Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed a ban on the sale of so-called assault firearms and high-capacity magazines on Thursday, making the commonwealth the eleventh state to enact such a law, and immediately drawing a warning from the U.S. Department of Justice that the measure may violate the Second Amendment.
The new law, SB 749, makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer a firearm classified under the statute as an "assault firearm." Anyone convicted faces a three-year prohibition on purchasing, possessing, or transporting any firearm. The ban does not apply to antique firearms, weapons rendered permanently inoperable, or those manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action. It takes effect July 1, 2026.
What Spanberger framed as a public-safety measure has already set up a direct collision with the federal government, and with the constitutional rights of millions of Virginia gun owners.
The legislation targets future sales. Current owners who lawfully possess covered firearms or magazines before the July 1 effective date may keep them, the Washington Examiner reported. The law also bans the sale of magazines with a capacity larger than 15 rounds under House Bill 217.
Spanberger called the package "commonsense gun safety laws" and said the additional gun bills she signed will "provide clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement." She also signed measures raising the handgun purchase age, imposing safe-storage requirements, and creating a gun buyback program.
But the governor went further than many expected. Fox News reported that Spanberger amended HB 217/SB 749 by removing the word "fixed" from part of the definition of an assault firearm, a change Republicans say broadens the ban to cover many commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore put it bluntly:
"If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it."
That single word deletion matters. Semiautomatic rifles and pistols are among the most widely owned firearms in the country. Expanding the statutory definition to sweep in more of them is not a technical tweak. It is a policy choice with real consequences for law-abiding Virginians who own guns that were perfectly legal the day before.
The federal response came quickly. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, sent Virginia officials a formal letter warning that SB 749 raises serious constitutional concerns. Newsmax reported that the DOJ said the ban may violate the Second Amendment and could trigger a federal lawsuit.
Dhillon's letter left little ambiguity about the federal government's position:
"This Civil Rights Division will seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutionally protected arms that are possessed by literally tens of millions of Americans."
She also wrote: "I urge you to reconsider allowing any bill that would infringe on the lawful use of protected firearms."
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones rejected the warning. He indicated the state is prepared to defend the law in court. So the stage is set: a Democratic governor and attorney general on one side, the federal Department of Justice on the other, and Virginia gun owners caught in between.
The assault weapons ban is not an isolated act. It fits a broader pattern of aggressive policy moves by Spanberger and Virginia Democrats since they consolidated power in Richmond. The governor has already signed Virginia into the national popular vote compact, a move critics say would effectively bypass the Electoral College.
Meanwhile, the Democratic majority has pursued its own priorities with little restraint. WSET reported the basic provisions of the ban, noting that Virginia became the eleventh state to enact such a law, a milestone that gun-control advocates have long sought and that Second Amendment defenders have long feared.
The political environment in Virginia has grown increasingly contentious. A recent special election saw a Republican win by 25 points, a result widely read as a measure of voter frustration with the direction Spanberger and her allies have taken the state.
And the controversies extend beyond policy disagreements. The governing environment in Richmond has faced scrutiny on multiple fronts, including an FBI raid on a Virginia Senate leader's office as part of a federal corruption probe.
The legal fight ahead will center on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. That standard has already complicated or struck down gun-control measures in multiple jurisdictions.
The DOJ's letter explicitly frames the Virginia ban as targeting firearms "possessed by literally tens of millions of Americans." That language tracks the Supreme Court's reasoning in District of Columbia v. Heller, which protected arms "in common use" for lawful purposes. If semiautomatic rifles qualify, and by any honest count of American gun ownership, they do, then a ban on their sale faces a steep constitutional climb.
Spanberger signed the bill anyway. She said she did so "because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets," as Breitbart reported. She added that the step would "protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe."
That rhetoric is familiar. It is also beside the constitutional point. The Second Amendment does not contain an exception for firearms that politicians find frightening. The question is not whether a governor thinks a particular weapon "belongs" on the streets. The question is whether the government has the constitutional authority to ban the sale of arms that tens of millions of Americans lawfully own.
The law does not take effect until July 1, 2026. That gives opponents, including, potentially, the federal government, time to seek an injunction before a single sale is blocked.
Attorney General Jones says Virginia will defend the statute. The DOJ says it will sue if the state tries to enforce an unconstitutional restriction. Gun-rights organizations will almost certainly file their own challenges.
Virginia Democrats have spent their governing majority pushing through one controversial measure after another. The assault weapons ban may be the one that tests whether voters, and courts, will push back hardest.
The open questions are significant. What exactly does the amended definition of "assault firearm" cover? How many commonly owned firearms now fall under the ban because of the removal of a single word? Will the DOJ follow through on its threat, or was the letter a warning without teeth?
For now, the law is signed. The fight moves to the courts. And Virginia gun owners are left waiting to learn whether their state government or their Constitution will have the final word.
When a governor signs a law that the federal government says violates the Bill of Rights, and her response is to dare them to sue, the people paying the price for that gamble are not the politicians, they're the citizens whose rights hang in the balance.
