When the courts issue an injunction, telling a state not to enforce a particular gun law, the state is required to stop enforcing that gun law. It's not rocket science here, and while we can argue back and forth over the mechanisms involved, our system is rooted in the idea that all of the branches of government provide a check upon one another, but also have some degree of respect for the roles each plays.
So, when Virginia announced that the state police were going to resume universal background checks, a lot of eyes opened wide in surprise. After all, it's not like they stopped enforcing them out of the goodness of their heart. It was the result of an injunction, which is still in effect.
And now, folks are talking about holding the state in contempt.
Virginia State Police resumed enforcing the state's universal background check requirement despite a court injunction blocking the law, prompting the Gun Owners Foundation and the Virginia Citizens Defense League to ask a Virginia judge to hold the commonwealth in contempt.
The Western Journal reported that the organizations filed a motion arguing that Virginia is violating a permanent injunction issued by the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg after the court ruled in October that the state's universal background check law was unconstitutional.
The dispute centers on House Bill 1525, which Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed after the General Assembly approved amendments directing Virginia State Police to enforce the background check requirement.
According to the filing, attorneys representing the gun rights organizations later received confirmation from the office of Democratic Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones that enforcement had resumed.
"The Virginia State Police has resumed conducting background checks earlier this afternoon, pursuant to the newly enacted statute(s)," the attorney general's office said in an email cited in the filing.
The organizations argue that Virginia cannot disregard a standing court order simply because lawmakers passed a new statute.
And, of course, the organizations are right. Especially as this isn't really a new statute with appreciable differences that address the previous ruling. It's really just telling the state police to get at it. Nothing about the unconstitutionality of the previous measure was addressed, so far as I can tell.
See, if they took the ruling and created a new statute that addressed the court's findings, we might have a reason to chat. Yes, it would still be unconstitutional, but it would be unconstitutional in a different way. It's kind of how Bruen smashed the whole "may issue" thing for carry permits, so states started trying to find new ways to infringe on gun rights. Those will get smashed in due course, but they don't warrant states being held in contempt because they created laws that were appreciably different than what SCOTUS ruled were unacceptable.
Virginia didn't do that. They just decided to pass a law that says to ignore the court ruling and just do it anyway.
How is that not contempt?
Of course, I'm more than fine with the court holding the current "leadership" in the Old Dominion State in contempt. I've got nothing but contempt for the, too, so it's only fair the courts do so as well.
And in this case, they really need to do so.
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member