Virginia’s legal campaign against commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines has reached an unusual point: The Commonwealth’s ban remains blocked, two major lawsuits have been paused, and nearly every party is now waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to address the constitutional question Virginia lawmakers tried to avoid.
The two most important recent developments came in Santolla v. Katz, the NRA-backed state case that produced a statewide preliminary injunction, and McDonald v. Katz, the federal challenge brought jointly by individual gun owners, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation.
Both cases have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the consolidated challenges to semi-automatic rifle bans in Illinois and Connecticut.
For Virginia gun owners, the good news is that the statewide injunction remains in place. The Commonwealth cannot presently enforce its ban while the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether state and local governments may prohibit rifles owned by millions of Americans. But delay is not necessarily a one-sided victory.
Virginia may also be betting that time will produce a more favorable Supreme Court of Virginia before the state constitutional issues return to Richmond.
Santolla Stay Leaves Statewide Injunction Intact
On July 28, Washington County Circuit Court entered an agreed order staying further proceedings in Santolla v. Katz until the Supreme Court decides Viramontes and Grant. The critical part is what the order did not do: It did not dissolve, narrow or suspend the statewide preliminary injunction.
Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell previously concluded that the Santolla plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Virginia’s ban violates Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. He later clarified that the injunction against enforcement applies statewide, binding law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys throughout Virginia.
That means Virginians may continue purchasing and transferring the affected firearms and magazines while the case is stayed, barring some later appellate intervention.
The plaintiffs in Santolla include the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride and several individual gun owners. They challenge legislation signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger that prohibits the sale, purchase, transfer, importation and manufacture of broadly defined “assault firearms” and magazines holding more than 15 rounds. In practical terms, the law targets ordinary AR-15s, other popular semi-automatic rifles and the magazines those firearms were designed to use.
Calling those rifles “assault firearms” does not change their constitutional status. They remain bearable arms overwhelmingly possessed by peaceable Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, competition, hunting, and simple readiness.
The stay preserves the best immediate position available to Virginia gun owners: The law remains blocked while the nation’s highest court considers substantially the same constitutional question.
McDonald Federal Challenge Also Paused
The federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, was stayed several days earlier. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Justin McDonald, Anthony Groeneveld, the NRA, FPC and SAF. Although the organizational announcements have sometimes caused confusion, SAF and FPC do not have separate federal Virginia rifle-ban cases. They are co-plaintiffs in McDonald.
The plaintiffs filed a consent motion on July 23 asking the federal court to pause the case pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Viramontes and Grant. Judge Leonie Brinkema granted the stay on July 24.
Unlike Santolla, McDonald had not produced an independent preliminary injunction. The current statewide protection comes from Judge Campbell’s order in the state case. Still, staying the federal lawsuit makes sense.
The federal district court is bound by the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in Bianchi v. Brown, which upheld Maryland’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles. No matter how badly Bianchi conflicts with the text of the Second Amendment, the original public meaning of “Arms,” or the Supreme Court’s rejection of judicial interest balancing, it remains binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
Marching McDonald toward an almost predetermined adverse ruling would accomplish little. Waiting preserves the claims and allows the plaintiffs to return after the Supreme Court has spoken directly about rifle bans.
If Viramontes holds that AR-15s and similar rifles are protected arms that cannot be banned, Virginia’s federal defense could collapse quickly. A district judge cannot ignore a controlling Supreme Court ruling simply because the Fourth Circuit previously adopted a narrower view of the Second Amendment.
Delay Could Also Help the Commonwealth
Gun owners should not assume, however, that Virginia agreed to the Santolla stay solely because it had no better option. The delay may also serve the Commonwealth’s long-term strategy.
Justice D. Arthur Kelsey’s current term on the Supreme Court of Virginia expires on January 31, 2027. Virginia Supreme Court justices are elected to 12-year terms by the General Assembly, meaning Democratic lawmakers could choose not to return Kelsey to the bench and instead select a replacement viewed as more receptive to the Commonwealth’s arguments.
The governor’s role is narrower than is sometimes suggested. Under the Virginia Constitution, the governor may make a temporary appointment when a vacancy occurs while the General Assembly is not in session, but the legislature ultimately elects the justice who serves the full term.
Kelsey recently authored the Supreme Court of Virginia’s 4-3 decision invalidating Democrats’ congressional-redistricting referendum. After that defeat, Democratic Delegate Dan Helmer publicly declared that Kelsey should not remain on the court when his term expires.
That political landscape is important to remember. By the time Santolla or another state constitutional case reaches Virginia’s highest court, its composition could be different. The Commonwealth may believe that waiting provides an opportunity to place the case before a court more willing to narrow Article I, Section 13 or limit the relief available to gun owners.
That does not mean a newly constituted state court could disregard the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Amendment applies against Virginia through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Viramontes establishes that bans on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles violate the Second Amendment, no Virginia judge may lawfully invent a lower level of protection.
But a future Supreme Court of Virginia could still influence questions involving the independent meaning of Virginia’s right-to-arms provision, the scope of statewide relief, standing, procedural issues and remedies not expressly resolved by Viramontes.
The stay, therefore, cuts both ways. Gun owners keep the statewide injunction. Virginia keeps alive the possibility that a more favorable state bench will hear whatever questions remain after the Supreme Court rules.
Crump v. Katz Remains Active For Now
While Santolla and McDonald are paused, Crump v. Katz continues moving in Lancaster County Circuit Court, at least for now. The plaintiffs include John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. The case challenges Virginia’s firearm and magazine restrictions under the Virginia Constitution.
On June 25, a preliminary injunction was granted, preventing Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions. The order remains effective through December 31, 2026, or until further action by the court.
Virginia then attempted to consolidate the state lawsuits before a single court, but a three-judge panel rejected that effort on July 6. The ruling allowed Crump, Santolla and the other cases to proceed independently.
Attorney General Jay Jones subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and demurrer. The Crump plaintiffs moved to enlarge the preliminary injunction and opposed the Commonwealth’s effort to stay the case. The scope of the Crump injunction has been one of the practical disputes separating it from Santolla. The Lancaster County order directly restrains Katz and the Virginia State Police, while Judge Campbell’s later clarification in Santolla expressly extended protection statewide across law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys.
Even so, Crump remains important because it keeps direct pressure on the Commonwealth and advances an independent argument under Virginia’s own constitutional text:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Those words are not a suggestion to the General Assembly. They are a command.
They do not allow judges to ask whether Richmond believes a rifle has too many features, whether a magazine holds more ammunition than a politician prefers or whether banning ordinary arms might produce some speculative policy benefit.
The text protects the people’s right to possess and carry arms. Virginia’s law targets arms. That should end the inquiry unless the Commonwealth can establish a historically grounded limitation consistent with the constitutional right as originally understood. It cannot.
NSSF’s Black v. Hook Case Continues Separately
The NSSF-funded lawsuit, Black v. Hook, remains pending in Fauquier County Circuit Court. Its plaintiffs include individual gun owners, Clark’s Gun Shop, Optimus Arms and magazine manufacturer Hexmag USA. The case challenges Virginia’s law under both the Second Amendment and the Virginia Constitution, giving it a particularly important firearm-industry dimension. These are not hypothetical injuries.
Retailers are prevented from selling lawful products. Manufacturers are blocked from making or distributing commonly owned arms and magazines. Customers are denied the ability to acquire firearms that millions of other Americans already possess.
NSSF sought emergency preliminary relief before the law’s July 1 effective date, but Black has not produced its own statewide injunction. Its plaintiffs currently benefit from the broader relief secured in Santolla.
Like Crump, the NSSF case survived Virginia’s failed consolidation effort and remains on its own track in Fauquier County.
That could prove valuable. The industry plaintiffs can develop a factual record showing the law’s real-world consequences for dealers, manufacturers, employees and customers—not merely the Commonwealth’s sanitized description of its ban.
Viramontes Now Hangs Over Every Virginia Case
Every one of these lawsuits now exists in the shadow of Viramontes and Grant. The central question is not complicated: May the government ban an entire class of rifles that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens? Under the Constitution’s text and original public meaning, the answer is no.
The rifles Virginia seeks to prohibit are “Arms.” They are bearable firearms commonly used for lawful purposes. Millions are in civilian hands. Standard-capacity magazines are integral components necessary to operate many of those firearms in their ordinary configuration. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, Virginia bears the burden of proving that its ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
There is no Founding-era tradition of banning commonly owned rifles because the government disliked their appearance, operating system, magazine capacity or military heritage.
To the contrary, the Founding generation understood that the people were entitled to possess arms suitable for individual defense and militia service. The notion that a rifle becomes constitutionally suspect because it is effective, accurate, modular, or widely used turns the Second Amendment upside down.
Virginia’s arguments ultimately amount to the interest balancing rejected by District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Commonwealth wants courts to accept that its claimed public-safety objectives outweigh the people’s constitutional rights.
Virginia’s Ban Is Blocked, but the Fight Is Far From Over
For now, the immediate situation is favorable to Virginia gun owners. The statewide injunction in Santolla remains in effect. The federal claims in McDonald are preserved. Crump continues actively in Lancaster County, and the NSSF-backed Black case remains alive in Fauquier County. Yet the stays should not be mistaken for final victories.
Virginia may be playing for time, hoping that Democratic lawmakers can reshape the Supreme Court of Virginia before the state constitutional cases reach it. Gun owners, meanwhile, are relying on the existing injunction and the expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court will finally confront the constitutional fraud behind “assault weapon” bans.
Richmond tried to prohibit some of the most commonly owned rifles and magazines in America. Instead, it ran into multiple lawsuits, multiple injunctions and a Supreme Court preparing to decide whether states have any authority to ban those arms at all.
The law remains blocked. The cases remain alive. And no change in the personnel of a state court can place Virginia above the Second Amendment or the supreme Constitution it is bound to obey.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
