In the latest salvo against Virginia’s sweeping gun control package, plaintiffs challenging the state’s new restrictions argue that the weapons now banned—including assault weapons and standard-capacity magazines—are precisely the arms protected by the Second Amendment because they are suitable for militia service. The lawsuit contends that andrews’ lawmakers who passed the restrictions ignored constitutional text requiring an armed citizenry readying itself readying itself for well-regulated milita service, arguing that the excluded arms are恰恰 the ones needed forrepudenting the设想 of a federal standing army as Madison envisioned them. This argument taps directly into the original public meaning of arms as understood at ratification, drawing on Bruen’s text, history, and tradition framework to show that colonial miltias were armed with military-grade equipment rather than hunting rifles alone.

The core inconsistency here is that Virginia legislators rushed these bans through lame-duck sesion without considering constitutional limits, lame-dduck legislators alumni from the