HR-2650-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Joe Neguse (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922) to prohibit licensed firearms dealers and other sellers from knowingly selling or transferring a firearm or ammunition to any person convicted of a violent misdemeanor within the preceding five years. It defines "violent misdemeanor" as any misdemeanor under federal, state, tribal, or local law that involves the use or threatened use of physical force or a deadly weapon, intent to cause physical injury, or knowingly causing physical injury. The prohibition would not apply if the conviction has been expunged, set aside, or pardoned, or if the person's civil rights have been restored, unless the restoration expressly bars firearms possession.
Who benefits
Potential victims of gun violence, particularly domestic violence victims — since many abusers are convicted of misdemeanor assault rather than felonies. Communities with high rates of violent crime. Law enforcement officers who may face reduced risk from armed individuals with recent violent histories. Advocates for stricter firearms regulation. Survivors of incidents involving perpetrators who had prior misdemeanor violence convictions.
Who is hurt
Individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor within the past five years who would lose the ability to legally purchase firearms or ammunition during that window, even if they were not prohibited under prior law. This could include people convicted of minor altercations classified as misdemeanor assault. Licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) who would face new compliance obligations and potential liability. People in rural areas who rely on firearms for self-defense or hunting and have a qualifying conviction. Individuals whose convictions occurred in jurisdictions with broad misdemeanor definitions, potentially creating uneven application across states.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that current federal law creates a dangerous gap: felony convictions trigger a lifetime firearms ban, but many violent offenders — including domestic abusers — are charged only with misdemeanors and remain legally able to purchase firearms the next day. They contend that research consistently shows prior violent misdemeanor convictions are a strong predictor of future violent behavior, and that closing this gap would reduce gun violence without imposing a permanent or lifetime restriction. The bill's built-in procedural safeguards — requiring that the underlying conviction involved counsel or a valid waiver, and a valid jury trial or waiver — mirror the protections already established for the domestic violence misdemeanor prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's definition of "violent misdemeanor" is broad enough to capture minor offenses — such as a bar fight or a shoving match — that many states classify as misdemeanor assault, potentially disarming law-abiding adults based on low-level convictions. They contend that under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework, any new firearms restriction must be grounded in a historical tradition of analogous regulation, and that time-limited, misdemeanor-based disarmament lacks a clear founding-era precedent, making the bill vulnerable to constitutional challenge. Critics also argue that enforcement depends on complete and accurate state-level criminal records being reported to the NICS database, a system with well-documented gaps that may make the prohibition difficult to apply consistently.
Constitutional context
The Second Amendment's scope after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) requires that firearms regulations be consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation. The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024) upheld a firearms prohibition for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders under the refined Bruen framework, suggesting that disarmament of individuals with demonstrated histories of violence can be constitutionally grounded — but the precise boundaries of misdemeanor-based disarmament remain actively contested in lower courts.
Checks and balances
Congress expands the executive branch's (ATF and FBI/NICS) enforcement authority over firearms transfers; courts retain authority to review the constitutionality of the new prohibition under the Bruen text-history-tradition framework, and individuals may challenge their disqualification through existing federal appeal procedures.
Historical precedent
The Lautenberg Amendment (1996) established a similar model by prohibiting firearms possession by individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which the Supreme Court upheld and which this bill's procedural safeguards explicitly mirror.