Spanberger did not…
The bottom line
Nine Virginia gun bills are signed into law. Nine more were sent back to the House, and most of them came back worse than they went in. Spanberger did not moderate. She engineered. Every amendment she proposed was designed to either broaden the bill’s reach or increase the penalty. There is no version of last night that looks like compromise when you read the actual text.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
What she signed outright
I am going to go through every bill. I was up all night. I am running on nothing right now. But this is too important to leave half-explained.
HB21, the firearm industry civil liability law, is signed and done. This is a PLCAA workaround. The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act has shielded the gun industry from most civil liability since 2005, specifically because the Clinton-era gun control movement tried to sue manufacturers out of existence. Virginia’s HB21 creates a state-law standard of “reasonable conduct” for anyone in the gun supply chain: manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and marketers. The “marketer” category is especially broad. If you sell gun accessories online, run a gun review channel, or promote firearms products in any capacity, you could theoretically fall within this law’s scope. The DOJ under Harmeet Dhillon called this bill out explicitly, arguing it conflicts with federal statutory law. That legal fight is coming.
HB40 is the ghost gun ban with no grandfather clause. Let me say this clearly one more time: if you own an unserialized firearm in Virginia today, you are going to be a criminal when the possession ban takes effect unless you do something about it. The penalties are Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense, up to 12 months and a $25,000 fine. Second offense is a Class 4 felony, mandatory minimum two years, maximum ten, fine up to $100,000. Plastic non-detectable firearms get even harsher treatment, classified as a Class 5 felony for possession. We are talking about people who legally purchased property being turned into felons with prison minimums because a governor signed a piece of paper. No violence. No victim. Just possession of something that was legal yesterday.
HB19, the intimate partner firearms ban expansion, is signed. The new definition of “intimate partner” includes anyone you were in a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship with in the previous 12 months. A judge determines this using a four-factor test: length, nature, frequency, and type of interaction. This puts a sitting judge in the position of interrogating the details of your personal relationships to determine whether a domestic violence prohibition strips your firearms rights. The cohabitant language is also in there. A roommate dispute that escalates to a protective order could now cost you your Second Amendment rights.
HB93, the firearm surrender mechanics bill, is signed. It tightens the procedural requirements for how you have to give up your guns when a protective order is issued against you. The details are technical but the direction is always the same: faster, more automatic, with less room for the gun owner to manage the process.
HB91, the red flag expansion, is signed. Virginia’s Extreme Risk Protection Order law previously allowed only prosecutors and law enforcement to petition for an order. Now 18 categories of people can petition, including ex-partners, family members, social workers, therapists, physicians, and community services board employees. An ERPO is issued ex parte, meaning the court hears only the petitioner’s side before ordering your guns removed. You find out after the fact. Then you have the burden of demonstrating that you do not pose a risk in order to get your property back. The Virginia Law Review’s analysis of ERPO laws identified the ex parte structure as a “significant procedural due process concern.” HB91 just multiplied the number of people who can trigger that process by nine. If you have ever had a contentious relationship end badly, your firearms rights now depend on whether that person decides to make a phone call to a social worker.
HB626, the campus carry ban, is signed. Every public college and university campus in Virginia is now a gun-free zone by state law. No CHP carve-out. No institutional discretion. A professor with a concealed handgun permit is a criminal the moment she walks onto campus. A parent picking a kid up from a dorm is a criminal. A contractor doing electrical work in a university building is a criminal. Class 1 misdemeanor, up to 12 months in jail. This one I take personally. I am a campus carry guy. I have been for as long as I have followed this issue. The data on defensive gun use in public spaces is clear: the presence of armed, law-abiding citizens is a deterrent. Making campuses categorically off-limits to legal carriers does not make anyone safer. It makes everyone more vulnerable.
HB110, the visible handgun in vehicle penalty, is signed. Five hundred dollar civil fine for leaving a firearm visible in a parked car. Don’t do that. But you should not be penalized for it either, especially in a state where the criminal who steals the gun faces no meaningful consequence.
HB115, the concealed carry reciprocity gutting, is signed. The attorney general now has unilateral authority to determine which states’ concealed carry permits Virginia will recognize, based on whether their standards are “substantially similar” to Virginia’s. That phrase is not defined anywhere in the statute. I live in North Carolina and drive into Virginia regularly. My North Carolina CHP may not be recognized depending on what the AG decides. The current AG is a Republican. But this law will outlast him, and whoever holds that office in five years gets to decide unilaterally which states’ gun permits are valid in Virginia.
HB916, the CHP training overhaul, is signed. The original bill named the NRA and USCCA explicitly. That language was removed, probably for First Amendment reasons, but the bill still restructures the qualifying training requirements in ways that will push people toward state-preferred providers and away from the major Second Amendment organizations. Nobody goes to jail over this one. But deliberately targeting the organizations that train and advocate for gun owners is a statement of values, and the statement is clear.
The nine she sent back, and what she changed
This is where it gets more complicated, and honestly more revealing. When a governor sends a bill back with recommended amendments, the default assumption is that she found something she couldn’t live with. In Spanberger’s case, in almost every instance, what she couldn’t live with was that the bill wasn’t aggressive enough.
SB749, the assault weapons ban, was sent back with amendments that broadened the definition of covered weapons. The original bill used a two-feature test for semi-automatic centerfire pistols: you needed a detachable magazine plus two or more additional features. Spanberger’s amendment changed it so that any semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a magazine capacity exceeding 15 rounds, whether fixed or detachable, is covered. One feature. That captures an enormous number of standard carry pistols. A Glock 17 comes standard with a 17-round magazine. Under the amended version, that pistol is an “assault firearm.” She also added belt-fed firearms to the covered list, because apparently she wanted to make sure no edge case was missed. The NRA-ILA’s April 15 analysis called the amended version a bill that “threatens to ban most centerfire semi-autos.” That is not an exaggeration. She also added a new code section prohibiting anyone convicted under the assault firearms ban from purchasing, possessing, or transporting any firearm for three years. For the bill to take effect as amended, the House has to pass the new version. They are very likely to do so.
The semi-automatic carry ban, HB1524, was sent back. I thought there was a chance she would veto this one. There was genuine conversation in Virginia political circles that she might. She did not come close. The current law restricts carrying in 13 specific localities. HB1524 as amended extends that to all public roads, parks, and sidewalks statewide. There is no CHP exemption. She made one notable change to the text: the title says “loaded firearms” but the body language appears to still cross out the word “loaded,” creating an ambiguity about whether unloaded transport is still allowed. My reading is that unloaded transport may remain permitted under the amendment, but the language is a mess and will need court interpretation. If the intent is that unloaded, cased firearms can still be transported, the law is slightly less catastrophic than it appeared. But you would be betting your freedom on a judge’s reading of poorly drafted statutory text.
HB1525, the under-21 firearm purchase restriction, was sent back. This one actually appears to have gotten somewhat better in the amendment. A significant amount of the fingerprinting and 45-day processing requirements seem to have been stripped out. It still bans people under 21 from purchasing handguns and certain other firearms without a new license, but the bureaucratic barriers appear to be reduced. I do not say this often: this might be an instance where the amendment genuinely softened the bill. It is still bad law that restricts the rights of adults, but it is less immediately harmful than the original version.
SB348, the mandatory firearm storage law, was sent back. She upgraded the penalty from a Class 4 misdemeanor ($250 fine) to a Class 2 misdemeanor: six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. I predicted this exactly. The bill requires that in any residence with a minor or prohibited person present, all firearms must be stored in a government-approved locked container unless on your person and under your conscious control. If you are a father with children in the house, your nightstand gun is now a potential six-month jail sentence. When your door gets kicked in at 2 a.m., your gun is in the box. She made the penalty for not complying with that risk more severe.
HB229, the mental health hospital weapons ban, was sent back with three changes I have covered in detail. She removed the armed security exemption. She removed hospital employee authorization. She removed the involuntary detention exemption. Hospital security guards cannot carry in the buildings they protect. Private hospital owners cannot authorize carry on their own property. And people taken to mental health facilities against their will, potentially while unconscious, can be charged with a crime for having been legally carrying at the time of transport. Every one of her three changes made the bill worse.
HB99, the election site gun-free zone, was sent back. Her change was minor: a technical clarification of when exactly the perimeter applies, having to do with the precise timing of election activities. The 100-foot perimeters around ballot drop boxes remain. The lack of an intent requirement remains. The 12-month maximum sentence remains. You can still walk your dog past a drop box you did not know was there and commit a crime.
The hate crime firearms ban was sent back with a reduction in the prohibition period from lifetime to three years from conviction. I genuinely do not understand this from her perspective. She is supposed to be the hardline anti-gun governor. Why would she reduce the penalty? The most plausible explanation is legal defensibility: a lifetime firearms ban for a misdemeanor hate crime would face serious constitutional challenges that could strike down the entire provision. A three-year prohibition is more likely to survive judicial review. She is thinking about litigation-proofing these bills, not moderation.
The mandatory gun buyback program was sent back with a clarification that the program exists to provide a “safe process” for Virginians who “choose” to return a firearm. By adding the word “choose,” she may be distancing the program from a mandatory or coercive characterization that would raise Takings Clause problems. Nobody is going to voluntarily turn in firearms they value. But every locality in Virginia will be required to operate one of these programs by 2028, and your tax dollars are paying for it.
The Gun Violence Prevention Center funding bill was sent back with an expansion of the advisory workgroup. The center exists to funnel state money to anti-gun organizations so they can produce policy recommendations that justify more state money going to anti-gun organizations. Her amendment made it bigger.
What this looks like a month from now
I am going to be honest with you about where I think this ends up. The House is going to pass most of these amended bills. They have the votes. The Democrats who produced this package are not going to reject the governor’s amendments when those amendments generally make the bills more restrictive, which is what their base wants.
SB749’s amended version goes to the House, the House passes it, Spanberger signs it, and the DOJ files suit. That is the most likely sequence. Whether a district court issues a preliminary injunction fast enough to prevent the law from taking effect is genuinely uncertain. The Fourth Circuit is not a friendly venue for these challenges. Kolbe v. Hogan (2017) upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban in the Fourth Circuit, and while Bruen changed the analytical framework, it has not yet changed the Fourth Circuit’s institutional instincts.
For the bills that are already signed, the challenge window is open now. HB21’s PLCAA conflict is the most legally promising avenue. HB91’s due process problems are real but red flag laws have survived constitutional challenges in most circuits. HB40’s grandfather clause absence creates the clearest victim class, gun owners who currently possess legal property that will soon be criminalized, and that may produce the most sympathetic plaintiffs for a Bruen challenge.
Here is what I keep coming back to. Most of these laws were not designed to reduce crime. Virginia’s violent crime problem is not primarily caused by ghost guns, campus carry, concealed carry reciprocity agreements, or the NRA’s participation in CHP training courses. The legislature knows this. Spanberger knows this. These laws were designed to make gun ownership legally precarious, financially costly, and socially stigmatized. They were designed to signal to Virginia gun owners that they are not welcome, that their rights are conditional, and that the state views them as a problem to be managed rather than citizens to be protected.
That is what I mean when I say Spanberger does not hate guns. She hates gun owners. And last night made that distinction unmistakably clear.
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.