Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) signed on April 10 a series of gun control bills, one of which closes the “intimate partner loophole,” expanding firearm restrictions for partners of people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
Critics of the law argue that the bill’s broad language could punish survivors by prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm to protect themselves.
In 2024, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA) vetoed a similar proposal. He argued that the bill would cause inadvertent compromises to public safety.
However, Spanberger gave the green light to the proposal and other gun control bills, touting them as a way to “protect families and communities.”
State Sen. Russet Perry (D-VA), who introduced the bill in the Virginia Senate, framed the measure as necessary to close “a dangerous gap” in state law and better reflect federal law.
“Truthfully, the stakes couldn’t be higher — victims of domestic violence are five times more likely to be killed when their abuser has access to a gun,” Perry told the Washington Examiner.
Legal ambiguity and potential court challenges
While barring those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from purchasing or owning a gun reflects federal law, legal experts and advocates say the law could face challenges in court and raise unintended consequences for survivors of domestic abuse.
An intimate partner is defined by federal law as a current or former spouse, an individual who shares a child in common with the person, or someone who cohabits or has cohabited with the person.
The legislation signed by Spanberger expands the definition of an “intimate partner” beyond the federal definition.
Under Virginia’s new legislation, an intimate partner is defined as “an individual who, within the previous 12 months, was in a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship with the person as determined by the length, nature, frequency, and type of interaction between the individuals involved in the relationship.”
Virginia’s definition is broad, as the meaning of dating is vague in the age of social media, dating apps, and relaxed social expectations, said attorney Seth Peritz, who specializes in criminal defense and has worked on domestic violence cases.
“Each of those words is subjective, every single one of them,” Peritz said. “There are now, like, 18 different words for different stages of relationships … and that ambiguity in people’s relationships is going to make it problematic to litigate this from a prosecutorial standpoint and a criminal standpoint.”
Cases could also be further complicated over who gets to define a relationship, Peritz added.
“If the victim thought that you were intimate partners, does that count?” he said. “Is it the defendant’s point of view? … I think it is really problematic, and I think it’s going to be a long, drawn-out fight, and there’s going to be a lot of arguments about what intimate partner means.”
Misdemeanor charges could result from varying circumstances
The new law could add another layer of complexity to domestic violence cases that are already difficult to navigate in court, Peritz said.
Misdemeanor domestic violence charges can stem from a wide range of circumstances, Peritz said, from relatively minor physical contact, such as shoving, to plea agreements that reduce more serious patterns of abuse to a lesser charge.
That variation, combined with the law’s expanded scope, could create challenges for courts tasked with determining when firearm restrictions should apply.
Peritz said there is a significant gap in how domestic violence cases move through the legal system, noting that not every call police respond to leads to a conviction. As a result, he said, the law’s impact will ultimately depend on how cases are prosecuted.
Spanberger and Perry framed the law as designed to prevent the most dangerous outcomes, particularly when domestic violence escalates.
“Time and again, I worked with victims who were just as vulnerable to violence, but because they weren’t married to their abuser, the law didn’t offer the same protections,” Perry said.
But Peritz said scenarios where domestic abuse escalates to gun violence, while serious, are not typical.
“I mean, it does happen,” he said. “It’s rare. It’s not common.”
He said escalation is more likely in cases involving repeated abuse or additional warning signs, rather than one-time incidents.
Impact on survivors
Sheena Parker, a firearms instructor who co-owns Trouble Defense in Fairfax County, said many women who come to her to learn about gun safety and marksmanship are survivors of abuse.
“We have quite a bit of ladies … who have gone through some domestic abuse issues, and they have decided that they do want to be a firearm owner,” Parker said.
For some survivors, access to a firearm is tied to their ability to protect themselves from an abuser.
In one Virginia case last year, a woman in Chesterfield County shot her boyfriend after he allegedly assaulted and strangled her, with police determining the shooting was self-defense.
Parker’s training sessions often focus not just on how to use a firearm but also on when it is legally justified, an issue she said is especially important for survivors navigating complex personal and legal circumstances.
But critics say the new law could complicate that path. Because domestic violence cases are not always clear-cut, they warn that survivors themselves could face charges, as they could potentially trigger the new law under the expanded definition of an intimate partner.
Philip Van Cleave, the president of Virginia Citizens Defense League, said expanding Virginia firearm restrictions to include misdemeanor convictions as a way to prohibit owning firearms is a slippery slope.
“Our problem with these bills is they keep taking misdemeanor crimes, by definition a minor crime, and taking away somebody’s basic civil right to self-defense for that,” he said.
DEMOCRATS TURN ON SPANBERGER OVER PLUMMETING POPULARITY AMID REDISTRICTING BATTLE
He argued that people who have experienced abuse, convicted of a misdemeanor or not, reserve the right to defend themselves.
“They’re just finding ways to take guns away from people,” he said. “It’s just one excuse after the other.”