Fabio
8.1 KiB
type, title, description, jurisdiction, legislature, session, identifier, citation, classification, subjects, status, primary_sponsors, version_count, action_count, vote_count, first_action, last_action, source, source_identifier, source_url, source_hash, vintage, source_snapshot, retrieved_at, confidence, tags
| type | title | description | jurisdiction | legislature | session | identifier | citation | classification | subjects | status | primary_sponsors | version_count | action_count | vote_count | first_action | last_action | source | source_identifier | source_url | source_hash | vintage | source_snapshot | retrieved_at | confidence | tags | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bill | Firearms; mental health as disqualifier for possession, etc. | Involuntary commitment and restoration of firearm rights. Responds to the holding in Paugh v. Henrico Area Mental Health and Developmental Services, Record No. 121562 (2013), in which the Supreme Court of Virginia held that on appeal by trial de novo in circuit court of an order of involuntary commitment by a district court, upon the circuit court's finding that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment, the proper remedy is dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition for involuntary commitment, thereby rendering the original commitment order a nullity. As such, because the original petition would in effect never have existed, forfeiture of the right to possess a firearm as required by § 18.2-308.1:3 upon involuntary commitment would no longer be in effect. Section 18.2-308.1:3 requires that a person who has been involuntarily committed and seeks to have his firearm rights restored petition a district court for restoration of his firearm rights. The ruling in Paugh, by requiring dismissal of the original petition for commitment, removes that requirement even though on the date of the original commitment hearing the person did meet the criteria for commitment and was, in fact, involuntarily committed. The bill provides that, notwithstanding the outcome of any appeal (trial de novo on the petition for commitment) taken pursuant to § 37.2-821 or § 16.1-345.6, the appellant shall be required to seek restoration of his firearm rights. The bill also provides that, upon a finding by the circuit court that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment or mandatory outpatient treatment, the court shall reverse the order of the district court but shall not dismiss the Commonwealth's petition. As a consequence of these changes, a person who is involuntarily committed would be required to petition for restoration of his firearm rights notwithstanding the reversal of the commitment order by a circuit court. | us/states/va | Virginia General Assembly | 2020 | SB 684 | Virginia SB 684 (2020) |
|
enacted |
|
4 | 28 | 7 | 2020-01-07 | 2020-04-11 | openstates | ocd-bill/d81639dd-37f0-4ed8-ae4c-724901583b3c | https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB684 | bb4f51a71b46ef2b7d84d8ab355a6518494784cb2223aeb8767ab4e27767c340 | 2026-07-01 | https://data.openstates.org/daily/2026-07-01/public.pgdump | 2026-07-06 | reported |
|
Virginia SB 684 (2020) — Firearms; mental health as disqualifier for possession, etc.
Involuntary commitment and restoration of firearm rights. Responds to the holding in Paugh v. Henrico Area Mental Health and Developmental Services, Record No. 121562 (2013), in which the Supreme Court of Virginia held that on appeal by trial de novo in circuit court of an order of involuntary commitment by a district court, upon the circuit court's finding that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment, the proper remedy is dismissal of the Commonwealth's petition for involuntary commitment, thereby rendering the original commitment order a nullity. As such, because the original petition would in effect never have existed, forfeiture of the right to possess a firearm as required by § 18.2-308.1:3 upon involuntary commitment would no longer be in effect. Section 18.2-308.1:3 requires that a person who has been involuntarily committed and seeks to have his firearm rights restored petition a district court for restoration of his firearm rights. The ruling in Paugh, by requiring dismissal of the original petition for commitment, removes that requirement even though on the date of the original commitment hearing the person did meet the criteria for commitment and was, in fact, involuntarily committed. The bill provides that, notwithstanding the outcome of any appeal (trial de novo on the petition for commitment) taken pursuant to § 37.2-821 or § 16.1-345.6, the appellant shall be required to seek restoration of his firearm rights. The bill also provides that, upon a finding by the circuit court that the appellant no longer meets the criteria for involuntary commitment or mandatory outpatient treatment, the court shall reverse the order of the district court but shall not dismiss the Commonwealth's petition. As a consequence of these changes, a person who is involuntarily committed would be required to petition for restoration of his firearm rights notwithstanding the reversal of the commitment order by a circuit court.
Version chain
The bill's text revisions, in order — the diff chain from filing to enrollment.
- Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP1175) (committee substitute) — source
- Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB684ER) (committee substitute) — source
- Engrossed by House as amended SB684H1 (committee substitute) — source
- Engrossed by House as amended SB684H1 (committee substitute) — source
Votes
- Reported from Judiciary (13-Y 0-N 1-A) — 13–0 (pass) · upper
- Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (7-Y 0-N) — 7–0 (pass) · lower
- VOTE: Passage (95-Y 3-N) — 94–3 (pass) · lower
- House substitute agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N) — 38–2 (pass) · upper
- Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) — 40–0 (pass) · upper
- Read third time and passed Senate (39-Y 1-N) — 39–1 (pass) · upper
- Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (22-Y 0-N) — 22–0 (pass) · lower
Sponsors
- T. Montgomery "Monty" Mason — primary (person)
Timeline
The legislative action history — every referral, reading, and vote.
- 2020-01-07 Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/08/20 20104751D
introduction - 2020-01-07 Referred to Committee on the Judiciary
referral-committee - 2020-02-03 Reported from Judiciary (13-Y 0-N 1-A)
committee-passage - 2020-02-04 Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N)
- 2020-02-05 Read second time and engrossed
reading-2 - 2020-02-06 Read third time and passed Senate (39-Y 1-N)
passage, reading-3 - 2020-02-12 Placed on Calendar
- 2020-02-12 Read first time
reading-1 - 2020-02-12 Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice
referral-committee - 2020-02-18 Assigned Courts sub: Criminal
referral-committee - 2020-02-19 Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (7-Y 0-N)
- 2020-02-24 Reported from Courts of Justice with substitute (22-Y 0-N)
committee-passage - 2020-02-24 Committee substitute printed 20108753D-H1
substitution - 2020-02-26 Read second time
reading-2 - 2020-02-27 Read third time
reading-3 - 2020-02-27 Passed by temporarily
- 2020-02-27 Committee substitute agreed to 20108753D-H1
- 2020-02-27 Engrossed by House as amended SB684H1
- 2020-02-27 Passed House with substitute (95-Y 3-N)
passage - 2020-02-27 VOTE: Passage (95-Y 3-N)
- 2020-03-02 House substitute agreed to by Senate (38-Y 2-N)
- 2020-03-02 Title replaced 20108753D-H1
- 2020-03-06 Enrolled
- 2020-03-06 Signed by President
- 2020-03-06 Signed by Speaker
- 2020-03-12 Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on March 12, 2020
- 2020-03-12 Governor's Action Deadline 11:59 p.m., April 11, 2020
- 2020-04-11 Approved by Governor-Chapter 1175 (effective 7/1/20)
executive-signature
Source
OpenStates / OpenCivicData bulk snapshot 2026-07-01; origin ocd-bill/d81639dd-37f0-4ed8-ae4c-724901583b3c. Confidence: reported (aggregated from official Virginia legislature records).