In the 2026 session of the Virginia General Assembly, House Bill 93 emerged as a key piece of legislation concerning the handling of firearms by individuals subject to protective orders or convicted of certain domestic offenses. The measure modifies sections 18.2-308.1:4 and 18.2-308.1:8 of the Code of Virginia to establish stricter protocols for firearm possession and transfer in these circumstances.
Under the updated provisions, it becomes unlawful for persons subject to protective orders entered pursuant to specified statutes, including those for family abuse or other specified orders, to purchase or transport a firearm while the order remains active. Individuals holding concealed handgun permits must turn in their permits to the court for the order’s duration. Penalties include Class 1 misdemeanor charges for violations of these purchase or transport bans.
For more serious protective orders, the law also bans knowing possession of firearms. A limited 24-hour grace period after service allows continued possession and transport only to facilitate surrender to authorities, sale to a licensed firearms dealer, or transfer to a qualified individual.
A central feature of the legislation is the establishment of rules for transferring firearms from prohibited persons. The recipient must meet specific criteria: being 21 years old or older and not sharing a residence with the person subject to the prohibition. The prohibited individual must submit details about the transfer, including the recipient’s identifying information, to the court clerk and supply a copy to the new owner. This process provides an alternative to outright surrender or dealer sale.
House Bill 93 applies comparable rules to those convicted of assault and battery on a family or household member. It updates the definition of family or household member to cover intimate partners based on recent relationship factors and cohabitants from the past year. Convictions after July 1, 2026, trigger Class 1 misdemeanor liability for subsequent firearm purchase, possession, or transport.
The statute requires that prohibited persons receive notice that law enforcement can pursue search warrants upon probable cause of non-compliance with firearm prohibitions.
Republican members of the Virginia House of Delegates voiced multiple concerns as the bill progressed through committees and floor votes. They maintained that the non-residency rule for firearm transferees risks stripping defensive firearms from cohabiting family members who hold legal title or shared ownership, leaving entire households vulnerable without justification.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League, a prominent gun rights organization, illustrated this with the example of a married couple who jointly own a home defense firearm. Should a protective order be issued against one spouse, the other spouse could lose practical access, an outcome the group described as punishing uninvolved parties and heightening safety risks for the remaining household members.
Opposition also centered on the exclusion of 18- to 20-year-old adults from eligibility as transferees. Critics noted that this age cutoff eliminates a group of lawful firearm possessors from participating in transfers, complicating efforts for families to retain their property in a compliant manner.
Throughout deliberations, Republican delegates cautioned that the bill’s provisions encroach upon established constitutional protections and will almost certainly result in costly litigation as affected parties challenge the restrictions.
Public input gathered by the House Committee on Public Safety revealed widespread resistance among commenters. Many Virginians submitting statements argued against the measures by highlighting a lack of empirical support linking the new rules to reduced violent crime or enhanced public safety. They insisted that effective regulations must be precisely drawn to avoid infringing on due process rights and to honor Second Amendment principles.
The bill’s advancement occurred over these repeated objections from Republican representatives and affiliated organizations. Compared to previous law, House Bill 93 introduces the age and residency conditions for transfers, which were not previously mandated.
Tracking reports from gun rights groups emphasized that the expansion of family and household member definitions brings more people under the prohibited category, including those in dating relationships or recent shared living situations. This broadening, they contended, amplifies the chance of collateral consequences for innocent co-residents.
Additional apprehension surrounded the search warrant notification element, with concerns that it might pave the way for increased law enforcement scrutiny of private residences when disputes arise over firearm compliance.
As House Bill 93 received approval in the House of Delegates and continued through the legislative process, the positions articulated by Republican lawmakers and conservative advocacy entities focused on safeguarding the rights of law-abiding citizens and mitigating unintended harms to family units.
The detailed amendments ensure that transfers occur through documented channels, but observers have stressed the importance of preventing any diminishment of lawful access to firearms for those not directly prohibited.
