This bill amends Title 18 to widen who counts as an "intimate partner" for federal firearms-disqualification purposes to include current and former dating partners and other persons "similarly situated" to a spouse, including those protected under State or Tribal domestic violence laws. It also creates a federal definition of "misdemeanor crime of stalking"—centered on a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance that places a person (or certain people close to them) in reasonable fear or causes emotional distress—and makes convictions for that misdemeanor a trigger for federal firearm prohibitions.
Why it matters: the bill closes gaps that have kept people who commit stalking or abuse in dating relationships from being treated like other domestic abusers under federal firearm law. It broadens the pool of victims covered (including cohabitants, immediate family, pets/service animals, and children tied to a dating partner) and forces courts, law enforcement, and NICS administrators to apply new definitional and procedural tests when deciding who is disqualified from buying or possessing guns.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises 18 U.S.C. §921 to: (1) add current and former dating partners and "individuals similarly situated" to the statutory definition of "intimate partner"; (2) expand the misdemeanor domestic-violence definition to reach perpetrators who have a dating relationship with a victim's parent or guardian; and (3) establish a federal definition of "misdemeanor crime of stalking" and make such convictions a basis for firearm disability under 18 U.S.C. §922.
Who It Affects
Survivors of dating-partner abuse and stalking, defendants with misdemeanor stalking or related domestic convictions, federal and state law enforcement, courts determining whether prior convictions meet the new standards, and agencies that transmit conviction records to the NICS system.
Why It Matters
By converting certain misdemeanors—previously outside the domestic-violence/ firearms-disqualification regime—into federal firearm-disqualifying offenses, the bill changes who can legally possess firearms and requires new intra-jurisdictional coordination on charging, conviction procedures, and record reporting.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites critical definitions in the federal criminal code to bring dating relationships and stalking into the same legal frame as spousal domestic abuse for firearm-disqualification purposes. First, it alters the statutory definition of "intimate partner" so that someone who is or was in a dating relationship with a person is treated the same as a spouse when applying federal domestic-violence statutes that can strip firearm rights.
It also adds a catch-all—"any other individual similarly situated to a spouse"—and explicitly references persons protected by State or Tribal domestic or family violence laws.
Second, the bill adjusts the misdemeanor domestic-violence definition so that assaults or abuse connected to children are covered not only when committed by a parent or guardian, but also when committed by someone who has or recently had a dating relationship with the child's parent or guardian. That change brings individuals dating a child's caregiver into the domestic-violence umbrella for purposes of firearm prohibitions.Third, the bill creates a federal definition of "misdemeanor crime of stalking".
To qualify, an offense must be a misdemeanor that, as an element, requires a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance that either places the targeted person (or certain close associates, including immediate family, cohabitants, intimate partners, or the person's pet/service/emotional-support animal) in reasonable fear of actual harm, or causes or would reasonably be expected to cause emotional distress. The definition also contains procedural safeguards: a conviction counts only if the defendant had counsel (or knowingly waived counsel) and, where a jury trial was available, either was tried by a jury or knowingly waived that right.
Convictions that have been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or where civil rights have been restored do not count unless the restoration expressly preserves firearm disability.Finally, the bill amends 18 U.S.C. §922 to add a new disqualification in the lists of persons prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms: anyone convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking. That appears in both the categorical prohibition list and the list of persons who may not receive firearms under the statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 18 U.S.C. §921 to define "dating relationship" as a "continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature," and treats current and former dating partners as "intimate partners.", It expands the misdemeanor domestic-violence clause to cover a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with a victim's parent or guardian—bringing dating partners into the definition when the victim is a child.
The bill creates a federal "misdemeanor crime of stalking" that requires a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance and explicitly covers fear of harm to pets, service animals, and emotional-support animals.
A misdemeanor stalking conviction counts for firearm disability only if the defendant was represented by counsel (or knowingly waived counsel) and either had a jury trial or knowingly waived that right; expunged or pardoned convictions do not count unless the restoration preserves the firearm ban.
The bill adds misdemeanor stalking convictions to the list of disqualifying offenses in 18 U.S.C. §922(d) and (g), making such convictions a federal bar to shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the Act as the "Strengthening Protections for Domestic Violence and Stalking Survivors Act of 2025." This is purely formal but signals the bill's focus on aligning stalking and dating-partner abuse with existing domestic-violence firearm-disqualification mechanisms.
Redefining 'intimate partner' to include dating relationships
Modifies 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(32)–(37) so that "intimate partner" explicitly includes an individual who "is or was in a dating relationship" and swaps the definition language to emphasize a "continuing serious relationship of a romantic or intimate nature." Practically, prosecutors and courts will treat many dating-relationship cases the same as spousal cases when deciding whether a misdemeanor domestic-violence conviction triggers a federal firearm ban. The provision's "similarly situated to a spouse" language plus the cross-reference to State and Tribal domestic laws imports varying state definitions and could produce inconsistent coverage across jurisdictions.
Extending domestic-violence misdemeanor coverage to dating partners tied to children
Amends §921(a)(33)(A)(ii) to make clear that misdemeanor domestic-violence can include acts committed by a person who has a current or recent former dating relationship with the victim's parent, guardian, or someone similarly situated. The effect: violence against a child by an adult who is dating the child's caregiver becomes a qualifying misdemeanor domestic-violence offense for federal firearms-disqualification purposes, expanding the set of relationships that trigger the prohibition.
Establishing 'misdemeanor crime of stalking' and procedural prerequisites
Adds a new §921(a)(39) defining "misdemeanor crime of stalking" as a misdemeanor whose elements include a course of harassment, intimidation, or surveillance that either places enumerated persons in reasonable fear of harm or causes expected emotional distress; the enumerated persons include immediate family, cohabitants, intimate partners, and pets/service or emotional-support animals. The new subsection also requires that, for the conviction to count, the defendant had counsel (or knowingly waived counsel) and, where applicable, was tried by a jury or waived that right—mirroring due-process protections used in other firearm-disqualification contexts—and it excludes convictions expunged or pardoned unless the pardon expressly preserves firearm disability.
Adding misdemeanor stalking convictions to §922 disqualifications
Updates 18 U.S.C. §922(d) and (g) to include persons "convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of stalking" in the lists of those prohibited from shipping, receiving, possessing, or transporting firearms. This operationalizes the earlier definitional changes by creating the direct statutory bar that agencies and background-check systems must enforce.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors of dating-partner abuse and stalking — Gains from being covered by federal firearm-disqualification rules previously limited to spouses or cohabitants, potentially reducing risk from firearms in the hands of abusers.
- Children living with or cared for by someone dating a perpetrator — The bill treats violence toward such children as domestic-violence-related for firearms-disqualification purposes, extending protections to kids in blended or nontraditional households.
- Victims with pets or service/emotional‑support animals — The statutory text expressly recognizes harm or fear directed at animals as a stalking-related harm, potentially widening prosecutorial options and protective-order rationales.
Who Bears the Cost
- People convicted of misdemeanor stalking or related domestic misdemeanors — They become subject to a federal firearms ban, increasing the population denied firearm rights based on misdemeanor convictions.
- State and Tribal courts and prosecutors — They must grapple with the bill's procedural prerequisites (counsel/jury/waiver inquiries) when determining whether past convictions count and may see increased administrative burden transmitting qualifying convictions to federal databases.
- Public defender systems and defense counsel — The bill elevates the stakes for misdemeanor stalking cases and could drive demand for counsel to ensure convictions meet the new criteria, increasing workload and resource pressure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pursues a clear safety aim—reduce firearm access by people who stalk or abuse dating partners and related household members—but does so by expanding misdemeanor-based firearm disqualifications and relying on vague relationship tests and retrospective conviction reviews; the tension is between stronger protections for survivors and the risk of uneven application, due-process concerns for people with past misdemeanor convictions, and gaps in the criminal-record reporting infrastructure needed to make the policy work in practice.
The bill's core work is definitional; that makes implementation highly fact-sensitive. "Continuing serious relationship" is intentionally broader than a one-time date but vague enough to invite litigation over whether a short-term or situational dating relationship qualifies. Courts will face difficult retrospective questions about old convictions: if a defendant was convicted years ago without counsel or without a jury—common in many misdemeanor plea situations—the conviction may not count under the new procedural safeguards, complicating background-check adjudications and producing inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions.
The expansion to include "individuals similarly situated to a spouse" and reference to State and Tribal domestic laws imports heterogeneous state standards into federal determinations, shifting work to state courts and record systems. Practically, many states do not consistently report misdemeanor stalking or related convictions into NICS, and the bill does not include an appropriation or a reporting mandate, so enforcement may depend on variable state reporting practices.
The inclusion of pets and service/emotional‑support animals as protected interests is significant for victims and prosecutors but raises evidentiary and charging questions—was the stalking directed at the person or at the animal, and how do prosecutors prove the requisite course of conduct?
Finally, the interplay with expungements, pardons, and civil‑rights restoration will create case-by-case complexity: the bill preserves an avenue for restoration to remove the firearm disability, but only if the restoration expressly allows firearms. That raises policy questions about proportionality and about whether misdemeanants with remote or disputed convictions should carry lifelong firearm disabilities absent explicit restoration.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.