So manny of today’s gun control initiatives—or what we like to call infringements on an enumerated civil right—is performative. It’s theater for the liberal voting base.
It’s also an important litmus test for political fundraising. ‘Money is the mother’s milk of politics,’ as former Speaker of the California State Assembly Jesse M. Unruh noted in 1966. While Republicans certainly rely on financial backers as well, Democrats, especially in Unruh’s home state, seem to have perfected the art of milking their donors.
As you know by now, Virginia recently took its place at center stage in the national gun control theater when Governor Abigail Spanberger signed HB 217/SB 749 into law on May 14. The legislation bans the future sale, manufacture, purchase, or importation of certain semi-automatic firearms the state classifies as ‘assault firearms,’ along with magazines holding more than 15 rounds. The law goes into effect on July 1, 2026.
The gun control industry and their political minions used to reserve the term ‘assault’ for rifles, but now they’ve expanded the made-up term to ‘assault firearms.’ It’s all part of the broader effort to vilify firearms and encourage the voting base to hate as many types of guns as possible, thereby goosing support for the prohibition of even more of them.
Their definitions of what allegedly makes a gun an ‘assault firearm’ is exactly as you’d expect. Orchid, which provides FFL technology, compliance, and education solutions to thousands of federally licensed firearms dealers, has published a detailed rundown of what Virginia defines as an ‘assault firearm.’
The comedy portion of the performance comes from the obligatory cut-and-paste feature list, which includes folding stocks, telescoping stocks, thumbhole stocks, and pistol grips as qualifying assault-y features on semi-automatic shotguns. Under the law, possessing just one of those features—among others—can classify the firearm as an ‘assault firearm.’
The absurdity comes from the fact that this “one or more” feature callout list bans a number of shotguns—including lots that are used for hunting. I’d add home defense to that use category, but laws like these are never, ever written to support the concept of home defense. That’s what the de-funded police are for, right?
Virginia is just the latest sucking quagmire on the battleground of gun control. The newly enacted law is designed to do two things. The first is to ban as many guns as possible, assuming it remains in place. The second, which is more obviously the goal, is to force the industry into endless legal challenges as to the constitutionality of these laws. That’s the lawfare portion of our program that’s meant to drain the coffers of gun companies and pro-Second Amendment organizations.
The states have effectively unlimited funds for these battles, courtesy of their taxpayers. And in Democrat-controlled states, the taxpayers are less likely to question that waste of money…not that any elected official would care if they did. Either way, in their minds they win.
For the time being—i.e. until a Democrat President and Congress can pack the courts—existing case law is on the side of those defending the Second Amendment. That message, however, may not have made its way to everyone in the industry.
Arsenal Arrives Late
On Monday, May 18, firearms maker Arsenal Inc. emailed out An Open Letter from Arsenal Inc. to the NSSF and the American Firearms Industry. In it, Arsenal lets us know the damage the new Virginia law creates.
“This is not merely about sales. It is not merely about market access. It is not merely about whether one company can sell one product in one state. The greater danger is that laws like this create legal inconsistencies for everyone involved: citizens, dealers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, ranges, trainers, and advocacy organizations alike.”
You don’t say.
Arsenal then writes that “the NSSF is uniquely positioned to recognize that these laws do not merely restrict consumers. They destabilize the lawful businesses, dealers, manufacturers, and distributors that serve them.” And after pointing out that the firearms industry “must respond with more than private frustration and quiet concern” Arsenal calls out the NSSF directly.
“That is why we are calling on the NSSF and the broader industry to stand with Virginia….We urge the NSSF, industry leaders, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, ranges, trainers, media partners, and Second Amendment advocates to treat Virginia as a national issue.”
Arsenal is doing its part. In a May 19 press release, Arsenal announced . . .
In support of our fellow Americans in Virginia before this law takes effect on July 1, 2026, Arsenal Inc., is immediately offering 20% off its entire catalog to residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia, excluding the America 250th Anniversary models and other discounted items.
Sure, it’s no Boulder Airlift, when then-Colorado-based Magpul responded to the state’s magazine capacity legislation by selling magazines directly to Centennial State residents before relocating operations elsewhere.
But the Nevada-based Arsenal clearly took to heart Rahm Emanuel’s adage, you never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Especially when increased sales are at stake.
I have no issue with Arsenal taking advantage of the Virginia situation to sell their AK-47 models to Virginians. What I have an issue with is pointing a finger at the NSSF. The company’s open letter paints NSSF and its most active member companies as somehow sitting on the sidelines while Virginia chips away at gun rights.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
On March 15, NSSF announced it was funding a lawsuit against Virginia. The release appeared in the May 18 edition of The Outdoor Wire and was combined with by similar action from the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America. This coordinated effort by the firearm industry trade association, and Second Amendment advocates, gives off ‘Avengers Assemble‘ vibes.
The timing of Arsenal’s open letter, coming out the same day as the unified effort was announced, isn’t their fault. They couldn’t have known that the very thing they called on NSSF to do was already in motion. Let alone the fact that, for at least a decade, NSSF has been working to fend off similar legislation in Virginia and for years in other states across the country.
Arsenal was probably also unaware that NSSF was active in Richmond when these bills were being moved—legislation that originally called for an outright ban on the possession of MSRs and standard-capacity magazines—meeting with lawmakers noting their opposition to the legislation and pointing out the fatal flaws of the legislation. NSSF has also funded an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the law when it takes effect on July 1, while the challenged works its way thought the judicial system.
NSSF hasn’t been doing nothing, and it hasn’t been doing nothing for a long time. They’ve been at the forefront of all of these state house battles, including in Virginia.
Perhaps Arsenal would have known that if it was an NSSF member company, getting regular updates from NSSF, receiving their weekly Bullet Points newsletter, and taking the time to contact the organization directly. That way they could have avoided publicly calling out NSSF for something the organization was already doing and sowing the seeds of dissent by suggesting the gun control frenzy in Virginia was somehow the result of a lack of involvement on NSSF’s part.