VSSA Ready to Challenge Spanberger Gun Ban

Yesterday, Governor Spanberger signed several bills after the General Assembly approved her changes.  Those bills were HB1525 and two companion bills - HB1524 and SB727.  HB1525 prohibits individuals under the age of 21 from purchasing and possessing certain firearms, including those who already own those particular firearms.  Making matters worse, this bill includes an "emergency clause" that makes the law effective immediately instead of July 1 which is usually t he case.  This means that thousands of previously legal gun owners are now in violation of Virginia law with no notice.

The other two bills (SB727/HB1524) out law the carrying and transportation of many common firearms on public property.  This includes any semiautomatic centerfire rifle or handgun with a fixed magazine capacity over 15 rounds.  This law does not take effect until July 1, 2026.

The Assembly rejected Spanberger's changes to HB217 and SB749, the bills banning the purchase of certain semi-automatomatic handguns and rifles, as well as banning the purchase of magazines that hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.  We are waiting on her signature on the original bills.  There is no reason to believe that she is going to veto those bills.

Other Bills that remain to be determined:

HB229 and SB143 - The other bills the Assembly “passed by” during the special session to consider the governor’s changes was HB229/SB143, which bans people from carrying guns at facilities that provide mental health treatment. Spanberger wanted to expand the restricion and remove an exception that allowed staff or security to carry firearms if administrators gave the ok.

By “passing by,” deciding not to offer a final vote on the changes rather than out right voting down the changes, the House and Senate effectively rejected her recommendation. The bill still has the exceptions for anyone who gets written permission from the hospital. It heads back to Spanberger’s desk, too.

The same questions about what the governor will do with HB217 and SB749 apply here. She made the same boilerplate statement about approving the bill’s “general purpose” in her recommendation statement. Will she veto it because the legislature didn’t add what she wanted?

She has 30 days to decide.

As soon as she signs the bills, VSSA is ready to challenge them in court.  We have been working with the NRA since the bills passed before the end of the Session to find plantiffs and to draft the documents to challenge them in court.  Be assured that VSSA and NRA will not let these infringments on your rights stand.

Additionally we are watching several cases that have been waiting at the U.S. Supreme Court related to gun and magazine bans.  The challenges to semiautomatic firearm bans (Viramontes and National Association for Gun Rights) and standard capacity magazine bans (Duncan and Gator’s Custom Guns) were discussed at conference on Friday, April 17. None of those have been listed on the Order’s List, so the Court may reschedule the cases for discussion at a future conference. We’ll keep an eye on their respective dockets.

Midway USA Notifies Virginia Customers of Shipping Limitations.

Midway USA has notified Virginia customers that they will not be able to ship certain items beginning June 15, 2026,

Due to pending legislation, effective June 15 we will no longer be able to ship magazines with a capacity over 15 rounds, and most semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, to the state of Virginia. Please place any orders for these products prior to June 15 to ensure we can still legally ship them to you.

 

We're sorry for the inconvenience,

 

MidwayUSA Customer Service

If you regularly do business with other online firearm and firearm accessory retailers, you may receive notices from those companies as well.

HT VCDL.

AAG Hermeet Dhillon Expects to Get Involved in Fighting Spanberger Gun Ban

 Assistant Attorney General Hermeet Dhillon was a guest on Dana Loesch's radio program yesterday and said DOJ will be joining some of the cases that are expected to be brought against Virginia's new gan ban bills, but that DOJ will also be bringing lawsuits as well.  AAG Dhillon said they continue to staff up the Second Amendment section of the civil rights division.  Take a listen.

"She'll sign that, then we'll end up challenging it"

~ @HarmeetKDhillon on VA Gov. @SpanbergerForVA's gun control proposals pic.twitter.com/YuJBrOCX72

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) March 26, 2026

Gun Bills Headed to Governor Spanberger.

Several gun bills are now headed to Governor Spanberger.  VSSA's lobbying team is monitoring the situation but it appears that the worst of the bills will not reach her desk in time to require action before the end of the session which is currently scheduled for March 14.  The bills that have passed both houses include:

SB727: This bill prohibits carrying and transporting many types of common firearms on public property. This includes semi-automatic rifles & pistols that are equipped with any of the following features: A fixed magazine with over 10 rounds, a standard magazine over 20 rounds, a folding stock, ability to accept suppressors, along with many other obscurities.

SB27 & HB21: These bills target the firearms industry including manufacturers and retailers in an attempt to get around the federal Protection Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and creates sweeping new standards of “responsible conduct” for members of the firearm industry, including manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. The bill requires these businesses to establish and implement vague and subjective “reasonable controls” over the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, and marketing of firearm-related products. It also allows for frivolous law suits against the industry, establishing a broad civil cause of action, allowing the Attorney General, Commonwealth Attorneys, or private individuals to sue firearm businesses for injunctions, damages, and costs. This is a direct attack on the firearm industry.

HB40 This bill is the so-called "ghost gun" bill and will end the centuries-old practice of individuals building lawful firearms for personal use without government interference.  It prohibits the manufacture of firearms without serial numbers. Transfer and possession of an unserialized or plastic firearm will be prohibited. This legislation will also penalize individuals who lawfully purchased unfinished frames and receivers before the bill’s effective date.

There is one good bill also headed to the governor.  HB101 will allow for alternate methods of submission of applications for concealed handgun permits by removing the requirement that such applications be submitted in writing.

Continue to check www.myvssa.org/legislation for updates concerning your Second Amendment rights in Virginia.

Senate Courts Advances SB749 Subsitute, Bans Possession of Standard Capacty Mags with No Grandfather Clause

After a three and a half-hour meeting this morning, Senate Courts of Justice advanced several firearm related bills, including an amended "assault weapons" ban bill.  All of the bills reported will have a fiscal impact so they were referred to the Senate Finance Committee before heading to the full senate for a vote.  The bills reported and rereferred this morning are:

SB115 Concealed handgun permits; reciprocity with other states (this bill would limit the number of states' permits that Virginia recognizes 
SB173 Weapons; possession prohibited in hospital that provides mental health or developmental services
SB272 Firearm or explosive material; exemptions, carrying public institutions of higher education
SB312 Assault firearms; carrying in public areas prohibited, penalty (This bill was incorporated into SB727)
SB323  Plastic firearms or receivers, etc., transfer, etc., prohibited; penalties (prohibits so-called "ghost guns")
SB348 Firearms; storage in residence where minor or person prohibited from possessing is present, penalty
SB496 Secure storage of handguns; unattended locked vehicle; penalty
SB727 Carrying loaded firearms in public areas prohibited in the Commonwealth; penalty
SB749 Importation, sale, possession, etc., of assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices prohibited; penalties

It should be noted that the the substitute to SB749 bans not only the sale of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds but also the possession, with no grandfather clause.

Fairfax Senator Saddam Azlan Salim Introduces Gun Ban Bill

State Senator Saddam Azlan Salim has introduced the senate version of the bill to ban so-called "assault weapons" in Virginia.  SB749 is different from the House bill (HB217) because SB749 also mentions possession and appears to say that possession of an assault firearm would be a Class 1 misdemeanor.  It is not exactly clear if this actually bans possession of the firearms, or only those manufactured after July 1, 2026.  Here are the relevant sections of the bill:

 § 18.2-287.4:1. Importation, sale, possession, etc., of assault firearms prohibited; penalty. 

A. As used in this section, an "assault firearm" means the same as that term is defined in § 18.2-308.2:2.
B. Any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, transports, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any government officer, agent, or employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault firearm and does so while acting within the scope of his duties; (ii) the manufacture of an assault firearm by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees, provided that the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws; (iii) the sale or transfer of an assault firearm by a licensed dealer to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees; or (iv) any member of a cadet corps who is recognized by a public institution of higher education while such member is in the performance of lawful military training or such member is participating in an official ceremonial event for the Commonwealth.

§ 18.2-287.4:2. Importation, sale, possession, etc., of assault firearms prohibited by persons younger than 21 years of age; penalty.
A. As used in this section, an "assault firearm" means the same as that term is defined in § 18.2-308.2:2 except that it includes such firearms manufactured before July 1, 2026.
B. Any person younger than 21 years of age who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, possesses, transports, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to (i) any government officer, agent, or employee, or member of the Armed Forces of the United States, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault firearm and does so while acting within the scope of his duties; (ii) the manufacture of an assault firearm by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees, provided that the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws; (iii) the sale or transfer of an assault firearm by a licensed dealer to any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States or to a law-enforcement agency in the Commonwealth for use by that agency or its employees; or (iv) any member of a cadet corps who is recognized by a public institution of higher education while such member is in the performance of lawful military training or such member is participating in an official ceremonial event for the Commonwealth.

Then, on line 324 on page 6 of the bill, there is this:

An "assault firearm" does not include any firearm that is an antique firearm, has been rendered permanently inoperable, is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action, or was manufactured before July 1, 2026.

So, it appears only the possession of rifles bought/manufactured after July 1, 2026 are banned.  We will see what actually comes out during the legislative process because it is possible the House bill will be conformed to the Senate bill when it gets to the Senate and the Senate bill will be conformed the the House passed bill when the Senate bill gets to the House and they both end up in conference to determine the final outcome.

SCOTUS Hears Arguments in Wolford v. Lopez

Yesterday,  the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Wolfold v. Lopez.  The issue in the case is whether Hawaii's law, which prohibits concealed carry on private property open to the public by default, requiring owners to give express permission (often via signs) for guns to be allowed.  The Plaintiff in the case (Jason Wolford) and pro-rights advocates say this effectively bans guns in most places, turning public spaces into "no-carry zones" and infringing on rights established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen. Hawaii's AG, Anne E. Lopez, argues the Second Amendment doesn't grant a right to carry on others' property without consent and that the law upholds property owners' rights. 

VSSA Life Member Stephe Halbrook has a piece over at The Volokh Conspiracy explaining what came up several time in the arguments.

One issue that was alluded to several times in the argument is the scope of the so-called "sensitive places" limitation on the Second Amendment's protections. Wolford is not really a "sensitive places" case—it is actually about the handful of places Hawaii did not separately declare "sensitive," since the no-carry-default rule applies only to places that the state has not made no-carry-no-matter-what. Nevertheless, it is quite probable that in dealing with the issue the Court will touch on, and possibly explain, its previous statements on the issue.

The Court's "sensitive places" dicta have been the source of some significant confusion for courts and litigants alike. In District of Columbia v. Heller, as it struck down D.C.'s handgun ban, the Court cautioned that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on … the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." Later, in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Court explained its statement in part as a way of demonstrating its historical method, writing that "although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th-century 'sensitive places' where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions." But Bruen cautioned, "there is no historical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a 'sensitive place' simply because it is crowded and protected generally by the New York City Police Department."

This list of locations (which Bruen got from the article by David B. Kopel and Joseph Greenlee, The "Sensitive Places" Doctrine, Charleston L. Rev. 2018) -- legislatures, polling places, and courts -- has led to significant disagreement among judges and litigants, even litigants on the same side of the issue. What restrictions do those three places have in common?

In his article Dangerous, but Not Unusual, Georgetown JL&PP 2024, Mark W. Smith surveyed the variety of historical "principles" that were being advanced to unite these historical laws and to analogize to modern statutes. He catalogued and criticized arguments that defined "sensitive places" as (1) places where "core government functions" are carried out, (2) places that meet a "collateral damage test" because misuse of a firearm would seem to be particularly problematic there, (3) places where "vulnerable people" congregate (more an issue for the schools that Heller mentioned than the legislative assemblies mentioned in Bruen), and (4) places where people exercise other constitutional rights. Professor Smith rejected each of these principles with good reasons -- who is not "vulnerable" to the misuse of a firearm? and why should we make those targets softer? Instead, he suggests a fifth principle that fits the evidence better: the presence of comprehensive government security in those locations. 

The case could set a precedent for similar laws in other states (like California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) and determine if states can default to a "no-carry" rule on private property, or if they must justify such bans historically, notes SCOTUSblog. 

Initial reports from the hearing indicated that the conservative majority appeared skeptical of Hawaii's law, questioning whether it imposes an undue burden on the right to public carry established in earlier precedents. A final decision is expected by the summer of 2026.