Key Takeaways
- Virginia State Police seek to dismiss the gun ban lawsuit Crump v. Katz, arguing lack of standing by the plaintiffs.
- The motion claims the plaintiffs cannot sue and that the gun ban is constitutional under Virginia law and the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
- The law, effective July 1, makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to handle ‘assault firearms’ and restricts magazine capacity to 15 rounds.
- Gun Owners of America has already secured a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the bans as litigation continues.
- The case is part of a broader fight against the gun ban, which includes challenges from multiple organizations and lawsuits.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
LANCASTER, VA — The Virginia State Police want the gun ban lawsuit in Lancaster County thrown out before it goes any further. Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer in Crump v. Katz, the challenge to Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and magazine bans pending in the Circuit Court for the County of Lancaster.
The filing’s first move is not about guns at all. It is about who is allowed to sue. The motion contends that the organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, “lack standing to bring this action on behalf of third parties, and none of the Plaintiffs has standing to bring this action against Defendant Jeffrey S. Katz.” Standing, in plain terms, is a plaintiff’s ticket into the courthouse. Before a court will even consider whether a law is unconstitutional, the people suing have to show the case is truly theirs to bring: that they have real skin in the game, that the defendant is the one causing them harm, and that a ruling in their favor would actually fix it. Katz’s lawyers argue the gun rights groups cannot make that showing on behalf of their members, and the motion quotes Virginia case law saying a lawsuit filed by someone without standing is a “legal nullity.” In other words, if the court agrees, the case would be treated as if it never legally existed.
But the standing attack is only the filing’s opening move. The motion also includes a demurrer, which is a fancy way of saying the complaint fails even on paper: even if everything the plaintiffs allege were true, the argument goes, it would not add up to a valid legal claim. And beyond that, the Commonwealth defends the ban itself. It makes three arguments. First, that Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution protects the militia as a group, not each Virginian’s individual right to own these guns. Second, that the banned rifles are “dangerous and unusual” weapons that are not in common use, which under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision would put them outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Third, that bans like this fit the way firearms have historically been regulated in this country. So this is not just a lawyer’s technicality play. Richmond is telling the court two things at once: these plaintiffs cannot sue, and even if they could, the ban is constitutional anyway.
The law at the center of the fight was signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in May and took effect July 1. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, it makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer an “assault firearm,” defined to cover semiautomatic rifles chambered in anything besides .22 rimfire or rifles carrying a list of common features, and it bans magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
Crump v. Katz has already survived one attempt to knock it off course. Gun Owners of America reported on July 6 that a three-judge panel denied the Commonwealth’s bid to consolidate the lawsuits challenging the new laws, finding the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden. GOA says its case has already produced a preliminary injunction blocking the State Police from enforcing the gun and magazine bans while the litigation continues, and that Attorney General Jay Jones is asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to undo that injunction. GOA also counts at least 15 Commonwealth’s Attorneys who have publicly said they will not enforce the bans.
The Lancaster County case is one front in a wider fight. NRA-ILA announced on June 29 that it secured a statewide preliminary injunction against the “assault firearm” and magazine bans in its own challenge. SAF is backing former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s state court case, Curtis v. Katz, which argues the ban violates the Virginia Constitution’s Militia Clause by preventing able-bodied Virginians from acquiring the arms their militia service would require. SAF is also a named plaintiff in its own federal challenge, McDonald v. Katz. The common thread in the case names is no accident. Katz sits as the defendant across these suits because his agency is the one that would enforce the bans.
To be clear, the motion is just that, a motion. The court has not ruled on it, these are the Commonwealth’s arguments and nothing more, and the plaintiffs will get their chance to answer. Nothing in the filing changes the preliminary injunction that GOA says is currently blocking enforcement.
More from USA Carry:
What stands out to me is how much the Commonwealth is throwing at this one case. Consolidation failed. The injunction fight went against the Commonwealth, per GOA, and the appeal of it is still pending. Now the response brief argues everything at once: that the plaintiffs cannot sue, that the complaint states no claim, and that the ban is constitutional under both the Virginia Constitution and Heller. Virginians should keep the two halves of the state’s gun laws straight while this plays out. The carry side has not changed, and my Virginia concealed carry guide covers those rules. What is in flux is what rifles and magazines Virginians can lawfully buy, and in Lancaster County that question now runs through standing, the demurrer, and the merits all at the same time.
I will continue tracking Crump v. Katz as the Circuit Court for the County of Lancaster takes up the Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer.
