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.