Virginia court blocks “assault weapons” ban days before July 1 start
Virginia’s sweeping new gun ban was supposed to take effect July 1. It will not. On June 25, a Lancaster County Circuit Court judge granted a preliminary injunction that freezes the law before a single provision can kick in, handing gun owners a significant, if temporary, reprieve.
The measure Governor Spanberger signed back in April would have made it a Class 1 misdemeanor to sell, manufacture, or transfer most semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, along with magazines holding more than 15 rounds, while grandfathering in those who already own them. The challenge was brought by gun-rights activist John Crump, joined by Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who sued State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz. The judge concluded that only Crump had standing to sue as an individual and that the two organizations did not, yet that was enough to bar the Virginia State Police from enforcing the ban through December 31, or until a final ruling, under the right-to-bear-arms guarantee in Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.
There is an important limit, though. Because Katz was the only defendant, the attorney general’s office argues the order binds only the State Police, leaving local police and commonwealth’s attorneys free, at least on paper, to enforce the ban even as a growing number of them vow not to. That may not hold for long. A separate challenge in Washington County names several commonwealth’s attorneys as defendants, and a ruling expected within days could extend the freeze in a way this order does not.
The state, for its part, is not standing down. Attorney General Jay Jones said it will move urgently to stay the order and appeal, and Virginia’s courts have hardly spoken with one voice. Just a week earlier, a Spotsylvania County judge declined to block the same law. For now, though, July 1 arrives with the State Police sidelined.
Another Virginia Commonwealth Attorney will not enforce gun control
In an encouraging development for Virginians, the resistance to gun bans enacted by Governor Spanberger and the Democrat-controlled legislature continues to come from local officials, including a growing number of sheriffs and commonwealth’s attorneys.
The movement started in May and has been tracked by the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Virginia’s Campbell County Commonwealth Attorney, Paul A. McAndrews, became the 17th prosecutor to come on board, stating on June 20 that his office “will decline prosecutions for these new offenses,” and even suggesting that the legal challenges against the state’s gun control measures could reach the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department has threatened to sue Virginia over the unconstitutional measure, with a lawsuit expected to be filed around the law’s effective date of July 1, 2026.
Two ATF reform package rule for comment: import of firearms and parts and interstate transport
WASHINGTON — The ATF is continuing to revise, post for comment, and implement the package of rules announced during its April 29 press conference to modernize and reform gun-related administrative issues.
In a June 24 post on X, the ATF announced a new proposed rule for comment regarding “Firearm Activities in Foreign Trade Zones, Customs-Bonded Warehouses.” The proposed rule attempts to make it easier and less confusing for gun importers and dealers to handle firearms and parts coming into the U.S.
It is available for comment on the Federal Register until August 6, 2026.
Just a couple days later, in a June 26 post, the agency dropped a proposed rule governing rules about interstate travel with firearms and ammunition. Although already protected under the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), interstate travel has been narrowly defined and not particularly useful as an affirmative defense. The ATF attempts to fix this by providing allowances for stopping for the night, grabbing food/gas, or dealing with a flat tire could technically leave a traveler unprotected.
That rule is also on the Federal Register with commenting open until August 4, 2026.
Plaintiffs in New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and mag ban case invoke SCOTUS’ decision in Wolford to the Third Circuit
PHILADELPHIA — Hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision earlier this week in Wolford (see our full coverage), the plaintiffs in the now-combined case challenging New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and magazine bans (Cheeseman v. Platkin) wrote to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to remind them that the “in common use” test is not part of the Bruen test, as the court clarified.
The letter states, “New Jersey’s argument effectively poses the question to this court of whether parties ‘can smuggle additional limits, drawn from our regulatory tradition, into the plain-text stage of the inquiry,’ but ‘[t]he answer is and always has been no.'”
The Third Circuit is expected to deliver its decision in this case at any time, as the case was reheard on October 15, 2025, by a court that has added new conservative judges. With Wolford now U.S. Supreme Court precedent, there’s a strong chance the Third Circuit could rule in favor of the New Jersey litigants challenging the ban. A positive outcome would also create a circuit split, something the New Jersey attorney general seems particularly eager to avoid, and that gun owners would welcome, as it would invite Supreme Court scrutiny.
Third Circuit tells parties to submit briefs in New Jersey’s “sensitive places” case
PHILADELPHIA — Recognizing that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford provides additional guidance on Second Amendment issues, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals directed the parties in the case challenging New Jersey’s restrictions on “sensitive places” to submit new briefs … and to be concise and timely.
The June 25 order expressly limited the length of each brief to 2,500 words and demanded that they be submitted no later than July 8. The court made clear it will not be granting extensions of time absent truly exceptional circumstances.
The Third Circuit reheard Koons v. Platkin en banc in February. The state fought strongly to avoid this measure, indicating its discomfort with the possible outcome.1
