The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and two private plaintiffs, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging Virginia’s newly enacted ban on semiautomatic rifles classified as “assault firearms” and on magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
The suit, McDonald v. Katz, was filed in U.S. District Court following Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s signing of the legislation earlier this month into law. The bans take effect July 1, 2026.
What the Virginia law does
Under House Bill 217 and Senate Bill 749, signed by Spanberger as part of a broader gun legislation package, importing, selling, manufacturing, purchasing, or transferring an “assault firearm” becomes a Class 1 misdemeanor — the most serious misdemeanor classification under Virginia law, carrying penalties of up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine. Anyone convicted faces a three-year prohibition on possessing or transporting any firearm.
The law defines “assault firearm” broadly. It covers any semiautomatic rifle chambered in a caliber other than .22 rimfire, and any semiautomatic rifle that includes features such as a collapsing or folding stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel, or flash suppressor. The definition captures the majority of modern sporting rifles sold in the United States over the past three decades, including the AR-15 platform and most semiautomatic variants of military-pattern rifles.
The magazine provision bans the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The legislation was passed by the Virginia House in February 2026 before working through amendments and final signing.
Notably, the law structures the ban as a prohibition on commercial activity and transfer rather than on possession. Virginians who currently own affected firearms and magazines may keep them, but cannot legally acquire new ones once the law takes effect; nor can they legally transfer the ones they have. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb characterized this in the announcement as a ban “one generation removed,” noting that Virginians turning 18 after July 1 will be unable to lawfully acquire the affected firearms.
The constitutional argument
The complaint frames the challenge squarely under the Bruen standard, arguing that the banned firearms are in common use for lawful purposes and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.
“The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms,” the complaint states. “To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.”
The “common use” argument tracks with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), both of which extended Second Amendment protection to arms in common civilian use for lawful purposes. AR-pattern rifles account for an estimated 24 million firearms in private American ownership, by industry estimates — a figure the plaintiffs will likely cite to satisfy the common-use threshold.
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut framed the lawsuit as part of an ongoing coalition strategy against state-level bans.
“The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country,” Kraut said. “Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”
Where this fits — and the difficult 4th Circuit precedent
Virginia becomes the 11th state to enact some form of “assault weapons” ban, joining California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, and Washington. Comprehensive coverage of the bill’s passage from Virginia Mercury outlines the broader legislative package, which also includes new safe storage requirements, expanded background checks, and restrictions on firearms in state government buildings.
The legal landscape for the coalition’s challenge is difficult. The 4th Circuit, which covers Virginia, upheld Maryland’s nearly identical assault weapons ban in Bianchi v. Brown (August 2024), ruling 10-5 en banc that the regulated firearms fall outside Second Amendment protection. The case was renamed Snope v. Brown on appeal, and on June 2, 2025, the Supreme Court denied certiorari — leaving the 4th Circuit’s ruling as binding precedent in Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia.
That posture means the SAF coalition’s challenge to Virginia’s law starts from a hostile circuit-level position, with the controlling precedent expressly rejecting their constitutional theory. Plaintiffs will likely have to argue that Virginia’s law is meaningfully distinguishable from Maryland’s or develop a record that supports a fresh cert petition once the case reaches the Supreme Court again.
Gottlieb signaled the long-term goal: “We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”
A federal proposal seeking to apply similar restrictions nationwide, introduced by Virginia’s U.S. Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner under the name “Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence,” is also pending in Congress.
Other legal challenges
The SAF coalition isn’t the only legal action targeting the Virginia law. The NRA filed a separate state-level lawsuit, Santolla v. Katz, in Washington Circuit Court the same day Spanberger signed the legislation. That suit argues that the ban violates Article 1, Section 13, of the Virginia Constitution and is brought by the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, two Virginia firearms businesses, and individual plaintiffs.
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has also signaled it may pursue litigation. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon sent Spanberger a formal letter in April warning that SB 749 raises constitutional concerns and that the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division “will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms.” DOJ has recently moved aggressively on state-level firearms restrictions, filing a separate suit against Denver’s similar ordinance on May 5.
Opposition
Gun control advocacy groups, including Everytown for Gun Safety, Brady, and Giffords, have praised the Virginia law as a public safety measure. Spanberger, a former CIA officer who served in Congress before winning the Virginia governorship in November 2025, has described the firearms covered by the ban as “designed to inflict maximum casualties” — a characterization the SAF complaint disputes on technical grounds.
The Virginia Attorney General’s office, which will defend the statute, has not yet issued a public response to the federal lawsuit.
What’s next
The complaint requests a preliminary injunction to prevent the bans from taking effect July 1. The court has not yet set a hearing date. Given the July 1 implementation deadline, the plaintiffs will likely press for expedited consideration of the injunction motion.
More information on the SAF case, including the complaint and supporting documents, is available at SAF.org.
Read the full article here