A Virginia judge issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s assault-firearms ban until Dec. 31. IMG Duncan Johnson
A Virginia judge has issued a statewide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the Commonwealth’s new ban on so-called “assault firearms” until December 31, 2026, handing Virginia gun owners a major victory just days before the law was scheduled to take effect.
The ruling came Thursday in Crump v. Katz, the state-court challenge to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun-control package. The judge read the preliminary injunction from the bench and made clear that the assault-firearms ban is now enjoined statewide while the case proceeds.
The Commonwealth tried to limit the injunction to Lancaster County. The judge refused.
The state then asked the judge to stay his own ruling. He refused that, too.
That means the injunction is in effect now unless a higher court intervenes. Virginia’s assault-firearms ban is not merely delayed on paper. It is blocked statewide through Dec. 31.
John Crump Has Standing, GOA and VCDL Do Not
The court did narrow the case before granting relief. The judge held that Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League did not have standing, but found that individual plaintiff John Crump did. That finding kept the case alive.
Crump, an AmmoLand contributor and longtime Second Amendment journalist, challenged the law as a Virginia gun owner directly affected by the ban. The judge accepted that Crump had standing to sue, and that was enough for the court to reach the preliminary-injunction question.
The state may try to spin the standing ruling as a partial win because GOA and VCDL were knocked out at this stage. But the Commonwealth’s real goal was to keep the ban alive for July 1. It failed.
Judge Refuses County-Only Injunction
The statewide scope of the injunction is critical. Had the court limited relief to one county, Virginia gun owners would have been left with a confusing patchwork of rights depending on where they lived, traveled, bought, sold, trained, or competed. The judge rejected that approach and made the injunction statewide.
For gun owners, dealers, instructors, competitors, and families across Virginia, the practical effect is simple: the assault-firearms ban is blocked across the Commonwealth until Dec. 31, unless an appellate court steps in.
Virginia’s Gun Ban Hits Common Firearms
Virginia Democrats marketed the law as a public-safety measure. In reality, the ban targets ordinary Virginians. Virginians who own, buy, train with, and rely on commonly possessed firearms for lawful purposes.
These are not exotic weapons. They are firearms owned by millions of peaceable Americans for home defense, competition, training, collecting, and militia-suitable use.
Crump v. Katz challenges the Commonwealth’s attempt to restrict arms protected under Virginia’s own Constitution. Article I, Section 13 declares that “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”
The state’s defense was revealing. Virginia argued that Article I, Section 13 is not an individual right like the Second Amendment, but instead a collective, militia-tethered provision. Put plainly, the Commonwealth claimed Virginians have less protection under their own constitution than Americans have under the federal Bill of Rights.
The court was not willing to let the assault-firearms ban take effect while that argument plays out.
A Major First-Round Win for Virginia Gun Owners
This is not the final ruling on the merits. A preliminary injunction does not end the case. The Commonwealth can still seek emergency appellate relief, and no one should expect Virginia’s gun-control machine to quit.
But Thursday’s ruling changes the battlefield.
The judge refused to shrink the injunction to one county. He refused to pause his own order. And he refused to let Richmond enforce its assault-firearms ban before the constitutional challenge is resolved.
The lesson for Richmond should be obvious: changing the label does not change the right. Calling a rifle an “assault firearm” does not make it unusual. Calling a gun ban “public safety” does not make it constitutional.
For now, Virginia’s assault-firearms ban is blocked statewide.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani repeatedly used the phrase “pre-deprivation process,” which should send shivers down the back of anti-gunners. The Court made clear Americans cannot lose their right to bear arms without a pre-deprivation hearing, yet that is the entire point of today’s red flag law movement.
Much of the coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani focused on its holding: the federal ban on gun possession by users of illegal drugs, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), could not constitutionally be applied to a man whose only offense was unlawfully using marijuana. That result matters obviously. But within the Court’s opinion appeared a phrase that lands squarely against one of the anti-gun movement’s favorite weapons. The Court repeatedly referenced the concept of “pre-deprivation process.”
In other words, before an American may be disarmed by the government, there must be a pre-deprivation legal process during which the American can fight the attempt to disarm him. Properly understood and applied, this notion provides gun owners with a powerful argument against red flag laws.
The Historical Approach to Disarming a Dangerous Person
Let’s start with a distinction the red flag debate is designed to obscure. America has always had a way to deal with violent criminals (prison or death) and the dangerously mentally ill (civil commitment). The civil commitment process has been around for generations in every state. Unlike modern red flag laws, America’s commitment processes include robust due process protections designed to protect the individual and fundamental right to freedom against wrongful charges of mental incompetence. Some of those due process protections include the right to appointed legal counsel, expert witnesses, the right to confront witnesses, and setting the government’s burden of proof at the heightened “clear and convincing evidence” standard.
In contrast to civil commitment laws, modern red flag laws are designed to bypass the well-established due process protections of those accused of being dangerous to themselves or others. Red flag laws are specifically built to circumvent the usual due process protections of American gun owners. Red flag laws often allow courts to take one’s firearms away on an ex parte petition, which means without the gun owner first being able to fight the charge. There is no doubt that red flag laws are NOT about public safety, but are about subverting Second Amendment rights. That the only remedy arising from such laws is the confiscation of guns (not knives or cars, or a commitment to a mental institution) means the law reaches exactly one class of Americans: those who own guns.
In reality, if you are truly too dangerous to hold a firearm, then you are probably too dangerous to walk the street, and civil commitment is the correct answer that the law has always supplied.
What Hemani Demands: Process Before Deprivation
Here is where the Hemani decision changes the terrain. The Supreme Court did not treat the timing of disarmament as an afterthought; it made process central. Reviewing the historical analogues the government offered, the Hemani majority observed that a vagrant could be jailed “generally only upon a conviction,” a habitual drunkard civilly committed “usually only after proceedings before something like a probate court,” and a surety demanded only after “a proceeding before a justice of the peace.” Each required process before the loss of liberty. The Court then said that: “None of that holds true for § 922(g)(3).”
The Hemani Court explained that:
“On the government’s account, the statute automatically divests an individual of his constitutional right to bear arms the moment he becomes an unlawful user and until he ends his drug use–all without any pre-deprivation process. To be sure, and as the government highlights, an unlawful user who violates this ban is entitled to “a full-dress criminal trial” before he can be imprisoned or permanently disarmed. Brief for United States 26. But be that as it may, §922(g)(3) offers an unlawful user no pre-deprivation process before his “‘temporary disarmament,’” the very burden the government says is akin to the burden vagrancy, civil-commitment, and surety laws imposed on habitual drunkards.”
That was a defect, not a virtue. The Court pointedly contrasted sections 922(g)(3) with subsections (g)(1) and (g)(4) (the bans on convicted felons and those “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to a mental institution”), which “involve some manner of pre-deprivation process.” A conviction. An adjudication. A hearing. The constitutional through-line is unmistakable: the government must give you your day in court before it takes your arms, not after. And the Supreme Court just said that in Hemani.
Rahimi Already Pointed the Way
The Hemani decision builds on United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), where the Supreme Court upheld disarming a man subject to a domestic-violence restraining order. The Supreme Court in Rahimi found: “An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.”
Chief Justice John Roberts flagged, in a footnote, that the objections to that statute “appear to sound in due process rather than the Second Amendment” but declined to reach the question because Mr. Rahimi never raised it. Hemani picks up the thread Rahimi left dangling and insists that due process come first.
The Red Flag Problem
Lay these principles against a typical red flag statute and the conflict is obvious. The order issues first; the firearms vanish; the hearing, if it happens, comes later (and at great financial and time expenses to the gun owner). That is deprivation before process, the precise sequence the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution forbid when they bar the government from taking “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Hemani adds a second demand these laws struggle to meet: an individualized finding about the dangerousness of the specific gun owner.
The Court faulted the government for not caring “whether [Hemani’s] drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others,” refusing to let a categorical label substitute for proof about the particular person. Red flag petitions, built on allegation and prediction rather than an adjudicated finding of present dangerousness, run headlong into both requirements.
I have argued for years that physically-violent dangerousness must be proven in court before a neutral judge (not just asserted) and that the Constitution fixes the order of operations: notice of a hearing, then an actual hearing, and finally, if warranted, a deprivation of a constitutional right. Hemani now says this in the Supreme Court’s own words. Litigators fighting these confiscation regimes have a new and authoritative tool, and they should use it. Godspeed!
About Mark W Smith
Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.
The Supreme Court ruled that Hawaii’s post-Bruen “Vampire Rule” violated the Second Amendment by making licensed carry illegal by default in businesses open to the public. IMG Duncan Johnson
The Supreme Court just delivered a major Second Amendment win and sent a blunt warning to Hawaii, New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, and every other anti-gun state trying to dodge Bruen.
In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule,” holding that the state violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by banning licensed concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gave express permission.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 6-3 majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Barrett also wrote a separate concurrence. Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The Court did not sugarcoat what Hawaii had done after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” Alito wrote. “We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”
That is the line anti-gun politicians should be forced to read out loud.
Hawaii Tried to Make Bruen Useless
Before Bruen, Hawaii made it nearly impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain a carry license. The Supreme Court noted that “from 2000 to 2018, only four such licenses were issued.”
After Bruen confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense, Hawaii did what anti-gun states often do. It changed tactics.
Instead of openly denying carry permits, Hawaii created a legal trap for anyone who actually tried to carry.
The law flipped the normal rule for private property open to the public. Under traditional common law, when a business opens its doors to the public, customers have implied permission to enter unless the owner says otherwise. Hawaii reversed that rule for armed citizens. A licensed carry permit holder could not enter a gas station, convenience store, restaurant, coffee shop, drug store, grocery store, big-box store, barber shop, dry cleaner, or laundromat unless the owner posted a pro-carry sign or gave direct permission.
In other words, your carry permit became nearly worthless the moment you left your driveway.
The Court Saw Through the Private-Property Dodge
Hawaii argued that the case was really about property rights, not gun rights. The majority rejected that dodge.
The ruling does not force private businesses to allow guns. A private owner can still post “no guns” or otherwise exclude armed customers. The constitutional problem was that Hawaii made “no guns” the statewide government-imposed default for property open to the public.
Alito explained that this new default rule imposed “severe restrictions on the daily activities” of permit holders who had already satisfied Hawaii’s carry requirements.
The Court gave a practical example of a woman who carries for self-defense while going to work, stopping for gas, buying lunch, visiting a drug store, picking up dry cleaning, and shopping for groceries. Under Hawaii’s rule, unless every business posted a “Guns Welcome” sign or something similar, “each visit could expose her to criminal liability.”
That is not public carry. That is criminalizing normal life.
‘The Spirit of Aloha’ Does Not Trump the Bill of Rights
One of the strongest parts of the opinion came when the Court rejected Hawaii’s attempt to rely on local anti-gun culture.
“The Second Amendment cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii,” Alito wrote, “any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald).”
He continued: “Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.”
That matters far beyond Hawaii. The Second Amendment is not stronger in red states and weaker in blue states. It is not subject to a state legislature’s mood, a governor’s politics, or a judge’s personal discomfort with armed citizens.
The right to bear arms means the same thing in Honolulu as it does in Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, or Richmond.
Hawaii’s Historical Analogues Fell Apart
Under Bruen, once the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue, the government must prove its law is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Hawaii failed.
The state leaned heavily on old anti-poaching and trespass laws, claiming they justified its modern no-carry default. The Court was not buying it. Those laws were aimed at unauthorized hunting on private lands, not peaceful concealed carry by licensed citizens in public-facing businesses.
“The gap between the State’s anti-poaching analogues and its new rule is just too wide,” Alito wrote.
The Court also hammered Hawaii for relying on an 1865 Louisiana law rooted in the Black Codes, the post-Civil War system used to disarm freed blacks and keep them defenseless.
“Unless we put history entirely out of our minds,” Alito wrote, “Hawaii’s claim that this tainted artifact illuminates the original understanding of the right to keep and bear arms cannot be taken seriously.”
That quote should sting. Anti-gun states keep pretending history supports disarmament. The Court reminded them that some of the history they rely on is not a constitutional tradition. It is a warning.
Barrett: ‘This Case, However, Is Not Hard’
Justice Barrett’s concurrence drove the point home.
“Applying old principles to new circumstances is not always easy,” Barrett wrote. “This case, however, is not hard.”
She made clear that Hawaii’s law regulated armed carry and therefore triggered Second Amendment scrutiny. She also rejected the idea that public dislike of firearms can justify stripping citizens of a constitutional right.
“While most Hawaiians might prefer that no one carry firearms in public places, a majority’s opposition to a constitutional right is not a permissible basis for restricting it,” Barrett wrote.
That is the heart of Wolford. Rights are not popularity contests. The Bill of Rights exists precisely because government officials and political majorities cannot be trusted to respect liberties they dislike.
A Warning to Other Anti-Gun States
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for further proceedings. For Hawaii gun owners, that is a direct win. For the rest of the country, it is a warning shot.
California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York adopted similar post-Bruen schemes designed to make licensed carry as difficult and risky as possible. Those laws are now on shakier ground.
The message from the Court is simple: states cannot pretend to comply with Bruen while making the right to bear arms useless in practice.
Hawaii tried to turn carry into a permission slip. The Supreme Court said no.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Virginia’s universal background-check requirement for private firearm sales is set to return July 1 after the court dissolved the injunction blocking enforcement. iStock-1494671908
Virginia’s universal background-check mandate for private firearm sales is poised to return July 1 after a Lynchburg court unexpectedly dissolved the permanent injunction that had blocked enforcement statewide.
Gun Owners Foundation announced the setback Wednesday, warning that the fight is not over and condemning the mandate as a potential “backdoor gun registry.”
Unless an appellate court intervenes, Virginia State Police may resume processing background checks for private firearm sales on July 1. The reversal represents another major blow to Virginia gun owners already facing a sweeping ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines taking effect the same day.
Gun Owners Foundation announced the setback on X, stating that the injunction will remain in place only through June 30.
“Bad news out of VA: The judge in our case unexpectedly dissolved the Universal Background Check injunction, effective 7/1 despite previously declaring the law unconstitutional,” GOF wrote. “We’re not done. We will continue to fight against tyrannical attempts to create a backdoor gun registry.”
Bad news out of VA: The judge in our case unexpectedly dissolved the Universal Background Check injunction, effective 7/1 despite previously declaring the law unconstitutional.
We’re not done. We will continue to fight against tyrannical attempts to create a backdoor registry. https://t.co/WTvVb2JfOx
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) June 24, 2026
Virginia’s Universal Background-Check Ban Is Back From the Dead
Unless an appellate court intervenes, Virginia State Police may resume administering and enforcing background checks on private firearm transfers beginning July 1.
The decision is the latest turn in Wilson v. Katz, formerly Wilson v. Hanley, a challenge brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League and individual plaintiffs.
As AmmoLand previously reported, the case began after Virginia imposed background checks on nearly all firearm transfers in 2020. The mandate created a de facto handgun-purchase ban for adults ages 18 to 20. Virginia law allowed those adults to purchase handguns privately, but the federally controlled system used by dealers would not process those transfers.
In October 2025, the court concluded that Virginia Code §18.2-308.2:5 could not constitutionally be applied under that system. Rather than manufacture an illogical exception for younger adults, the court struck the act in its entirety and permanently enjoined its enforcement statewide.
The ruling allowed lawful private firearm transfers to proceed without government-mandated background checks, dealer fees or state-generated transaction records.
Virginia “Fixed” the Violation by Taking Away More Rights
Virginia’s new anti-gun government responded by attacking the rights of young adults instead of respecting the ruling. The General Assembly passed HB 1525, which raised Virginia’s minimum age for purchasing handguns and so-called “assault firearms” to 21. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed it with an emergency clause on April 22.
Attorney General Jay Jones then argued that eliminating handgun-purchase rights for 18-to-20-year-olds had “fixed” the defect identified by the court and rendered the injunction unnecessary.
Virginia State Police attempted to restart private-sale background checks on May 27, before the court had dissolved its order. GOA and VCDL sought contempt sanctions. At a June 3 hearing, the court reaffirmed that the injunction remained binding, and State Police again stopped processing the checks.
July 1 Brings New Burdens for Virginia Gun Owners
That protection will now expire July 1.
This ruling does not end the litigation. It dissolves the existing injunction after Virginia changed the legal landscape by banning young adults from making the purchases that exposed the original law’s fatal defect.
For gun owners, the practical result is nevertheless serious. Private transactions will again be forced through government intermediaries, generating fees, delays and records that can become the foundation for firearm registration.
Virginia created a constitutional violation, lost in court, and then answered by taking away more rights. GOF has promised to keep fighting. Virginia gun owners should immediately expect an appeal, and another major battle over whether the government may turn private firearm ownership into a state-monitored privilege.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Hemani makes one thing harder for gun-control advocates to avoid: under Bruen, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. IMG Jim Grant
Ever since the Supreme Court established the “History and Tradition” test in its 2022 Bruen decision, America’s legal landscape has been undergoing a seismic re-evaluation. Under this standard, any modern gun control law is presumed unconstitutional unless the government can prove it aligns with a historical analogue from the founding era.
Because centuries of American law were not built with this exact strict historical formula in mind, dozens of well-established federal, state, and local gun control measures are currently in danger of being struck down.
The primary gun restriction acts, categories, and mandates facing constitutional collapse under the history and tradition test reveal a shifting landscape.
1. State “Assault Weapon” and High-Capacity Magazine Bans
Perhaps the most high-profile battleground involves state-level bans on semi-automatic rifles (like the AR-15 platform) and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Ten states and Washington, D.C., currently have these restrictions, but multiple challenges (Bianchi v. Brown, Duncan v. Bonta) are stacked at the Supreme Court’s doorstep.
The History Test Problem: Under the first step of the Bruen test, courts look at whether the hardware in question constitutes “Arms” in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Because millions of AR-15 style rifles are owned nationwide, they easily clear Step 1.
The Missing Analogue: When moving to Step 2, states have struggled to find a founding-era equivalent. The closest analogues governments have produced are 19th-century bans on Bowie knives or concealed pocket pistols. However, gun rights advocates successfully argue that those historical laws targeted specific concealment methods of weapon carry, not a flat ban on owning an entire class of popular, standard-sized rifles and feeding devices.
2. The Blanket Federal Felon Disarmament Ban (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1))
For decades, federal law has maintained a lifetime, blanket ban prohibiting anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison from ever owning a firearm again. This applies universally—whether the crime was violent armed robbery or a non-violent corporate tax freeze, mail fraud, or selling smuggled goods.
Following the Supreme Court’s strict approach in United States v. Hemani, which struck down the federal gun ban for regular marijuana users because historical “drunkard laws” didn’t support it, the blanket felon ban is highly vulnerable to “as-applied” challenges.
The History Test Problem: Historians point out that the founding generation did not have a sweeping, automatic, lifetime ban on gun ownership for all felons.
The True Analogue: Historical laws from the 1700s only disarmed specific groups deemed actively dangerous to the public or rebellious against the state (such as British loyalists during the Revolution). Consequently, the federal government is finding it nearly impossible to prove a historical tradition of permanently disarming someone for a non-violent, modern-day felony like driving an unregistered vehicle or filing fraudulent tax paperwork.
3. Mandatory “Waiting Periods” for Firearm Purchases
Several states require a mandatory waiting period—typically between 3 to 10 days—between the time a citizen buys a firearm and when they can legally take it home. While designed as a “cooling-off” period to prevent impulsive acts of violence, these laws are facing a massive historical reckoning in federal appeals courts.
The History Test Problem: The text of the Second Amendment protects the right to “keep and bear” arms. Delaying a law-abiding citizen’s ability to “keep” an item they just legally purchased directly burdens that right, moving the case to the historical phase.
The Absolute Absence of History: There is virtually zero historical footprint for a purchase waiting period in early American history. In 1791, if you had the money to buy a musket or flintlock pistol, you took it home immediately. States have attempted to argue that the time it took to travel to a store or manufacture a weapon acted as a natural “delay,” but courts are increasingly rejecting these reaches, noting that logistical constraints are not the same as an intentional, government-mandated restriction on a constitutional right.
4. State “Sensitive Places” Coverages (The Private Property Default)
Following the Bruen ruling, several restrictive states shifted tactics. Instead of denying carry permits altogether, they passed sweeping “sensitive places” laws. The most controversial is the private-property default rule (currently being challenged in the Supreme Court case Wolford v. Lopez), which automatically outlaws concealed carry inside any private business open to the public unless the owner posts a explicit sign welcoming guns.
The History Test Problem: While the Supreme Court acknowledged that historically “sensitive places” like courthouses or polling stations could be protected, expanding that definition to blanket entire municipal maps fails the history test.
The Analogy Twist: States like Hawaii and New York have attempted to justify these laws by citing 19th-century anti-trespass laws. However, those historical laws were aimed at stopping armed intruders from entering private domestic estates, homes, and plantations. There is a glaring lack of an American tradition where the government dictates that a public-facing grocery store, blacksmith, or tavern must be a default “no-gun zone.”
Summary of Vulnerable Firearms Regulations
As courts continue to scrub the history books to satisfy the Bruen and Rahimi frameworks, the message is clear: if a gun regulation cannot trace its genetic lineage back to early American tradition, its days on the modern books are numbered.
About Sean Maloney
Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.
Victor Davis Hanson’s defense of the Second Amendment is not merely academic. In a Dec. 6, 2025 episode of Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words, the historian and Hoover Institution senior fellow recalled a late-night confrontation at his family farm that he says permanently shaped his view of armed self-defense. The episode was published under the title “Why Alvin Bragg Refuses To Recognize the Awesome Power of the Second Amendment.”
Hanson is best known as a classicist, military historian, and conservative public intellectual. The Hoover Institution has described him as the author or editor of 24 books and hundreds of articles, editorials, and book reviews. But in the episode, Hanson’s argument for the right to keep and bear arms turned on something more personal than scholarship: a night in 1987 when, according to Hanson, three men threatened him and his family.
In the video, Hanson explains why the authorities in the criminal justice system in “blue” states do not want people to be able to protect themselves.
If people can protect themselves, they are less dependent on the state criminal justice system. If people can protect themselves, it is not as important if the criminal justice system decides who is worthy of protection and who is not. People have a chance to protect themselves. In short, Hanson tells us that more power in the hands of individuals means less power in the hands of the State. He admonishes Alvin Bragg and pointedly tells him this is the purpose of the Second Amendment.
From the video:
“… because as long as you are allowed to defend yourself, everything else falls in place. You have no control over people if they have Second Amendment rights.”
Hanson discusses the murder of Iryna Zarutska. He says no one was willing to get involved, probably because they see examples where prosecutors go after individuals who stop crimes, such as Daniel Penny in New York. Then he reveals a story this correspondent had not heard before.
At about 17:30 into the video, he relates how he used his great-grandfather’s 16-gauge pump shotgun to stop an attack on his family in 1987 or 1988. He describes the shotgun as a Winchester pump in 16 gauge with an exposed hammer. This is probably a Winchester 1897 shotgun, because the earlier 1893 Winchester was not made in 16 gauge. He calls it an “1892”. On well used shotguns, the 1897 can look like 1892. Later models of Winchester pump shotguns did not have exposed hammers.
Victor was sitting in his farm house, the same house he grew up in, in 1987. At 2 a.m. his eight year old son came down stairs and said someone was throwing rocks at his window and yelling.
Outside Victor found three individuals who were armed and threatened him. Fortunately Victor was armed with his shotgun.
When confronted, one armed gangbanger fell to his knees and started praying. Victor forced them to take him to their car. He took their keys, and had them push the car about a quarter mile down the road. He threw the keys into a vineyard and told them the police were on their way.
More than 30 minutes later, the police showed up. Officially they said he should not have done what he did. Unofficially, they told him he did the right thing. Later the police department contacted him, informed him one of the three had just been released from prison, but they could not prosecute because the three denied doing anything, and they did not find any firearm.
From that day on, Victor Davis Hanson had a strong, personal understanding of the importance of the Second Amendment. The story finishes about 20:50 on the video.
An old joke says: A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged. Once a person uses rights protected by the Second Amendment to protect themselves and their loved ones, respect for the Second Amendment becomes personal.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
Virginia’s SB 749 firearm and magazine ban faces five court challenges ahead of its July 1 effective date. iStock-2281848109
Virginia’s sweeping ban on the future acquisition of commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines is facing five separate lawsuits as its July 1 effective date rapidly approaches.
Two of those cases, Crump v. Katz and Santolla v. Katz, have preliminary-injunction hearings scheduled for June 25. A third court has already denied emergency relief, while a three-judge panel considers whether Virginia’s four state-court challenges should be transferred or consolidated.
Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s SB 749 / HB 217 prohibits the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of firearms Virginia labels “assault firearms.” It separately prohibits importing, selling, bartering, transferring or purchasing ammunition-feeding devices capable of accepting more than 15 rounds. SB 727 expands restrictions on carrying covered firearms in public.
The five cases are McDonald v. Katz, Santolla v. Katz, Crump v. Katz, Black v. Hook and Curtis v. Katz. Together, they challenge the laws under the Second Amendment, Virginia’s constitutional right to arms, its militia clause, the right to hunt and constitutional protections against vague criminal laws.
McDonald v. Katz: Federal Second Amendment Challenge
McDonald v. Katz is the federal case. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Justin McDonald, Anthony Groeneveld, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation. The defendants include Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz and several local prosecutors and sheriffs.
The plaintiffs’ argument is the straightforward Heller/Bruen argument: semiautomatic rifles, pistols, shotguns, and standard-capacity magazines are bearable arms commonly possessed by peaceable Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense.
The complaint argues that arms in common use cannot be “dangerous and unusual,” and therefore cannot be banned.
The plaintiffs also acknowledge the reality of the Fourth Circuit: current circuit precedent in Bianchi and Kolbe is a problem, but they argue those cases were wrongly decided and should be overruled by a court with the power to do so.
Santolla v. Katz: NRA/VSSA State Case
Santolla v. Katz is the NRA-backed state case in Washington County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs include Joseph Santolla, Reagan Brooke Adams, Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride Ltd., individual VSSA members, and the Virginia Shooting Sports Association.
The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s Article I, Section 13 right to keep and bear arms is coextensive with the Second Amendment. In plain English, they are saying Virginia cannot ban commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines any more than the federal government could. Their complaint leans on DiGiacinto, Heller, and Bruen, arguing that the Commonwealth is prohibiting arms and magazines commonly possessed for self-defense and other lawful purposes.
The business plaintiffs matter. This is not just about private owners. Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, and Virginia Pride allege direct harm from a law that cuts off sales, training, and customer access to the arms and magazines at issue.
Crump v. Katz: GOA/VCDL Challenge
Crump v. Katz was filed in Lancaster County Circuit Court by AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. It challenges SB 749 / HB 217 and SB 727 under the Virginia Constitution.
The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s new laws ban the acquisition, transfer, manufacture, purchase, and public carry of firearms and magazines that are owned by millions of ordinary Americans. They rely on Article I, Section 13 and the Virginia Supreme Court’s prior treatment of that right as coextensive with the Second Amendment. Their position is simple: if the arms are common, the state cannot turn them into contraband through scary labels and feature tests.
Crump also directly challenges the public-carry restrictions in SB 727. That makes it different from some of the other cases, because it attacks not only the right to acquire arms but also the right to bear them in public. The plaintiffs opposing consolidation noted that only Crump and Santolla challenge Virginia Code § 18.2-287.4, the public-carry provision.
Status: The Lancaster case was initially stayed after the Supreme Court of Virginia appointed a three-judge panel to consider consolidation or transfer. However, the preliminary-injunction hearing has since been rescheduled for June 25, giving the Crump plaintiffs another opportunity to seek relief before the ban takes effect July 1.
State rebuttal: Virginia’s opposition in Crump lays out the Commonwealth’s broader playbook. On the merits, Virginia argues magazines are accessories, not arms; that “assault firearms” and magazines over 15 rounds are not commonly used for lawful self-defense; and that historical laws regulating dangerous weapons support modern restrictions. The state also says the burden is modest because Virginians may still own other firearms and smaller magazines.
That is the government’s theory. Your rights are not violated so long as politicians leave you with something they consider acceptable.
Black v. Hook: NSSF-Backed Industry Case
Black v. Hook is the NSSF-backed case in Fauquier County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs include Eric Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Optimus Arms, and Hexmag USA. This case brings in individual gun owners, a retailer, a firearm manufacturer, and a magazine manufacturer.
The plaintiffs argue the ban violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution. NSSF says the law does not merely hit modern sporting rifles and standard-capacity magazines; it also sweeps up commonly owned handguns and shotguns used for self-defense and hunting. The plaintiffs point to more than 32 million modern sporting rifles in circulation and hundreds of millions of magazines over 15 rounds, arguing those numbers make the common-use question obvious.
Black also raises claims that are not duplicated in the other cases. According to the Crump plaintiffs’ opposition to transfer, Black uniquely includes an independent federal Second Amendment claim, an Article XI, Section 4 Virginia right-to-hunt claim, and federal and state vagueness claims aimed at the law’s catchall definition of “assault firearm.”
Currently, the case is included in the state consolidation/transfer fight. NSSF reported that the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction and requested a hearing before the July 1 effective date.
Curtis v. Katz: Militia-Clause Case
Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli serves as lead counsel in Curtis v. Katz. Cuccinelli has described the case as a novel challenge centered on the Virginia Constitution’s militia clause, arguing that the Commonwealth cannot require citizens to constitute its unorganized militia while denying them access to militia-suitable arms.
The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s Constitution does not merely protect an abstract right to own whatever arms Richmond allows. It guarantees “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” Their theory is that this guarantee must mean the people can acquire and possess militia-suitable arms. They argue the banned AR-15-pattern rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms are civilian analogs of the M4 carbine and other standard service weapons, and that magazines over 15 rounds are standard equipment, not luxury accessories.
The plaintiffs also turn the state’s own exemptions against it. If law enforcement and government users need these firearms and magazines, the argument goes, then the Commonwealth has already admitted they have militia and defensive utility.
Status: This is the one case where a court has already ruled on emergency relief. On June 18, Spotsylvania Circuit Judge William E. Glover denied the preliminary injunction. That does not end the case, but it means Curtis did not stop the July 1 effective date.
State rebuttal: Virginia argued the injunction was too broad and that Article I, Section 13 does not create a self-executing private right for members of the unorganized militia to buy and possess military-style arms. The state says militia power is implemented through public law and government structure, not individual choice.
The court found likely irreparable harm if the law is later ruled unconstitutional, but held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits at this stage.
What Comes Next
If no court acts before July 1, Virginia’s ban takes effect while gun owners, dealers, trainers and manufacturers keep litigating.
The state wants the public to believe this is not a serious infringement because it is not confiscation. That is wrong. A ban on buying, selling, transferring, manufacturing, importing and carrying common arms still guts the right.
The five lawsuits attack Virginia’s ban from different angles: federal Second Amendment rights, Virginia constitutional rights, public carry, militia arms, vagueness, hunting, commerce and industry harm.
Richmond can call them “assault firearms.” Gun owners know what they are: common rifles, pistols, shotguns and magazines used by law-abiding Americans for defense, training, competition, hunting and lawful use.
This fight is not over.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
