SB 749

  • Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

    Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

    Several elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia are publicly signaling they do not intend to pursue criminal cases under the state’s new “assault weapons” restrictions once the measures begin. Their announcements come ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date for the legislation.

    The prosecutors involved represent at least four counties: Spotsylvania, Powhatan, Pulaski, and Smyth. Each has stated that their offices will decline to prosecute alleged violations tied to the new ban, framing the decision as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a lack of awareness about what the new statutes will require.

    The laws at the center of the dispute are SB 749 and HB 217. According to the prosecutors’ statements, they expect that when these laws take effect, charges submitted under those provisions will be rejected by their offices, meaning cases would not move forward in their jurisdictions based on those statutes alone.

    In explaining their position, the prosecutors have pointed to what they describe as the superior authority of the Second Amendment. They argue that constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms outweigh the state’s new restrictions, and they cite that belief as a central reason for refusing to file or pursue prosecutions under the coming ban.

    This emerging standoff sets up a significant conflict inside Virginia’s criminal-justice system, as enforcement of a statewide firearms policy may vary depending on local prosecutorial decisions. With the start date of July 1, 2026 approaching, the gap between state lawmakers’ intent and local prosecutors’ willingness to enforce the ban is becoming a major point of contention.

  • Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

    Virginia Prosecutors in Four Counties Say They Won’t Bring Charges Under New “Assault Weapons” Ban

    Several elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys in Virginia are publicly signaling they do not intend to pursue criminal cases under the state’s new “assault weapons” restrictions once the measures begin. Their announcements come ahead of the July 1, 2026 effective date for the legislation.

    The prosecutors involved represent at least four counties: Spotsylvania, Powhatan, Pulaski, and Smyth. Each has stated that their offices will decline to prosecute alleged violations tied to the new ban, framing the decision as an exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a lack of awareness about what the new statutes will require.

    The laws at the center of the dispute are SB 749 and HB 217. According to the prosecutors’ statements, they expect that when these laws take effect, charges submitted under those provisions will be rejected by their offices, meaning cases would not move forward in their jurisdictions based on those statutes alone.

    In explaining their position, the prosecutors have pointed to what they describe as the superior authority of the Second Amendment. They argue that constitutional protections for keeping and bearing arms outweigh the state’s new restrictions, and they cite that belief as a central reason for refusing to file or pursue prosecutions under the coming ban.

    This emerging standoff sets up a significant conflict inside Virginia’s criminal-justice system, as enforcement of a statewide firearms policy may vary depending on local prosecutorial decisions. With the start date of July 1, 2026 approaching, the gap between state lawmakers’ intent and local prosecutors’ willingness to enforce the ban is becoming a major point of contention.

  • Virginia Gov. Spanberger Enacts SB 749 Assault Weapons Ban, Prompting Two Rapid-Fire Legal Challenges

    Virginia Gov. Spanberger Enacts SB 749 Assault Weapons Ban, Prompting Two Rapid-Fire Legal Challenges

    Virginia has enacted a major new firearms restriction after Governor Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 into law. The measure creates a statewide prohibition on what the statute labels “assault weapons” as well as a ban on “high-capacity” magazines.

    The law is not immediate. Its effective date is set for July 1, 2026, giving residents, retailers, and law enforcement a defined timeline before the new rules take effect.

    Even with that delayed start, opponents moved quickly to contest the policy in court. The signing was followed right away by two separate lawsuits, each taking a different route to challenge the legislation.

    One case was filed in Virginia’s state courts by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). Their approach relies on a distinctive argument grounded solely in the Virginia Constitution, aiming to keep the dispute framed as a state-law question rather than a federal one.

    A second challenge was filed in federal court by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). That filing is structured to pursue a streamlined path that seeks to avoid review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and instead position the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court as directly as possible.

    Together, the paired lawsuits set up a two-front legal fight—one focusing on state constitutional claims and the other targeting federal review—over a law that bans specified firearms and magazines across Virginia beginning July 1, 2026.

  • NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

    NSSF Backs Lawsuit Challenging Virginia’s HB 217 and SB 749 Firearm Ban

    NSSF, the trade association representing the firearm industry, announced in Washington, D.C., that it is financing a newly filed lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia. The organization says the case challenges state actions it believes conflict with both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution.

    At the center of the dispute is Virginia’s recently enacted legislation identified as HB 217 and SB 749. According to NSSF, the law is sweeping in scope and imposes a prohibition involving certain firearms.

    NSSF states the statute bars the sale and transfer of firearms that, in its view, are specifically protected for private ownership under constitutional guarantees. The lawsuit, NSSF says, is aimed at stopping what it characterizes as unconstitutional restrictions embedded in the new measure.

    By choosing to fund the litigation, the organization is positioning the courts as the venue to resolve whether Virginia’s approach aligns with constitutional limits. The filing signals that the debate over how far state government can go in regulating commonly owned firearms is likely to continue in courtroom proceedings.

    NSSF’s announcement frames the legal challenge as a direct response to the enactment of HB 217 and SB 749 and the restrictions the organization says those bills impose on lawful commerce and private transfers. The case now turns on judicial review of the law’s compatibility with the federal and state constitutions cited in the complaint.