Will the Militia Clause Doom Virginia’s Gun and Magazine Ban?

June 20, 2026
1:01 am

▶

Listen to Article

In a move that could reshape Virginia’s firearms landscape, plaintiffs in Curtis v. Katz are betting that the Old Dominion’s own constitution will do what the federal Second Amendment has so far failed to accomplish: strike down the state’s sweeping restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines. William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, appearing on the Cam & Co. podcast, highlighted how the militia clause tucked into Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution—“a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state”—is being wielded as a textual sword against Richmond’s gun-control regime. Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, which still leaves room for historical analogues, Virginia’s clause speaks directly to an armed citizenry as the ultimate check on tyranny, potentially short-circuiting the state’s attempt to redefine “militia” as something only National Guard units can claim. What makes this litigation especially intriguing is its timing and venue. Filed in state court rather than federal, the case sidesteps the increasingly unpredictable Article III standing hurdles that have plagued post-Bruen challenges, while forcing Virginia judges to confront language their own framers deliberately chose to enshrine. If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ reading—that the clause protects an individual right to keep and bear the very arms a militia would need—the ripple effects could be immediate: not only would the current ban be enjoined, but future legislative efforts to restrict semi-automatic rifles or standard-capacity magazines would face a textual wall far higher than intermediate scrutiny. For the broader 2A community, Curtis v. Katz serves as a reminder that state constitutions are not mere window dressing; when drafted with 18th-century clarity, they can become potent tools for restoring the original public meaning of “the people” as an armed populace rather than a disarmed administrative class. Strategically, a victory here would also hand pro-Second Amendment litigators a new template. Instead of endlessly relitigating “sensitive places” or “shall-issue” permitting in federal court, advocates could mine other state constitutions for similarly robust militia or arms-bearing provisions—language that predates the incorporation doctrine and therefore escapes the narrowing gloss federal judges sometimes apply. Should Virginia’s bench side with the plaintiffs, expect copycat suits in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and beyond, turning what began as a single-state skirmish into a nationwide reclamation of founding-era text. In short, Curtis v. Katz isn’t just another gun case; it’s a constitutional stress test that could determine whether state-level textualism becomes the next frontier in the fight to keep the right to keep and bear arms from being whittled into nonexistence.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes this litigation especially intriguing is its timing and venue. Filed in state court rather than federal, the case sidesteps the increasingly unpredictable Article III standing hurdles that have plagued post-Bruen challenges, while forcing Virginia judges to confront language their own framers deliberately chose to enshrine. If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ reading—that the clause protects an individual right to keep and bear the very arms a militia would need—the ripple effects could be immediate: not only would the current ban be enjoined, but future legislative efforts to restrict semi-automatic rifles or standard-capacity magazines would face a textual wall far higher than intermediate scrutiny. For the broader 2A community, Curtis v. Katz serves as a reminder that state constitutions are not mere window dressing; when drafted with 18th-century clarity, they can become potent tools for restoring the original public meaning of “the people” as an armed populace rather than a disarmed administrative class.

Strategically, a victory here would also hand pro-Second Amendment litigators a new template. Instead of endlessly relitigating “sensitive places” or “shall-issue” permitting in federal court, advocates could mine other state constitutions for similarly robust militia or arms-bearing provisions—language that predates the incorporation doctrine and therefore escapes the narrowing gloss federal judges sometimes apply. Should Virginia’s bench side with the plaintiffs, expect copycat suits in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and beyond, turning what began as a single-state skirmish into a nationwide reclamation of founding-era text. In short, Curtis v. Katz isn’t just another gun case; it’s a constitutional stress test that could determine whether state-level textualism becomes the next frontier in the fight to keep the right to keep and bear arms from being whittled into nonexistence.

Share this story