Edit: HB702_Virginia_Firearm_Give-Back_Program_and_Fund_established

Markdown Content:

= HB702 Virginia Firearm Give-Back and Buy-Back Programs =

== Status ==

[https://house.vga.virginia.gov/subcommittees/H15001/agendas/5188 Public Safety | Subcommittee — 1/22/2026]

<hr>

== Overview ==

=== Summary as Introduced ===

Firearms; local give-back and buy-back programs. HB702 directs each local law-enforcement agency to develop and implement either a firearm give-back program or a firearm buy-back program by January 1, 2028. The bill requires agencies to establish procedures for voluntary firearm surrender, forensic testing, destruction of non-evidentiary firearms, confidentiality protections, and annual reporting to the Department of State Police.

Participation by local agencies is mandatory, but agencies may choose between a give-back model or a compensated buy-back model.

<hr>

=== Patrons ===

==== House Patrons ====

• Joshua G. Cole (chief patron)

==== Senate Patrons ====

• None

<hr>

== Language ==

The language of [https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB702/text/HB702 HB702] can be viewed here.

<hr>

== Amendment in Full Committee ==

<hr>

== Proposed Substitute ==

=== Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute (1/21/2026) ===

Replaces the original statewide Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program with a locally administered framework requiring each local law-enforcement agency to implement either a firearm give-back program or a firearm buy-back program by January 1, 2028.

=== Purpose of the Substitute ===

To shift the program from a voluntary, centralized state model to a mandatory, locally administered model with clear operational requirements, accountability mechanisms, and privacy protections.

The substitute prioritizes local implementation while preserving statewide consistency in evidence handling and reporting.

<hr>

== Opening Statement ==

=== House Subcommittee Statement ===

There is a substitute to this bill.

This substitute includes language from the previous substitute you heard last time, which is making this a Section 1 bill.

But in addition, we have added new language that does three main things: it clarifies disposal standards, creates a responsible preservation pathway, and adds clear timelines.

First, it defines what “destruction” means. Under the amendment, destruction now means permanently rendering a firearm inoperable through approved mechanical methods, so there is no ambiguity about what proper disposal requires.

Second, it establishes timelines. Non-evidentiary firearms must be disposed of within 90 days after they are cleared, either through destruction or transfer to a federally licensed dealer. For antique or historically significant firearms, agencies have up to 180 days to place them with a museum or licensed dealer before destruction is permitted.

Third, it creates structured alternatives to destruction. All antique firearms, whether operable or not, and certain older firearms with historical or collector value, may be donated to museums or transferred through licensed dealers (FFLs) for lawful sale or auction, subject to all state and federal requirements, including background checks.

The substitute also creates a defined category for "historically significant firearms" (40 years old or older and of some historical, collector, or cultural value) and explains how they are handled, which was not addressed in the original bill.

It further requires that any proceeds from sales be restricted to program administration or the local general fund.

The bill still requires forensic testing, protects evidentiary needs, preserves confidentiality, and ensures that non-evidentiary firearms are removed from circulation. What this substitute adds is clarity, accountability, and responsible stewardship.

Speaking to the bill

HB702 remains focused on its core purpose: directing local law enforcement agencies to adopt a consistent, safe, and transparent system for removing unwanted firearms, surrendered voluntarily, from communities while ensuring that historically significant firearms are handled appropriately and lawfully.

We've heard at least one complaint that this is a "forced gun handover." I want to be crystal clear: it's not. This bill simply gives parameters and direction to our local law enforcement agencies so that the voluntary gun give-back process has predictable standards in all localities. This guidance serves to provide clarity for both agencies and those releasing unwanted firearms.

I hope it will be the pleasure of the body to report the bill favorably.

<hr>

1/22/2026

Mister Chair, members of the subcommittee—

I ask that the subcommittee adopt the substitute.

HB702 establishes a consistent, statewide approach for local firearm give-back programs.

This bill is based in part on a successful model already operating in Fredericksburg, brought forward by Councilman Chuck Frye, where a local give-back program has helped safely remove unwanted firearms from circulation for years.

HB702 requires each local law-enforcement agency shall develop policies and procedures to implement either a firearm give-back program or a firearm buy-back program by January 1, 2028. Such policies shall include requirements that require:

<blockquote>
(i) that each local law-enforcement agency designate when and where a person may voluntarily return a firearm, which shall be subsequently subjected to forensic testing;

(ii) that such firearm may be retained by the receiving law-enforcement agency to be used as evidence if such firearm is determined to have been used in the commission of a crime;

(iii) that returned firearms not used in the commission of a crime shall be destroyed; and

(iv) that the identity of any person who surrenders a firearm shall be kept confidential. Such policies and procedures shall also require local law-enforcement agencies to submit an annual report to the Department of State Police that includes the number of firearms that have been received through the implemented program.
</blockquote>

This is a practical, proven public safety measure that builds on local success while expanding access statewide. Importantly, it will not have an FIS, so you don't need to send it upstairs.

Fredericksburg City Council already sent a letter to the members of this subcommittee in support of this bill.

I respectfully ask that the subcommittee favorably report HB702 to the full committee.

<hr>

=== Appropriations Subcommittee Statement ===

Mr. Chairman, for HB702: we converted the original bill into a Section 1 substitute that removes the fiscal impact on the Commonwealth and eliminates the FIS.

It removes any mandates on the Virginia State Police.

The bill now requires local agencies design and run their own programs and report firearm return totals to the VSP.

The bill allows the option to auction antique and historical firearms through federal firearms licensees, and any revenue gained from auctions may be used to offset program costs.

I hope it be the will of the subcommittee to report the bill to full committee.

<hr>

==== Rationale for the Bill ====

Unwanted, unsecured, or inherited firearms often remain in homes because residents lack safe, accessible disposal options.

This creates unnecessary risks, including:

• Accidental shootings  
• Youth access to firearms  
• Theft and illegal resale  
• Unsafe storage in unstable households

By requiring every locality to offer a standardized surrender option, HB702 creates a predictable, trusted pathway for residents to remove firearms from circulation.

The bill also ensures that surrendered weapons are handled responsibly through forensic screening and evidence retention when necessary.

<hr>

==== Conclusion ====

HB702 is a measured, practical public safety initiative.

It does not mandate firearm ownership changes, restrict lawful possession, or require participation. Instead, it provides every community with a reliable, confidential option for voluntary firearm disposal.

By pairing local flexibility with statewide standards, the bill promotes safety, accountability, and transparency.

I respectfully ask for the committee’s support and favorable reporting.

<hr>

=== House Committee Statement ===

n/a

=== Floor Statement ===

Mr. Speaker, HB702 is a section 1 bill that creates a more standardized system of voluntary gun give-back programs for each local law enforcement agency. It gives guidance to local LEAs on which firearms to hold on to and for how long. It gives guidance on handling firearms that may be evidence in a crime. It gives guidance on how to either donate historically significant and antique firearms to museums or to auction them through a federally licensed firearms dealer. It also permits localities to recoup funds through auctions of historically significant and antique firearms.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a piece of firearms legislation that both sides of the aisle, fingers crossed, can agree on.

I hope it will be the will of the body to engross the bill and pass it on to its third reading.

=== Senate Subcommittee Statement ===

n/a

=== Senate Committee Statement ===

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee—

HB702 is a Section 1 bill that requires each local law enforcement agency to implement, by January 1, 2028, either a voluntary firearm give-back or buy-back program.

The substitute establishes clear operational standards: forensic screening of all surrendered firearms, mandatory evidence retention when a firearm is linked to a crime, defined destruction procedures, confidentiality protections for participants, and annual reporting to the Department of State Police.

It also creates a structured pathway for antique and historically significant firearms to be transferred through federally licensed dealers or museums before destruction.

This bill does not affect lawful firearm ownership. It standardizes voluntary disposal procedures statewide while preserving evidentiary integrity and local administration.

<hr>

== Support and Opposition ==

=== Support ===

• (to be updated)
• Community violence prevention organizations
• Public safety advocates
• Local law enforcement associations (anticipated)

=== Opposition ===

• (to be updated)
• Some firearm advocacy organizations (anticipated)

=== No Recommendation ===

• (to be updated)

<hr>

== Fiscal Impact ==

There is no fiscal impact statement for HB702.

=== Summary ===

Implementation costs are expected to be absorbed at the local level and may vary based on program design, frequency of events, and staffing needs. Participation in buy-back programs may involve local funding or private partnerships.

<hr>

== Possible Questions ==

This section addresses likely questions raised by members or stakeholders following adoption of the substitute.

=== TL;DR ===

Q1: “Does this require people to turn in their firearms?” 
TL;DR: No. Participation is voluntary. The bill requires agencies to offer programs, not individuals to use them.

Q2: “Why make this mandatory for local agencies?” 
TL;DR: To ensure every community has access to a safe disposal option, regardless of location.

Q3: “Why require forensic testing?” 
TL;DR: To preserve evidence if a firearm is linked to a crime and protect investigations.

Q4: “Does this create new gun restrictions?” 
TL;DR: No. It does not affect lawful ownership, sales, or possession.

Q5: “Will this expose participants to scrutiny or liability?” 
TL;DR: No. The bill requires confidentiality.

Q6: “Why was the state-run program replaced with a local model?” 
TL;DR: Local programs are more accessible and build on existing successful models.

=== Q1: “Does this require people to turn in their firearms?” ===

What’s true: The bill requires every locality to offer a program.

What’s misleading: It does not require any individual to participate.

Answer you can use: HB702 is entirely voluntary for residents. It simply ensures that a safe, confidential option exists in every community for those who choose to use it.

=== Q2: “Why make this mandatory for local agencies?” ===

What’s true: Each local law-enforcement agency must implement a program.

What’s often omitted: Agencies may choose between give-back and buy-back models.

Answer you can use: The mandate ensures equal access statewide. Without it, programs exist only in some communities. This bill guarantees that every resident has a nearby option, while allowing local flexibility in how programs operate.

=== Q3: “Why require forensic testing of surrendered firearms?” ===

What’s true: All surrendered firearms must be examined.

What’s incomplete: Testing protects criminal investigations.

Answer you can use: Forensic screening ensures that firearms linked to crimes are preserved as evidence. It strengthens accountability and prevents accidental destruction of relevant evidence.

=== Q4: “Does this create new gun restrictions?” ===

What’s true: The bill regulates firearm disposal.

What’s misleading: It does not regulate ownership.

Answer you can use: HB702 does not affect who may own, buy, sell, or possess firearms. It creates a voluntary disposal option, not a new restriction.

=== Q5: “Are participants protected from identification or investigation?” ===

What’s true: The bill requires confidentiality.

What’s often omitted: Privacy protections are central to participation.

Answer you can use: The bill requires agencies to protect participant identity. That encourages participation and prevents fear of stigma or retaliation.

=== Q6: “Why replace the state program with a local framework?” ===

What’s true: The substitute removes the centralized State Police program.

What’s often omitted: It expands access through local delivery.

Answer you can use: Local programs are easier to access, more familiar to residents, and build on existing successful models like Fredericksburg’s. The substitute keeps statewide standards while improving convenience and participation.

<hr>

== Additional Information ==

1. Voluntary firearm disposal reduces accidental and unauthorized use

• Removes unwanted firearms from homes
• Reduces theft risk
• Improves storage compliance

Policy implication: Prevention-oriented safety policy.

2. Standardization improves trust and participation

• Uniform rules statewide
• Clear expectations
• Transparent reporting

Policy implication: Predictability increases public engagement.

3. Confidentiality is central to effectiveness

• Encourages participation
• Protects privacy
• Reduces fear of enforcement

Policy implication: Privacy protections are essential to program success.

4. Reporting supports evidence-based policy

• Annual data collection
• Program evaluation
• Continuous improvement

Policy implication: Enables future refinement based on results.

5. The bill supports community-based violence prevention

• Complements intervention programs
• Reduces unsecured weapons
• Promotes voluntary compliance

Policy implication: Integrates public safety with prevention strategies.

[[Category:2026 Session]]