Update on Virginia ‘Assault Firearm’ Bans and Magazine Restrictions

[Karacal]

Virginia Gun Bills Backpedal Under Pressure, but the Fight Is Far From Over Img Duncan Johnson

Thanks to strong resistance from gun owners across the state, and a message from Harmeet Dhillon, who is the head of the Second Amendment Division of the Civil Rights Department, the Virginia gun grabbers have been set back on their heels and have relented on a few things. That doesn’t mean we can relax. That means we speak louder and force them to abide by the Constitution.

ADVERTISEMENT

As of February 9, 2026, here is an update directly from Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).

A group of gun bills has passed the Virginia Senate, and another group has passed the House. There are also more in progress. February 18th is a cutoff. Currently, three of the bills are being revised due to pressure from gun owners. None of these bills has been stopped, which is what the VCDL and gun owners will ultimately want. For now, some concessions are being discussed by the gun grabbers.

The house version of the so-called “assault firearm” ban is HB 217, and although it bans the purchase or resale of those firearms, it will allow you to keep the firearms you already own. After significant pressure, the Virginia gun grabbers were forced to put the “grandfather” clause back in place. You won’t be able to buy any new “assault firearms” after July 1st of this year, nor will you be able to sell the ones that you have if the legislation is ratified with the current language. In essence, you’re frozen in place.

The gun grabbers are considering walking back their ban on 18 to 20-year-olds’ possession of “assault firearms.” The latest revisions have also added a grandfather clause for possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Spanberger and her gang of gun grabbers thought they would get away with quietly removing the grandfather clause, but they were met with resistance that corrected their behavior.

ADVERTISEMENT

SB749 brings with it all the same elements as HB217, with the exception of a 15-round magazine capacity limitation. So, you will still be able to buy and sell magazines that hold up to 15 rounds. This will likely be a point of contention between the House and Senate. We will see how this turns out.

SB727 still restricts the public carry of rifles and shotguns classified as “assault firearms,” but it walked back the public carry ban on handguns that could be classified as “assault firearms.”

Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League, had this to say to AmmoLand:

“While pressure from gun owners has caused the Senate and the House to backpedal on some of these bills, and they are better than they were, we still do not support these bills. They are still wrong. Taking away guns like these from anybody is wrong and we will continue to fully oppose these bills until they are defeated and/or not signed into law.”

The recent concessions forced out of Richmond did not come from goodwill or compromise—they came from organized resistance. Virginia gun owners spoke up, applied sustained pressure, and exposed the legal and political weaknesses behind these proposals. That pressure worked, at least for now.

But make no mistake: a bad bill that is slightly less bad is still a bad bill.

What we are seeing is not a change of heart, but a tactical retreat. The same lawmakers who quietly attempted to strip grandfather clauses and criminalize common firearms are still pushing legislation that flatly contradicts Supreme Court precedent and treats the exercise of a fundamental right as a problem to be managed. As long as these bills remain alive, the threat remains real.

The goal has never been temporary concessions—it is the total defeat of these unconstitutional laws.

As VCDL President Philip Van Cleave made clear, gun owners cannot accept half-measures, freezes on future ownership, or age-based bans dressed up as “compromises.” Rights delayed, restricted, or rationed are rights denied.

Crossover day is approaching fast, and the coming weeks will determine whether these bills collapse under scrutiny or advance toward a governor’s desk. The outcome will depend entirely on whether Virginia’s gun owners stay engaged, vocal, and unrelenting.

This fight is far from over—and silence now would undo everything gained so far. AmmoLand will continue tracking every move, every amendment, and every vote. Stay alert. Stay involved.

Stay tuned. More to come on this in the upcoming weeks.

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

[Karacal]

Update..

Virginia “Assault Firearm” Ban Challenged With Emergency Injunction

GOA, VCDL, John Crump, and other plaintiffs are asking a Virginia court to block enforcement of the state’s new “assault firearm” and magazine restrictions before they take effect. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia gun owners are not waiting around for Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s new gun-control scheme to become another legal trap.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

The underlying case challenges the gun-control packagesigned 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.

ADVERTISEMENT

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.”