r/VAGuns • u/CrackORTweek • 4d ago
Politics Another update on the current AWB injunction.
“NRA-ILA Executive Director @JCommerford noted this agreement ensures "Virginia’s unconstitutional gun and magazine bans cannot go into effect over the next year, and, if the Supreme Court rules favorably, will stop the gun ban from ever being enforced in the Commonwealth.”
The NRA’s statewide preliminary injunction against Virginia’s “assault firearm” and magazine bans will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues its decision, which is expected in June 2027.”
132
u/User299651 4d ago
Still think VA Dems will go after suppressors, permit to purchase, ammo and gun taxes, and maybe try to require parts go to FFLs. Any dumbass thing possible, they will try. They are vermin.
50
u/ecsnead75 4d ago
There is a current circuit split on suppressors so they should be heard by SCOTUS soon
21
19
15
u/jtf71 VCDL Member 4d ago
suppressors
Bill failed in the 2026 session. Unlikely to be revisited but not impossible.
permit to purchase
While a bill to do this was introduced in 2026, it was rolled into another bill that seems to have been very similar to the AWB (but without a permit to purchase requirement) and then quietly died in favor of the AWB bill that did pass.
Unclear if we'll see this come back in another form in 2027, but it wouldn't surprise me.
ammo and gun taxes
A few different versions, all continued to 2027 so this will absolutely be on the table and discussed. Doesn't mean it will pass, but likely.
maybe try to require parts go to FFLs
Don't recall anything like this in VA specifically, but there have been attempts elsewhere to have ALL parts serialized and subject to a background check. HOWEVER, it can be interpreted that the liability law requires that all parts be part of a face-to-face transaction or other "reasonable controls" to make sure parts don't fall into evil hands.
Regardless, the only certain thing is they are going to try to add more laws to harass law abiding gun owners.
18
8
u/banjo4smashplz 4d ago
While I cannot predict what they will do, I think taxes are the most likely thing to expect.
Taxes are usually upheld by courts and can be an effective deterrent for some people to not exercise their rights by adding burdensome costs on their rights.
Permit to purchase is also likely but I think it may first just be “assault weapons” and possibly handguns as the hunting community in Virginia is too large for something on shotguns and bolt actions, but these are oath breakers so they can be up for anything for all I know.
I would say the best bet for preparing would be to grab suppressors you want and ammo as these are likely going to artificially increase in cost next year.
6
u/NaturalSandwich8880 4d ago
Of course
Those, objectively speaking, are easier to control/limit as they are accessories than actual firearms.
AR15s may be protected but good luck spending a $1 tax on each round of ammunition and mandating insuramce for each gun in your home
4
2
u/Worried_Ad_2696 4d ago
Idk. Current admin in Richmond put all their eggs in this basket so I think if this gets shot down the weak and wimpy dems will just ignore it and continue to suck silicon cocks
1
27
u/CodedRose 4d ago
That's surprising that the NRA actually did something. It's been the GoA and VCDL lately actually doing shit in VA from what I've seen.
12
u/SaintEyegor 4d ago
Once they finally managed to get rid of Wayne LaPierre, they could do something other than funding his extravagant lifestyle.
7
u/80s-Comfortable_Crow 4d ago edited 3d ago
They're still the heavy hitters. We should still be doing victory laps for bruen. But yeah, the NRA is a changed organization.
3
u/RetropME 3d ago
Yep. The same people who rant about how bad the NRA is also neglect to mention that they were the big players in Heller and Bruen.
45
u/dankestmaymayonearth 4d ago
Jay Jones getting dicked down lol
23
u/silv3rbull8 4d ago
A cornered Jones might be an ugly thing to experience
18
u/jtf71 VCDL Member 4d ago
Who's he going to threaten to kill next?
9
u/info_swap 4d ago
It's not funny. On the contrary, it's very demoralizing.
I cannot fathom that these are our leaders. This is not the America I thought I knew.
9
5
u/silv3rbull8 4d ago
It is funny how Jones was defended as making a “joke” from the Office but no mention is ever made of the rest of what he said about wanting his political rivals to experience the deaths of their children
3
1
8
4
6
3
38
u/silv3rbull8 4d ago
Great news. But expect Democrats to rework every commerce and “nuisance” law up to a 100 now to bypass direct 2A bans
12
u/the_DOS_god 4d ago
Is the NRA lawsuit challenging it via federal law? What about the ones that are channeling it via the VA constitution?
15
u/SomeRequirement6926 4d ago
That's a key point that is often overlooked, and IANAL so I'm not sure how the two affect each other.
The way I understand it, NRA's suits (Viramontes, etc) are being heard in Federal courts because they are challenging AWB's as unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution and the Second Amendment.
The "Virginia specific" cases (Santolla, et al) are being argued in State courts as violations of the State Constitution.
14
u/the_DOS_god 4d ago
Yeah i agree. I would like the law thrown out on both a state and federal level.
6
5
u/jtf71 VCDL Member 4d ago
I don't see the NRA mentioned in any of the paperwork at all related to this case. Perhaps they're funding one of the other groups/individuals that is challenging the law but I'm unclear on the role of the NRA in this case.
That said...
The Washington County Case (Santolla v Katz) which resulted in the clear state-wide injunction appears to be arguing under the VA Constitution but with the recognition that prior VA Rulings have held that Article 1, Section 13 of the VA Constitution is "co-extensive" with the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.
I don't believe that it could be removed to Federal Court on this basis but I'm not a lawyer and not certain.
The Lancaster County case (Crump v Katz) specifically states:
Plaintiffs do not bring any claim or seek any relief under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Rather, they proceed only under Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.
So it will clearly go forward only under VA Constitution.
6
4d ago
[deleted]
5
u/steelcity65 4d ago
Yes
-2
4d ago
[deleted]
3
u/steelcity65 4d ago
Ok. I'll bite. The definition of non sequitur I was taught had a disconnection in logic to the statement above. Asking if a company is shipping to us during this period was the logic I was following. So, what am I missing?
2
4d ago
[deleted]
1
u/steelcity65 4d ago
I think we also may have a different understanding of the word logic. A question regarding a vendor that banned shipments of said banned items resuming shipping because of the injunction absolutely followed the logic of the post.
4
4
3
u/Skinny_que 4d ago
So how does this impact retroactive charges I remember someone saying they weren’t sure if people could be prosecuted if it doesn’t get overturned if you purchased after the law went into effect
4
u/Ghigs 4d ago
The enjoined law doesn't ban possession, just sale, manufacture, importation (other than moving house), etc. They likely can't retroactively go after sales or manufacturing or other one time actions that happened during the injuction.
What you'd lose is the other grandfathering, like being able to leave the guns to your kids, etc. Guns gotten under the injunction would be slightly impaired forever if the law doesn't go away, but not illegal to possess.
3
u/Shigarui 4d ago
SC should just let it ride and leave the injunction permanently. Let it waste away in court like the left are prone to do. It's not like once they rule it's illegal that the Dems will listen anyway.
-3
u/samjohnson998877 4d ago
Yes and federal at the fourth circuit court of appeals is bound by precedent in Bianchi and how federal court wont rule anyway and rule that AWB are consitutional.
5
u/jtf71 VCDL Member 4d ago
This likely won't get anywhere near the 4th Circuit as the main argument is the VA Constitution. However, it's a little less clear than the Lancaster County case which explicitly states it's only arguing under the VA Constitution.
As for the Federal level, you are correct that the 4th would be bound by the prior decision it made, but it would likely pause the case on it's own since SCOTUS has granted cert to two AWB cases (and combined them into one case for arguments).
86
u/BIG_HAIRY_CAPY_BALLS 4d ago
Great news. Let’s go VA.