On the heels of last week’s introduction of numerous anti-gun bills, today, Virginia lawmakers introduced a new bill to ban so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines, and included language that will eventually pave the way for voluntary surrender and so-called “buybacks.”
SB749, whose Chief Patron is Saddam Azlan Salim (D), was introduced and passed out of the Finance and Appropriations committee on January 26, and makes it a crime to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer “assault firearms.” Those who lawfully owned such firearms prior to July 1, 2026, may keep them, but are limited in how they can dispose of them – sales are only permitted to licensed dealers or out-of-state buyers.
The bill also broadens the definition of “magazines” and establishes a new magazine capacity limit with the definition of “large capacity ammunition feeding device.”
a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept and capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
Unlike the “assault firearm” provisions, the magazine ban has no grandfathering clause – possession of magazines over 10 rounds is banned outright, meaning Virginians would be required to surrender or dispose of existing magazines. Exceptions exist only for law enforcement and magazines permanently modified to hold 10 or fewer rounds. This would affect owners of common firearms like the Glock 19, whose standard magazine holds 15 rounds.
The bill bans possession and transportation of “assault firearms” and handguns for any person younger than 18, with limited exceptions on private property, while hunting, or while at shooting ranges.
As with all such bills, Virginia has its own definition of “assault firearms,” which is so broad as to effectively encompass nearly all modern rifles that have these popular design or cosmetic features. The bill’s formal definition for “assault rifles” is:
A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) a grenade launcher; (v) a flare launcher; (vi) a sound suppressor; (vii) a flash suppressor; (viii) a muzzle brake; (ix) a muzzle compensator; (x) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a sound suppressor, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (x);
It includes similar definitions for semi-automatic centerfire pistols, shotguns, and rifles with fixed magazines of more than 10 rounds. They also specifically include firearms capable of receiving belt-fed ammunition.
Exclusions to the definition are firearms that are: antique firearms, have been rendered permanently inoperable, or are manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action.
The bill also paves the way for the introduction of gun buybacks with language that controls which government entities may engage in “voluntary gun buy-back or give-back program for the surrendering of an assault firearm.”
Violations are a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying a penalty of up to 12 months in jail.
The bill in its totality closely resembles New Jersey’s prohibitions on “assault weapons” and magazine capacities, which are currently being challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
In the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Snope v. Brown (Maryland’s ban on AR-15s and other “assault weapons”), Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a forward-looking statement observing, “Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”
