Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Himes, James A. [D-CT-4]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to close federal loopholes that allow individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence to possess firearms, and provides funding for states to implement firearm removal programs.
What it actually does
This bill expands federal prohibitions on firearm possession for domestic abusers by broadening the definitions of "intimate partner" to include dating partners and "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to include stalking. It also ensures that protective orders, including certain ex parte orders, trigger firearm prohibitions. Additionally, the bill establishes a federal grant program to assist states, tribes, and local governments in implementing policies for the removal of firearms from individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is crucial for enhancing public safety by closing dangerous loopholes in existing federal law that allow domestic abusers to retain or acquire firearms. They highlight that expanding the definition of "intimate partner" to include dating partners and covering ex parte orders will protect more victims during their most vulnerable periods, citing statistics that show a significant reduction in intimate partner homicides in states with similar laws.
Opponents contend
Critics contend that the bill could infringe upon Second Amendment rights by expanding firearm prohibitions, particularly concerning ex parte orders where an individual's rights might be restricted without a full adversarial hearing. Concerns may also be raised about the permanence of prohibitions for misdemeanor convictions and the potential for federal overreach into areas traditionally governed by state law.
The bill is relatively concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(1)
Expansion of "Covered Domestic Violence Court Order" Definition
This provision defines a new term, "covered domestic violence court order," which includes court orders issued after a hearing with notice and opportunity to participate, or ex parte orders where due process is provided within a reasonable time. These orders must restrain harassment, stalking, or threats against an intimate partner or child, or explicitly prohibit physical force, and include a finding of credible threat to physical safety.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that including ex parte orders, with due process safeguards, is critical for immediate victim safety during the most dangerous period after separation from an abuser. They contend that this closes a significant loophole where abusers could retain firearms during the initial, often emergency, phase of protection.
Critics contend
Opponents might argue that restricting firearm rights based on ex parte orders, even with a promise of later due process, raises significant constitutional concerns regarding an individual's Second Amendment rights and due process before a full hearing.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between providing immediate, robust protection for domestic violence victims and safeguarding the due process rights of individuals accused of abuse, particularly when firearm possession is restricted before a full evidentiary hearing.
Section 3(2)
Inclusion of Dating Partners in "Intimate Partner" Definition
This provision expands the federal definition of "intimate partner" to include dating partners, former dating partners, and any other person similarly situated to a spouse or parent of a child who is protected by state, local, or tribal domestic or family violence laws. This closes the so-called "boyfriend loophole."
Section 3(3)
Inclusion of Stalking and Broader Victim Scope in Misdemeanor Domestic Violence
This provision amends the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to explicitly include offenses involving "stalking." It also clarifies that the victim can be a dating partner or the child of a dating partner. Furthermore, it removes the clause that allowed firearm rights to be restored if the conviction was expunged, making the prohibition permanent.
Sections 4 and 5
Prohibiting Firearm Sales and Possession for Individuals Subject to Covered Domestic Violence Court Orders
These sections directly amend federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(d)(8) and 922(g)(8)) to prohibit the sale of firearms to, and possession of firearms by, any individual subject to a "covered domestic violence court order." This replaces the previous, narrower language, ensuring that the expanded definitions from Section 3 are applied to federal firearm restrictions.
Section 6, adding Part PP to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Grant Program for Firearm Removal from Domestic Violence Parties
This section establishes a federal grant program, administered by the Attorney General, to assist states, Indian tribes, and local governments in developing and implementing policies for the removal of firearms and ammunition from individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders. It mandates specific requirements for these policies, including a 24-hour surrender or removal period, safe storage, and background checks before any return of firearms.
The bill allows ex parte orders to qualify as "covered domestic violence court orders" if notice and opportunity to be heard are provided "within the time required by State, tribal, or territorial law; and in any event within a reasonable time after the order is issued, sufficient to protect the due process rights of the person."
Section 3(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:This phrasing is standard legislative practice for balancing immediate action with constitutional rights, but its vagueness could lead to varied interpretations.
Case for: Proponents argue this language provides necessary flexibility for states to implement immediate protections while still ensuring eventual due process, which is crucial for victim safety during emergency situations.
Case against: Critics might argue that "reasonable time" is too vague and could lead to inconsistent application, potentially leaving individuals without a timely opportunity to defend themselves before their firearm rights are restricted.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the types of protective orders that trigger federal firearm prohibitions, impacting a larger number of individuals and potentially increasing immediate victim safety.
This provision strikes the language in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(C) that allowed firearm rights to be restored if a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction was expunged or set aside, or if the person was pardoned. This effectively makes the federal firearm prohibition for such convictions permanent.
Section 3(3)(C)
Why it matters:This is a technical amendment to existing law, but its impact is substantial and could be seen as an attempt to avoid drawing attention to the permanence of the prohibition.
Case for: Proponents argue that domestic violence is a serious offense, and individuals convicted of such crimes should permanently lose their firearm rights, regardless of subsequent expungement, to ensure long-term victim safety.
Case against: Opponents might argue that removing the expungement clause is retroactive and punitive, denying individuals a path to regain their rights even after fulfilling legal requirements to clear their record.
Estimated impact: Affects individuals with past or future misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, making their federal firearm prohibition permanent and irreversible through expungement.
The grant program requires state/tribal policies to mandate that individuals subject to a domestic violence protection order surrender all firearms and ammunition within 24 hours of being served, or have law enforcement remove them. It also requires filing a declaration of compliance with the court within 48 hours.
Section 6, SEC. 3063(a)(1)(C) and (F)
Why it matters:These are granular operational details necessary for the grant program's effectiveness, but their specific impact on individuals and law enforcement could be easily missed.
Case for: Proponents emphasize that rapid firearm removal is critical for preventing immediate violence, as the period immediately following the issuance of a protective order is often the most dangerous for victims.
Case against: Critics may argue that a 24-hour surrender/removal window is logistically challenging for both individuals and law enforcement, potentially leading to non-compliance or rushed, unsafe removals.
Estimated impact: Imposes strict and rapid compliance requirements on individuals subject to orders and significant logistical demands on law enforcement agencies participating in the grant program.