How-tos How to Understand Virginia’s Assault Firearm Ruling

On July 7, 2026, the Washington County Circuit Court issued a letter opinion in Santolla v. Katz extending the earlier preliminary injunction against Virginia’s new “assault firearm” ban and magazine-capacity limit to the entire Commonwealth. Beginning July 21, 2026, every law-enforcement agency and every Commonwealth’s Attorney in Virginia will be enjoined from enforcing the bans while the case is litigated.

It is the most sweeping ruling yet in the wave of lawsuits challenging the new laws, but the battle is far from over. The Attorney General has vowed to seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court of Virginia in a related case, the federal government has filed its own lawsuit, and the rules on the ground have shifted almost weekly. Here is where things currently stand, and what else to watch for.

The Laws Being Challenged

During the 2026 session, the General Assembly passed and Governor Spanberger signed two companion measures that took effect July 1, 2026:

• Senate Bill 749 (the “Firearms Ban”) redefines “assault firearm” in Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:2 using a feature-based test. For rifles, that means a semi-automatic center-fire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has any one of several listed features — a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action, a second handgrip, and others. The law prohibits the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, transfer, and transport of firearms meeting the definition.
• House Bill 217 (the “Magazine Ban”) restricts magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.

Because the feature test sweeps in the AR-15 platform and most other modern semi-automatic center-fire rifles, the laws effectively ended commerce in some of the most commonly owned rifles in America. Violations are criminal offenses, and a willful sale by a licensed dealer is a felony. A related measure restricting public carry of covered firearms (Senate Bill 727) is also being challenged.

The Washington County Ruling: Santolla v. Katz

In a June 29, 2026 letter opinion, the Washington County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both bans in the NRA-backed case Santolla v. Katz. Several features of the opinion stand out:

• The case rests entirely on the Virginia Constitution. The plaintiffs raised no federal Second Amendment claim. The challenge is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia, which guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
• Article I, Section 13 is coextensive with the Second Amendment. Noting that the two provisions are nearly word-for-word identical, the court held that the framers of the Virginia Constitution intended state protections at least as broad as the federal ones, following the reasoning of Stickley v. City of Winchester.
• The court applied the Bruen framework as persuasive authority. Under that two-step analysis, the court found that AR-15-style rifles are “in common use,” quoting the federal courts’ recognition that the AR-15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the country, and that the Commonwealth failed to identify any historical tradition of banning such firearms. The only historical analogue the Commonwealth offered, a 1934 Virginia act aimed at automatic weapons, was found inapplicable because the firearms banned here are semi-automatic.
• The plaintiffs are likely to prevail. Having found a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, a favorable balance of hardships, and no adverse public interest, the court granted the injunction, which will remain in effect until July 1, 2027, or further order of the court.

The July 7 Amendment: Statewide Application

The June 29 ruling bound only the named defendants, the Virginia State Police and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys for Washington, Chesterfield, Frederick, York, and Giles Counties and the City of Chesapeake, leaving Virginians with a county-by-county patchwork. The Attorney General’s office took the position that the ban remained “in effect across most of the state.”

The July 7 amendment confronted the problem directly. The court observed that if the injunction stopped at the county line, a person could lawfully transport an AR-15 through Washington County yet “arguably… be charged” the moment they crossed into a neighboring county, a “treacherous patchwork of enforcement” for citizens and police alike.

The court also addressed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limited relief to the specific plaintiffs in a lawsuit, finding that universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts. The court distinguished CASA on the ground that federal courts lack an enabling statute, while Virginia’s General Assembly has expressly granted circuit courts broad injunctive authority, “within and without of the Circuit,” in Va. Code § 8.01-620 et seq. On that basis, the court extended the injunction to all law-enforcement officers (as defined in § 9.1-101) and all Commonwealth’s Attorneys statewide.

Because the statewide injunction covers all law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys’ offices in Virginia, the injunction will not take effect until July 21, 2026, to give time for every office to be notified. The Attorney General’s office indicated the grounds for its expected appeal, calling the statewide declaration “wrong,” asserting it “reaches far beyond the case before him [Judge Campbell],” and insisting that a circuit court injunction “cannot bind people or parties who are not part of the lawsuit.”

The Rest of the Map: Lancaster’s Injunction and Spotsylvania’s Denial

Santolla is one of at least four parallel state-court challenges, and the circuit courts have not all agreed:

• Lancaster County: injunction granted (limited scope). In Crump v. Katz, brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and journalist John Crump, the Lancaster County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction on June 25, 2026, blocking the Virginia State Police from enforcing the bans (and the related public-carry restriction) through at least December 31, 2026. Because the State Police superintendent was the only defendant, that injunction binds only the State Police, not local police departments, sheriffs, or Commonwealth’s Attorneys.
• Spotsylvania County: injunction denied. In Curtis v. Katz, the Spotsylvania Circuit Court denied a preliminary injunction on June 18, 2026, writing that the court was “currently persuaded that both the history and practice surrounding [Section] 13 establish no individual right to possess military style weapons by members of the unorganized militia.” That case continues toward a final ruling, but no injunction was issued.
• No consolidation. On July 6, 2026, a three-judge panel appointed by the Supreme Court of Virginia unanimously denied the Attorney General’s request to consolidate the various lawsuits before a single judge. Each case will proceed separately in its home circuit, which means conflicting rulings may continue to accumulate.

The split matters. Two circuit courts have now reached opposite conclusions on essentially the same state constitutional question, and a third has adopted broader relief than the Attorney General believes any circuit court may grant. That disagreement will almost certainly have to be resolved by Virginia’s appellate courts.

The Big Unresolved Issue: An Emergency Stay Request at the Supreme Court of Virginia

Immediately after the Lancaster County (GOA/VCDL) injunction issued in Crump v. Katz, Attorney General Jay Jones announced that the Commonwealth “will urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal this temporary injunction,” asking Virginia’s appellate courts to suspend the injunction and put the bans back into force while the appeal proceeds. Some advocacy groups and news outlets have reported an emergency application to the Supreme Court of Virginia has already been filed, but as of this post, we have not been able to confirm that any stay motion or appeal has actually been docketed. What is certain is that the Attorney General has committed to seeking one, his office has also said it plans to appeal both the Lancaster and Washington County injunctions, and gun-rights groups have vowed to oppose any stay.

This is the wild card hanging over everything above. Whenever a stay request is filed and decided, and there is no deadline by which the Supreme Court of Virginia must act, a stay would allow the bans to spring back into effect on short notice, and the same reasoning would give the Attorney General a strong basis to seek a stay of the Santolla statewide injunction as well. If a stay is denied, the injunctions likely remain in place while the appeals play out. Either way, the Supreme Court’s first move will signal how it views these challenges, and it could come at any time.

The Federal Front: Two More Lawsuits

The state court battles are only half the story. Two significant federal challenges are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia:

• McDonald v. Katz (No. 1:26-cv-01305, Alexandria Division). Filed the same day the Governor signed the bans, by two Virginia gun owners together with the NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation. It raises the federal Second Amendment claim the state cases deliberately omit, arguing the banned rifles are “ordinary, semiautomatic firearms” in common use that cannot be prohibited under Bruen.
• United States v. Virginia. On July 1, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the Commonwealth and the Virginia State Police, alleging that SB 749 “unconstitutionally bans the purchase and sale of ordinary semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of Americans.” The suit, brought under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal “pattern or practice” statute, asks the court to declare portions of the law unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement.

A federal ruling on the Second Amendment question would operate independently of anything the Virginia courts do under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, meaning the bans must survive challenges in two separate court systems.

Meanwhile: What the Injunctions Do NOT Cover

It is critical not to over-read these rulings. The injunctions reach only the “assault firearm” and magazine bans. Several other new Virginia firearms laws are fully enforceable right now:

• Universal background checks are in effect. A separate Lynchburg Circuit Court injunction that had blocked background checks on private gun sales was dissolved effective July 1, 2026, after the General Assembly cured the earlier problems with emergency legislation. The Virginia State Police are now conducting background checks on private-party sales, and private sales without one are unlawful.
• The firearm-industry liability law (FIAA) is in effect. Virginia’s new Firearm Industry Accountability Act imposes a “reasonable controls” duty on firearm dealers and manufacturers, enforceable by the Attorney General, local attorneys, and private plaintiffs, with compensatory and punitive damages available. It expressly covers firearm components, including unfinished frames and receivers, and it has not been challenged or enjoined. Liability concerns under this law have already led some Virginia stores to decline private-party transfers. This may well result in litigation over the “predicate exception” for industry members under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).
• A serialization ban arrives January 1, 2027. A separate 2026 act (Va. Code § 18.2-308.5:2) will prohibit the sale of unserialized (“80%”) frames and receivers beginning January 1, 2027, with a possession ban following on July 1, 2027.

What This Means Practically

1. The bans have not been struck down. These are preliminary injunctions, temporary orders preserving the status quo while the courts decide the merits. The laws remain on the books, and the Attorney General’s position is that they remain “in force” except as to the enjoined defendants.
2. Keep an eye on the calendar. The statewide Santolla injunction does not take effect until July 21, 2026. Until then, the existing injunctions bind only the Virginia State Police (statewide) and the Commonwealth’s Attorneys of six localities, and while some other prosecutors have said they will not prosecute violations, coverage everywhere else is genuinely uncertain.
3. The legal landscape can change overnight. A stay from the Supreme Court of Virginia could reinstate the bans with little warning. Anyone making purchase, transfer, or transport decisions in reliance on the injunctions should understand that the window could close abruptly and should document when transactions occurred.
4. Dealers face separate, un-enjoined risks. Federal firearms licensees must still navigate the FIAA’s reasonable-controls duty, the new background-check regime, and the coming serialization ban, none of which these injunctions touch. A sale that is protected from criminal prosecution today may still generate civil exposure. Sales made during the injunction could still be prosecuted criminally if the injunctions are overturned or the enjoined laws are ultimately upheld.
5. Watch the federal cases. Rulings in McDonald v. Katz or the DOJ’s suit could block or revive the bans regardless of what happens in state court.

The Bottom Line

For the moment, momentum favors the challengers: two circuit courts have enjoined Virginia’s “assault firearm” and magazine bans, and one of those injunctions will reach every corner of the Commonwealth on July 21. But with the Attorney General promising an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court of Virginia, a contrary ruling in Spotsylvania, two federal lawsuits pending, and multiple appeals ahead, this fight is in its early innings. Gun owners, collectors, and licensed dealers should stay informed and act cautiously until the appellate courts speak.

If you have questions about how these rulings affect you or your business, whether you may lawfully buy, sell, transfer, or transport a covered firearm or magazine, or how the new industry-liability and background-check rules apply to your shop or personal collection, contact Welch & Wright, PLLC.