Virginia gun owners were supposed to get their day in court before Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun and magazine ban takes effect on July 1. Instead, the emergency hearing in Crump v. Katz has been pulled from the docket, and the case has been stayed while a three-judge panel decides whether several challenges to SB749 should be consolidated or transferred.
For Virginians facing a fast-approaching criminal ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines, the effect could leave gun owners in legal danger while the courts work their way toward a decision.
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. The lawsuit challenges Virginia’s new SB749/HB217 restrictions, which ban the future acquisition, sale, manufacture, importation, purchase, and transfer of firearms the state labels “assault firearms,” along with magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
The plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 15, one day after the law was enacted, and followed it on May 18 with a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The point was simple: get the issue in front of a judge before the July 1 effective date, not after law-abiding Virginians, gun shops, and manufacturers are already forced to live under an unconstitutional scheme.
The hearing on that emergency motion had been scheduled for Friday, June 12th. According to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to reinstate the hearing, the date was set by agreement of the parties and the court so the judge could make a decision before the law took effect. Then the hearing disappeared.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
|
CCI 9mm Shotshell Ammunition 10rds- - -3790 | Palmetto State Armory | $ 19.99 |
|
|
BUNDLE DEAL: FDE Steiner MPS Red Dot Pistol Sight and 500 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain | True Shot Ammo | $ 648.02 |
|
|
BUNDLE DEAL: Black Steiner MPS Red Dot Pistol Sight and 500 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain | True Shot Ammo | $ 604.81 |
|
|
Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight - Enclosed and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain | True Shot Ammo | $ 603.53 |
|
On June 9, Lancaster County Circuit Judge John S. Martin entered an order staying further proceedings in the case. The order states the Supreme Court of Virginia appointed a panel of three circuit court judges to determine whether Crump v. Katz should be consolidated with similar cases pending in Washington County, Spotsylvania County, and Fauquier County, and whether the case should be transferred to another jurisdiction for trial.
The court’s order states that “further proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision” of that panel.
The Virginia Supreme Court order attached to Judge Martin’s stay order names four cases: Santolla v Katz in Washington County, Crump v Katz in Lancaster County, Curtis v Katz in Spotsylvania County, and Black v Hook in Fauquier County. The panel was appointed under Virginia’s Multiple Claimant Litigation Act to deal with possible joining, coordination, consolidation, or transfer of the related lawsuits.
SB749 is set to take effect July 1. The plaintiffs have asked for emergency relief because the law would immediately affect the ability of Virginians to acquire and carry a wide range of commonly owned firearms and accessories.
GOA and our allies have filed an Emergency Motion to Reinstate Hearing outlining why the Lancaster Circuit Court should put the hearing back on.
Stay tuned for updates! We will not stop fighting. https://t.co/ENSFUUUIZ0
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 10, 2026
The state is targeting the kinds of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and magazines ordinary Americans own by the millions for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, competition, and recreation.
The plaintiffs are now asking Judge Martin to vacate the June 9 stay order and reinstate the June 12 hearing. Their argument is that nothing in the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act requires or authorizes a full stay of the injunction proceedings merely because a consolidation or transfer request is pending.
Their emergency motion warns that the three-judge panel has not yet issued a briefing schedule, hearing schedule, or any indication of how quickly it will move. If that process takes weeks or months, the law could take effect before the court ever reaches the emergency injunction question. That would leave gun owners suffering the very constitutional harm the temporary injunction motion was designed to prevent.
This is the problem with procedural delays in Second Amendment cases. The government passes the ban. Gun owners sue. The calendar becomes a weapon. Every day of delay helps the state and hurts the citizen.
Virginia should not be allowed to run out the clock on constitutional rights.
AmmoLand has been following this fight from the beginning. We previously reported when GOA, VCDL, and John Crump filed their state-court challenge in Crump v. Katz. We also covered the plaintiffs’ emergency injunction request, Virginia’s troubling argument that the state constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the separate NSSF-backed Black v. Hook lawsuit challenging the same SB749 gun ban.
Together, these cases show how much legal resistance Spanberger’s gun-control push has created. Federal lawsuits. State lawsuits. Industry-backed challenges. Grassroots gun-rights groups. Individual gun owners. Gun shops. Manufacturers. Magazine makers. Even multiple Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorneys have said they will not enforce the ban on constitutional grounds. That should tell Richmond something.
SB749 is a ban on common arms. The state can dress it up with scary labels, feature tests, and political talking points, but the substance is clear. Virginia Democrats are trying to make it a crime for peaceable citizens to acquire arms and magazines that are standard across America.
The stay in Crump v. Katz does not validate SB749. It stops the Lancaster County case from moving forward while the consolidation panel decides what to do.
For Virginia gun owners, that is the danger. Rights can be lost in the gap between “we will hear you later” and “the law takes effect now.”
The court should reinstate the hearing and let the injunction motion be heard before July 1. If Virginia wants to defend its gun ban, it should have to do so in court before the ban starts turning ordinary conduct into a criminal offense.
The Second Amendment is not supposed to wait in line behind scheduling games. Neither is Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.
Spanberger Signs SB 749; SAF, NRA, FPC Immediately File Federal Lawsuit
Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz
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.
from https://ift.tt/eFzwI6S
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment