ABINGDON, Va. — Before the ink was dry on Spanberger’s signature approving a vast weapons and magazine ban on May 14, gun rights groups joined forces with citizens and filed at least three lawsuits challenging the unconstitutional measures, with slightly different angles and in different jurisdictions. On Monday, June 29, a Washington County Circuit Court granted a preliminary injunction in one of those cases, Santolla v. Katz. While the decision is a victory, the relief is narrow and leaves room for enforcement across the state.
Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell authored the seven-page decision and observed that, “…the request of a Circuit Court to enjoin the enforcement of an enactment by the General Assembly is truly an extraordinary request,” adding, “this court believes that the [state] Supreme Court would be the more appropriate forum for such a challenge.”
Nonetheless, because no such petition was before the Supreme Court, the judge not only granted the motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 217, but he also directed the injunction to remain in effect up until July 1, 2027, the new effective date passed by a special legislative session of the General Assembly.
It’s important to note that the challenge in this case, as understood by the court, is not a Second Amendment challenge, but “a pure question of state law.” The state law in question is Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution (closely resembling the Second Amendment):
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…
But the court also noted that, “Both the Commonwealth and the Plaintiffs have urged that the Court should look to case law interpreting the 2nd Amendment and, particularly, the case of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen…”
Looking at precedent within the state circuit, the court found that only two other cases addressed Article 1, Section 13, and the courts were split in their findings.
The decision certainly falls in favor of gun owners (and the Constitution), with the court making the obvious observation:
In application to the case at bar, the Court would find that the plain text of Article 1, Section 13, would provide for the clear and unequivocal right of the Plaintiffs to keep and bear arms, without infringement, and that the challenged laws as enacted would apply to this Constitutionally protected conduct. The Court makes note of the fact that the plain text of the enacted Firearms Ban would establish broad ranging prohibitions on the Plaintiff dealers with respect to an entire class of firearms and, without question, in historical common usage, specifically that of semi-automatic centerfire rifles with a second hand grip, comprising virtually all semi-automatic centerfire rifles including the AR-15 style rifles and others that Plaintiffs possess.
The court concludes that, “The Plaintiffs have shown that enforcement of the subject Bans would likely amount to a deprivation of their Constitutionally protected rights.”
Unfortunately, the preliminary injunction applies only to the defendants named in the original complaint, which include the superintendent of the Virginia State Police and commonwealth’s attorneys in five counties and the city of Chespeake.
As attorney Tim Anderson noted in his X post, “It is not a statewide injunction. A Fairfax County police officer can still make an arrest. A Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney can still prosecute. A Fairfax judge can still hear the case because they are not parties to this injunction.”
The case is backed by the NRA and the Virginia Shooting Sports Association.
