Virginia Says AR-15s Aren’t Protected “Arms”—Then Revives a Test SCOTUS Rejected

July 16, 2026
5:20 pm

▶

Listen to Article

Virginia’s latest filing in Crump v. Katz is a textbook example of how anti-gun states keep trying to re-litigate what the Supreme Court already settled in Bruen: the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes, and courts are not supposed to weigh that right against whatever public-safety rationale a state can dream up. By arguing that AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines fall outside the definition of “arms” altogether, Virginia is attempting an end-run around the text-and-history test, hoping a lower court will accept the same sort of interest-balancing the high court explicitly discarded. The move is less about legal innovation than about buying time and manufacturing precedent that could be shopped upward if the composition of the Supreme Court ever shifts. What makes the filing especially revealing is how openly it recycles the very framework Bruen rejected—asking judges to decide whether the “benefits” of banning these firearms outweigh the supposed costs. That approach was the hallmark of the pre-Bruen era, when courts routinely deferred to legislative judgments and treated the right to arms as a second-class interest. By reviving it now, Virginia is signaling that it views Bruen as a temporary obstacle rather than settled law, and that it is willing to test the limits of judicial resistance in the lower courts. For the 2A community this is a reminder that victories at the Supreme Court level still require constant vigilance in statehouses and district courts, where officials continue to probe for any crack in the constitutional armor. The broader implication is that the fight over so-called “assault weapons” is no longer just about policy preferences; it is now a direct contest over whether Bruen will be honored or quietly nullified through creative re-labeling of what counts as an “arm.” If Virginia’s theory prevails, any firearm or magazine a legislature dislikes could be redefined out of existence, effectively restoring the pre-Heller regime under a different name. That prospect should sharpen the focus of gun owners and civil-rights litigators alike: the next phase of the battle will be won not only by winning cases, but by ensuring that lower courts understand Bruen is not a suggestion—it is the controlling standard until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise.

Best FFL Software Ranked and Compared!

What makes the filing especially revealing is how openly it recycles the very framework Bruen rejected—asking judges to decide whether the “benefits” of banning these firearms outweigh the supposed costs. That approach was the hallmark of the pre-Bruen era, when courts routinely deferred to legislative judgments and treated the right to arms as a second-class interest. By reviving it now, Virginia is signaling that it views Bruen as a temporary obstacle rather than settled law, and that it is willing to test the limits of judicial resistance in the lower courts. For the 2A community this is a reminder that victories at the Supreme Court level still require constant vigilance in statehouses and district courts, where officials continue to probe for any crack in the constitutional armor.

The broader implication is that the fight over so-called “assault weapons” is no longer just about policy preferences; it is now a direct contest over whether Bruen will be honored or quietly nullified through creative re-labeling of what counts as an “arm.” If Virginia’s theory prevails, any firearm or magazine a legislature dislikes could be redefined out of existence, effectively restoring the pre-Heller regime under a different name. That prospect should sharpen the focus of gun owners and civil-rights litigators alike: the next phase of the battle will be won not only by winning cases, but by ensuring that lower courts understand Bruen is not a suggestion—it is the controlling standard until the Supreme Court itself says otherwise.

Share this story