The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Virginia following the state’s enactment of a new “assault firearms” ban.
The ban, which currently has two state-level injunctions against it, was due to go into effect on July 1. It bans some of the most commonly owned firearms in the country, such as the AR-15, for having certain cosmetic features, such as threaded barrels. Virginia, once a gun-friendly state, has become one of the most hostile toward the ownership of firearms. The bill, known as SB 749, was signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger, a former member of Moms Demand Action, earlier this year.
Just as the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, the AR-15 is not a second-class arm. As promised, @CivilRights is moving fast to vindicate Virginians’ rights to acquire the most popular rifle in the country for self-defense.https://t.co/pn1YlRQ1h4
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) July 1, 2026
DOJ Targets Virginia’s ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban
The lawsuit, United States of America v. The Commonwealth of Virginia and The Virginia Department of State Police, highlights Virginia’s rich history of firearm ownership. It was the birthplace of the Second Amendment, as written by Virginian James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution.”
The brief reads: “From before the beginning of this Nation’s existence, Virginians have provided indispensable leadership in the cause of constitutional liberty. Indeed, Virginian James Madison is, for good reason, known as the Father of the Constitution. Madison also drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights, which became effective on December 15, 1791, when Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify it.”
The lawsuit highlights how the bill uses “politically charged rhetoric to describe the arms to which it applied.” Terms such as “assault firearms” and “assault weapons” didn’t exist until 1989, when anti-gun advocates coined them to confuse the public with the term “assault rifle.” This distinction has been highlighted in the past by the Supreme Court in an Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting opinion.
Thomas wrote in Stenberg v. Carhart: “Prior to 1989, the term assault weapon did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”
Bruen, Wolford, and the Second Amendment Test
The DOJ argues that the banned firearms fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. According to the recent Wolford decision, the only two questions that can be asked at step one of a Bruen analysis are whether the people being burdened are members of “the people” — that is, law-abiding citizens — and whether the arm is bearable. In this case, the answer to both is an unequivocal yes.
In step two of the Bruen analysis, the burden falls to the state to show, through historical analogue evidence, that the firearm law is consistent with the nation’s tradition and history of firearms regulation. States have a track record of citing racist Black Codes from the Reconstruction era to justify their bans, but once again, in Wolford, the Supreme Court was clear that it will no longer accept such analogues.
The brief also covers how these arms are in common use nationwide, with millions in circulation. The fallback position of anti-gun states has been to claim they are not in common use for “self-defense,” but Wolford makes it clear that common use includes both offensive and defensive purposes. The DOJ further highlights that AR-15s are rarely used in crimes by noting that the number of murders committed with all long guns is far lower than those committed with handguns, knives, blunt objects, or hands and feet.
A Major Federal Escalation
This federal lawsuit represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights against unconstitutional state-level restrictions. By directly challenging Virginia’s “assault firearms” ban on both textual and historical grounds, the Department of Justice is reinforcing the Bruen framework and sending a clear message that politically motivated gun control measures cannot override constitutional protections.
As the case progresses, it could set important precedents that safeguard commonly owned firearms and curb the use of misleading terminology designed to erode public support for the right to keep and bear arms.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
from https://ift.tt/CAlDwsv
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment