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.

Permit to Purchase Firearm Bill Drops at General Assembly

House Bill 1359, a bill creating and requiring a permit to purchase a fiream was filed yesterday at the Virginina General Assemlby.  The bill would not allow anyone below the age of 21 to purchase a firearm because they are not eligible for a permit, and the bill requires fingerprinting, and firearm training certified by the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).  Gun owners would be required to apply to the State Police for the permit and the state police would have 45 days to process the application.  There is no delayed enactment clause in the bill to give the state police time to set up the mechanisim for approving applications, nor giving DCJS time to certify training courses that would qualify.  There is also no exemption for people that have a valid concealed handgun permit from the permit to purchase requirement as currently exists with Deleware's permit to purchase requirement.  Does anyone really think government agencies can create a system to handle this process in the matter of a couple of months?

Call you member of the House of Delegates now and politely let them know that you oppose this bill. Even if you think your delegate will vote for this bill anyway, they need to hear from you.

More Gun Control Bills Introduced in House of Delegates

Now that the session has started, bills are starting to drop in bunches.  At least 6 more gun control bills appeared on the Legislative Information Service (LIS) and have been posted on the VSSA Bill Tracking Form.

The latest list of new bills, courtesy of Bearingarms.com are

HB 871, which "[r]equires any person who possesses a firearm in a residence where such person knows that a minor or a person who is prohibited by law from possessing a firearm is present to store such firearm and the ammunition for such firearm in a locked container, compartment, or cabinet that is inaccessible to such minor or prohibited person," or else face a misdemeanor charge. 

HB 901, which expands the state's "red flag" law to allow a "licensed professional counselor, licensed clinical social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, licensed clinical psychologist, licensed clinical psychiatrist, licensed psychiatric nurse practitioner, psychiatric physician assistant, psychiatric clinical nurse specialist, doctor of medicine, doctor of osteopathy, certified evaluator, designee of the local community services board, immediate family or household member, intimate partner, or school administrator or a school administrator's designee of any school in which the person against whom the order is sought is currently enrolled or has been enrolled in the six months preceding the filing of such petition" to file an Extreme Risk Protection Order petition. 

HB 916, which expands the requirements for a Virginia concealed carry permit to include "a handgun shooting class or course that teaches (i) efficient, effective, and responsible use of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside of the home; (ii) state laws pertaining to handguns; and (iii) proper handgun storage techniques".

HB 919, which imposes an 11% tax on the sale of all firearms and ammunition "by a dealer in firearms, firearms manufacturer, or ammunition vendor," with the proceeds going to the "Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund."

HB 969, which establishes the "Virginia Gun Violence Prevention Center" with a mission of serving as "the primary resource for research, best practices, and strategies for the implementation of firearm violence intervention, community-based intervention, and group violence intervention programs designed to reduce violence in communities."

HB 1094, which imposes another 11% tax on firearms and ammunition on "the gross receipts from the sale and distribution of any firearm or ammunition by a firearms or ammunition manufacturer."

There will be more bills on the way.  We're still waiting to see the Senate's version of a ban on so-called "assault firearms", as well as a possible "permit-to-purchase" that's been discussed by Democrats, even participating an a webinar hosted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solution on the topic. 

Keep checking the VSSA Legislative Tracking page for updates.  January 23rd is the last day to introduce legislation.

Five Day Waiting Period Bill Drops at General Assembly

More firearm related bills dropped at the General Assembly yesterday ahead of today's opening at noon. One of those bills is HB700, which would create a five day waiting period before an individual can take possession of a firearm after they complete the background check form. 

Provides that no person shall sell a firearm unless at least five days have elapsed from the time the prospective purchaser completes the written consent form to have a licensed dealer obtain criminal history record information, with exceptions enumerated in relevant law. The bill provides that any person who willfully and intentionally sells to another person or purchases from another person a firearm in violation of this prohibition is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Additionally, the bill provides that any dealer who willfully and intentionally sells, rents, trades, or transfers a firearm in violation of such prohibition is guilty of a Class 6 felony.

Be sure to check the VSSA Legislative Tracking Form for up-to-date information about this year's session.

A Cautionary Tale from Deleware on Permits to Purchase

Virginia gun owners could be facing the prospect of being required to possess a permit before they can purchase a firearm in Virginia.  Legislators have yet to introduce the bill but they recently paticipated in a webinar hosted by Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions.  In this webinar Senator Scott Surovell, Chairman of Senate Courts and Delegate Patrick Hope talk about the path forward for such a scheme in Virgnia. Last year, Delegate Hope introduced HB1424 which would have established a firearm purchaser licensing law. The bill would have required an individual to provide proof of training, be fingerprinted, pass a background check, and for approval of the license before they can purchase a firearm. The bill was referred to the Virginia Crime Commission for study. The Crime Commission presented the findings of their study which basically paved the way for the gun ban majority to move forward in this year's session of the assembly.

The State of Deleware recently passed a "Permit to Purchase" law to purchase a handgun (we don't yet know if Virgnia's would just be for handguns of for all firearms) that took affect in November. Bearingarms.com reported yesterday that their system does not appear to be ready for primetime.

The state police say the agency is taking an average of three days to process permit-to-purchase applications, well below the 30 days its given under the permit-to-purchase law. That's good, but the system still isn't operating like it's supposed to, despite the fact that Delaware had 18 months to get the new system up and running before the law took effect. 

The Crime Commission told legislators that if Virginia enacted such a law, it would require a delayed effective date to give the state police time to set up the system.  That is likely to create a surge in buying ahead of the effective date of the new law.

But after the law took affect in Deleware, some FFLs have seen a marked decline in sales:

If the state police have been able to deal with FFLs having to call in and verify that purchasers can legally get a gun without too many delays, it's only because the volume of sales had declined dramatically since the law took effect. Delaware Spotlight spoke to one gun store owner who said handgun sales have dropped by 60% to 65% since November, during what is typically some of the busiest months of the year for gun stores. 

That aligns with the 66% in Delaware from November to December 2025 recorded by the anti-gun website The Trace, and stands in stark contast to what happened nationally in those months. The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports there were 1,408,230 background checks performed on firearm transfers in November 2025, and that number ticked up to 1,587,049 in December. 

Even if Delaware's permit-to-purchase scheme was operating flawlessly, sales would still be down significantly. In order to buy a handgun in Delaware these days, a purchaser must first go through an eight-hour firearms training course which includes firing 100 rounds at a range. Between the cost of the training and the $85 fingerprinting fee, buying a handgun in the state now costs about $200 to $300 dollars more than it did this time last year.  

That is the real purpose of schemes like the permit to purchase - increasing the cost and burden of buying a firearm so that less are sold.  Hopefully, the legislature will at least exempt people with a concealed handgun permit from having to aquire permit to purchase, but that has not been the case with other laws passed by Virginia's gun ban majority.