A Lancaster County Circuit Court judge granted a preliminary injunction Thursday blocking Virginia State Police from enforcing the state’s sweeping ban on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms, just days before the law was set to take effect on July 1. The ruling, secured by Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia resident John Crump, halts enforcement of one of the most aggressive gun-control measures enacted by any state this year.
Circuit Judge John Martin issued the temporary injunction in the case Crump v. Katz, finding sufficient grounds to block the ban while the legal challenge proceeds. The injunction remains in effect through December 31 unless a higher court modifies or overturns it.
The law at issue, Senate Bill 749, prohibits the purchase, sale, manufacture, import, and transfer of certain semiautomatic firearms and ammunition feeding devices capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Plaintiffs argued the ban conflicts with the Virginia Constitution’s provision enshrining the right to keep and bear arms. Their attorney told the court that the firearms targeted by the law are not exotic or unusual.
“They are not just common, they are ubiquitous. The challenged statutes in this case concern some of the most commonly used arms and magazines in the nation.”
The Commonwealth countered that the firearms in question are not in common use and therefore fall outside Second Amendment protection, an argument the judge declined to accept at this stage.
Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the ban into law in April, framing it as a public safety measure. But the legislation drew opposition long before it reached a courtroom. As Fox News reported, Spanberger amended the bill by removing the word “fixed” from the assault firearm definition, a change critics said could expand the ban to cover the vast majority of semi-automatic firearms in Virginia. House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, warned at the time: “If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it.”
The federal government weighed in as well. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, formally warned Virginia that the bill raised constitutional concerns and threatened to sue if the ban were enforced. Dhillon stated plainly: “The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes.”
That warning did not deter Spanberger. She moved forward. Now a state court has done what the governor would not, pump the brakes.
The legal clash in Virginia follows a pattern that was visible from the moment Spanberger signed the legislation, with gun-rights groups and federal officials alike signaling the fight was far from over.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, released a statement celebrating the ruling while acknowledging the next round is already in sight. As Breitbart News reported, Van Cleave said:
“VCDL is pleased with the temporary injunction that came out of Lancaster County today against the ‘assault firearm’ ban and carry prohibition. We expect the commonwealth to appeal the decision, but we also expect to prevail.”
Van Cleave’s confidence is not unfounded. VCDL has a track record of pressing Second Amendment challenges in Virginia courts. In 2020, a different Virginia judge issued a temporary injunction blocking part of the state’s universal background check law after ruling it unconstitutional as applied to adults aged 18 to 20. That case, also brought by VCDL, demonstrated the organization’s willingness to litigate and its ability to win at the trial-court level, even when the state’s attorney general vowed to fight back. The Washington Free Beacon covered that earlier ruling, in which Van Cleave predicted the legal battle could reach the Supreme Court of Virginia.
The current injunction covers not just the firearms ban itself but also the law’s 15-round magazine capacity limit and public carry restrictions, a broader scope than some observers expected.
Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones responded swiftly, calling the ruling “disappointing” and pledging an aggressive legal counterattack. Jones stated: “This ruling is disappointing and puts our communities at risk. The commonwealth will urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal this temporary injunction.”
That language, “urgently”, suggests the state may seek emergency relief from a higher court before the December 31 expiration of the injunction. Whether an appellate court will be any more sympathetic to the Commonwealth’s position remains an open question.
The state’s core legal argument, that the firearms covered by SB 749 are not “in common use” and therefore fall outside constitutional protection, faces an uphill climb. The plaintiffs’ attorney pointed to the sheer prevalence of the rifles and magazines at issue, calling them “some of the most commonly used arms and magazines in the nation.” That framing tracks closely with the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in recent Second Amendment cases, which have emphasized historical tradition and common use as benchmarks for constitutional protection.
The Supreme Court’s recent willingness to strike down firearms restrictions on constitutional grounds has emboldened gun-rights litigants nationwide, and made it harder for states to defend sweeping bans without strong historical grounding.
Virginia is not acting in isolation. Democratic-led states have moved aggressively on firearms restrictions in recent years, and the legal pushback has followed just as quickly. Connecticut recently banned America’s top-selling handgun, and Minnesota’s Senate Democrats forced through a semiautomatic rifle and magazine ban on a party-line vote.
In each case, the political calculus is the same: pass the ban, sign it into law, and dare the courts to stop it. The strategy treats constitutional rights as obstacles to manage rather than limits to respect.
Virginia’s ban also drew resistance from within the state’s own law-enforcement apparatus. At least one Virginia prosecutor declared the ban unconstitutional and refused to enforce it, a sign that the law’s legitimacy was in question well before Judge Martin’s ruling.
The injunction holds through the end of 2025. The Commonwealth has signaled it will appeal, and the case could move to the Virginia Court of Appeals or ultimately the Supreme Court of Virginia. In the meantime, Virginia gun owners can continue to purchase, sell, and possess the firearms and magazines SB 749 sought to ban.
Several questions remain unanswered. The precise scope of the injunction, whether it applies statewide or only within Lancaster County’s jurisdiction, is not entirely clear from available reporting. The next scheduled court date has not been disclosed. And it remains to be seen whether the federal government, having already warned Virginia about the law’s constitutionality, will intervene directly in the litigation.
What is clear is that Governor Spanberger signed a law that her own state’s judiciary has now refused to let stand, that her attorney general’s office must defend a legal position the DOJ itself has called constitutionally suspect, and that the citizens who brought this challenge did so at their own expense, on their own initiative, to protect a right the Virginia Constitution already guarantees.
When the government passes a law it knows will be challenged, signs it anyway, and then calls a court’s intervention “disappointing,” the disappointment runs in only one direction. Virginia’s gun owners had every reason to expect their constitution would be honored. They shouldn’t have needed a judge to remind Richmond.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.
By signing up, you agree to receive newsletters and promotional content from American Frontline News and selected publications in the American Digest Media Network, operated with Patriot Mom Digest LLC, and you accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.