Virginia Gov. Spanberger signs semi-automatic firearm ban, triggering immediate lawsuits from NRA and gun-rights groups

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed legislation banning the sale and manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, and the legal counterattack arrived before the ink was dry. The National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and other gun-rights organizations filed lawsuits in both federal and state court, and the U.S. Department of Justice has vowed to sue to block enforcement of the law.

The new Virginia law takes effect July 1. It makes buying, selling, transferring, importing, or manufacturing an "assault firearm" a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. The measure defines that term to include semi-automatic rifles or pistols with a magazine capacity of more than 15 rounds, as well as rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine that have a second handgrip or a collapsible stock. Magazines holding more than 15 rounds are also banned.

For most people, there is no penalty for merely possessing such weapons. But the restriction on future sales and transfers means that millions of commonly owned firearms will become, in effect, frozen assets, legal to hold but illegal to buy or sell inside the Commonwealth.

A swift reversal from the Youngkin era

The political ground shifted fast. Former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed similar legislation each of the past two years. His term ended in January, and Spanberger, a former CIA officer, former U.S. House member, and former Moms Demand Action volunteer, wasted no time. The Associated Press reported that the firearms restrictions are part of about two dozen new gun regulations enacted in Spanberger's first months in office, marking a sharp policy reversal from the Youngkin years.

Spanberger issued a statement Friday defending the move.

"Firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe."

That framing, common firearms recast as battlefield weapons, is precisely the claim gun-rights groups are challenging in court. Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, pushed back directly.

"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. They're owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully."

The NRA did not mince words, either. Just The News reported that the organization said in a statement: "As promised, we are taking Abigail Spanberger to court." The NRA called the law "a blatant violation of Second Amendment rights" and described it as banning "the new purchase of commonly owned firearms and standard capacity magazines."

The Justice Department's warning

The lawsuits from private groups are only part of the legal threat. The U.S. Department of Justice warned Spanberger in an April letter that the law raises serious constitutional problems. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the department's civil rights division, wrote that the measure would:

"infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to enjoy and use AR-15 rifles for lawful purposes by making it a crime to purchase and sell them."

Newsmax reported that Dhillon's letter went further, stating that the 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." The department said the law "would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use."

That is a federal civil rights division telling a state governor that her signature gun-control law may itself violate civil rights. The irony writes itself.

Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League also planned lawsuits, adding to the legal pressure from multiple directions. The DOJ has vowed to sue as well, meaning the Commonwealth could face challenges from private plaintiffs, national organizations, and the federal government simultaneously.

A broader pattern in Virginia

The semi-automatic ban is not an isolated act. Spanberger signed a separate law last month raising the age to purchase a handgun in Virginia from 18 to 21. She also signed legislation opening new grounds for lawsuits against the firearms industry. The Washington Examiner reported that additional measures include requiring safe firearm storage where minors are present and authorizing development of a gun buyback program. Spanberger called the bills "commonsense gun safety laws."

Virginia Democrats have not been shy about using their newfound power. The same party that has pressed legal and political fights on redistricting is now pressing one on the Second Amendment, and doing so with the full knowledge that federal courts and the DOJ stand in the way.

Fox News reported that House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore said: "If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it." Republicans in the legislature have argued that amendments to the bill expanded the ban to cover many commonly owned semi-automatic firearms beyond what was originally proposed. Spanberger also signed bills addressing firearm industry liability, guns left visible in unattended vehicles, and a ban on unserialized homemade "ghost guns."

The legal landscape ahead

Supporters of the ban point to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which twice upheld a Maryland law banning dozens of types of semi-automatic weapons. In a 2024 ruling, the appellate court described the firearms as "military-style weapons" and said "the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation's tradition of firearms regulation."

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last year to hear a challenge in that Maryland case. But three conservative justices disagreed with the decision not to take the case, and a fourth expressed skepticism, meaning nearly half the nine-member court signaled interest in revisiting the question. That is hardly a ringing endorsement of the 4th Circuit's reasoning, and it leaves the constitutional status of such bans very much unsettled.

Virginia now joins eleven other states and Washington, D.C., that already prohibit the sale and manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms. States with full Democratic control, California, Illinois, New York, have enacted similar restrictions. Hawaii prohibits certain semi-automatic pistols and high-capacity magazines but not semi-automatic rifles.

Meanwhile, Republican-led states moved in the opposite direction on the same day Spanberger signed her ban. Missouri's Republican-led Legislature gave final approval to legislation creating a school ranger program that could let trained volunteers carry firearms in schools. Republican West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey signed a law last month lowering the age from 21 to 18 for carrying concealed guns without a state permit. Republican Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed a law limiting liability lawsuits against the firearms industry.

The contrast could not be sharper. One party is expanding gun rights; the other is criminalizing the sale of firearms owned by tens of millions of Americans. Democratic leaders have repeatedly shown they are willing to prioritize ideological goals over the rights and preferences of ordinary citizens, and Virginia's gun ban fits that pattern precisely.

What comes next

The law does not take effect until July 1, and the legal challenges will almost certainly seek injunctions before that date. The NRA's suits in both federal and state court, combined with the DOJ's promised litigation, create overlapping fronts that could produce conflicting rulings and a long road to resolution.

John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, framed the moment as a political turning point.

"The fact that a former Moms Demand Action volunteer just signed an assault weapons ban in the home state of the NRA speaks volumes about how dramatically the political calculus around gun safety has shifted."

Perhaps. But as WTOP reported, the political calculus is only one part of the equation. The constitutional calculus, the one that actually determines whether the law survives, is far from settled. A Supreme Court with at least four justices skeptical of such bans is not a court that has closed the door.

Spanberger's connection to Moms Demand Action is notable. The group was founded after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Everytown for Gun Safety serves as its umbrella organization, and the group says 20% of Democrats in the Virginia House are past volunteers. That is not a grassroots movement quietly influencing policy. That is an advocacy organization with its members writing the laws.

Virginia Democrats have been aggressive across multiple fronts since taking full control, whether on redistricting battles in the courts or gun control in the legislature. The question is whether the courts will let them get away with it.

Open questions remain. The bill numbers, identified in one report as SB 749/HB 217, are on the books, but the specific courts handling the federal and state challenges have not been publicly identified. What other groups beyond the Second Amendment Foundation joined the NRA's suits is also unclear. And whether the DOJ files its own case before July 1 or waits for enforcement to begin could shape the entire trajectory of the litigation.

For now, law-abiding Virginians who own some of the most popular firearms in America face a simple reality: come July, they can keep what they have, but they cannot legally buy, sell, or transfer those same guns within their own state. The governor calls that common sense. The Constitution may call it something else entirely.

When the government tells tens of millions of lawful gun owners that the firearms they bought legally are now too dangerous to sell, the real question is not about guns. It is about who gets to decide what rights you keep, and whether anyone in power still believes the Bill of Rights means what it says.