Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger may have inadvertently given opponents of the state’s soon-to-be-enacted “assault firearm” ban some legal ammunition to use in their fight to get the new law declared unconstitutional.
Spanberger released a statement explaining her rationale for signing the gun and magazine ban bill into law, and while most of it is the same eye-rolling nonsense we’ve heard from anti-gunners for decades, there was one line that’s pretty intriguing.
Here is @GovernorVA‘s statement on her decision to sign the assault weapons ban.
“I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement… https://t.co/dgjFwFhpqL
— Tyler Englander (@TylerEnglander) May 15, 2026
“I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe,” said Governor Spanberger. “While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language.”
Maximum casualties? Perhaps the governor would like to tell us how many murders were committed in Virginia last year with the guns that she’s now banned. And if these firearms really are “designed to inflict maximum casualties”, then why are police still allowed to purchase them? Is there any situation where law enforcement would need to hurt or kill large numbers of people? I can’t think of any, at least any legitimate reason, but again, maybe the governor can enlighten us.
It’s Spanberger’s statement about “firearms frequently used for hunting,” though, that really caught my eye. The governor is essentially admitting that at least some of the guns included in the state’s new definition of “assault firearm” are commonly used for lawful purposes like hunting. Expect that statement to be cited by the plaintiffs who are challenging the new ban in both state and federal court.
Of course, the same is true of the guns and magazines that Spanberger didn’t try to exempt from the ban. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that AR-style rifles are the most popular rifles in the country. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are about 32 million of them in private hands, and hundreds of millions of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 20 rounds (Virginia’s new law defines a “large capacity” magazine as anything with a capacity of more than 15 rounds).
Rifles of any kind are used in about 3% of homicides, so they are not in common use for unlawful purposes. Instead, the vast majority of these guns and magazines are possessed and used by lawful gun owners for things like hunting, competitive and recreational shooting, and yes, self-defense.
As NRA, FPC, and SAF point out in their newly-filed federal lawsuit challenging Virginia’s gun and magazine ban:
Millions of peaceable people have determined that AR-15-style rifles, and other semiautomatic rifles, are optimal for self-defense. Their reasons for choosing the platform are irrelevant to the Second Amendment analysis here, but for illustrative purposes, many AR-style firearms are chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition, and will also accept .223 Remington ammunition. These are relatively inexpensive and common cartridges that are particularly well suited for home-defense purposes because they have sufficient stopping power in the event of a home intrusion, but quickly lose velocity after passing through a target and other objects, thus decreasing the chance that an errant shot will strike an unintended target. Also often important, the AR-15 platform, and other platforms, are modular, allowing the individual user and owner to modify the firearm to the specifications that are the safest and easiest for the owner to use given their specific physical and environmental demands for self-defense.
Like the AR-15-style rifle, and semiautomatic rifles generally, many of the specific features banned by Virginia aid safe and effective home defense. A flash suppressor, for example, not only reduces the chances that a home-invader will identify his victim’s position but also protects a homeowner against momentary blindness when firing in self-defense.
Folding and telescoping stocks increase the likelihood of successful home defenseby permitting safe storage of defense instruments in accessible spaces and making the rifle maneuverable in confined spaces. A telescoping stock also allows a firearm to be better fitted to an individual shooter, thereby enhancing an individual’s ability to use the firearm safely and effectively.
Pistol grips improve accuracy and reduce the risk of stray shots by stabilizing the firearm while firing from the shoulder. They are effectively necessitated by the AR-15 rifle’s straight line design, where the centerline of the barrel is continuous with the stock, a design feature that reduces muzzle rise caused by firing the firearm.
Do some criminals use AR-style rifles while they’re carrying out acts of violence? Yes, just as some of them use “large capacity” magazines. Handguns, however, are far more commonly used in crimes, including mass shootings, and the Supreme Court has already categorically declared that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
The guns and magazines that Spanberger and her fellow Democrats have banned are used much more often for lawful activities. They are not “dangerous and unusual,” by any stretch of the imagination. Nor are they akin to machine guns, though the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously ruled that Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban can survive a Second Amendment challenge using that specious argument.
The Fourth Circuit’s precedent may help speed this legal challenge along, since the district court judge will likely declare they have no choice but to uphold the law under the circuit’s previous rulings. Along the way, and certainly when this case gets to the Supreme Court, Gov. Spanberger’s admission about the lawful activities commonly enjoyed using some of these so-called assault firearms will be used to help defeat the gun and magazine ban she worked so hard to put in place.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
