A BILL to amend and reenact § 15.2-1209 of the Code of Virginia, relating to prohibition on outdoor shooting of firearm on property without reasonable care; penalty.
HB926 amends Virginia Code § 15.2-1209, which governs local authority to restrict outdoor shooting of firearms and archery equipment in densely populated areas. The bill keeps the existing framework allowing counties to prohibit outdoor shooting in heavily populated areas, but it adds a new county ordinance option specifically targeting firearm discharge on property unless the shooter uses reasonable care to keep projectiles within the property boundaries. The bill defines reasonable care in part by reference to shooting into a berm or backstop placed at least 10 feet from a property line.
The bill also preserves and clarifies agricultural and hunting-related exemptions. Counties that adopt shooting prohibitions must still exempt deer hunting under § 29.1-529, with different acreage thresholds depending on whether firearms/arrowguns or bows are used. Under the new language, a county may prohibit outdoor firearm discharge unless it occurs on at least five acres and is conducted with reasonable care to prevent rounds from crossing property lines. A violation of such an ordinance would be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
HB926 would expand and clarify local regulatory authority over outdoor firearm discharge by expressly authorizing counties to adopt ordinances requiring minimum acreage and reasonable care to prevent projectiles from leaving the property. It would also create a rebuttable presumption that firing across or over a property boundary without written permission was directed at another person’s property, strengthening enforcement tools for local governments. The bill leaves intact existing county authority over outdoor shooting of firearms, bows, and arrowguns, while preserving agricultural deer-hunting exemptions and the current misdemeanor penalty structure for violations.
The available legislative history suggests limited recorded debate, but the bill’s progress indicates it was not advanced out of committee and was continued to the next session by voice vote in the Counties, Cities and Towns Committee. That procedural outcome suggests either unresolved concerns or a lack of consensus, rather than clear support or opposition on the record. Overall, the bill appears to address public-safety concerns about stray gunfire while attempting to preserve lawful hunting and agricultural uses.
The main points of contention likely center on balancing firearm safety and local nuisance control against property rights, hunting access, and rural land use. Supporters would likely favor the bill’s reasonable-care standard, acreage threshold, and berm/backstop language as practical tools to reduce stray bullets and neighbor disputes. Opponents may object that the ordinance authority is broad, that the rebuttable presumption could burden gun owners, or that the five-acre requirement and local discretion could restrict lawful shooting on smaller rural parcels. The continued-to-next-session vote suggests these issues may not have been fully resolved.