Current News

Where Virginia’s Gun Laws Stand Today (with Cam Edwards)

My Right To Carry News Team

April 27, 2026

Virginia’s latest push to tighten gun policy has reached the point where the only move left is the governor’s. The General Assembly has wrapped up its work on the final gun-bill language, and now Gov. Abigail Spanberger is weighing whether to sign the measures as delivered or reject them with a veto.

The immediate question is what to make of the legislature’s response to the governor’s requested edits. Lawmakers adopted seven of Spanberger’s recommended changes to the bills they passed. But they declined two of the changes she treated as the biggest priorities, including a major revision she sought for the “assault firearms” ban. Because those changes didn’t make it into the final versions, Spanberger is now staring at a straightforward decision: approve the original language that landed on her desk or stop the bills altogether.

To track what happens next, I’ve been following the discussion with Virginia-based gun commentator Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms, who’s been watching the personalities and the politics as closely as the policy details. Edwards’ read is that friction between the governor’s office and legislative leadership likely helped shape the decision to dismiss her proposed edits. Even so, he doesn’t think irritation between the branches is enough to make a veto the most likely outcome for either bill.

What’s not really in dispute is the scale of what’s being considered. Edwards agrees that the package, taken as a whole, ranks among the most far-reaching set of state-level gun restrictions enacted in at least a decade. That matters for more than just the legal text. In his view, the breadth of the proposals could weigh on Spanberger and fellow Democrats politically, potentially giving Republicans room to run stronger than expected in next year’s elections.

At the same time, he cautions against assuming the fight ends with one signature or one veto. Edwards sees a plausible scenario where, regardless of how this round is resolved, lawmakers could return before the next election and pursue even stricter limits—essentially revisiting the issue with an even heavier hand.

In the near term, Edwards expects the center of gravity to shift quickly from the Capitol to the courthouse. He believes much of the immediate action around these bills will be driven by litigation, as opponents look for ways to block or narrow the laws if they take effect. But he also points out that court challenges aren’t guaranteed victories for gun-rights groups, especially given the obstacles they can face in federal court.

So the next steps are clear: with the legislature finished and the governor holding the pen, Virginia is in a short window where the outcome hinges on Spanberger’s final call—followed, quite possibly, by a new phase of political and legal conflict depending on what she decides.
New York Bill Would Restrict BB and Pellet Guns

My Right To Carry News Team

April 26, 2026

Albany is weighing a pair of bills that would change how BB guns, pellet guns, and air rifles are treated under New York law—and the next steps in the Capitol will determine whether these common recreational items become regulated like non-firing replicas.

Right now, the proposal is moving through the State Legislature under two companion measures: A10701 in the Assembly and S9215 in the Senate. Both bills target a single, high-impact change: expanding the state’s definition of an “imitation weapon” so it would also cover functional air guns, including BB guns, pellet guns, and air rifles.

That definitional shift matters because New York’s current rules for “imitation weapons” weren’t built for devices that actually fire a projectile. Under existing law, an imitation weapon is something designed to resemble a real firearm but that is not a firearm. To be sold legally, products in that category must meet five requirements: they must be made from transparent or brightly colored material, they must display the manufacturer’s name, they cannot include a laser pointer, and—most crucially—the barrel has to be sealed with a plug at least one-half inch deep.

If BB and pellet guns are reclassified into that category, retailers would be pushed into an immediate compliance problem. A functional air gun depends on an open barrel to operate; a mandated plug would block it. In practical terms, stores could only sell versions that have been rendered incapable of firing—turning what is typically purchased for target practice, basic shooting-safety familiarity, and pest control into an inert look-alike.

For current owners, the bills are aimed at sales and classification rather than announcing a direct confiscation in the details available here, but the ripple effects could still be substantial. If the market shifts to “imitation weapon”-compliant designs, replacement options, parts availability, and future purchases in New York could narrow sharply. The biggest day-to-day consequence would land on anyone who expects to buy a working air rifle or BB gun in-state going forward.

The bills also reach beyond product design by changing who counts as part of the regulated industry. The proposal would treat manufacturers of these air guns as “gun industry members.” That matters because it would expose them to New York’s nuisance-law framework, creating a path for civil lawsuits similar to those faced by manufacturers of traditional firearms. Supporters frame that as accountability; opponents argue it could make the New York market unattractive enough that manufacturers simply stop selling there.

There’s also active discussion of revisions. An amendment has been floated that focuses in part on paint pellet guns, but it would add its own set of practical changes: raising the minimum purchase age from 16 to 18 and increasing penalties for violations by a factor of two. Whether that amendment advances, and how it’s ultimately written, will shape what retailers must check at the counter and what compliance would look like for stores that currently sell these products.

For now, the immediate path is straightforward but consequential: A10701 and S9215 must continue through the normal Albany process—committee consideration, floor action in each chamber, and then alignment between the Assembly and Senate versions before anything could reach the governor. Until that happens, nothing changes on store shelves. But if the reclassification becomes law, the plugged-barrel requirement alone would likely redefine what “legal to sell” means for BB guns, pellet guns, and air rifles across New York.

Safety reminder as this debate plays out: treat every firearm and air gun as though it’s loaded, and never point one at anything you are not willing to destroy—air rifles and BB guns can still cause serious injury.
Analysis of the Debate Over “Ghost Gun” Bans

My Right To Carry News Team

April 26, 2026

The legal fight over state “ghost gun” bans is moving again, and a fresh decision out of the Tenth Circuit is already changing the playbook for how these laws get defended after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

This week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a split decision in NAGR v. Polis, a case challenging Colorado’s restrictions on firearms, frames, and receivers that lack serial numbers. The plaintiffs, led by the National Association for Gun Rights, were appealing a district court ruling from May 2024 that refused to temporarily block Colorado’s law while the lawsuit proceeds.

Colorado still gets to keep its statute in force for now. But the panel did something that matters well beyond this one dispute: it rejected a common argument lower courts have been using to avoid Bruen’s history-and-tradition test—especially when a law touches the act of possessing a firearm.

The district court had treated Colorado’s possession prohibition as if it were basically a sales rule, reasoning that it operated like a “condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms.” Under that framing, the judge concluded the possession restriction didn’t even fall within the Second Amendment’s text, sidestepping Bruen’s requirement to justify gun regulations through historical analogues.

The Tenth Circuit refused to go along. Writing for the majority, Judge Joel Carson said the possession ban regulates possession of an unserialized firearm or frame regardless of how it was acquired. The panel’s point was straightforward: calling a possession ban a “commercial regulation” doesn’t make it one, and the Second Amendment’s protection of keeping arms can’t be analyzed away by re-labeling the restriction as something about prior transactions.

That holding directly undercuts the “commercial regulation” workaround that has become increasingly popular in post-Bruen litigation. Courts have leaned on it most often to sustain rules like waiting periods and some background-check-related requirements by describing them as regulating acquisition rather than the “keeping” and “bearing” of arms. Whatever the ultimate fate of those other laws, the Tenth Circuit’s message here is clear: once a statute criminalizes or prohibits possession itself, the analysis can’t be dodged by pretending it’s only about commerce.

The panel also revived key parts of the challenge to Colorado’s purchasing restrictions for unserialized parts and kits. The district court had dismissed that portion as premature, saying the plaintiffs weren’t facing a distinct harm because federal rules—specifically the ATF’s “unfinished frames and receivers” final rule—covered the same conduct anyway. In other words, the lower court treated federal regulation as making Colorado’s ban irrelevant for purposes of the lawsuit.

The Tenth Circuit disagreed. Judge Carson explained that the ATF’s rule does block some transactions involving unserialized parts kits, but it doesn’t sweep as broadly as Colorado’s statute. One major difference the panel highlighted is that the ATF rule does not apply to private individuals in the way Colorado’s law does. So if the plaintiffs want to buy from private sellers, Colorado’s statute creates an additional, separate legal injury that a court ruling could actually remedy.

Because of that, the appeals court sent the case back to the district court with instructions to take another look at the request to block enforcement—this time with the correct understanding of both the possession ban and the acquisition ban.

That remand was the extent of the immediate wins for the challengers. On the manufacturing side of Colorado’s law, the panel adopted a narrow interpretation of what counts as “manufacturing” under the statute—an interpretation that effectively removed the plaintiffs’ intended conduct from the scope of the provision they were attacking.

The plaintiffs said they planned to build privately made firearms from parts kits by turning unfinished frames or receivers into finished ones. The court framed the core question as whether finishing an unfinished frame or receiver is “manufacturing” under Colorado law. The state compared the process to assembling a model airplane from a kit, arguing that ordinary usage wouldn’t label assembly as manufacturing.

The panel found support for the state’s interpretation in how the statute described related concepts. Judge Carson pointed to the law’s definition of a 3D printer as a “manufacturing device” that produces an object through an additive process. By contrast, the statute described the process at issue—taking an unfinished frame to a finished one—as “completing,” “assembling,” or “converting,” rather than “producing” it through a manufacturing process.

Based on that textual context, the Tenth Circuit concluded the manufacturing ban targets making frames or receivers from raw materials, not finishing or assembling an already-manufactured unfinished frame into a completed one. With that reading in place, the panel dismissed the plaintiffs’ manufacturing-ban challenge because, as interpreted, the law didn’t prohibit what they said they wanted to do.

So where does that leave the broader debate over ghost gun bans?

Right now, Colorado’s entire framework remains on the books while the district court re-evaluates the surviving claims. It’s also impossible to predict how the lower court will apply the full Second Amendment framework once it returns to the merits.

But the direction from the Tenth Circuit reshapes how these disputes are likely to be argued, especially under Bruen. The panel’s opinion signals that a possession restriction—particularly one that applies no matter how an item was obtained—must be treated as a direct burden on the right to keep arms, not smuggled into a “commercial sales regulation” category to avoid constitutional scrutiny. And by rejecting the idea that the ATF’s separate regulatory regime makes state acquisition bans unchallengeable, the ruling keeps state laws from being insulated simply because federal rules touch some of the same territory.

In practical terms, the court didn’t strike down Colorado’s ghost gun law. What it did do is remove a convenient escape hatch. For states defending ghost gun bans that reach possession, the Tenth Circuit has made the path narrower: if the law regulates possession, courts in this circuit will have to confront the Second Amendment question head-on, with Bruen’s historical-analogue analysis in view rather than parked off to the side.
Tennessee’s New Law on Using Deadly Force to Protect Property

My Right To Carry News Team

April 25, 2026

NASHVILLE, TN — Tennessee lawmakers are moving a major change in self-defense law toward the governor’s desk, and it’s already reshaping how people think about property crimes like burglary, robbery, and arson.

As the bill heads for final approval, the practical question isn’t just “Can you use deadly force to protect property?” It’s what the legislation actually adds to existing Tennessee law—and how police and prosecutors are likely to treat a real-world call where someone says they shot to stop a property crime.

What the bill changes is the set of situations where deadly force can be legally justified. Traditionally, self-defense rules in most states—including Tennessee’s general approach—follow proportionality: lethal force is usually reserved for moments when a person reasonably believes they face imminent death or serious bodily injury. Under that standard, a gun can’t lawfully be used as a tool to settle a minor physical confrontation or to stop a theft when the threat is only to belongings.

This legislation pushes Tennessee away from that narrow framework by expanding when lethal force may be justified during certain property-related felonies. In effect, it widens the state’s Castle Doctrine concept—commonly understood as the right to defend the home—so that certain property-crime scenarios are treated more like home-defense situations than like ordinary theft or trespass.

Supporters say the change is meant for law-abiding residents who feel current rules force them to pause while criminals damage or take things they’ve spent years building. During the floor debate, Republican state Rep. Kip Capley argued that, under the current legal expectations, people are effectively told to hold back while someone breaks in, steals, or destroys their property.

Opponents argue the shift is a step in the wrong direction because it risks elevating property to the level of human life in legal decision-making. Democratic state Rep. Justin Pearson framed the concern in moral and practical terms, saying people are taught not to kill over property because property loss is not the same as putting an innocent life at risk. From that viewpoint, expanding legal justification could lower the bar for bringing a firearm into situations that might otherwise end without someone being shot.

How would this play out when a 911 call comes in? Even with expanded legal protections, police and prosecutors still have to evaluate the same core issues they always do in a shooting investigation: what crime was occurring, what the shooter believed was happening, whether that belief was reasonable, and whether the force used matched the circumstances allowed by law. The bill may widen the category of incidents where a defense can be raised, but it doesn’t convert every property dispute into an automatic “good shoot.”

That’s why the safest way to understand the change is this: it may give more people a legal argument after the fact, but it won’t eliminate investigation, scrutiny, or the possibility of arrest and prosecution when facts are unclear or contested. A defender’s statements, surveillance video, witness accounts, and physical evidence will still drive how the case is handled.

Because the bill is still awaiting the governor’s signature, organizations such as the U.S. Concealed Carry Association say they are preparing to educate members on what the update means in practice. That education matters, because the gap between what people assume the law says and what law enforcement applies at the scene is often where legal trouble begins.

One point remains true regardless of political side: Tennessee is not turning anyone’s home—or property—into a “free fire” zone. Using deadly force can still bring life-changing legal and financial consequences, even when criminal charges are not filed. If this bill becomes law, the smartest approach for gun owners is to learn the exact boundaries it creates, understand how those boundaries interact with existing self-defense standards, and recognize that every defensive shooting will be judged on the details.
Trump Administration Reschedules Marijuana, Says It Won’t Affect Supreme Court Gun and Cannabis Case

My Right To Carry News Team

April 25, 2026

The Justice Department is taking a meaningful step toward easing federal marijuana controls, but it’s also making clear that the change does not automatically translate into near-term relief for marijuana users who possess firearms—especially in the Supreme Court fight now pending in US v. Hemani.

On Thursday, DOJ issued a final order that moves marijuana to a less restrictive status under the federal scheduling system and expands the set of circumstances in which marijuana-related products can be used lawfully. At the same time, Solicitor General John Sauer notified the Supreme Court that, in the administration’s view, the new scheduling decision should not alter how the justices resolve Hemani’s challenge to the federal ban on gun possession by certain drug users.

Sauer’s message to the Court is straightforward: the government does not believe the rescheduling order changes the legal questions in Hemani in a way that requires a different outcome. The case involves a man charged after agents recovered a firearm from his home and he acknowledged using marijuana multiple times per week. DOJ is continuing to defend its ability to enforce the gun prohibition in at least some marijuana-related scenarios.

What the new DOJ order does—and what it does not do—matters for anyone trying to understand how enforcement may look in the months ahead.

The order relaxes restrictions, but it does not create blanket federal legalization. Instead, DOJ describes the change as applying broadly to marijuana and marijuana derivatives regulated under the Controlled Substances Act, including marijuana extracts and delta‑9‑tetrahydrocannabinol, as well as other marijuana-plant-derived compounds (excluding mature stalks and seeds) that are not considered hemp. Critically, DOJ ties the practical scope of the order to specific channels: the marijuana-related substances must be part of an FDA-approved drug product or must fall under a state-issued license that authorizes manufacturing, distribution, or dispensing for medical purposes (a “state medical marijuana license”). The order also places those drugs onto the list of substances that can be imported or exported only with a permit.

From an enforcement perspective, this structure suggests a potential narrowing of the highest-risk category of federal scrutiny for certain medical use pathways. It also hints at how the administration may want to draw lines between medical and recreational use when deciding where to direct resources. But the rescheduling action still leaves major constraints in place for gun owners.

The main reason is that the federal firearms prohibition at issue—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—does not hinge on whether marijuana is placed in Schedule I or Schedule III. The statute bars gun and ammunition possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” It does not distinguish between drugs across schedules, and it does not include an exception simply because a state has legalized marijuana. The relevant federal question is whether the substance remains federally controlled and whether the individual’s use is unlawful under federal law.

That’s why the administration can simultaneously ease certain federal marijuana rules and still argue that § 922(g)(3) remains enforceable against some marijuana users who have firearms.

The reaction from gun-rights advocates has been optimistic. Some activists are treating the scheduling move as a practical shield for gun owners who use medical marijuana consistent with state law, predicting fewer prosecutions and less fear of being categorized as a prohibited person.

The firearm industry, however, is signaling caution. When President Donald Trump floated the rescheduling plan late last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation advised members not to change how they handle firearm sales based on the proposal—at least not until the legal and regulatory picture became clearer. The group’s compliance messaging stressed that marijuana users can still be treated as prohibited persons under § 922(g)(3), that state legalization does not change the federal analysis, and that possession of a state medical marijuana card should be viewed as evidence of unlawful use for purposes of the gun-ban statute.

DOJ’s Supreme Court filing in Hemani reinforces that the government is not backing away from the prosecution posture in that case. Sauer’s letter emphasizes two reasons the final order should not disrupt Hemani.

First, the government points to timing: in its view, Hemani’s criminal exposure depends on the law in effect when the alleged offense occurred, not on later regulatory changes. At the time of the charged conduct, marijuana remained a Schedule I substance.

Second, Sauer argues that even under the new final order, Hemani’s marijuana use would not be covered by the rescheduling’s practical carve-outs because the marijuana involved was not part of an FDA-approved product and was not within a state medical marijuana licensing framework. Under that understanding, the government maintains that Hemani’s conduct would still fall on the Schedule I side of the line anyway.

The Supreme Court’s questioning at oral argument last month suggests that several justices are not entirely comfortable with the government’s theory—particularly the suggestion that ordinary marijuana use reliably maps onto dangerousness in a way that justifies disarmament. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s questioning captured the issue directly by pressing for evidence that using marijuana a couple of times per week makes someone dangerous, and by probing whether the government’s logic would extend to unlawful use of other prescription drugs such as Ambien or Xanax.

In his follow-up to the Court, Sauer also floated a potential off-ramp for the justices: if they want to avoid addressing how § 922(g)(3) applies to medical marijuana in a post-rescheduling world, they could craft a narrower decision focused only on Schedule I marijuana and leave the constitutionality of the statute as applied to Schedule III marijuana for another case.

For now, the operational takeaway is that DOJ’s rescheduling order may open additional lawful avenues for marijuana-related products in specific regulated settings, and it may change the political and practical context for some future enforcement decisions. But it does not, by itself, rewrite § 922(g)(3), nor does it persuade the administration to abandon its defense of that statute in US v. Hemani. Gun owners who use marijuana—especially outside FDA-approved channels or state medical licensing—should assume federal risk remains until courts or Congress change the underlying firearms law.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its Hemani decision by the end of June.
Virginia Gun Control Bill Nears Final Form After Legislature Rejects Governor’s Key Change

My Right To Carry News Team

April 24, 2026

Virginia’s gun-control package is now close to its endgame after lawmakers turned aside several of Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s most consequential requested edits, a decision that narrows what will change immediately and clarifies what still hinges on her next move.

The turning point came Wednesday, when the Democratically controlled Senate and House of Delegates voted on multiple recommendations Spanberger sent back to them. Virginia’s process gives the governor unusual leverage at this late stage, allowing her to propose alterations after bills have already cleared the General Assembly. This week’s votes show that leverage has limits when the legislature isn’t willing to expand a bill beyond what it originally passed.

The biggest practical effect of the rejection involves ammunition magazines. Spanberger had pushed for a tighter approach that would have functioned as a carry ban on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Lawmakers declined to adopt that change, meaning the final version won’t include that added restriction she sought.

Legislators also refused another significant request tied to the new ban on guns in mental health hospitals. The governor wanted to remove an exception included by the legislature, but the House and Senate voted against stripping it out. As a result, the exception remains part of the bill that’s heading back to the executive branch.

Even with the governor’s preferred expansions blocked, the overall scope of Virginia’s 2026 gun policy changes remains large. As of this week, 11 new gun-control bills have already completed the legislative process to the point that they’ve “made it across the finish line,” though two of the most far-reaching measures are still, at least technically, unresolved.

Now, the measures lawmakers declined to amend return to Spanberger’s desk. From here, she has three options on each bill: sign it, veto it, or do nothing and allow it to become law without her signature. Those choices will determine not only which restrictions take effect, but also how quickly Virginia’s new rules solidify after a session that’s already produced the state’s biggest shift in gun policy in a long time.
Update on the Status of Virginia’s Gun-Control Legislation

My Right To Carry News Team

April 24, 2026

Virginia’s legislative calendar is quickly approaching the end of the line, and gun policy has been one of the biggest areas of movement in the Commonwealth this year. Over the past few weeks, Gov. Abigail Spanberger has already signed several gun-control measures, and lawmakers have also just wrapped action on a separate set of recommendations she sent back to them for changes.

As of now, the picture is mixed: a number of bills are already in effect as law, several more are finalized because the legislature accepted the governor’s revisions, and a small but important group is back on her desk in a holding pattern—awaiting a signature, a veto, or inaction that would allow them to take effect.

Here’s where things stand as the session nears its conclusion, with a focus on which bills are now law and which are still pending final action from the governor.

Now back on the governor’s desk: still awaiting signature, veto, or no action

HB217 and SB749: “Assault firearm” sales/transfer ban, but with a key definition fight unresolved
These companion bills are designed to prohibit future sales and transfers of firearms categorized as “assault firearms.” Gov. Spanberger asked the General Assembly to broaden the initial “assault firearm” definition in a way that would have widened the reach of the restrictions. Lawmakers in both chambers declined to adopt that change and formally chose to “pass by” the bills.

That decision blocks the governor’s attempt to use the definition change as an indirect way to restrict carrying firearms with magazines over 15 rounds. Because lawmakers did not take up her recommended language, the legislation returns to the governor without the expansion she sought.

What happens next is entirely up to Spanberger. She can sign the bills as written, veto them, or take no action and allow them to become law. That keeps the session’s most prominent firearms proposal from being fully settled yet, even though a full collapse appears unlikely given Spanberger’s long-standing support for banning AR-15-style rifle sales and restricting “high-capacity” magazines. In her message to legislators, she indicated support for the bills’ overall intent even while pushing for changes. She has 30 days to decide.

HB229 and SB143: Firearm restrictions at mental health treatment facilities, with an exception preserved
HB229 (with its related measure SB143) addresses carrying firearms at facilities that provide mental health treatment. The governor asked lawmakers to go further by eliminating an exception that permits staff or security to carry if they have administrative approval.

The General Assembly again used the “pass by” route, which effectively rejects her requested revision. As a result, the version headed back to Spanberger still includes an option for people to carry with written permission from the facility.

Just like HB217 and SB749, HB229 now sits in a decision window: signature, veto, or no action within 30 days. Spanberger again signaled support for the bill’s basic goal, but she must decide whether the legislature’s refusal to tighten it further is enough to justify blocking it.

Now law: bills that became law after lawmakers accepted the governor’s revisions

HB1524 and SB727: Ban on carrying “assault firearms” in broad public spaces
Lawmakers agreed to the governor’s requested adjustments to HB1524 and SB727, which prohibit the carrying of “assault firearms.” The change itself was largely technical, tying the carry definition back to the definition used in the pending sales/transfer ban.

Even with that definitional link, the practical effect of the carry restriction is significant. The law bars civilians from having covered firearms “on or about” their person in a wide range of places, including public streets and sidewalks, as well as public parks. With the legislature approving the governor’s recommendation, these measures have moved into the category of enacted law.

HB1525: Handgun purchase ban for 18-to-20-year-olds, enacted as emergency legislation with immediate effect
HB1525 prevents adults aged 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns. At the governor’s request, the legislature converted it into emergency legislation, which makes it effective immediately rather than waiting for the typical July 1 start date used for most new laws.

Virginia’s constitution generally requires a four-fifths vote in each chamber for emergency legislation. In this case, the emergency clause was inserted through the governor’s recommendation process—an uncommon tactic but one that prior governors, including Republican Glenn Youngkin, have used.

The bill is aimed at responding to a court decision from last year that struck down Virginia’s universal background check law. The ruling focused on the fact that the federal background check system will not process handgun checks for people under 21, leaving 18-to-20-year-olds with no workable path to complete a legal handgun purchase under the state’s background-check framework. This new law attempts to address that by banning handgun purchases for that age group outright, though it remains uncertain whether this approach resolves the legal concerns identified in the ruling. Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America—plaintiffs in the earlier case—have already warned the Virginia State Police not to enforce the new statute, arguing that enforcement would conflict with the court’s decision.

HB871 and SB348: Safe storage requirements broadened to include standard gun locks
With the governor’s recommendation adopted, HB871 now explicitly includes standard gun locks among the devices that satisfy its safe storage rules. The law requires that any firearm not actively being carried on the owner’s person must be secured if a minor or a prohibited person is present in the home.

HB909: Expanded gun-free areas connected to elections and voter registration, with a timing clarification
HB909 expands the list of election-related locations where firearms are prohibited and increases the restricted perimeter from 40 feet to 100 feet. The legislature agreed to the governor’s clarification that the ban at a voter registration location applies only while the site is actually being used for voter registration.

HB1015: Firearm-only prohibition for violent misdemeanor hate crime convictions, plus a pathway to restoration
HB1015 was modified per the governor’s recommendations so that the weapons restriction for people convicted of violent misdemeanor hate crimes applies to firearms (rather than a broader category of weapons). Lawmakers also accepted a provision allowing affected individuals to regain firearm rights after three years.

HB101: Electronic applications for concealed carry permits clarified
HB101 becomes law with language tweaks requested by the governor that clarify Virginians can submit concealed carry permit applications electronically.

HB702: Local law enforcement “sell-back” program terminology adopted
HB702 establishes standards for voluntary programs run by local law enforcement. At Spanberger’s request, the language now refers to “sell-back” programs instead of “buy-back” programs. With that adjustment approved, the measure is enacted.

Already signed into law by Gov. Spanberger: measures enacted earlier in the session

SB115: End of universal concealed-carry permit reciprocity
SB115 reverses Virginia’s universal reciprocity approach. Instead of broadly recognizing out-of-state concealed carry permits, Virginia returns to a system where the Attorney General can negotiate individual agreements with other states. The shift is expected to reduce the number of permits Virginia honors, and it may also prompt some states to stop recognizing Virginia permits in return.

HB110 and SB496: Locked-container requirement for guns left in unattended vehicles
Under this new law, firearm owners who leave a gun in an unattended vehicle must store it in a hard-sided, locked container or risk a Class 4 misdemeanor. If a gun is stolen, the penalty can still be avoided if the owner reports the theft to law enforcement within 48 hours.

HB626 and SB272: Firearm ban in public higher-education buildings, with a curriculum/activity exception
This legislation prohibits bringing firearms into buildings owned or operated by a public institution of higher education, unless the firearm is part of the institution’s curriculum or activities.

HB901 and SB495: Expansion of Virginia’s “red flag” law and who can seek an order
This measure broadens Virginia’s extreme risk protective order process. More categories of licensed counselors and medical professionals can request temporary firearm confiscation orders. The law also expands who can file petitions to include immediate family and household members, intimate partners, and school administrators. It further outlines additional factors that may be used to show a person is a danger to themselves or others, including alcohol abuse, threats toward animals, and recent efforts to purchase firearms or ammunition.

What to watch next as the deadline approaches
The biggest unresolved question is whether Gov. Spanberger signs, vetoes, or allows the remaining “passed by” bills to become law without her signature—especially the “assault firearm” sales/transfer measures and the mental health facility carry restrictions. With 30 days to act, the governor’s next steps will determine whether the final package matches the legislature’s narrower approach or ends with a late-session standoff.
Virginia Lawmakers Reject Gov. Spanberger’s Proposals on Magazine Limits and Hospital Gun Ban

My Right To Carry News Team

April 24, 2026

Virginia’s gun policy agenda is moving again, but Governor Abigail Spanberger is finding that a Democratic legislature won’t automatically follow her lead on the most aggressive changes.

Right now, the Senate and House of Delegates have voted down several recommendations Spanberger sent back during a special session, blocking two major moves she wanted: a tougher approach to ammunition magazine restrictions and a stricter ban on firearms in certain hospital settings. With those recommendations rejected, the underlying bills return to the governor in their original form, leaving Spanberger with a narrow set of options—sign, veto, or take no action and allow them to become law.

The flashpoint on magazines centers on Spanberger’s effort to create what would effectively function as a ban on carrying magazines holding more than 15 rounds. Lawmakers had already advanced their own proposals, but her requested changes would have gone further. By refusing her edits, both chambers undercut that approach, particularly her attempt to use changes to the definition of “assault firearm” in the sales-ban measures HB217 and SB749 as part of a broader strategy. While lawmakers did accept her amendments to the separate “assault firearm” carry-ban bills HB1524 and SB727, they declined to adopt her alterations to the sales-ban definition, which breaks the pathway she was trying to build to restrict magazine carry beyond what the legislature had originally written.

Hospitals became the other major point of contention. Spanberger tried to tighten HB229, which bars guns at hospitals that provide mental health treatments. Her proposal would have removed exceptions covering people with written hospital authorization—including authorization connected to an employee’s job duties—and people brought to a hospital under an emergency custody order or an involuntary detention order. Legislators refused to remove those carveouts, leaving the bill’s existing exceptions intact.

Even as these two high-profile requests failed, lawmakers did agree to Spanberger’s other firearms-related recommendations. They approved amendments to seven additional gun bills, including a change recognizing a gun lock as an acceptable way to comply with new safe storage rules and an adjustment to the state’s new voluntary “buy-back” program language, shifting the terminology to “sell-back.” Those measures are set to take effect July 1. One exception is the handgun ban for 18-to-20-year-olds; at Spanberger’s request, that measure was converted into an emergency enactment and takes effect immediately.

Spanberger has framed her amendments as an effort to make the new laws workable in practice, clearer for gun owners and law enforcement, and aligned with constitutional limits. Her office also pointed to the prior four years, when many gun safety bills—including some that received bipartisan votes—were vetoed, arguing the current administration is moving to implement significant changes while trying to address real-world situations.

But the legislature’s refusal to take her hardest-line edits is a visible sign of intra-party friction. It suggests that even with Democrats holding power, there are limits on how far leadership in Richmond is willing to go, or at least how far they are willing to go on Spanberger’s timeline and framing. It also puts Spanberger in a politically awkward place: she pushed for stricter versions, lost those fights, and now has to decide whether the bills as written still match her priorities well enough to approve.

The decision is consequential because legal challenges are already being teed up. Gun-rights organizations in Virginia and nationally, including the National Rifle Association, have warned they are prepared to sue if Spanberger signs the new bans. The U.S. Department of Justice has also threatened litigation over the “assault firearms” ban. The NRA told its members it intends to challenge the bills immediately upon her signature and said it is watching closely as the measures return to her desk.

Procedurally, the rejection of Spanberger’s changes to HB217, HB229, and SB749 means those bills now go back to her without the tougher language she requested. Under Virginia’s process, she can sign them, veto them, or allow them to become law without signing. She has 30 days to choose.

That 30-day window is now the center of gravity. If Spanberger signs, she accepts legislation that doesn’t include some of the restrictions she publicly sought—while still inheriting the political and legal fallout that comes with the broader package. If she vetoes, she risks intensifying the perception that she and legislative leaders are not aligned, despite sharing the same party. And if she lets the bills become law without her signature, she may try to split the difference—permitting enactment while signaling she didn’t get the final product she wanted.

Either way, the legislature has sent an unmistakable message: the governor can shape details at the margins, but when she pushes for the sharpest edge of gun regulation—like an effective magazine-carry ban or a hospital prohibition without key exceptions—Democratic lawmakers are willing to say no. The next move belongs to Spanberger, and it will reveal whether she’s prepared to own the compromises or escalate the fight with a veto.
Maryland Gun Dealer to Pay Baltimore $2 Million in Ghost Gun Settlement

My Right To Carry News Team

April 23, 2026

Baltimore is moving to convert a headline jury verdict into day-to-day enforcement leverage through a new settlement with Hanover Armory, a Maryland firearms retailer accused of selling products linked to the city’s surge in unserialized, privately made firearms often called “ghost guns.” City officials announced this week that the dealer will pay $2 million and, more notably, accept ongoing sales limits and reporting obligations that could reshape how local governments pressure gun businesses into tighter compliance.

The agreement arrives after years of litigation that began in 2022, when Baltimore partnered with the gun-control organization Brady and filed suit as Maryland’s prohibition on unserialized frames and receivers went into effect. The city argued that Baltimore Police had recovered increasing numbers of homemade, untraceable guns every year since 2019, and that the retailer contributed to that trend by offering popular unfinished parts kits without background checks. Baltimore framed the conduct as helping drive the availability of guns later connected to crime.

What stands out in the current settlement isn’t only the payment amount, but the operational constraints Hanover Armory is accepting going forward. Under the terms announced by the city, the dealer will stop selling:
– Unserialized gun kits
– Mechanical conversion devices such as “Glock switches”
– Bump stocks
– Forced reset triggers

That package of restrictions functions like a compliance perimeter around product categories that have become focal points for regulators and plaintiffs. For enforcement, it reduces ambiguity: if the prohibited items are off the shelves by agreement, the city can focus on monitoring and verification rather than debating whether particular products should have been sold in the first place.

Just as important is the mandatory data-sharing. Hanover Armory has agreed to provide regular purchasing data to Baltimore and to submit comprehensive annual sales reports covering all firearms and firearm accessories. In addition, the dealer must notify the city when a prohibited person or a suspected straw purchaser attempts to buy a firearm at the store.

Those requirements could materially change the practical relationship between a city and a licensed retailer. Rather than relying primarily on post-recovery tracing after a gun is seized, Baltimore is positioning itself to receive recurring, structured information that may help identify patterns earlier—especially around attempted purchases by people who can’t legally buy guns or appear to be buying for someone else.

From the dealer-compliance perspective, this is a shift from reactive recordkeeping to proactive reporting. Annual reports documenting accessory sales as well as firearms sales create a broader compliance footprint, and the “suspected purchaser” notification requirement introduces a judgment call that may prompt retailers to formalize internal policies, staff training, and documentation practices to show they are applying consistent standards. In future disputes, the existence of a reporting system can become evidence—either of diligence or of gaps.

The settlement also changes the risk calculus for both sides by ending an appeal fight that had major stakes. The lawsuit against Hanover Armory went to trial, and a local jury awarded Baltimore $62 million in damages—an amount city officials described at the time as the largest verdict against a gun dealer in U.S. history. Hanover Armory was pursuing an appeal before this week’s settlement was announced. Baltimore City Solicitor Ebony Thompson said the deal reduces the uncertainty tied to that appellate process while turning the earlier verdict into a plan aimed at improving public safety. Thompson also signaled the city intends to keep bringing similar cases.

The broader liability context matters here. The agreement extends a run of high-dollar outcomes for gun-control advocates and public officials targeting makers and sellers of unfinished firearm parts and kits. In this same Baltimore case, another defendant—Polymer80, an unfinished firearm parts manufacturer based in Nevada—previously reached a $1.2 million settlement with the city in February 2024. Polymer80 later went out of business after facing comparable settlements in other jurisdictions seeking to restrict the self-made firearm supply chain.

For cities watching from the sidelines, the Baltimore-Hanover Armory settlement offers a template that goes beyond damages: impose specific product bans, require ongoing disclosure, and create a mechanism for monitoring suspicious purchase attempts. Even when cash payments are comparatively smaller than a jury award, the compliance terms can be the larger long-term prize because they can affect sales practices in real time.

For the gun industry, the message is that civil litigation risk is no longer confined to manufacturers. Retailers can be pulled into expansive theories of responsibility, especially when plaintiffs argue that a seller’s business practices contributed to local crime trends. The practical lesson is that policies around unfinished frames and receivers, conversion devices, and rapid-fire accessories are increasingly being treated as liability landmines—areas where a city can seek not just compensation, but court-enforceable or settlement-enforceable behavioral change.

Baltimore says the $2 million will be directed to city gun-violence prevention programs. That allocation underscores the dual purpose of these cases: funding and leverage. Money supports prevention efforts, while restrictions and reporting can change what is available for purchase and how quickly officials learn about attempted unlawful transactions.

Hanover Armory did not respond to a request for comment, according to the reporting. Meanwhile, Baltimore officials are presenting the settlement as both accountability and oversight. Whether other jurisdictions adopt the same playbook may depend on how effectively Baltimore uses the incoming sales data and incident reports—and whether the agreement becomes a reference point in future dealer-liability negotiations nationwide.
FBI Data: Knives Kill Three Times More People Than Rifles

My Right To Carry News Team

April 23, 2026

The line “knives kill three times more people than rifles” gets repeated a lot, usually as a quick comparison meant to sound decisive. To check whether it’s true, I’m going to stick to the FBI’s latest weapon breakdown in its national homicide reporting and, just as importantly, explain what the FBI means by “knives or cutting instruments” and “rifles,” because those definitions shape the comparison.

First, a quick note on what “latest” means in FBI crime data right now. The FBI’s national crime statistics have been transitioning from the long-running Summary UCR program (including the well-known “Crime in the United States” tables) to NIBRS (the National Incident-Based Reporting System). In recent years, participation and coverage have changed as agencies onboarded to NIBRS, so year-to-year comparisons can be affected by reporting coverage—not just real-world changes. That doesn’t make the weapon counts useless, but it does mean any single-year claim should be presented with some caution and preferably with context.

How the FBI defines the categories

1) “Knives or cutting instruments”
In the FBI homicide weapon tables, this category is broader than “kitchen knife” or “pocketknife.” It’s intended to capture killings committed with edged or cutting tools. It does not include every possible sharp object (because some incidents end up in other buckets), but it does represent a wide set of blade-type implements that can be used to stab or cut. This breadth tends to make the knife category relatively large compared to more narrowly defined firearm subcategories.

2) “Rifles”
The FBI’s “rifle” category is also specific. It counts homicides where the weapon was identified as a rifle. It does not include:
– Handguns
– Shotguns
– Firearms where the type is unknown
– “Other guns” depending on how the incident was coded
So “rifles” is a subset of firearm homicides, not a stand-in for “guns” overall. That’s a key reason why comparing “knives” to “rifles” can create a misleading impression if someone mentally substitutes “rifles” for “firearms.”

3) What’s missing from the simple comparison
The knife-versus-rifle soundbite ignores other large categories that can also be compared:
– “Handguns” (typically the largest identified firearm category)
– “Firearm, type not stated/unknown”
– “Personal weapons” (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
– “Blunt objects,” “poison,” and other mechanisms
If the goal is to understand homicide risk or trends, the rifle category alone is not the right yardstick for “gun violence,” even though it can be relevant for narrower debates.

Does the “three times more” claim hold up?

When you look at the FBI’s recent national homicide weapon breakdowns, knives frequently do outnumber rifles in raw homicide counts, and in many years the knife total has been roughly on the order of a few multiples of the rifle total. In other words, the general direction of the claim—knives exceed rifles—often matches the FBI tables. But the exact “three times” figure is not a constant, and whether it’s accurate depends on which year’s FBI table you are using and on how much “unknown firearm type” is present in that year’s data.

This is where the category definitions matter. A typical pattern in FBI weapon tables is:
– A large number of homicides are attributed to handguns.
– A meaningful number are attributed to firearms where the type is not specified.
– Rifles make up a comparatively small share of firearm homicides.
Against that backdrop, it is not surprising that a broad “knives/cutting instruments” bucket can be several times larger than the narrowly defined “rifle” bucket in a given year.

What the comparison does—and does not—tell you

What it tells you:
– If the FBI weapon table for the year shows more knife homicides than rifle homicides, then the claim “knives kill more people than rifles” is supported for that dataset and year.
– If the ratio is around three-to-one for that year’s counts, then the more specific “three times more” phrasing is also supported.

What it does not tell you:
– It does not mean knives are a larger cause of homicide than firearms. Rifles are only one firearm type; handguns and “unknown firearm type” are substantial categories.
– It does not measure lethality per attack, only counts of homicide incidents by weapon category as recorded.
– It does not settle policy arguments by itself, because it compares a broad cutting-implement bucket to a narrow firearm subset and omits the largest firearm categories.

A more honest way to phrase it

If you want a statement that stays faithful to how the FBI categorizes weapons, it’s better to say something like:
– “In the FBI’s homicide weapon tables, the number of killings attributed to knives or cutting instruments is often higher than the number attributed specifically to rifles.”
And if you want to discuss guns as a whole, the correct comparison is knives versus all firearms, or knives versus handguns, not knives versus rifles.

Bottom line

Using the FBI’s recent homicide weapon breakdowns, the claim can be directionally correct because knife homicides often exceed rifle homicides. But the “three times” ratio is year-dependent, and the comparison is easy to misinterpret because “rifles” excludes handguns and excludes incidents where the firearm type wasn’t recorded. To understand what the FBI data really says, you have to read the weapon categories as the FBI defines them—and resist swapping “rifles” in your head for “guns.”