Justice Department Takes Aim at California and Virginia Gun Bans
The lawsuits cite the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment protections.
The Justice Department escalated its campaign against state gun restrictions Wednesday, suing California and Virginia in separate lawsuits arguing recent Supreme Court rulings leave little constitutional room for bans on commonly owned firearms.
Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office told The Washington Star the Golden State’s laws “protect the public,” and it will vigorously fight the case.
The lawsuits challenge California’s new restrictions on Glock and Glock-style handguns and Virginia’s ban on the commercial sale of many AR-15-style rifles. Together, they mark one of the Trump administration’s most significant efforts to use the federal government’s civil-rights authority to overturn state firearms laws.
The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence is the central feature of both cases.
The Justice Department contends decisions including 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 2024’s United States v. Rahimi, and this term’s United States v. Hemani require courts to scrutinize firearm regulations under the same constitutional standards applied to other fundamental rights.
Both complaints quote Hemani, in which the court said that “when the government crosses the line from permissible regulation into unconstitutional infringement, courts have a duty to say so in the cases before them — no less in the Second Amendment context than in any other.”
“The Constitution is not a suggestion, and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in announcing the Virginia lawsuit.
The California case targets its Glock ban and also seeks to block enforcement of its handgun roster, which limits what models can be sold in the state. The complaint argues the roster’s requirements have kept many newer handguns off the market, leaving Californians with older firearm designs.
Glock pistols are the nation’s most popular handguns and therefore fall squarely within the Supreme Court’s holding in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller that firearms in common lawful use cannot be banned.
“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Mr. Blanche said. “California cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America.”
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said, “The Civil Rights Division will defend law-abiding citizens from states that seek to disarm them illegally.”
The Virginia lawsuit challenges a new law prohibiting the manufacture, importation, purchase, sale, and transfer of many semiautomatic rifles defined under state law as “assault firearms,” including AR-15-style guns. The Justice Department says those rifles are owned by millions of Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, hunting, recreation, and competitive shooting. It contends Virginia’s law criminalizes constitutionally protected commercial transactions involving firearms in common use.
Ms. Dhillon said she’d cautioned Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger before the measure became law.
“On April 10, I promised Governor Spanberger that we would sue Virginia if she signed this unconstitutional weapons ban into law. I keep my promises,” Ms. Dhillon said.
The complaint acknowledges the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar Maryland law in Bianchi v. Brown. It argues, though, that subsequent Supreme Court decisions have undermined that ruling and notes separate writings by Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas suggesting the court is likely to review bans on semi-automatic guns.
However the courts rule on the Virginia law’s constitutionality, its pending implementation drove a 340 percent increase in gun-sale background checks last month, per FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System data the Firearms Policy Coalition compiled. The FBI reported 124,319 such inquiries in June 2026, up dramatically from June 2025’s 36,466. The law took effect July 1.
Both lawsuits rely on the framework established in Bruen, which requires governments to demonstrate that modern firearm restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They also cite Rahimi, which reaffirmed that governments bear the burden of justifying firearm restrictions, and Wolford v. Lopez, a Hawaii case that just reaffirmed constitutional protection for carrying commonly used handguns for self-defense outside the home.
The department is seeking declarations that both laws violate the Constitution and injunctions permanently blocking their enforcement.
Virginia has not responded to the Star’s comment request.
“California’s gun safety laws helped drive firearm death rates to record lows in our state and are a blueprint for reducing gun violence nationwide. Our office is committed to defending California’s effective and constitutional gun safety laws, including laws that protect the public from the proliferation of machine guns and from unsafe handguns that have not passed consumer safety and testing requirements. We will review the complaint and respond as appropriate in court,” Mr. Bonta’s office told the Star.
 | A guest post by
|