Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 30, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to close perceived loopholes in federal law to prevent more domestic abusers, including dating partners and those subject to temporary protective orders, from possessing or purchasing firearms, and provides funding for firearm removal programs.
What it actually does
This bill expands federal firearm prohibitions for domestic abusers by broadening the definitions of "intimate partner" and "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to include dating partners and ex parte protective orders. It also establishes a grant program to help states and tribes implement policies for the removal of firearms from individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders, including strict 24-hour surrender or removal requirements.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is a critical step to enhance the safety of domestic violence victims, citing statistics that show a significant reduction in intimate partner homicides in states that have implemented similar expanded firearm restrictions. They emphasize that current federal law leaves dangerous loopholes, particularly for dating partners and during the vulnerable period when emergency protective orders are issued.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding firearm prohibitions based on ex parte orders or to dating partners could infringe on Second Amendment rights without sufficient due process. They may also raise concerns about the practical challenges and potential for abuse in implementing firearm removal mandates, particularly regarding the definition of "dating partner" and the process for surrendering or removing firearms.
The bill is moderately complex due to legal definitions and program details, but its length makes it accessible for an informed reader to review within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 3(1), amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a)
Defines "Covered Domestic Violence Court Order"
This provision creates a new definition for "covered domestic violence court order." It includes orders issued after a hearing with notice and opportunity to participate, as well as ex parte (emergency) orders, provided due process is ensured within a reasonable time. These orders must restrain harassment, stalking, or threats, or prohibit physical force, and include a finding of credible threat or explicit prohibition of violence. This expansion means more types of protective orders will trigger federal firearm prohibitions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this closes a critical loophole by ensuring that emergency protective orders, which are often issued during the most dangerous period for victims, trigger firearm prohibitions. They emphasize the due process protections built into the definition.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that including ex parte orders, even with subsequent due process, could lead to temporary firearm prohibitions without a full adversarial hearing, potentially infringing on Second Amendment rights based on preliminary findings.
Tradeoffs
Balances the immediate safety needs of domestic violence victims with the due process rights of individuals subject to ex parte orders.
Section 3(2), amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(32)
Expands Definition of "Intimate Partner"
This provision expands the definition of "intimate partner" to include dating partners (current and former) and any other person similarly situated who is protected by state, local, or tribal domestic or family violence laws in the jurisdiction where the protective order was issued or the protected party resides. This significantly broadens the scope of relationships covered by federal firearm prohibitions.
Section 3(3), amending 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)
Expands Definition of "Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence"
This provision modifies the definition of "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to include offenses involving stalking and to explicitly cover situations where the victim is a dating partner or the child of a dating partner. It also removes a previous exception related to restoration of firearms rights. This means individuals convicted of misdemeanor stalking against an intimate partner, including dating partners, would be federally prohibited from possessing firearms.
Section 4, amending 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(8)
Prohibits Sale of Firearms to Individuals with Covered Domestic Violence Court Orders
This provision amends federal law to prohibit the sale or transfer of firearms to any individual who is subject to a "covered domestic violence court order," as newly defined in Section 3. This directly links the expanded definition of protective orders to the prohibition on firearm sales, ensuring that individuals subject to these orders cannot legally purchase new firearms.
Section 5, amending 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8)
Prohibits Possession or Receipt of Firearms by Individuals with Covered Domestic Violence Court Orders
This provision amends federal law to prohibit any individual subject to a "covered domestic violence court order" from possessing or receiving a firearm or ammunition. This means that individuals already owning firearms would be required to surrender them if they become subject to such an order, significantly enhancing victim safety by removing existing firearms from abusers.
Section 6, adding Part PP to Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
Establishes Grant Program for Firearm Removal from Adjudicated Domestic Violence Parties
This section establishes a grant program, administered by the Office on Violence Against Women, to assist states, Indian tribes, and local governments in implementing policies and procedures for the removal of firearms and ammunition from individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders. It outlines eligibility criteria, allowable uses of funds (including storage and partnering with victim service providers), and specific requirements for state/tribal policies, such as mandatory surrender or removal within 24 hours and court notification.
Specifies that ex parte orders, to be considered "covered domestic violence court orders," must provide notice and opportunity to be heard within the time required by state, tribal, or territorial law, and in any event, within a reasonable time sufficient to protect due process rights.
Section 3(1)(A)(ii)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to include due process safeguards within definitions, but its specific wording is crucial for the legality of applying firearm prohibitions to temporary orders.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is vital for ensuring the constitutionality of the bill's expanded firearm prohibitions, particularly concerning ex parte orders, by explicitly mandating due process.
Case against: Critics might still argue that "reasonable time" is open to interpretation and that temporary firearm removal based on an ex parte order, even with subsequent due process, is problematic.
Estimated impact: Ensures that the expanded firearm prohibitions for ex parte orders are legally defensible and respect constitutional rights, affecting all individuals subject to such orders.
To be eligible for grants, states/tribes must have policies requiring individuals subject to a domestic violence protection order to surrender firearms within 24 hours, or for law enforcement to remove them within 24 hours.
Section 6, specifically new 34 U.S.C. 3063(a)(1)(C)
Why it matters:It's a critical operational detail that dictates the urgency and logistical demands of the grant program, rather than a broad policy statement.
Case for: Proponents argue that immediate removal is paramount for victim safety, as the period immediately following the issuance of a protective order is often the most dangerous.
Case against: Opponents might argue that a 24-hour window is logistically challenging for both individuals and law enforcement, potentially leading to non-compliance or rushed, error-prone removals, especially in rural areas or for individuals with multiple firearms.
Estimated impact: Significantly increases the operational burden and urgency for law enforcement and courts in grant-receiving jurisdictions, directly impacting the speed of firearm removal.