Virginia’s 2026 Assault Firearms Law Likely Violates the Second Amendment

By Biazzo Law, PLLC

Virginia’s new 2026 assault firearms legislation, SB749, is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. The bill title states that it concerns “Assault firearms & certain ammunition feeding devices; purchase, sale, etc., prohibited, penalties,” and the legislation was approved as Chapter 1107 with an effective date of July 1, 2026.

For law-abiding Virginians, firearm owners, firearms dealers, shooting ranges, constitutional litigants, and Second Amendment advocates, this law raises serious constitutional concerns. In Biazzo Law’s view, the legislation likely violates the Second Amendment because it targets bearable arms and magazines that are commonly owned by the people for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, sport shooting, hunting, and lawful public-defense readiness.

The Second Amendment does not protect only muskets from 1791. The United States Supreme Court has made clear that modern bearable arms are protected too. That matters because the firearms targeted by Virginia’s new law are arguably the modern-day equivalents of the ordinary arms historically kept by citizens and available for lawful militia service if ever properly organized by lawful authority.

What Virginia SB749 Does

Virginia SB749 creates a new Code section, Virginia Code § 18.2-287.4:1, making it a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer an “assault firearm.”

The law defines “assault firearm” broadly. It includes certain semiautomatic centerfire rifles, pistols, and shotguns, including semiautomatic centerfire rifles capable of accepting detachable magazines and having features such as folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks; thumbhole stocks or pistol grips; second handgrips; threaded barrels capable of accepting muzzle devices or suppressors; and related features.

The law also creates restrictions on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined to include magazines, belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition, and makes importation, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of such devices a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The law contains exceptions for certain government, military, law-enforcement, defense-facility, federal firearms licensee, inheritance, family-transfer, and firing-range circumstances. But those exceptions do not cure the core constitutional problem: the statute burdens ordinary law-abiding citizens’ ability to acquire and transfer common modern arms.

The Core Constitutional Problem: Commonly Owned Arms Are Protected

The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller is the starting point. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms unconnected with militia service and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense in the home.

Heller also explained that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” and that the historical tradition permits restrictions on weapons that are “dangerous and unusual.” That phrase is critical. A weapon is not excluded from the Second Amendment merely because it is dangerous. All firearms are dangerous if misused. The constitutional category is dangerous and unusual.

Modern semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms often labeled “assault weapons” by legislatures, are not unusual in American civilian life. NSSF’s 2026 firearm production report states that 32,091,000 modern sporting rifles are in circulation since 1990 and describes the modern sporting rifle as the most popular centerfire rifle sold in America.

That evidence strongly supports the argument that these rifles are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. Under Heller, that common ownership matters.

Bruen Requires History, Not Interest Balancing

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected the lower courts’ “two-step” approach that used intermediate scrutiny or interest balancing in Second Amendment cases. Instead, Bruen held that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and the government must prove that its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That means Virginia cannot save SB749 merely by arguing that the law promotes public safety. Public safety is important, but constitutional rights are not subject to ordinary legislative balancing. As Bruen explained, the government must identify a historical analogue that justifies the modern burden on the right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia’s problem is that broad bans on ordinary law-abiding citizens acquiring common semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines do not appear to have a strong Founding-era analogue. Historical firearm regulation generally targeted misuse, threats, armed terror, dangerous conduct, or unusually dangerous weapons — not peaceable possession and transfer of commonly owned arms.

Miller Supports the Militia-Use Argument

United States v. Miller is often misunderstood. Miller did not hold that the Second Amendment protects only formal military service. Instead, Miller analyzed whether the particular firearm at issue had a reasonable relationship to militia efficiency. The Court explained that the militia consisted of civilians who, when called for service, were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and “of the kind in common use at the time.”

That reasoning helps, rather than hurts, a challenge to Virginia’s law. The arms targeted by SB749 are bearable arms commonly owned by citizens. They are not tanks, missiles, artillery, or crew-served battlefield weapons. They are modern rifles, pistols, shotguns, and magazines possessed by millions of Americans.

The modern semiautomatic rifle is therefore plausibly the contemporary equivalent of the citizen-owned musket or rifle that an able-bodied citizen might historically have brought if lawfully called into militia service.

That argument must be framed carefully. The Second Amendment does not authorize vigilantism, private paramilitary activity, intimidation, or unlawful armed action. The militia rationale supports lawful constitutional readiness and lawful public service if called by proper authority. It does not authorize citizens to self-deploy or act as law enforcement.

McDonald Makes the Second Amendment Binding on Virginia

Virginia is not free to disregard Heller because it is a state. In McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Your Second Amendment rights are not merely federal rights against Washington, D.C. or Congress; they also constrain state and local governments.

That means Virginia’s General Assembly and Governor must legislate within the limits of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Rahimi Supports Targeted Dangerousness Restrictions, Not Broad Public Disarmament

In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court upheld a federal firearm restriction applied to a person subject to a domestic violence restraining order after a judicial finding that the person posed a credible threat to another’s physical safety. But Rahimi does not give states a blank check to ban common arms. To the contrary, Rahimi emphasized that the historical tradition supports targeted restrictions on individuals who threaten physical harm to others.

Virginia SB749 is different. It is not limited to individuals found by a court to be dangerous. It does not require proof that a person misused a firearm, threatened anyone, committed violence, brandished a weapon, or posed a credible threat. Instead, it restricts ordinary citizens’ ability to buy, sell, import, manufacture, or transfer a broad class of modern semiautomatic arms and magazines.

That difference matters. Rahimi supports focused, process-based disarmament of dangerous individuals. It does not support categorical burdens on the public’s access to common arms.

Government Exceptions Undermine the “No Legitimate Use” Argument

SB749 includes exceptions for government officers, law-enforcement officers, members of the Armed Forces, certain defense-facility security personnel, and transfers involving law enforcement or military entities.

Those exceptions may make practical sense from the Commonwealth’s point of view, but they also create a constitutional problem. If these arms are useful for lawful defense, security, and public safety in the hands of government actors, it becomes harder to argue that they are categorically unsuitable for lawful defense by the people.

The Second Amendment protects “the people,” not merely state-approved professionals. That was the central lesson of Heller.

Why the Law Likely Violates the Second Amendment

Virginia SB749 likely violates the Second Amendment for several reasons.

First, it targets bearable arms. Heller and Bruen make clear that the Second Amendment applies to modern bearable arms, not only Founding-era weapons.

Second, the targeted firearms and magazines are commonly owned. That makes them difficult to classify as “unusual” under Heller.

Third, the law burdens ordinary law-abiding citizens, not merely violent offenders or individuals adjudicated dangerous.

Fourth, Virginia must identify a historical tradition supporting this type of broad restriction. Under Bruen, generalized public-safety arguments are not enough.

Fifth, the law burdens the acquisition and transfer of arms that are plausibly modern militia-suitable arms, which creates tension with Miller and Heller’s understanding of the militia as the body of citizens capable of lawful common defense.

A Necessary Disclaimer Against Vigilantism

Nothing in this article encourages or authorizes vigilantism, armed intimidation, private law enforcement, unlawful militia activity, threats, brandishing, civil disorder, or resistance to lawful police authority.

Firearms may only be used, carried, transported, purchased, transferred, and stored in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local law. Armed self-defense must be lawful, reasonable, necessary, and proportionate under the circumstances. Citizens should report threats to law enforcement, comply with lawful court orders, and pursue constitutional objections through lawful advocacy, legislation, and litigation.

The militia-related purpose of the Second Amendment does not permit private citizens to act as government agents. Any support to law enforcement, military, emergency management, or civil-defense operations must occur only through lawful channels and proper authority.

Biazzo Law’s U.S. Supreme Court and Second Amendment Practice

Biazzo Law, PLLC represents clients in constitutional litigation, appellate matters, and U.S. Supreme Court practice. https://www.biazzolaw.com/ussupremecourtappealslawyer

Corey J. Biazzo has filed an amicus curiae brief in United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, a pending U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case. The Supreme Court docket reflects that the petition in Hemani was granted on October 20, 2025, the case was set for argument on March 2, 2026, and the Brief amicus curiae of Corey J. Biazzo was filed on January 24, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-1234/392679/20260124122800364_Brief_of_Amicus_Curiae_Corey_Biazzo.pdf

In that amicus filing, Corey J. Biazzo identified himself as a civil litigation attorney, constitutional scholar, U.S. Navy veteran, and author of nonpartisan guidebooks explaining the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. The brief emphasized text, history, and tradition under Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi.

Biazzo Law’s work reflects a consistent constitutional theme: the government may regulate dangerous conduct, but it may not erase enumerated rights through broad classifications untethered from constitutional text, history, and tradition.

Corey Biazzo’s Books on the Second Amendment

Corey J. Biazzo is also the author of books on the Second Amendment, gun ownership, self-defense law, and federal and state firearms regulations. His Second Amendment writing is intended to educate law-abiding Americans about constitutional rights and responsibilities.

Readers can find Corey J. Biazzo’s books through his Amazon author page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B08R2YVL9L

Contact Biazzo Law, PLLC

If you are involved in a constitutional law matter, Second Amendment case, appellate issue, or U.S. Supreme Court briefing matter, contact Biazzo Law, PLLC.

Biazzo Law, PLLC Website: www.biazzolaw.com

Attorney Advertising. This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change, litigation outcomes are uncertain, and prior filings or publications do not guarantee future results.

FAQ

Does Virginia’s 2026 assault firearms law violate the Second Amendment?

There are strong arguments that Virginia SB749 likely violates the Second Amendment because it restricts common bearable arms and magazines owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Under Heller and Bruen, Virginia must justify the law through constitutional text, history, and tradition, not merely modern public-policy balancing.

What firearms does Virginia SB749 restrict?

Virginia SB749 restricts the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of firearms defined as “assault firearms,” including certain semiautomatic centerfire rifles, pistols, shotguns, belt-fed firearms, and modified firearms meeting statutory criteria.

Does Virginia SB749 ban large-capacity magazines?

The law restricts the importation, sale, barter, transfer, and purchase of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined generally as magazines or similar devices capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition, subject to statutory exceptions.

Why does Heller matter for Virginia’s assault firearms law?

Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and recognized protection for arms in common use for lawful purposes. That common-use principle is central to challenges against bans on AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms.

Why does Bruen matter for Virginia gun laws?

Bruen requires the government to prove that a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Courts may not uphold gun laws merely because judges or legislators believe the laws serve public safety.

Is Biazzo Law available for Second Amendment or Supreme Court matters?

Yes. Biazzo Law, PLLC handles constitutional, appellate, and U.S. Supreme Court practice matters and has filed an amicus curiae brief in a pending U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case.