In a decision that reverberates through the ongoing national debate on gun rights, a Virginia Circuit Court has invalidated a state law mandating background checks for private handgun sales. The ruling, issued on October 16, 2025, by Judge F. Patrick Yeatts in the Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit of Virginia, marks a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates.
“This victory is fantastic news. Universal background checks are a massive infringement on the rights of law-abiding citizens—and they do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns,” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President. “This victory will no doubt play a major role in next month’s election.”
The case, Wilson v. Hanley, brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), centers on the Virginia Code that mandated universal background checks (UBCs). Democrats claimed that the law was meant to enhance firearm safety, but the statute requires individuals seeking to purchase a handgun through a private sale to undergo a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). While aimed at preventing prohibited persons from acquiring weapons, the law has faced scrutiny for its uneven application, particularly to young adults aged 18 to 20 who cannot transfer a handgun through an FFL.
MASSIVE WIN. GOA, GOF & VCDL struck down universal background checks in Virginia!
“Universal background checks are a massive infringement on the rights of law-abiding citizens—and they do nothing to stop criminals from getting guns.” – @erichmpratt pic.twitter.com/ZjGu2rNYLq
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 17, 2025
The saga began in July 2020, when the court issued a preliminary injunction in Elbert v. Settle, striking down the gun control act as applied to adults under 21.
The ruling highlighted a glaring flaw: Although Virginia law permits 18- to 20-year-olds to possess handguns, the NICS system automatically rejects transfers to those under 21. This law created a de facto ban on lawful private handgun purchases for this age group, as sellers and buyers had no viable mechanism to complete the required check. Effectively, the new law barred young adults from acquiring handguns altogether, even through private sales, without an express prohibition.
In response, the Commonwealth attempted a workaround, establishing a state police-run system to facilitate checks at gun shows. This new system allowed sellers and buyers to appear in person, where officers used a separate state system to bypass NICS limitations. Stipulated facts from 2023 reveal that 48 gun shows occurred in the Commonwealth that year, seven on Fridays and the rest on weekends, serving as the primary venue for this remedial process. However, plaintiffs argued this was insufficient, seeking declaratory relief that the act violates Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution (the state equivalent of the Second Amendment) and permanent injunctive relief to halt its administration and enforcement.
The court’s December 17, 2024, letter opinion declined to rule on the facial challenge outright, instead directing the parties to brief whether the act should be invalidated in whole under the U.S. Supreme Court’s framework from Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood. This ruling set the stage for the June 4, 2025, hearing, where arguments focused on remedies for unconstitutional statutes.
Judge Yeatts’ opinion applies Ayotte’s three-prong test to determine the appropriate remedy when a statute is found unconstitutional as applied. First, courts must refrain from “nullifying more of the legislature’s work than is necessary,” as such rulings frustrate elected representatives’ intent. Second, judicial rewriting is permissible only if the statute is “readily susceptible” to a constitutional limitation. Third, the remedy must align with legislative objectives, as courts cannot use their powers to circumvent lawmakers’ aims.
Under the first prong, the court weighed whether it could merely sever the unconstitutional portion, exempting 18- to 20-year-olds, while leaving the rest intact. This would require background checks for all over 20 but exempt younger adults, a distinction the opinion deems illogical. Requiring checks for those over 20 while allowing unchecked private sales for 18- to 20-year-olds “strains reason,” potentially inviting new Equal Protection Clause challenges. According to Gregory v. Ashcroft, Age-based classifications must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Here, no such interest justifies exempting 18- to 20-year-olds.
The second prong assesses whether the statute is readily susceptible to judicial modification. Rewriting it to impose uniform checks would exceed judicial authority and alter the legislative scheme. The court refuses to “step into the shoes of the legislature,” as doing so would invite administrative chaos without addressing core enforcement deficiencies.
Finally, under the third prong, the legislature likely did not intend arbitrary age-based exemptions, which would create “illogical disparity” in application, particularly amid concerns over youth firearm access. The opinion contrasts this with feasible alternatives, such as Nevada’s law, which requires all sales and transfers, regardless of age, to undergo checks through federally licensed dealers interfacing with the Nevada Department of Public Safety. This uniform approach demonstrates viability without age carve-outs, highlighting Virginia’s failure to adopt similar measures, perhaps due to cost.
The Commonwealth argued for severability under Virginia Code § 1-243, which presumes provisions are severable unless the act specifies otherwise or they must operate in accord. However, severing the 18- to 20-year-old application would lead to an “absurd and untenable result,” leaving disparate treatment intact and exacerbating constitutional flaws.
In its conclusion, the court clarifies it is not deeming background checks unconstitutional per se; that remains an open question for another day. Instead, “the manner in which Virginia Code Section 18.2-308.2:5 is applied cannot pass constitutional scrutiny.” Simply severing the age group would ignore broader enforcement issues. Applying Ayotte, the court strikes the act in its entirety, granting plaintiffs’ request for permanent injunctive relief enjoining its administration, enforcement, and imposition.
This ruling arrives amid a “seismic shift” in American gun rights jurisprudence, catalyzed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Bruen mandates that firearm regulations comport with the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the United States.
Although the court exercised judicial restraint by not engaging in a Bruen analysis, deeming it unnecessary given the law’s inherent flaws, the decision sidesteps deeper historical scrutiny while prioritizing statutory coherence.
For gun rights proponents, this is a triumph against overreach, while for anti-gun advocates, it is a call for legislative refinement. As the opinion notes, if the General Assembly wishes to rewrite the law for a system without age-based disparities, it may do so. Until then, private handgun sales in Virginia proceed unchecked, reshaping access for thousands.
“For five years, Gun Owners Foundation fought for Virginians’ right to purchase firearms without infringement,” John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), “Let this victory be a lesson to any Virginia legislator who might consider violating the Second Amendment.”
The full opinion, an eight-page letter, directs counsel to prepare a consistent order. As an appeal might loom, the Virginia election is underway. The choice of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General is in the hands of Virginians. The Democrats on the ticket have vowed to pass gun control, and the Republicans have promised to block any attempt to restrict the right to bear arms in the Commonwealth.
Trump on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, “We are talking about that”
Supreme Court Weighs Warrantless Home Entries in Case v. Montana
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
