Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kaine, Tim [D-VA]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 16, 2026
Bottom line
The Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act of 2026 proposes a comprehensive federal overhaul of gun control laws, aiming to reduce gun violence through stricter sales regulations, expanded prohibitions, and new safety measures.
What it actually does
This bill significantly expands federal firearms regulations across five titles, including requiring universal background checks for private firearm transfers, limiting handgun purchases to one per 30 days, and regulating 'ghost guns' and 'assault weapons.' It establishes federal extreme risk protection order (ERPO) and domestic violence relinquishment grant programs for states, mandates reporting of lost or stolen firearms, and expands federal prohibitions on firearm possession for individuals convicted of misdemeanor stalking or hate crimes, or those subject to certain court orders. Additionally, it bans firearms in institutions of higher education and areas surrounding mental health facilities.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a critical step towards reducing gun violence by closing dangerous loopholes that allow firearms to fall into the wrong hands. They contend that universal background checks, bans on assault weapons and ghost guns, and extreme risk protection orders will save lives by preventing mass shootings, domestic violence fatalities, and accidental deaths. Supporters emphasize the importance of federal action to standardize gun safety measures across states and address the public health crisis of gun violence.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and would not effectively deter criminals, who will not comply with new regulations. They argue that provisions like universal background checks and assault weapon bans are overly broad, burdensome, and could lead to a de facto national gun registry. Concerns are also raised about potential due process violations within the extreme risk protection order framework and the broad definitions that could criminalize common firearm ownership.
The bill is 18 pages long and covers multiple complex policy areas. An informed reader would require adequate time to understand its full implications, especially given the technical nature of some amendments to existing federal law.
Sec. 101, Title I
Universal Background Checks for Firearm Transfers
This section makes it unlawful for any unlicensed person to transfer a firearm to another unlicensed person unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer first takes possession of the firearm and conducts a background check. Exceptions are provided for bona fide gifts or loans between immediate family members (spouses, domestic partners, parents/children, siblings, aunts/uncles/nieces/nephews, grandparents/grandchildren), temporary transfers for self-defense in imminent danger, or temporary transfers at shooting ranges or for hunting when the transferor is present.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision closes a significant loophole in federal law that allows individuals prohibited from owning firearms to acquire them through private sales without a background check. They believe it will reduce gun violence by keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and dangerous individuals.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision places an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, creating a de facto national gun registry and infringing on Second Amendment rights. They argue that criminals will not comply with such laws, and it will only inconvenience responsible gun owners.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the goal of enhancing public safety by preventing prohibited individuals from acquiring firearms against concerns about the burden on private citizens' right to bear arms and potential privacy implications of increased federal oversight of firearm transfers.
Sec. 102, Title I
Limitation on Multiple Handgun Purchases
This section makes it unlawful for an unlicensed person to purchase more than one handgun in a 30-day period. Exceptions are provided for individuals with an enhanced background check certificate from their state, law enforcement, military personnel, correctional facilities, licensed private security companies, and purchases of antique firearms or curios/relics by licensed collectors.
Sec. 103, Title I
Regulation of 'Ghost Guns' and Undetectable Firearms
This section amends federal law to prohibit the manufacture, import, sale, possession, or transfer of firearms that are not detectable by metal detectors or X-ray machines after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines. It also makes it unlawful to knowingly possess, import, purchase, sell, or transfer any completed or unfinished frame or receiver that is not imprinted with a valid serial number, effectively requiring serialization for all firearm components that can become a firearm.
Sec. 104, Title I
Prohibition and Regulation of 'Assault Weapons'
This section defines 'assault weapon' based on specific characteristics (e.g., semi-automatic center-fire rifles/pistols with fixed magazines over 15 rounds or detachable magazines and certain features like folding stocks, pistol grips, threaded barrels; certain semi-automatic shotguns). It then prohibits the sale, manufacture, or possession of these defined 'assault weapons' and enhances penalties for their use in violent crimes. It also prohibits individuals under 18 from possessing assault weapons, with exceptions for supervised activities like hunting or training, or possession at home with parental consent.
Sec. 202, Title II
Extreme Risk Protection Order Grant Program
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Department of Justice, to assist states and Indian Tribes in implementing extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws. Funds can be used for personnel, training, technical assistance, data collection, developing protocols for firearm removal and storage, and raising public awareness. States that enact ERPO legislation consistent with the bill's requirements receive affirmative preference for other discretionary grants.
Sec. 203, Title II
National Extreme Risk Protection Order Law Requirements
This section outlines the requirements for state or tribal ERPO legislation to be eligible for federal grants. Key requirements include: allowing petitioners (including law enforcement) to apply for orders, providing notice and an opportunity to be heard for the named individual, issuing orders based on a preponderance of evidence of danger, allowing ex parte orders for imminent danger (up to 30 days), requiring surrender or removal of firearms, secure storage of removed firearms, and notification to the Department of Justice for NICS updates. It also includes confidentiality protections and provisions for minors.
Sec. 204, Title II
Federal Firearms Prohibition for Individuals Subject to ERPOs
This section amends federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g)) to prohibit individuals subject to a court order that prohibits firearm possession (such as an extreme risk protection order) from receiving or possessing firearms. The prohibition applies if the order was issued consistent with due process rights and based on a finding that the person poses a danger of causing harm to themselves or others by having access to a firearm. This ensures that ERPOs issued under state or tribal law trigger a federal firearm prohibition.
Sec. 301, Title III
Mandatory Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms
This section makes it unlawful for a person to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm to an appropriate state or local law enforcement agency within 48 hours of discovering the loss or theft. Individuals who report in good faith are generally protected from liability for subsequent acts, unless they knowingly report a false loss/theft or stored the firearm recklessly or negligently. States and local agencies are also required to report lost or stolen firearms to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
Sec. 302, Title III
Prohibiting Reckless Access to Firearms by Minors
This section makes it unlawful for a person to recklessly leave a loaded and unsecured firearm in a manner that endangers the life or limb of a person under 18 years of age. Exceptions apply if the firearm is secured with a safety device, in a location a reasonable person would believe to be secure, or carried on the person or in close proximity for ready retrieval. Violations carry a penalty of up to 1 year imprisonment, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.
Sec. 303, Title III
Prohibiting Stalkers and Individuals Subject to Court Orders from Possessing Firearms
This section expands federal firearm prohibitions (18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g)) to include individuals convicted of a misdemeanor crime of stalking. It also clarifies and strengthens the existing prohibition for individuals subject to certain domestic violence protective orders, ensuring that orders issued after a hearing (or ex parte with due process protections) that restrain harassment, stalking, or threats against an intimate partner or child, and include a finding of credible threat or explicitly prohibit physical force, trigger the federal prohibition.
Sec. 304, Title III
Caregiver Liability for Child's Firearm Possession in High-Risk Situations
This section makes it unlawful for a parent, guardian, or other caregiver (over 18) to willfully cause or enable a child under 18 to gain possession of a firearm if the caregiver has been notified that the child poses a risk of violence (by a welfare agency, mental health provider, or educational institution) or if the caregiver knows the child has pending charges/convictions for a violent felony or has been court-determined to pose a risk of harm. An affirmative defense exists if the caregiver enabled possession in a dwelling due to a reasonable belief of imminent danger. Violations carry a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment and/or a fine.
Sec. 402, Title IV
Domestic Violence Relinquishment Grant Program
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Department of Justice, to assist states and Indian Tribes in implementing domestic violence firearm relinquishment laws. Funds can be used to enhance the capacity of law enforcement and courts, develop protocols for firearm removal and storage, and provide training. States that enact relinquishment legislation consistent with the bill's requirements receive affirmative preference for other discretionary grants.
Sec. 403, Title IV
National Domestic Violence Relinquishment Requirements
This section outlines the requirements for state or tribal domestic violence relinquishment legislation to be eligible for federal grants. Key requirements include: mandating that individuals prohibited from possessing firearms due to domestic violence (under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8) or (9)) surrender their firearms to law enforcement or transfer them to a nonprohibited person; ensuring law enforcement removes firearms if not surrendered; establishing confirmation processes for relinquishment; and secure storage of removed firearms. It also includes confidentiality protections.
Sec. 501, Title V
Ban on Firearms in Institutions of Higher Education and Mental Healthcare Facility Zones
This section makes it unlawful to knowingly possess a firearm in or on the grounds of an institution of higher education or within a 'mental healthcare facility zone' (defined as in/on the grounds of, or within 1,000 feet of, a mental healthcare facility). Exceptions include private property not part of the institution/facility, licensed individuals (if state law requires background checks for license), unloaded firearms in locked containers/racks in vehicles, use in approved programs, by contract personnel, by law enforcement, or when traversing premises for hunting if authorized.
Sec. 502, Title V
Disqualification from Possessing Firearms for Misdemeanor Hate Crimes
This section amends federal firearm prohibitions (18 U.S.C. 922(d) and (g)) to include individuals convicted of a 'misdemeanor hate crime.' A misdemeanor hate crime is defined as a misdemeanor offense involving the use or attempted use of physical force, threatened use of a deadly weapon, or another credible threat to physical safety, where the conduct was motivated by the victim's actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. The prohibition applies if the conviction was consistent with due process rights.
Regulations promulgated under the universal background check provision may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers.
Sec. 101(aa)(3)(D)
Why it matters:This could be standard legislative practice to avoid micromanaging administrative details, or it could be a deliberate choice to allow market forces (or lack thereof) to determine fees, potentially making transfers more expensive for individuals.
Case for: Allows licensed dealers to set their own fees, ensuring they are adequately compensated for their time and resources in facilitating transfers, which could encourage participation in the system.
Case against: Without a fee cap, licensed dealers could charge exorbitant fees, creating a financial barrier to universal background checks and disproportionately affecting lower-income individuals, potentially undermining the intent of the universal background check requirement.
Estimated impact: Could significantly impact the accessibility and cost of private firearm transfers, potentially creating an economic barrier for some individuals.
A person who violates the prohibition on possession of assault weapons by individuals under 18 shall be fined not more than $2,500, imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.
Sec. 104(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting practice to consolidate penalties in a single section of the U.S. Code. However, it means the significant penalty for minors possessing assault weapons is not immediately apparent when reading the prohibition.
Case for: Provides a clear deterrent and consequence for minors who illegally possess assault weapons, reinforcing the seriousness of the prohibition and aiming to reduce youth access to these firearms.
Case against: Critics might argue that a federal criminal penalty, including potential imprisonment, for a minor's possession of a firearm (even an 'assault weapon') could be overly harsh and lead to disproportionate impacts on youth, particularly if the possession is not associated with violent intent.
Estimated impact: Could lead to federal criminal charges and incarceration for minors, which is a significant escalation from typical juvenile justice interventions for similar offenses in some jurisdictions.
States and local law enforcement agencies receiving certain federal grants (under Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) must use not less than 5 percent of their grant award to study and implement effective management and collection of data relating to lost or stolen firearms, unless certified as already in substantial compliance with reporting requirements.
Sec. 301(c)(2)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to create an incentive or soft mandate for states/localities to comply with federal policy goals without issuing a direct, potentially unfunded, mandate on all entities. It leverages existing funding streams.
Case for: Ensures that federal funds are used to improve data collection on lost/stolen firearms, which is crucial for law enforcement and public safety, and incentivizes states to comply with the new reporting requirements.
Case against: Could be seen as a federal overreach into state and local budgeting decisions, potentially diverting funds from other critical law enforcement priorities if agencies are forced to spend 5% on this specific area, even if they have other pressing needs.
Estimated impact: Could lead to improved data collection and management for lost/stolen firearms nationwide, but also imposes a specific spending requirement on grant recipients.