Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a batch of gun-control bills Tuesday and then made a proposed assault-firearms ban even more restrictive, removing a single word from the legislation that Republicans say could sweep in the vast majority of firearms owned in the state. The move came days after the U.S. Department of Justice formally warned Virginia it would sue if the commonwealth enacted laws that violate the Second Amendment.
Spanberger's changes to House Bill 217 and its companion, Senate Bill 749, stripped the word "fixed" from part of the bill's definition of an assault firearm. The amended legislation now heads back to the General Assembly, which must decide whether to accept the governor's revisions. If enacted, the bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of covered firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds, while exempting firearms legally owned before July 1, 2026. Violations would carry a Class 1 misdemeanor, and the bill would impose limits on how grandfathered firearms could later be transferred or sold.
That one-word deletion matters. House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, told News WCYB 5 that Spanberger's substitute broadens the bill far beyond what the General Assembly originally passed. As Fox News Digital reported, Kilgore said the change appears to reach any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds, not just those with a fixed magazine.
"If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it. Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds. That includes the vast majority of firearms in Virginia that are in common use for legal purposes."
The governor moved forward despite a pointed letter from the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon sent the letter to Virginia Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones before Spanberger's Tuesday action, and the department released it on Friday.
Dhillon's letter was blunt. It named Senate Bill 749 specifically and said the measure would force Virginia law enforcement to unconstitutionally restrict the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use. The letter stated that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15-style semi-automatic rifles for lawful purposes, calling such firearms "both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers."
Dhillon warned that the Civil Rights Division would "seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutional protected arms." She noted that the General Assembly had forwarded "over 20 bills that restrict Second Amendment rights" and urged the governor to reconsider.
"In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, the Second Amendment Section stands ready to meet and confer with attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General's Office. The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens shall not be infringed."
On Friday, Dhillon reinforced the warning on X, writing that Spanberger was "on notice" and that the Civil Rights Division would sue if any unlawful legislation became law. Spanberger signed the bills the following Tuesday anyway.
The collision course between Richmond and Washington is not theoretical. The DOJ letter amounts to a formal litigation threat, the kind of pre-suit notice that typically precedes a federal court filing. Virginia gun owners now face the prospect of a law that could criminalize common firearms transactions while a federal lawsuit works its way through the courts. That is not "commonsense" governance. It is a recipe for legal chaos, and it is ordinary Virginians, not the politicians who voted for these bills, who will live with the consequences.
The assault-firearms bill was not the only measure Spanberger signed. She also approved House Bill 21, which requires firearm manufacturers, dealers, and distributors to adopt "reasonable controls" aimed at preventing illegal sales and misuse. That bill opens the door for civil action by the attorney general, local governments, and private individuals if a firearm industry member's actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to public harm.
She signed House Bill 110, which bars leaving a firearm in plain view inside an unattended vehicle. And she signed House Bill 40, which bans the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of unserialized homemade firearms, commonly called ghost guns.
The scope of the legislative package is worth pausing over. The Washington Examiner reported that with Spanberger in the governor's mansion and Democrats controlling both chambers of the General Assembly, firearm restrictions previously vetoed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin now have a direct path to enactment. Pending proposals go well beyond an assault-firearms ban, they include a state-issued permit to purchase firearms, a five-day waiting period, expanded storage requirements, excise taxes on guns and ammunition, and eliminating concealed-carry reciprocity with other states. Taken together, the Examiner noted, the package would move Virginia "away from the permissive Second Amendment framework shared by neighboring states... and toward one of the most tightly regulated states in the country."
That represents a sharp reversal from the Youngkin era. AP News reported that Youngkin vetoed 30 gun-related bills sent to him by the same Democratic-controlled legislature, including a five-day waiting period and a ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines over 10 rounds. Youngkin said the vetoed bills would "trample on citizens' constitutional rights," and Democrats did not have the two-thirds majorities needed to override him.
Now those vetoes are gone, and the bills are back, in some cases broader than before. Glenn Youngkin has signaled a political comeback, but for the moment, the guardrails he provided are no longer in place.
Spanberger framed her actions as moderate and balanced. She cited her background as a former federal agent who carried a firearm daily and said she supports the Second Amendment.
"I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was expected, and I carried a firearm every day as a former federal agent. I support the Second Amendment. But gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America, and that should motivate all of us to ask ourselves what we can do to mitigate this harm."
She described her amendments as providing "clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement" and called the measures "commonsense steps" to keep families, communities, and law enforcement officers safe.
The problem is that the governor's own amendment made the bill harsher, not clearer. Removing the word "fixed" from the definition of an assault firearm did not narrow the ban or protect responsible gun owners. It expanded the universe of firearms that could be swept in. Kilgore's reading, that the change captures any firearm capable of accepting a magazine over 15 rounds, would cover a huge share of handguns and rifles sold lawfully in the United States. Calling that "commonsense" while the Justice Department warns of constitutional violations is, at minimum, a disconnect between the governor's rhetoric and her actions.
Spanberger is already posting the worst early approval rating for a Virginia governor in three decades. Pushing a firearms ban that the federal government has explicitly threatened to challenge in court is unlikely to improve those numbers among the gun-owning voters who make up a significant share of the Virginia electorate.
Virginia is not the only state where Democrats are testing the boundaries of gun regulation. Breitbart reported that Virginia Democrats had earlier passed bills requiring locked storage for gun owners with children at home and imposing a five-day waiting period with added fees. Similar proposals have surfaced in Ohio. State Sen. Jennifer Boysko, a Virginia Democrat, defended the assault-weapons ban by saying, "Nobody needs to go hunting with an AK-47", a line that reflects a familiar pattern of reducing the Second Amendment to a hunting license.
The Second Amendment does not mention hunting. The Supreme Court has made clear that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes. AR-15-style rifles are among the most popular firearms in America. Courts have already handed Democrats defeats when they push measures that run into constitutional limits, and the DOJ's warning suggests Virginia could be next.
Internal disagreements within the Democratic Party on gun rights have surfaced in Virginia before. At least one Virginia Democrat has broken with his own caucus over Second Amendment issues and drawn immediate backlash for it, a sign that the party's gun-control consensus is not as airtight as leadership would like.
The amended House Bill 217/Senate Bill 749 now returns to the General Assembly. Lawmakers must decide whether to accept Spanberger's revisions. If they do, the bill goes to the governor's desk for final signature, and, almost certainly, straight into federal court. Dhillon's letter left no ambiguity on that point.
Virginia gun owners, meanwhile, are left to wonder how many of their lawfully purchased firearms could become contraband under a bill whose definition of "assault firearm" just got wider at the governor's request. The bill's grandfather clause offers limited comfort: it still imposes restrictions on how exempted firearms can be transferred or sold, and it still creates criminal liability for future transactions involving covered weapons.
The governor says she supports the Second Amendment. The Justice Department says her bills violate it. One of them is going to be proved right in court. The law-abiding gun owners of Virginia shouldn't have to wait for a judge to tell them which.
