As we're all aware by now, slapping a sign on a wall that says 'No Guns Allowed" doesn't mean that place will actually be "gun-free." Unless there are magnetometers and/or other security measures on-site, anyone with ill intent can easily violate that policy, and some active shooters have specifically looked for places like this to carry out their attack, knowing that the odds are good they won't face an armed response until law enforcement arrives on scene.
Virginia congressman John McGuire is now taking aim at these supposedly sensitive places with a new bill called the Shall Not Be Infringed Act of 2026. Under the bill, any lawful gun owner who is authorized to carry that firearm under state law could sue the state or local government if they're injured in a "gun-free zone" designated by state or local law.
McGuire's bill would also choke off funding for law enforcement if state or local governments didn't comply with the Act, though it's hard for me to understand what compliance would look like, given that the legislation would simply allow for civil suits against government entities under specific circumstances.
In fact, there are a couple of things that I'm still unclear about, even after reading the text of the bill.
The legislation says "if the State or unit of local government has in effect any law providing for a gun free zone, then any gun owners who can lawfully carry and are "harmed by the use of a firearm" by another in that supposedly gun-free setting can sue the state or local government for compensatory damages and damages for pain and suffering... but only if they "could have averted or mitigated such harm" with their own firearm.
This raises a couple of questions. First, it would seem to cover private property that is deemed to be "gun-free" by the owner, since the bill says nothing about the gun-free zone in question having to be on government-owned property. Virtually every state in the country allows property owners to prohibit lawful carry if they choose, so would this law apply to every "gun-free zone" in existence? And why wouldn't the property owners be subject to a civil suit as well, at least if they chose to make their property a victim disarmament zone?
Let's assume that the bill's language applies only to those locations deemed "sensitive" by state or local governments; places where property owners are required to prohibit lawfully-carried firearms. Rightly or wrongly, the Supreme Court has said that at least a few of these locations can be "gun-free" without running afoul of the Constitution. So what happens if a gun owner is harmed by a firearm in one of those settings? Presumably a civil suit would be allowed to proceed, but I'm not convinced that it would get very far in court.
In that respect, the bill may be written too broadly, but another provision in the legislation is too narrowly construed for my liking. Only those gun owners who are "harmed by the use of a firearm" in one of these gun-free zones can sue the state or local government for damages. Why should someone who is stabbed in a "gun-free zone" not be able to sue, given that they were still unable to use their firearm in self-defense because of the government's policy?
I'd like to see the bill broadened to include anyone who is injured by any use of deadly force in one of these locations. And since the bill only allows for litigation by the person who is injured, it would only apply to those who survive such an attack. The legislation should also be modified to allow for the spouse and/or children of someone who is killed in a gun-free zone to also pursue a civil suit against the state or local government that implemented the policy.
I lke McGuire's bill in theory, but I have some concerns with the text as written. In all honesty, though, the odds of this bill passing both chambers of Congress and being signed into law by President Trump are slim. McGuire has been a staunch Second Amendment supporter as both a member of Congress and a Virginia state legislator, and my guess is that he's looking to generate enthusiasm for his re-election campaign among Second Amendment advocates ahead of what could be an incredibly tough fight if Democrats are successful in gerrymandering the state's congressional districts to give them a 10-1 advantage.
McGuire currently represents the Fifth Congressional District, which is considered an R+6 district by Cook Political Report. Under the Democrats' proposed map, however, would shift the electorate about 20 points to the left, giving Democrats an almost certain pickup. McGuire would need virtually every gun owner in the Fifth District to rally behind him, and offering up red meat like the Shall Not Be Infringed Act is a good way to do goose his support among 2A supporters.
It's a good strategy, but I still think the bill itself could be better, and I hope that McGuire will consider making some changes that would make the Shall Not Infringed Act of 2026 even stronger than it is at the moment.
