Unless the Virginia Court of Appeals or state Supreme Court intervenes, Virginia's ban on so-called assault firearms will officially be suspended next Tuesday, thanks to a Washington County judge's injunction in a case brought by the National Rifle Association, Virginia Shooting Sports Association, and several individual plaintiffs.
That lawsuit is one of four legal challenges filed at the state level, along with two lawsuits filed in federal court; one by Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and NRA, and the other brought by the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division and Second Amendment Section.
On Thursday, Gov. Abigail Spanberger repeated her support for the gun ban she signed into law, saying that it's "never desirable that we spend any extra dollar sort of defending something that is constitutional and appropriate, but that is the legal process."
In a discussion with reporters on Thursday, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger (@GovernorVA) reiterated that despite injunctions blocking enforcement of Virginia’s assault weapons ban and a law meant to bar ICE from wearing masks in Virginia, Spanberger still believes both laws… pic.twitter.com/SA1Qgtk2Wm
— Tyler Englander (@TylerEnglander) July 17, 2026
Virginia's ban on the sale of commonly-owned firearms is neither constitutional nor appropriate (and the state's attempt to prohibit federal law enforcement from wearing masks is just as constitutionally infirm, in my opinion), but Spanberger and Attorney General Jay Jones are going to waste a lot of taxpayer dollars defending the indefensible.
The Virginia AG's latest claim in our AWB case:
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) July 16, 2026
"Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that assault firearms... are 'arms' protected by... the Second Amendment."
Too bad for them Heller already decided this. If that's the best argument they have, we're feeling pretty good. pic.twitter.com/xVwaZCv9De
Jones has filed a motion to dismiss in Crump v. Katz, which is GOA's state-based challenge to the gun ban. A judge in Lancaster County also granted an injunction in the case, though it is not as all-encompassing as the injunction granted in Washington County.
The attorney general is basically throwing every argument he can at the judge in the hopes one of them will stick. He argues that the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue, even though the judge has already ruled that plaintiff John Crump does have standing. He claims the challenge to SB749 "fails because they cannot show that the statute is unconstitutional in all its applications," like firearms equipped with a grenade launcher. He even alleges that Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution establishes "a collective, militia-tethered right," not an individual right to keep and bear arms.
And yes, he claims that AR-15s and other so-called assault firearms aren't arms protected by the Second Amendment, even though he also says that the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the legal challenge.
Even if the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ mistaken theory that there is an individual right in § 13, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that assault firearms and large capacity magazines are “arms” protected by §13 or the Second Amendment.
Assault firearms and large-capacity magazines are not in common use today for lawful self-defense. Because assault weapons are “weapons that are most useful in military service,” they lie “outside the ambit of the Second Amendment.”
Assault firearms and large-capacity magazines fall outside constitutional protection for a second, independent reason: they are “dangerous and unusual” weapons that the Supreme Court has placed beyond the reach of any arms guarantee.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The Supreme Court just said in Wolford that "arms" are "weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes." It is not up to the plaintiffs to show that these arms are protected. It's up to the defendants to prove that they're not protected by the Virginia Constitution (or the Second Amendment).
Arms don't have to be in common use for self-defense in order to be protected. Under Jones's theory, the Commonwealth could ban every long gun on the market using the argument that handguns are the most common arm for self-defense.
The "assault firearms" banned by SB 749 include, by Gov. Spanberger's own admission, shotguns that are lawfully used for hunting. The ban also encompasses arms that are popular for recreational shooting, competitive shooting, and yes, home defense as well.
These arms aren't "dangerous and unusual" either. Virtually every firearm is dangerous, so the question is really whether AR-15s and other arms designed by Virginia Democrats as "assault firearms are unusual. There are more AR-15s in the United States than Ford F-150s, and in the first six months of 2026 it's estimated that Virginians purchased well over 100,000 AR and AR-style rifles. These guns are hardly unusual. In fact, they're probably the most popular arms in Virginia today.
Jones's final argument is that SB749 is justified" because it addresses the dramatic technological change of rapid fire semi-automatic assault firearms and large-capacity magazines and the unprecedented societal concern of mass shootings."
The Commonwealth’s public-safety interest is substantial, and SB749 is reasonably adapted to that interest. Any burden on Plaintiffs’ rights is modest and does not outweigh the Commonwealth’s interest.
Semi-automatic firearms have been around for more than a century, as have magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. And Virginia's ban doesn't encompass every semi-automatic gun on the market. It also allows for magazines of more than 15 rounds, so long as the magazine isn't detachable.
What about the "unprecedented societal concern of mass shootings?" The deadliest mass shooting in Virginia (at Virginia Tech) was committed by a killer who used two handguns, not a so-called "assault firearm." In fact, the five deadliest public shootings in Virginia were all committed with handguns, not "assault firearms."
Even if that weren't the case, the Supreme Court said in Heller that while handguns might be the weapon of choice for criminals, their use by lawful owners renders a ban unconstitutional. The ratio of lawfully-owned AR-15s to those used in crime is even higher, and these commonly-owned arms cannot be banned solely because a small number of people might use them to commit mass murder.
None of Jones's arguments are going to stand up in court, and I suspect that by this time next year the Supreme Court will have already ruled bans on AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms unconstitutional. Who knows how much money Virginia will have wasted defending the Democrats' gun and magazine ban by then, but to the Democrats running the state's government, no amount is too much when it comes to restricting the right to keep and bear arms.
