A BILL to amend and reenact § 19.2-386.29 of the Code of Virginia, relating to forfeiture of certain weapons; petition for return by Commonwealth.
HB623 amends Virginia’s forfeiture law for weapons used in the commission of a criminal offense. Under current law, such weapons are forfeited to the Commonwealth and may be destroyed, sold in limited circumstances, or temporarily used by the seizing law-enforcement agency. The bill adds a new procedure allowing the Commonwealth, or any person with notice to the Commonwealth’s attorney, to petition the court for the return of a forfeited weapon to its lawful owner after the criminal proceedings are over.
To obtain the return of the weapon, the owner must show good cause and prove that they did not know and had no reason to know of the conduct that led to forfeiture, and that they are otherwise legally allowed to possess the weapon. The owner must also file a sworn affidavit acknowledging retaking possession. The bill therefore creates a statutory path for innocent owners to recover firearms or other weapons that were used in a crime by someone else, while preserving forfeiture for prohibited possessors and owners with knowledge of the underlying conduct.
The bill would amend § 19.2-386.29 of the Code of Virginia, changing how courts handle forfeited weapons after criminal cases. It would not eliminate forfeiture, but it would require courts to consider petitions for return by lawful owners who were unaware of the criminal use and are not otherwise barred from possession. This could affect prosecutors, courts, law-enforcement agencies holding seized weapons, and property owners seeking recovery, and it adds an affidavit requirement to document the return.
The available legislative history suggests a neutral to mildly favorable posture toward the bill, but with limited evidence of debate. The bill was referred to the Public Safety Committee and was continued to the next session by voice vote, which indicates it did not advance immediately but also does not show recorded opposition. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded roll-call votes, the broader sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s narrow, procedural nature and its focus on innocent-owner relief.
The main point of potential contention is the balance between forfeiture as a public-safety tool and the rights of lawful owners to recover property used in a crime by another person. Supporters would likely emphasize fairness to innocent owners and the return of property after proceedings conclude, while opponents may worry that the petition process could complicate forfeiture, create administrative burdens, or make it harder to keep weapons out of circulation. The bill also leaves discretion to the court through a “good cause” standard, which could raise questions about how strictly return petitions should be evaluated.