Virginia’s new so-called “assault firearm” ban is already headed to court. A newly filed complaint in Lancaster County argues that the Commonwealth’s new laws do far more than target politically demonized rifles. According to the plaintiffs, the new regime criminalizes the future sale, purchase, manufacture, transfer, and even public carry of a broad class of common firearms and standard-capacity magazines that ordinary Virginians lawfully own and use every day.
The lawsuit was brought by AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Virginia Citizens Defense League against Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeffrey S. Katz in his official capacity. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” restrictions, which Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law on May 14, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2026.
Virginia Democrats have crossed the line from punishing criminal conduct to criminalizing the way law-abiding citizens buy, own, transfer, and carry ordinary firearms. The plaintiffs argue the state is trying to ban guns and magazines overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for lawful purposes.
Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt put it bluntly: “Governor Spanberger has declared war on the rights of all Virginians. By banning the most commonly-owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines in America, the state is disarming law-abiding citizens, while doing absolutely nothing to stop violent crime.”
Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, was equally direct: “Governor Spanberger and the anti-gun Democrats in the General Assembly are proud to openly violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians, and their glee is an afront to the motto and ethos of this commonwealth. Gun Owners of America and our friends at Virginia Citizens Defense League look forward to challenging them in court.”
The complaint is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, not the federal Second Amendment. That provision says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and the plaintiffs argue Virginia’s constitutional protection is at least as strong as the federal one.
Virginia courts should apply the same text-and-history framework laid down in Bruen and Heller, and under that framework, a ban on arms in common use cannot stand.
The firearms and magazines Virginia is targeting are not fringe items. They are in common use across the country. The complaint leans on modern case law and even the U.S. Supreme Court’s own recognition that AR-15 rifles are widely legal, widely purchased by ordinary consumers, and that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” It also cites cases recognizing that magazines holding more than 15 rounds number in the hundreds of millions and come standard with many of America’s most popular firearms.
In other words, Virginia Democrats and Gov. Spanberger are going after firearms and magazines that sit at the center of ordinary American gun ownership.
The complaint challenges the statutory definition of “assault firearm,” the ban on importing, selling, manufacturing, purchasing, or transferring those firearms, the separate prohibition on certain sales, the public-carry restrictions, the ban on so-called “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and the forfeiture provisions that allow the Commonwealth to seize prohibited items. It also challenges several of the law’s terms as unconstitutionally vague under Virginia’s due process protections.
For example, the complaint argues that the law bans certain semiautomatic centerfire rifles and pistols “with” magazine capacities over 15 rounds, but never clearly explains what “with” means in practice.
Does a handgun become an “assault firearm” only when a larger magazine is inserted, or does mere proximity count?
The complaint says John Crump and gun owners do not know whether possessing a larger-capacity magazine near one of their firearms could expose them to prosecution. That is not how serious laws are supposed to work. That is how laws are written when the real target is lawful ownership itself.
The lawsuit also attacks feature-based terms such as a grip that “protrudes conspicuously” and a barrel “shroud” that partially or completely encircles the barrel. The complaint argues those terms are so imprecise that ordinary Virginians are left guessing what the law actually covers, while police and prosecutors are handed broad discretion to decide later.
Virginia’s new definitions are broad enough to reach handguns, AR-style pistols, tactical shotguns, detachable-magazine shotguns, firearms capable of accepting belt-fed devices, and ordinary magazines that exceed the state’s arbitrary 15-round limit.
The complaint specifically points to the way the law reaches centerfire pistols with magazines over 15 rounds, meaning that guns many Americans would regard as standard defensive handguns can now be swept into Virginia’s “assault firearm” category.
That connects directly to one of the most alarming parts of the case: public carry.
The complaint says a separate measure, SB727, folds in the new definition of “assault firearm” and makes it unlawful to carry such a firearm on public streets, roads, alleys, sidewalks, rights-of-way, parks, and “any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public.”
According to the plaintiffs, that means not only public property but also private property open to the public, including stores, shopping centers, event venues, and even gun stores. The complaint further argues there is no meaningful exemption for ordinary Virginians who simply want to bear arms for self-defense.
This law does not merely block future sales of common arms. According to the complaint, it also strips ordinary citizens of the ability to carry many of them in public at all.
John Crump is a law-abiding Virginian, a concealed handgun permit holder, a firearms journalist, a YouTuber, and an AmmoLand contributor who regularly reviews firearms and magazines. The complaint says his work includes receiving and testing products from federally licensed manufacturers and dealers, including products the new statutes classify as prohibited.
Crump says he wants to buy or receive a range of now-covered firearms and magazines, including a KelTec PR-5.7 pistol, a Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 rifle, Magpul PMAG magazines, Glock 17 magazines, a PSA AR-style pistol with a brace, a Benelli M4 Tactical shotgun, a Derya DY12 shotgun, parts for a belt-fed build, and components to assemble a rifle from a stripped lower. The complaint also says he wants to engage in routine conduct such as private sales, gifts, and public carry, but will refrain because of the credible threat of prosecution once the law takes effect.
Crump also framed the fight in personal and historical terms, saying: “Virginia has a deep history of firearms ownership. Our constitution is strong on the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Constitution would be horrified at these Draconian laws. My family has lived in the Commonwealth since before the founding of the country. It is my duty, as a Virginian, to fight back.”
The organizational plaintiffs also allege direct harm. GOA and VCDL say they conduct raffles, events, range days, and other activities involving the kinds of firearms and magazines Virginia now seeks to outlaw. GOA further says its Caliber Club network includes gun stores and ranges that will face restricted markets and lost business. This is not just a lawsuit about one man being denied one purchase. It is a challenge to a legal regime that the plaintiffs say harms gun owners, gun clubs, advocacy groups, and lawful commerce across the Commonwealth.
Virginia does not get to dodge constitutional scrutiny by pretending this law only bans sales, purchases, or transfers rather than possession. The plaintiffs argue that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire arms and magazines in the first place.
A right that exists only in theory, but cannot be exercised through lawful purchase, transfer, training, or ordinary use, is not much of a right at all.
That argument goes to the heart of the modern gun-control playbook. When they cannot immediately confiscate what people already own, gun-control activists try to strangle the supply chain, kill off lawful transfer, block future acquisition, and wait for the right to wither. This lawsuit calls that bluff.
The complaint also highlights the irrationality of the statutory scheme. It asks the court to clarify whether multi-caliber magazines remain legal if they hold 15 or fewer rounds of one caliber but more than 15 of another. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Virginians may still manufacture magazines from raw materials, kits, and component parts because the statute bans import, sale, barter, transfer, and purchase, but not manufacture. There are also questions whether a shotgun provision covering weapons with “one of the following characteristics” actually reaches shotguns that have more than one such characteristic.
Those arguments may sound technical, but they expose a truth: lawmakers who know little about firearms keep writing laws that govern them anyway. The result is predictable — confusion for honest citizens, selective leverage for the state, and yet another pile of legal bills for taxpayers.
The penalties are no joke, either. The complaint says violations are generally Class 1 misdemeanors punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, with firearms and magazines subject to forfeiture. It also points to related consequences, including restrictions affecting firearm possession, concealed handgun permit eligibility, and dealer employment. That is a serious hammer to bring down on people whose real “crime” is wanting to buy the same types of guns and magazines millions of Americans already own.
At bottom, this case asks whether Virginia courts will treat Article I, Section 13 of the state constitution as a real guarantee or as an empty decoration. If the courts mean what the Constitution says, the plaintiffs have a powerful case. The state has labeled common firearms and standard magazines as forbidden items, criminalized ordinary transactions, extended that regime into public carry, and done it all with vague language that leaves law-abiding people guessing what they may lawfully possess or do.
Gun owners nationwide should pay close attention. This is not merely a fight over one bill. It is a fight over whether the Commonwealth may treat peaceable citizens as presumptive criminals for wanting the same arms, magazines, and carry options that Americans across most of the country still lawfully enjoy. If Virginia can get away with this, other blue-state politicians will take notes.
Government cannot erase a constitutional right by banning the common tools needed to exercise it.
DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills
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.
