The Bill of Rights and the Virginia Constitution both recognize the right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes. Our Founding Fathers debated it, clarified it, and reinforced it in documents like the Federalist Papers. But apparently, a Virginia judge thinks he knows better.
Several counties across Virginia have had enough. They’ve publicly declared that Governor Spanberger has gone too far, announcing they will not enforce certain gun laws she pushed through after campaigning as someone who would respect the Second Amendment. That promise didn’t last long.
As of late June 2026, counties where commonwealth’s attorneys (local prosecutors) have publicly said they will not prosecute cases under the new law include:
- Spotsylvania County
- Smyth County
- Powhatan County
- Pulaski County
- Page County
- Shenandoah County
- Warren County
In addition, news reports have identified sheriffs or prosecutors in Hanover County and Goochland County as stating they would not enforce the new “assault weapon” ban.
In a case called Curtis v. Katz, the Spotsylvania Circuit Court denied a request for a preliminary injunction against Virginia’s semi-automatic rifle ban. The plaintiffs argued that the Virginia Constitution explicitly protects the right to keep and bear arms as members of an unorganized militia, and that this new law bans the very types of firearms that would be used in that capacity.
They didn’t mince words either, stating that the rifles and handguns prohibited under the ban are “quintessential militia arms.”
Judge William E. Glover disagreed. He denied the injunction and sided with the ban.
What’s especially telling is that Glover openly admitted the plaintiffs would suffer “irreparable harm if the Ban becomes effective and is later determined to be unconstitutional.” Let that sink in. He acknowledges the damage, but then says that, based on a “balance of hardships,” the “potential harm to the Commonwealth” matters more.
In other words, even if your rights are violated, he’s willing to let it happen.
That’s not how this is supposed to work. Courts are meant to protect constitutional rights, not weigh them against political priorities. When judges start treating fundamental rights like negotiable interests, something has gone seriously wrong.
The Second Amendment doesn’t say, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed… unless a judge decides there’s a balance of hardship.” That language doesn’t exist. But Judge Glover is acting as if it does.
He also stated that “the public is entitled to the implementation of laws created by the representatives and approved by the Governor.”
But that’s only half the job. Courts are also supposed to determine whether those laws are constitutional in the first place. Instead, Glover is framing the enforcement of a potentially unconstitutional law as something the public is “entitled” to, as if restricting rights is some kind of public benefit.
Think about that. He’s effectively saying people should accept limitations on their rights because those limitations passed through the legislative process. That’s not constitutional review, that’s deference.
Glover went even further, claiming that history and legal tradition do not establish an individual right to possess “military-style weapons” as part of the unorganized militia.
Maybe he overlooked the part of the Second Amendment that says, “the right of the people.” It’s a small detail, but kind of important. And this idea of “military-style weapons?” Who exactly decides that definition? Historically, the people were expected to have arms comparable to those used by soldiers. That was the whole point.
Did the colonists wait for the king to define what weapons they were allowed to use?
This is where the narrative has shifted. Terms like “military-style weapons” didn’t come from the Founders. They’re modern inventions, and they’ve been effective. Over time, they’ve influenced not just public opinion, but also lawmakers and judges.
And that’s the real concern here. When courts begin adopting politically charged language and reasoning, they stop acting as neutral guardians of the Constitution.
The result is exactly what we’re seeing now. Rights being acknowledged, but not protected.
If that trend continues, it won’t stop with one law, one judge, or one state. It becomes a pattern where rights are slowly redefined, narrowed, and conditioned until they no longer resemble what was originally intended and guaranteed.
And unless those decisions are challenged consistently, that pattern will only accelerate.
