Virginia gun owners are not waiting around for Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s new gun-control scheme to become another legal trap.
The plaintiffs challenging Virginia’s new so-called “assault firearm” ban have now asked a Lancaster County court for emergency relief, filing a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the state’s new restrictions on common firearms and standard-capacity magazines.
The motion was filed in John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation v. Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, the lawsuit brought against the Superintendent of the Virginia State Police in his official capacity.
The underlying case challenges the gun-control package signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026.
The message from the plaintiffs is simple: do not let this law take effect while the courts decide whether Virginia Democrats just trampled the Commonwealth’s own constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.
The latest motion asks the Circuit Court for Lancaster County to block enforcement of the state’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” restrictions while the case moves forward. It relies on an accompanying memorandum for the detailed legal arguments, but the motion itself lays out exactly what the plaintiffs want stopped.
At the top of the list is Virginia’s new definition of “assault firearms,” along with the ban on the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of those firearms. The motion also targets the related penalties and derivative crimes that would flow from the new regime.
As AmmoLand previously reported, the complaint argues that Virginia’s law reaches a broad class of ordinary rifles, pistols, shotguns, magazines, and firearm configurations commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.
Virginia Democrats can call them “assault firearms” all day long. Gun owners know what is really being targeted: common semi-automatic firearms and magazines that millions of Americans use for self-defense, training, competition, collecting, and lawful commerce.
The motion also asks the court to block Virginia’s public-carry restriction for “assault firearms.” That part of the law is especially alarming because the complaint says the definition can sweep in firearms ordinary Virginians would recognize as standard defensive handguns or commonly owned long guns.
In other words, this is not just about future sales. It is about whether the Commonwealth can brand ordinary arms as politically unacceptable and then restrict how law-abiding citizens acquire, transfer, and carry them.
The plaintiffs are also seeking to block Virginia’s ban on the import, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” That is the gun-control lobby’s preferred phrase for magazines that are standard equipment for many of America’s most popular firearms. There is nothing “large capacity” about a magazine that comes standard with a common defensive pistol or rifle. The phrase is political marketing. The practical effect is a state-imposed limit on the tools citizens may use to exercise a constitutional right.
The motion further targets the forfeiture provision that would allow prohibited “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” to be seized. That is where the threat becomes very real. Gun control is sold as paperwork, definitions, and “common sense.” Then the penalties arrive, and the forfeiture language shows up. Then ordinary citizens find out the state has turned yesterday’s lawful property into tomorrow’s felony.
The case is also notable because the complaint is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s own constitutional protection is at least as strong as the Second Amendment.
Either Article I, Section 13 means what it says, or it is just another constitutional promise politicians may ignore when the target is gun owners.
The complaint attacks not only the scope of the ban but also its vague language. The challenged laws use feature-based terms and definitions that leave ordinary people guessing what conduct is lawful, while giving police and prosecutors enormous discretion after the fact.
That is the pattern with modern gun control. Lawmakers who do not understand firearms write sweeping restrictions on firearms. Then gun owners, dealers, trainers, manufacturers, and journalists are told to hire lawyers and hope for the best.
John Crump’s role in this case is crucial. He is a law-abiding Virginian, concealed handgun permit holder, firearms journalist, YouTuber, and AmmoLand contributor whose work involves receiving, testing, reviewing, and discussing the types of firearms and magazines Virginia now seeks to restrict.
Crump made clear that the emergency motion is not the end of the fight. It is the opening move.
“As I have said from the beginning, this law is repugnant of the United States and Virginia Constitutions,” Crump told AmmoLand. “We, as Virginians, will use everything in our power to prevent the law from taking effect. The motion for a TRO and PI is just the start of our legal strategy.”
Virginia gun owners should not be forced to wait until July 1, get trapped by a confusing and unconstitutional law, and then beg the courts for relief after the damage is done. The whole point of emergency relief is to prevent the government from enforcing a statute that violates fundamental rights.
Once July 1 arrives, the damage is not theoretical. Lawful commerce will be banned. Events and competitions get altered or canceled. Gun owners stop buying, selling, carrying, and training because the state has made the rules broad, punitive, and unclear.
Anti-gun politicians understand that. Sometimes the point is not immediate confiscation. Sometimes the point is to make the exercise of a right risky, expensive, confusing, and legally exhausting.
This motion asks the court to stop that game before it starts.
Virginia has now become one of the major Second Amendment battlegrounds in the country. A separate federal lawsuit is also challenging Virginia’s new ban. Spanberger and anti-gun Democrats are trying to drag the Commonwealth into the same failed blue-state playbook used in places like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois: demonize common firearms, relabel standard magazines, criminalize ordinary transactions, and dare gun owners to spend years fighting in court.
GOA, VCDL, John Crump, and the other plaintiffs are refusing to wait.
The court should grant the injunction and keep Virginia from enforcing this law while the case proceeds. A constitutional right is not supposed to be violated while politicians experiment with new ways to restrict it.
Virginia gun owners are not asking for special treatment. They are asking the court to enforce the plain promise of their own constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.
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.
