Key Takeaways
- Gun Owners of America and others filed a motion against Virginia State Police for restarting background checks despite a court order blocking them.
- The court had permanently barred the enforcement of Virginia’s universal background check law, citing it violated the constitution.
- The state police claim a new statute allows the checks, but plaintiffs argue its emergency clause is invalid, making it not effective until July 1, 2026.
- The contempt motion seeks to hold Col. Jeffrey S. Katz accountable for ignoring the court’s injunction and demands clarification of his actions.
- The issue underscores the tension between state agencies and court orders, particularly regarding Second Amendment rights.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
LYNCHBURG, VA — Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Gun Owners Foundation asked a Virginia court Thursday to hold the head of the Virginia State Police in contempt after the agency restarted universal background checks that a judge had permanently blocked seven months earlier.
The motion for a rule to show cause was filed May 28 in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg. It names Col. Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, in his official capacity. Individual gun owners Raul Wilson and Wyatt Lowman are plaintiffs alongside the three organizations.
Here is what happened. On October 29, 2025, the court entered a final order that permanently barred the state police from administering or enforcing Va. Code 18.2-308.2:5, Virginia’s universal background check requirement for private firearm sales. That injunction has been in force ever since.
Then, on the afternoon of May 27, the agency flipped the system back on. According to the filing, counsel for Katz from Attorney General Jay Jones’ office emailed the court and the plaintiffs to say the state police “has resumed conducting background checks earlier this afternoon, pursuant to the newly enacted statute(s).” Dealers who logged into the VCheck system saw the private sale function switched back on, and the state police website was updated to say private sale checks were once again available.
The “newly enacted statute” is HB1525, the gun control bill Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed April 23. The measure, patroned by Del. Garrett McGuire, D-Fairfax, raises the age to buy handguns and certain other firearms from 18 to 21 and restores universal background checks. Spanberger added an emergency clause meant to make the law effective immediately instead of on July 1.
🚨BREAKING🚨
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 28, 2026
GOA along with @VCDL_ORG and @GunFoundation filed a motion against Virginia for violating a court order which previously halted universal background checks in the state.
Gov. Spanberger and AG Jay Jones think they're above the law. They're not.
See you in court! pic.twitter.com/ElfktKUFHA
BREAKING: The Virginia Attorney General's office just informed us that the Virginia State Police intends to enforce Universal Background Checks for private sales IN DIRECT DISREGARD OF THE COURT ORDER HALTING ENFORCEMENT!@GunOwners and @VCDL_ORG's motion for contempt of court…
— Philip Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) May 28, 2026
But the plaintiffs say that emergency clause is worthless. Under Article IV, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, an emergency clause requires a four-fifths vote in each chamber. HB1525 never came close. The Senate passed it 21-18 and the House 63-36. Without a valid emergency clause, the plaintiffs argue, the law does not take effect until July 1, 2026, which means there is nothing on the books right now that displaces the court’s injunction.
There is more, and it is what makes this look deliberate. The state police knew about the order. In April, Katz’s own office told firearms dealers that HB1525 conflicted with the court order and that the department would not run private sale background checks until that conflict was resolved. On April 23, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter reminding the state police that the injunction remained in effect and warning that they would seek contempt if it was violated. And on May 4, the attorney general filed his own motion asking the court to dissolve the injunction, which is itself an admission that the order was still binding.
Then, without waiting for the court to rule on that motion, the state police started enforcing anyway.
More from USA Carry:
That is the heart of the contempt claim. A court order has to be obeyed until a court lifts it, not until the losing side decides it has found a workaround. The filing asks the court to order Katz to appear in person and explain why he acted, whether he was acting on someone else’s direction and from whom, and why he should not be held in contempt.
The plaintiffs did not hold back publicly either. Gun Owners of America said Spanberger and Jones “think they’re above the law” and signed off with a promise to see them in court. VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said the attorney general’s office had told the league the state police intended to enforce the checks in direct disregard of the court order. For his part, Jones has defended the underlying policy, saying in May that “background checks save lives.”
My take is that this is not a close call. When a court permanently enjoins a state agency from enforcing a statute, that agency does not get to restart enforcement just because the legislature passed a fresh version of the same scheme. That is doubly true when the supposed trigger, the emergency clause, was never validly adopted in the first place. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults does not disappear because Richmond is in a hurry to undo a court loss.
The court has not yet ruled on the motion. I will be following this one closely and will report what the Lynchburg court does next.
