Key Takeaways
- Virginia’s new ‘assault firearm’ ban signed by Governor Spanberger has sparked two lawsuits within 24 hours.
- The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the ban based on Supreme Court precedents, aiming for a broader review.
- ‘McDonald v. Katz’ targets federal authority while ‘Black v. Hook’ focuses on state constitutional claims.
- The law’s definition of ‘assault firearm’ includes a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons, impacting millions.
- The DOJ has indicated potential litigation against Virginia, highlighting the legal significance of these challenges.
Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
RICHMOND, VA — Two separate lawsuits were filed against Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and standard-capacity magazine ban within 24 hours of Governor Abigail Spanberger signing it into law, and the U.S. Department of Justice has signaled it intends to add a third.
Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749, along with its House companion HB 217, on Thursday, May 14, 2026. The law makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer a long list of semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns the bill labels as “assault firearms,” along with any ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 15 rounds. A conviction carries up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, plus a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing, or transporting any firearm. The law takes effect July 1, 2026.
The chief patron in the Senate was Sen. Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax). Spanberger framed the signing as a public safety measure, saying in a statement that “firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets.” Critics, including the entire Republican delegation in the General Assembly and the U.S. Department of Justice, argue the law is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The First Lawsuit: McDonald v. Katz
Within hours of Spanberger’s signature, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and two private plaintiffs filed McDonald v. Katz in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The named plaintiffs are Justin McDonald, a Goochland County resident who owns an AR-15 and a Beretta A300 shotgun, and Anthony Groeneveld, a Prince William County resident who owns an AR-15 rifle and an AR-style pistol. Both are members of all three organizations.
The defendants include Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeffrey Katz, plus the Commonwealth’s Attorneys and Sheriffs of Goochland and Prince William counties. The plaintiffs are represented by Cooper & Kirk PLLC and Whiteford Taylor & Preston, with David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom from Cooper & Kirk, alongside P. Thomas DiStanislao and Michael Brady from Whiteford.
The complaint is unusual in one important respect. It openly acknowledges that under existing Fourth Circuit precedent, Bianchi v. Brown and Kolbe v. Hogan, the relief the plaintiffs are asking for is foreclosed. The strategy is not to win at the district court. The strategy is to preserve the issue for the Supreme Court and “have those cases overruled by a court competent to do so.” Translation: this case is being teed up for a Supreme Court vehicle, and the plaintiffs want it there fast.
More from USA Carry:
The Second Lawsuit: Black v. Hook
The next day, the National Shooting Sports Foundation announced it was funding a second, separate lawsuit filed in Virginia state court. Black v. Hook was filed Friday, May 15, 2026, in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County. The plaintiffs are two Virginia residents, Eric Black and Britton Condon, alongside three industry plaintiffs: Clark’s Gun Shop, Inc. (doing business as Clark Brothers), Optimus Arms LLC, and Hexmag USA LLC. The defendant is Scott C. Hook, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fauquier County.
The state court complaint goes a step further than the federal one. It argues SB 749 violates not only the U.S. Constitution but also Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, and Article XI, Section 4, which protects the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest game. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane was direct about the strategy. “The constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.”
The DOJ Is Lurking
In April, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the DOJ’s Second Amendment Section, sent Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones a formal letter warning that the Civil Rights Division would commence litigation if Virginia enacted SB 749. Less than an hour after Spanberger’s signature on May 14, Dhillon posted “See you in court!” on X. The DOJ has not yet filed, but the warning shot was on the record well before the bill became law, and based on Dhillon’s public stance, federal civil rights litigation against Virginia appears to be a matter of timing rather than possibility.
See you in court! 👉🏽👉🏽 👉🏽 pic.twitter.com/lL37OTUOXH
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 15, 2026
Why Both Tracks Matter
The two civil cases are pursuing different paths to the same goal. McDonald v. Katz is a federal lane challenge built to push past the Fourth Circuit’s hostile precedent and force the Supreme Court to weigh in. Black v. Hook is a state lane challenge that adds Virginia constitutional claims, including the state’s right-to-hunt provision, and gives Virginia’s own courts the first crack at striking the law down on grounds that do not require touching the Fourth Circuit at all.
The bill’s definition of “assault firearm” reaches far beyond AR-style rifles. It sweeps in most modern semiautomatic pistols with threaded barrels or a second grip, common semiautomatic shotguns with collapsible stocks or detachable magazines, and any firearm with a fixed magazine holding more than 15 rounds. NSSF estimates more than 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles are in circulation in the United States, and pleadings cite roughly 1 billion detachable magazines in private ownership, hundreds of millions of them above 15 rounds. Under Heller and Bruen, the Supreme Court has held that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes are protected from outright bans. That is the legal hammer both lawsuits intend to drop.
The bill grandfathers anyone who already owns the now-banned firearms or magazines prior to July 1, 2026, but the legal market for new sales evaporates that day. A law-abiding Virginian who legally owns an AR-15 today cannot replace it, gift it outside their immediate family, or buy a similar one after July 1, except under a narrow set of exceptions.
I will be watching both cases closely, along with any move from the DOJ. There is a real chance this issue lands at the Supreme Court before the 2026 election cycle is over, and the answer will reshape Second Amendment law in a way no court has touched since Bruen.
