_svg.png){kind=small}
Virginia Second Amendment Lawsuit Challenges 2026 Assault Firearms and Magazine Ban
- corey7565
- 21 hours ago
- 12 min read
By Biazzo Law, PLLC
June 8, 2026
A new federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia challenges Virginia’s 2026 restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition.
The case, McDonald v. Katz, was filed by individual Virginia residents Justin McDonald and Anthony Groeneveld, along with the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
The lawsuit challenges Virginia Code § 18.2-287.4:1, which prohibits the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of many semiautomatic firearms labeled “assault firearms,” and Virginia Code § 18.2-309.1, which prohibits the importation, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of magazines Virginia classifies as “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.”
The central constitutional issue is straightforward:
Can Virginia criminalize ordinary law-abiding citizens’ ability to acquire and transfer common semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines that millions of Americans possess for lawful purposes?
In Biazzo Law’s view, this case presents serious Second Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment issues.
Quick Answer: What Is the Virginia Second Amendment Lawsuit About?
The lawsuit argues that Virginia’s 2026 firearms law violates the Second Amendment because it restricts arms and magazines that are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
The challenged law does not merely regulate criminal misuse of firearms. It restricts ordinary acquisition and transfer by peaceable citizens.
That distinction matters.
Under District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment protects arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Under McDonald v. Chicago, that right applies against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must justify firearm regulations by showing consistency with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And under United States v. Rahimi, modern firearm restrictions must be evaluated by historical principles, including whether a law targets dangerous conduct or broadly burdens the public’s right to keep and bear arms.
The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s law fails that test.
What Does Virginia’s 2026 Firearms Law Do?
Virginia’s 2026 law creates two major restrictions.
First, the law prohibits importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of firearms defined as “assault firearms.”
Second, the law restricts magazines and similar devices capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition.
Violations are treated as Class 1 misdemeanors. Under Virginia law, a Class 1 misdemeanor may carry up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both. The complaint also alleges that a violation of the firearm ban carries a three-year prohibition on purchasing, possessing, or transporting any firearm.
The law contains exceptions for certain government, law-enforcement, military, federal firearms licensee, inheritance, family-transfer, firing-range, and preexisting-possession circumstances.
But the plaintiffs argue that those exceptions do not solve the constitutional problem because ordinary law-abiding Virginians still lose the ability to acquire and transfer many commonly owned firearms and magazines after the law’s effective date.
What Firearms Does Virginia Target?
Virginia’s definition of “assault firearm” sweeps broadly.
The complaint explains that the law covers many semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on ordinary features such as folding, telescoping, or collapsible stocks; thumbhole stocks; pistol grips; second handgrips; threaded barrels; flash suppressors; muzzle brakes; muzzle compensators; and similar features.
The law also covers certain semiautomatic rifles or pistols with fixed magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
The plaintiffs’ argument is that these are not exotic battlefield weapons outside ordinary civilian life. They are semiautomatic firearms—arms that fire one round per trigger pull—and many of the features Virginia identifies are common features that assist safe, accurate, and effective lawful use.
That matters under the Second Amendment.
The Core Second Amendment Problem: Common Arms Cannot Be Redefined Out of the Constitution
The Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The right is not limited to muskets from 1791. The Supreme Court has explained that the Second Amendment extends to modern bearable arms, just as the First Amendment protects modern communication technology and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern searches.
That principle is central to this case.
Virginia has attempted to define a broad class of modern semiautomatic firearms as “assault firearms.” But constitutional rights cannot be defeated by labels.
The question is not whether Virginia calls a firearm an “assault firearm.” The question is whether the firearm is an “arm” protected by the Second Amendment and whether it is commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
If the answer is yes, the state faces a heavy constitutional burden.
“Assault Firearm” Is a Political Label, Not a Constitutional Category
The term “assault firearm” is not the controlling constitutional standard.
The Second Amendment does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless a legislature attaches an unfavorable label to a firearm.
Many of the arms targeted by Virginia are semiautomatic firearms owned by millions of Americans. They are used for self-defense, sport shooting, hunting, competition, training, collecting, and other lawful purposes.
That does not mean the Second Amendment is unlimited. It is not.
But Heller drew an important distinction between arms in common use for lawful purposes and dangerous and unusual weapons outside ordinary civilian possession. The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s law targets the former, not the latter.
AR-15-Style Rifles and Common Use
The AR-15-style rifle is central to the modern Second Amendment debate.
The complaint alleges that AR-15-style rifles and similar modern semiautomatic rifles are among the most commonly owned firearms in the United States. It cites survey and industry data suggesting that tens of millions of Americans have owned AR-15 or similar rifles and that these rifles are widely used for lawful purposes.
That common ownership matters.
Under Heller, arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes receive constitutional protection. The government cannot simply declare an entire category of commonly owned arms unprotected because legislators believe those arms are too effective, too modern, or too politically controversial.
A weapon cannot be both commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and “unusual” in the constitutional sense.
Why the Banned Features Matter
Virginia’s law does not merely target specific models. It targets features.
Many of those features can make firearms safer and easier to use.
A telescoping stock may allow a firearm to fit different body sizes and improve control. A pistol grip may improve stability and accuracy. A threaded barrel may allow attachment of muzzle devices. A flash suppressor may reduce visual disruption when firing in low light. A detachable magazine may allow safer loading, unloading, and malfunction clearance.
The plaintiffs argue that these features are not evidence that a firearm is outside the Second Amendment. To the contrary, many are ordinary features that assist lawful use.
That is important because the Second Amendment protects arms for self-defense. A law that prohibits common features that make firearms more usable for lawful defense burdens the very conduct the Constitution protects.
The Magazine Ban: Why “Large Capacity” May Be a Misleading Term
Virginia’s law also restricts magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.
Supporters of magazine bans often call these “large capacity” magazines. But many Second Amendment advocates call them standard-capacity magazines because magazines holding more than 15 rounds are common factory-standard equipment for many popular handguns and rifles.
The complaint argues that millions of Americans own such magazines and that they are widely possessed for lawful purposes.
That matters because magazines are not accessories in the ordinary sense. A magazine is integral to the function of many modern firearms. Restricting magazines restricts the ability to use the firearm itself.
The plaintiffs argue that magazines over 15 rounds are common arms or components of protected arms and that Virginia cannot ban their acquisition by ordinary citizens without satisfying the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition test.
Why Self-Defense Matters
Self-defense remains the core of the Second Amendment right.
A person defending against a violent attack does not choose the time, place, number of attackers, lighting conditions, distance, stress level, or number of rounds needed.
The complaint argues that magazine capacity can matter in real defensive situations. It also notes that law enforcement is exempted from the magazine restriction in certain circumstances, which undercuts the idea that these magazines have no legitimate defensive or public-safety use.
The constitutional point is not that every person must own a particular firearm or magazine. The point is that the government generally may not deny ordinary citizens access to common arms chosen for lawful defense.
Bruen Requires History, Not Policy Balancing
Before Bruen, many lower courts used interest balancing to uphold firearm restrictions. Courts would ask whether the law served an important government interest, such as public safety, and whether the burden on the right was acceptable.
Bruen rejected that approach.
Under Bruen, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the government must show that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That means Virginia cannot win merely by arguing that the law is desirable, popular, or intended to reduce crime.
Public safety is important. But constitutional rights are not erased by modern policy preferences.
The question becomes: did American historical tradition permit broad bans on ordinary peaceable citizens acquiring common bearable arms?
The plaintiffs argue no.
Rahimi Supports Targeted Restrictions, Not Broad Public Disarmament
United States v. Rahimi upheld a federal firearm restriction for a person subject to a domestic-violence restraining order after judicial findings of dangerousness.
But Rahimi does not give governments a blank check to ban common arms.
To the contrary, Rahimi supports a distinction between targeted restrictions on individuals found to pose a credible threat and broad restrictions on the general public.
Virginia’s law does not require a court finding that a person is dangerous. It does not require violent conduct. It does not require misuse of a firearm. It does not require threats, brandishing, criminal conduct, or individualized risk.
It burdens ordinary citizens based on the type of firearm or magazine they wish to acquire.
That is why Rahimi may help the plaintiffs more than Virginia. It shows that historical tradition permits targeted regulation of dangerous conduct and dangerous individuals, not categorical bans on common arms owned by peaceable citizens.
Miller and the Militia-Use Argument
United States v. Miller is often misunderstood.
Miller did not hold that the Second Amendment protects only formal militia service. Rather, it examined whether the weapon at issue had a reasonable relationship to militia efficiency and discussed arms of the kind in common use at the time.
That logic creates tension with bans on modern semiautomatic rifles.
If the Second Amendment protects arms that ordinary citizens would bring if lawfully called for militia or common-defense service, then modern semiautomatic rifles are difficult to dismiss. They are bearable arms, commonly possessed, and suitable for lawful defense and training.
That argument must be made carefully.
Nothing in the Second Amendment authorizes vigilantism, private law enforcement, unlawful militia activity, armed intimidation, or resistance to lawful authority. But the militia-related purpose of the Second Amendment remains relevant to constitutional meaning. The right belongs to “the people,” and historically the people were expected to possess ordinary arms suitable for lawful defense.
The Fourth Circuit Problem: Bianchi and Kolbe
The plaintiffs acknowledge a serious procedural obstacle: current Fourth Circuit precedent.
In Kolbe v. Hogan, the Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s assault-weapons law. In Bianchi v. Brown, the Fourth Circuit again upheld Maryland’s law after Bruen.
Because Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit, those decisions matter. The complaint candidly acknowledges that the relief requested is foreclosed by Bianchi and Kolbe unless those cases are overruled by a court with authority to do so.
That likely means this case is built for appellate review.
The plaintiffs’ position is that Bianchi and Kolbe were wrongly decided because they permit states to ban commonly owned semiautomatic firearms despite Heller, Bruen, and the common-use principle.
The future of this lawsuit may therefore depend on whether the Supreme Court eventually takes up the assault-weapons and magazine-ban question directly.
Why This Case Matters Beyond Virginia
This case is not just about one state statute.
It presents a national question:
Can states prohibit ordinary citizens from acquiring and transferring common semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines by labeling them “assault firearms” or “large capacity” devices?
That question affects the relationship between constitutional rights and democratic regulation.
States have police powers. States may regulate crime, public safety, firearm misuse, sensitive places, commercial sales, and dangerous conduct. But states do not have unlimited authority to redefine constitutional rights out of existence.
The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. It limits government action.
That is the constitutional boundary this lawsuit asks the courts to enforce.
Biazzo Law’s View
Biazzo Law’s view is that Virginia’s 2026 law raises serious Second Amendment concerns because it targets common bearable arms and magazines possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
The law is not limited to persons adjudicated dangerous.
It is not limited to misuse.
It is not limited to threats, violence, or criminal conduct.
Instead, it restricts the acquisition and transfer of broad categories of modern semiautomatic firearms and magazines that are common in American civilian life.
Under Heller and Bruen, that is constitutionally suspect.
Biazzo Law’s Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Practice
Biazzo Law, PLLC represents clients and works with referring counsel in constitutional litigation, federal appellate matters, Fourth Circuit appeals, and U.S. Supreme Court practice.
This case is especially important because it sits in the Fourth Circuit, where Bianchi and Kolbe currently control. That makes appellate strategy critical from the beginning.
Preserving constitutional arguments, developing the record, framing the issue under Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, and Miller, and preparing for possible U.S. Supreme Court review are all essential in cases like this.
Corey J. Biazzo has also filed an amicus curiae brief in United States v. Hemani, No. 24-1234, a pending U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment case concerning 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal firearm prohibition for unlawful users of controlled substances.
In that amicus brief, Corey J. Biazzo argued that the Second Amendment protects a broad individual right and that historical tradition supports regulation of dangerous conduct, not status-based disarmament untethered from text, history, and tradition.
That same constitutional theme appears in the Virginia litigation: government may regulate dangerous conduct, but it may not erase enumerated rights through broad classifications that burden ordinary law-abiding citizens.
How This Builds on Biazzo Law’s Prior Second Amendment Coverage
Biazzo Law previously analyzed Virginia’s 2026 assault firearms law and explained why it likely violates the Second Amendment.
Biazzo Law has also published broader educational content explaining the Second Amendment’s individual-right framework, including Heller, McDonald, Bruen, and Rahimi.
This new lawsuit gives those issues immediate legal significance. The debate is no longer theoretical. Virginia’s law has been enacted, the plaintiffs have sued, and the courts will now confront whether the Commonwealth’s restrictions can survive the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment test.
Government Oversight and Constitutional Accountability
Second Amendment litigation is also government oversight.
When a state criminalizes the acquisition or transfer of common arms, citizens have a right to ask whether the government has exceeded constitutional limits.
That is not anti-government. It is constitutional government.
The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program focuses on lawful, peaceful, public-interest oversight of government action, including constitutional analysis, public education, transparency, and legal accountability.
Virginia’s 2026 firearms law is exactly the type of issue that requires constitutional oversight. Legislatures may act. Governors may sign laws. Agencies may enforce them. But the Constitution remains supreme.
Courts exist to enforce those limits.
A Necessary Disclaimer Against Vigilantism and Unlawful Conduct
Nothing in this article encourages or authorizes vigilantism, armed intimidation, unlawful militia activity, private law enforcement, brandishing, threats, civil disorder, or resistance to lawful police authority.
Firearms must be used, carried, transported, stored, purchased, and transferred only in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local law.
Second Amendment rights must be defended through lawful means: litigation, public education, legislation, voting, peaceful advocacy, and constitutional oversight.
Key Takeaway
The Virginia Second Amendment lawsuit challenges whether the Commonwealth may prohibit ordinary citizens from acquiring and transferring common semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.
The plaintiffs argue that these arms are protected because they are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
Virginia will likely argue that the law is a permissible public-safety measure and that current Fourth Circuit precedent supports it.
The central constitutional question is whether Heller, Bruen, McDonald, Miller, and Rahimi allow a state to ban common modern arms by legislative label.
That question may ultimately require the U.S. Supreme Court’s review.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Virginia Second Amendment lawsuit?
The lawsuit is McDonald v. Katz, a federal case filed in the Eastern District of Virginia challenging Virginia’s 2026 restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.
Who filed the lawsuit?
The plaintiffs are Justin McDonald, Anthony Groeneveld, the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.
What laws are being challenged?
The lawsuit challenges Virginia Code § 18.2-287.4:1, concerning “assault firearms,” and Virginia Code § 18.2-309.1, concerning magazines and similar devices capable of holding more than 15 rounds.
What does the lawsuit argue?
The lawsuit argues that Virginia’s restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments because they burden law-abiding citizens’ ability to acquire and transfer common arms and magazines used for lawful purposes.
Are AR-15-style rifles protected by the Second Amendment?
The plaintiffs argue yes, because AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms are commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, hunting, sport shooting, and collecting.
Are magazines over 15 rounds protected by the Second Amendment?
The plaintiffs argue yes, because such magazines are common, integral to the function of many firearms, and widely owned for lawful purposes.
What is the “common use” test?
The common-use principle comes from Heller. It protects arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and permits regulation of dangerous and unusual weapons outside ordinary civilian use.
Why do Bianchi and Kolbe matter?
Because Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit, Bianchi v. Brown and Kolbe v. Hogan currently create major obstacles for challenges to assault-weapons bans. The plaintiffs acknowledge this and seek relief from a court competent to overrule those precedents.
Could this case reach the U.S. Supreme Court?
It is possible. Because the complaint directly challenges Fourth Circuit precedent and raises major Second Amendment questions, the case could become part of the national litigation path toward Supreme Court review of semiautomatic-firearm and magazine bans.
Does this article provide legal advice?
No. This article is for general informational and public-education purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and should not be relied upon as legal advice.
Suggested Links:
Link “Virginia’s 2026 Assault Firearms Law Likely Violates the Second Amendment” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/virginia-2026-assault-firearms-law-second-amendment
Link “Understanding the Second Amendment: Your Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/post/understanding-the-second-amendment-your-constitutional-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms
Link “Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program” to:https://www.biazzolaw.com/biazzolawgovernmentoversight
Link "U.S. Supreme Court Practice”
Link "Fourth Circuit Appeals"
Link "Biazzo Amicus Brief in U.S. v. Hemani No. 24-1234
Link "Virginia Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment" by Corey J. Biazzo, Esq.
Docs:
Comments