VA Judge Says Injunction Blocking ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban Applies Statewide, Sales Can Resume July 21

July 9, 2026
7:40 am

▶

Listen to Article

In a move that should send a clear signal to gun-grabbers everywhere, a Virginia circuit judge has confirmed that the preliminary injunction halting enforcement of the state’s so-called “assault firearms” ban is not confined to a single plaintiff or locality—it blankets the entire Commonwealth. That means law-abiding Virginians can once again walk into FFLs on July 21 and purchase the modern semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines the legislature tried to criminalize. The ruling underscores a simple truth the anti-gun crowd keeps pretending not to understand: when a statute is facially unconstitutional, courts don’t issue boutique relief; they stop the government from trampling rights across the board. What makes this decision especially satisfying is how thoroughly it rejects the state’s last-ditch attempt to limit the injunction’s reach. Attorney General Jason Miyares’ office argued that only the named plaintiffs should benefit, a transparent effort to keep the unconstitutional law on the books for everyone else. Judge Campbell saw through the maneuver, recognizing that an unconstitutional ban on the most popular rifle platform in America cannot be allowed to chill the rights of millions while a handful of plaintiffs litigate. The practical result is that dealers who had been holding inventory in anticipation of this moment can finally move product, and the 2A community gets a tangible win that translates directly into restored inventory and renewed confidence. For the broader fight, this ruling is both a tactical victory and a strategic template. It demonstrates that preliminary injunctions in Second Amendment cases can—and should—have statewide effect when the challenged law is statewide. That precedent will travel. Other states eyeing magazine bans, feature bans, or registration schemes now have fresh authority showing that judges are increasingly unwilling to let unconstitutional restrictions limp along under the guise of “limited relief.” The message to legislators is unmistakable: pass unconstitutional gun control and the courts will not merely pause it for a lucky few; they will hit the kill switch for the entire statute. In an era when incremental infringements are the preferred tactic, that kind of sweeping judicial pushback is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes this decision especially satisfying is how thoroughly it rejects the state’s last-ditch attempt to limit the injunction’s reach. Attorney General Jason Miyares’ office argued that only the named plaintiffs should benefit, a transparent effort to keep the unconstitutional law on the books for everyone else. Judge Campbell saw through the maneuver, recognizing that an unconstitutional ban on the most popular rifle platform in America cannot be allowed to chill the rights of millions while a handful of plaintiffs litigate. The practical result is that dealers who had been holding inventory in anticipation of this moment can finally move product, and the 2A community gets a tangible win that translates directly into restored inventory and renewed confidence.

For the broader fight, this ruling is both a tactical victory and a strategic template. It demonstrates that preliminary injunctions in Second Amendment cases can—and should—have statewide effect when the challenged law is statewide. That precedent will travel. Other states eyeing magazine bans, feature bans, or registration schemes now have fresh authority showing that judges are increasingly unwilling to let unconstitutional restrictions limp along under the guise of “limited relief.” The message to legislators is unmistakable: pass unconstitutional gun control and the courts will not merely pause it for a lucky few; they will hit the kill switch for the entire statute. In an era when incremental infringements are the preferred tactic, that kind of sweeping judicial pushback is exactly what the Founders envisioned when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms.

Share this story