Virginia’s ardent anti-gun lawmakers pushing an unconstitutional ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms are now facing resistance from the very prosecutors expected to enforce it.
Instead of addressing serious constitutional concerns raised by elected Commonwealth’s Attorneys across the Commonwealth, Democratic Commonwealth Senator Saddam Azlan Salim, the sponsor of Senate Bill 749, chose instead to declare those in opposition to the gun ban are using its passage as “an opportunity for tough guy posturing” and “amateur constitutional lawyering.” He added, “My message to anyone thinking about breaking Virginia law is, don’t bet on Virginia law enforcement ignoring it.”
Someone should remind Senator Salim that Commonwealth attorneys are part of Virginia law enforcement who swore an oath to defend the constitution. The Senator would do well to read Virginia law because it gives Commonwealth attorneys prosecutorial discretion to decide on which crimes to prosecute. Importantly, even Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, when signing the legislation into law, let it slip that the banned firearms are “frequently used for hunting,” meaning common firearms used for common, lawful purposes.
Senator Salim’s comments came after several prosecutors publicly indicated they would be reluctant to pursue cases under legislation they believe conflicts with the Second Amendment.
For example, in Clarke County, Sheriff Travis M. Sumption and Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew Bass issued a joint statement saying charges and prosecutions under the new statutes, “will not be enforced in Clarke County against nonviolent offenders, where no other criminal conduct is alleged.” The statement cited constitutional concerns, pending litigation and limited local resources, according to local media.
The dispute highlights the growing legal and constitutional challenges facing firearm bans that target some of the most commonly owned firearms in America. It also raises serious questions about whether lawmakers pushing these restrictions are prepared to defend them under the constitutional standards recently established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Prosecutors Raise Questions Lawmakers Cannot Ignore
The controversy centers on Senate Bill 749, legislation approved by Virginia Democrats that would prohibit the future sale, manufacture, transfer and importation of a broad category of semiautomatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.
Several Commonwealth Attorneys have publicly questioned whether the law can survive constitutional scrutiny. Their concerns are rooted in the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as well as Virginia’s on state constitution.
Those concerns are not unique to Virginia.
Across the country, courts continue to wrestle with bans targeting semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines. States including California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon and others remain locked in ongoing litigation over similar restrictions. NSSF is a plaintiff in or supporting those challenges. The legal questions are significant because the firearms being targeted are not rare, “dangerous and unusual” products. They are among the most popular firearms sold in the United States.
At the center of these cases is a fundamental question: How can government prohibit firearms that are overwhelmingly owned and used for lawful purposes?
Instead of addressing that issue directly, Commonwealth Sen. Salim chose to attack the prosecutors raising it.
Yet these prosecutors are not political pundits. They are elected officials sworn to uphold both the Constitution of Virginia and the Constitution of the United States, the same oath Sen. Salim took. When those officials publicly question whether a law complies with constitutional protections, their concerns deserve a substantive response — not a dismissive political attack.
A Ban Built Around a Political Label
By erroneously and purposely describing these firearms as “assault firearms,” — a purely political term applied to semiautomatic firearms based largely on external features rather than how they function — supporters hope to scare the public into believing these firearms are a problem that must be solved. In reality, Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) are semiautomatic firearms that fire one round with each pull of the trigger, the same operating principle used by countless firearms lawfully owned throughout the United States for well over a century.
That distinction is not merely technical. It lies at the heart of the constitutional debate. Simply attaching a politically charged label to a commonly owned firearm does not remove it from constitutional protection.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes receive Second Amendment protection. Firearms built on the AR-platform are among the most popular rifles in America and are widely used for recreational shooting, hunting and personal protection, with more than 32 million in circulation — making them twice as popular as the Ford F-150 pickup truck. Just last year, in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. vs Mexico, a unanimous Supreme Court said “But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.).”
Their popularity among law-abiding Americans, including increasingly among women, is one reason courts continue to closely scrutinize efforts to prohibit them.
The Impact Falls on Law-Abiding Citizens and Businesses
While supporters frame Senate Bill 749 as a public safety measure, its practical effects would fall primarily on lawful gun owners and lawful businesses, not criminals.
Virginia firearm retailers would face significant compliance burdens and inventory restrictions. Manufacturers and distributors serving the Virginia market would be forced to navigate another complex state-specific regulatory framework. Consumers would face restrictions on purchasing firearms that remain legal and commonly owned throughout most of the rest of the country.
These consequences extend beyond individual gun owners.
Virginia has a substantial community of firearm retailers, shooting ranges, manufacturers, hunters and recreational shooters who contribute to the Commonwealth’s economy and outdoor heritage. Restrictions targeting commonly owned firearms create uncertainty for businesses while limiting consumer choice without clear evidence that such measures will reduce violent crime.
That reality explains why opposition to these bans often extends beyond traditional Second Amendment advocates and includes retailers, manufacturers, sportsmen and local officials.
Constitutional Scrutiny Is Coming
The pushback from Virginia prosecutors reflects a broader reality confronting gun control advocates nationwide. The legal environment surrounding firearm regulation has changed dramatically since District of Columbia v. Heller and Bruen.
Lawmakers can no longer rely solely on policy arguments or public opinion polling to defend firearm restrictions. Courts now require governments to demonstrate that modern regulations are consistent with the historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms.
That is the test the Virginia gun ban is likely to face and fail.
Prosecutors questioning the law are not engaging in political theater. They are recognizing the constitutional vulnerabilities of legislation that seeks to ban some of the most commonly owned firearms in America. Their concerns mirror arguments currently being litigated in courtrooms across the country.
Dismissing those concerns as “tough guy posturing” does nothing to answer the serious constitutional questions surrounding the legislation. If anything, it highlights the weakness of a political strategy that substitutes rhetoric for legal analysis.
The future of Senate Bill 749 will not be determined by social media posts or partisan talking points. It will be determined by whether Virginia can justify banning firearms that millions of Americans lawfully own and use every day. That question is likely headed to the Virginia Supreme Court and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court, where constitutional scrutiny — not political rhetoric — will ultimately decide the law’s fate.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.