HR-2650-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Joe Neguse (D-CO)
What it does
This bill would add a new category of people prohibited from purchasing or receiving firearms and ammunition under federal law: anyone convicted of a violent misdemeanor in any court within the preceding five years. The restriction would apply to sales and dispositions by federally licensed dealers as well as private transfers covered under existing federal law. The five-year window means the prohibition would expire automatically once a person's most recent qualifying conviction is more than five years old.
Who benefits
People living in households or communities with individuals who have recent violent misdemeanor convictions, who may face reduced risk of firearm-related harm. Domestic violence survivors, since many abusers are convicted of misdemeanor assault rather than felonies. Law enforcement officers who encounter individuals with histories of violent behavior. Prosecutors who currently cannot pursue federal firearms charges against violent misdemeanants who do not meet the felony threshold.
Who is hurt
Individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction within the past five years who would lose the legal ability to purchase or receive firearms or ammunition during that period, including those who argue their conviction does not reflect ongoing dangerousness. Rural residents in this category who rely on firearms for hunting, livestock protection, or personal security in areas with limited law enforcement response. Firearms retailers who would lose a segment of legal buyers. Civil liberties advocates who oppose expanding the prohibited-persons list. People whose convictions were for conduct they argue was minor or contextually justified.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the existing federal prohibition framework — which bars firearm possession only for felony convictions — creates a dangerous gap, since many violent offenders are charged with misdemeanors due to plea bargaining or prosecutorial discretion. They contend that the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi (2024) affirmed that individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others can be disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment, and that people with recent violent misdemeanor convictions fall squarely within that principle. They further argue that a five-year sunset provision limits the restriction to a targeted window tied to demonstrated recent behavior, rather than imposing a lifetime ban.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that "violent misdemeanor" is a broad and inconsistently defined category across state and local jurisdictions, meaning the bill could disarm individuals convicted of minor offenses — such as simple assault involving no injury — that bear little resemblance to the serious threats the law intends to address. They contend that under the Bruen (2022) text-history-tradition framework, any firearms restriction must be grounded in a historical analogue from the founding era, and that misdemeanor-based disarmament lacks a clear historical precedent, leaving the bill vulnerable to constitutional challenge. They also argue that the bill effectively delegates the scope of a federal firearms prohibition to the varying definitions of "violent misdemeanor" used by thousands of state and local courts, creating unequal application across the country.
Constitutional context
The Second Amendment's scope is governed by the text-history-tradition framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022). The Supreme Court's 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi upheld disarmament of individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders under that framework, affirming that those who pose a credible threat to others may be disarmed — but the Court did not resolve how broadly that principle extends to misdemeanor convictions generally. The bill's constitutionality would likely turn on whether courts find a sufficient historical tradition of disarming individuals convicted of violent (but sub-felony) offenses.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand the prohibited-persons list under 18 U.S.C. § 922; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) would enforce it; federal courts would review constitutional challenges under the Bruen framework, and individuals could seek restoration of rights through existing federal procedures.
Historical precedent
The Lautenberg Amendment (1996) established a similar structure by prohibiting firearm possession for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and was upheld by courts — though that law was limited to domestic violence misdemeanors, not violent misdemeanors broadly.