You’d have to have been living under a rock not to know about Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones and his infamous text messages that came to light during his campaign to be the commonwealth’s top law enforcement officer.
“Three people, two bullets. Gilbert, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Gilbert gets two bullets to the head,” then-Delegate Jones mistakenly texted to Republican Virginia Delegate Carrie Coyner in 2022, referencing then-Republican Virginia Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert. “Spoiler: put Gilbert in the crew with the two worst people you know and he receives both bullets every time,” AG Jones added.
After Delegate Coyner addressed his disgusting sentiments, then-Delegate Jones doubled down, following up with a disgusting and vile text message stating how he “wished” that the Virginia Speaker’s children would be shot and “die in their mother’s arms.”
Fast forward and AG Jones announced he’s established a dedicated, taxpayer-funded unit to investigate potential violations of the commonwealth’s new firearm industry liability law and bring civil enforcement actions against lawful and highly regulated businesses.
Announced Sept. 15, the Firearms Accountability & Industry Responsibility Unit gives the attorney general’s office a team focused on enforcing a statute that took effect July 1 and imposes so-called “standards of conduct” on firearm manufacturers, distributors, importers, marketers and retailers.
Virginians shouldn’t hold their breath if they think the same guy who texted the reprehensible messages that he did — and doubled down on them — will be a fair arbiter of any regulations in place meant to hamper the firearm industry and law-abiding Virginians’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights.
What Virginia’s New Law Requires
Enacted through House Bill 21 and Senate Bill 27, the Virginia Firearm Industry Standards of Responsible Conduct prohibits an industry member from knowingly creating, maintaining or contributing to a so-called “public nuisance” through unlawful or unreasonable conduct involving the sale, manufacture, importation or marketing of firearm-related products. It separately requires industry members to establish and implement vague and undefined “reasonable controls” regarding their products. Under the statute, violating either requirement constitutes a public nuisance, even if the product was sold in accordance with all state and federal laws.
The law vaguely defines reasonable controls as procedures, safeguards and business practices designed to address specified risks. Those include sales to straw purchasers, firearm traffickers and prohibited persons, as well as firearm theft or loss, unlawful marketing and certain violations of consumer protection law. The definition also addresses sales to individuals whom a business has reasonable cause to believe present a substantial risk of unlawful firearm use or harm.
These provisions matter because the statute reaches beyond the point of sale. Its definition of a firearm industry member covers businesses engaged in manufacturing, distribution, importation and marketing, while its definition of firearm-related products includes ammunition, components and accessories that meet the law’s Virginia-related criteria.
It’s a lot of overly broad legalese that means the avowed antigun attorney general and local government attorneys may bring civil actions against lawful firearm industry businesses seeking injunctions, nuisance abatement, restitution, compensatory or punitive damages and attorney fees simply because they don’t like the way they legally sell their products. Individuals allegedly injured as a result of an alleged violation may also sue for specified relief. A complaint, however, is an allegation. Any liability must be established through the applicable legal process.
A Dedicated Unit to Pursue Enforcement
AG Jones’ office said the FAIR Unit is housed within its Civil and Criminal Justice & Public Safety divisions and that it is recruiting attorneys, prosecutors and investigators. The office identified potentially unlawful sales, distribution and marketing practices, along with practices alleged to facilitate illegal firearm acquisition or diversion, as examples of conduct that could prompt enforcement.
The unit follows an earlier public commitment by AG Jones to implement the law. Before it took effect, he held a news conference with lawmakers and other participants to discuss the attorney general’s next steps. The FAIR Unit is the office’s subsequent organizational step toward enforcement, rather than a new grant of authority beyond the enacted statute.
Virginia law also permits the attorney general to issue a civil investigative demand when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation has occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. Such a demand can be part of an investigation before a lawsuit is filed; it is not a finding that a business has broken the law.
To supposedly establish more credibility for his actions, AG Jones has previously cited his involvement in litigation against Polymer80 while he was working in the District of Columbia attorney general’s office. But reporting during his 2025 campaign noted that the case was filed before he joined the office and questioned the extent of his role. That litigation is separate from the authority Virginia’s new statute gives his office.
Federal Protections and the Next Legal Test
The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act generally bars specified civil actions seeking to hold firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for harm caused by remote third parties’ criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms. It also contains statutory exceptions. In order to sue, the industry defendant must have knowingly violated a state or federal law specifically applicable to the sale and marketing of firearms which proximately cause the injury, i.e., public nuisance, complained of. Whether a particular Virginia claim is barred or falls within an exception would depend on its allegations and the applicable federal or state law.
A separate dispute illustrates why the distinction matters. On Sept. 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit allowed NSSF’s challenge to New Jersey’s nearly identical “reasonable controls” law to proceed, resolving questions about whether NSSF had standing to sue and whether the federal district court could abstention from hearing our case. That ruling did not decide the merits of NSSF’s challenge, it allows our case to move forward. Challenges to Virginia’s law would be routed through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, so the Third Circuit’s decision wouldn’t have direct bearing on Virginia’s law. It does, however, show that litigation over state firearm industry liability laws involves procedural questions as well as the underlying federal law issues. NSSF sued Maryland over its identical “reasonable control” law in federal court. Like in New Jersey, the federal district court wrongly dismissed our case. We have appealed to the Fourth Circuit where the court will hear oral argument in mid-December.
For lawful firearm businesses operating under Virginia’s statute, the immediate questions concern compliance with its ill-defined standards and the scope of any investigation. The developments to watch are the FAIR Unit’s first investigative demands and enforcement filings. Those actions will identify the practices Virginia chooses to challenge and may give courts an opportunity to address how the state’s new liability provisions operate alongside federal protections.
NSSF will be watching very closely. AG Jones’ past actions have clearly demonstrated he has an anti-Second Amendment agenda and would likely, comfortably, use his political office to make a political point and attack Virginians’ Second Amendment rights. As we have in other states with identical laws, all of which were proposed, written and supported by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, NSSF will not hesitate to sue AG Jones should he enforce the law in a manner that violates the constitution or is preempted by the PLCAA.