Virginia's legislative session will wrap up this weekend, but not before Democrats have sent at least a dozen anti-2A bills to Gov. Abigail Spanberger for her signature. While some measures like a proposed "permit-to-purchase" and new taxes on guns, ammo, and suppressors were pushed to next year's session, there are enough new laws on the way that the right to keep and bear arms will be hugely affected come July 1, when many of these provisions will become law.
Reason recently took a look at the 12 bills that have passed out of the General Assembly, including SB 749 and its ban on so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines (defined as anything that can hold more than 15 rounds); SB 27, which creates a new pathway to suing gun makers, sellers, and distributors for the actions of criminals; and SB 173 and SB 272, which create new "gun-free zones" in hospitals where mental health services are available and all government owned buildings; and SB 348, which imposes a one-size-fits-all storage mandate for gun owners with minors living at home.
Reason's Jacob Sullum also took a closer look at SB 749 and believes the gun and magazine ban "seems vulnerable to a constitutional challenge under the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents."
S.B. 749 defines "assault firearms" to include any semi-automatic, center-fire rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has any of five features: a threaded barrel, a flash suppressor, a thumbhole stock or pistol grip, a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand, or a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock. As state Sen. Saddam Salim (D–Fairfax), the bill's lead sponsor, sees it, any of those features transforms a rifle from a legitimate product into an intolerable "weapon of war."
The logic here is hard to follow. With or without these features, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity. Adding a threaded barrel, a flash suppressor, or a folding stock does not make the weapon any deadlier. And while the other features might improve control of the rifle, that advantage does not make much difference in a scenario where a gunman is indiscriminately firing at a group of unarmed people.
On its face, the magazine limit makes more sense, since the seconds required to switch magazines might provide an opportunity for victims to escape or disarm the shooter. But the wide availability of magazines already in circulation undermines any potential public safety benefit. Of the 1 billion or so magazines that have been sold in the United States since 1990, according to a 2024 report from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), about three-quarters hold more than 10 rounds, while nearly half hold 30 or more.
As Sullum notes, these arms are clearly in common use for lawful purposes, which would seem to make them protected by the Second Amendment based on what the Supreme Court has said in cases like Heller and Bruen.
The problem, of course, is that the Court has repeatedly passed on the opportunity to explicitly extend that same protection to AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms and the detachable magazines they typically use. Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted last year that the justices would take up a hardware case "in the next term or two", but so far this term SCOTUS has sat on nearly a half-dozen challenges to "assault weapon" and "large capacity" magazine bans.
The Court hasn't denied cert outright to any of those cases either, which is a somewhat positive sign. My guess is that the justices are waiting for the Third Circuit's en banc decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin, which is challenging New Jersey's "assault weapons" ban. Oral arguments were held last October, and the appellate court could release its opinion at any time. If the Third Circuit does declare the Garden State gun and magazine ban unconstitutional, as expected, it would create a circuit court split and give SCOTUS another reason (and vehicle) to take up the issue of banning commonly owned firearms and magazines.
Even if that decision was released today and SCOTUS quickly granted cert to one or more of the cases its been holding on to, that may not be enough to keep the Virginia gun and magazine ban from taking effect on July 1. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld similar bans in Maryland, and it would be unlikely to uphold an injunction against the law being enforced, even if a district judge issued one.
Virginia's state courts, however, are a different story. Virginia's universal background check law was held unconstitutional by a circuit court judge, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same thing happens to the "assault firearm" and magazine ban. If SCOTUS has granted cert to a similar challenge by then, I would expect the Virginia Supreme Court to keep any injunction in place until the U.S. Supreme Court releases its opinion on these bans.
So, here's hoping the Third Circuit doesn't delay its decision much longer. The Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans are already impacted by these bans, and millions more will soon feel the effects of these infringements once Virginia's ban becomes law. The sooner the Third Circuit weighs in on New Jersey's ban, the sooner every one of these "assault weapon" and "large capacity" bans can be wiped off the books in every state where they're currently in place.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member