Will SCOTUS Stop Virginia Democrats’ Gun Control Gambit?

The U.S. Supreme Court has the opportunity to stifle Virginia Democrats’ tyrannical bid to restrict their constituents’ Second Amendment rights. The question is: Will they?

While much of the country was focused on the latest immigration-related news out of Minnesota on Monday, Virginia Senate Democrats quietly advanced an amended bill that would effectively criminalize hundreds of thousands of gun owners across the commonwealth. SB 749 seeks to outlaw the importation, sale, manufacturing, purchase, or transfer of an “assault firearm,” which the measure redefines as a “semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds.”

Those found guilty of violating the law would be subject to a Class 1 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to a year in jail “and a fine of not more than $2,500, either or both.”

As noted by Bearing Arms’ Cam Edwards, however, the real kicker comes in the bill’s “grandfather clause.” While the measure would grandfather in existing owners of these “assault firearms,” such an allowance wouldn’t apply to “large capacity” magazines — meaning that the legislation, if passed, would essentially turn countless Virginians into criminals overnight.

While SB 749 is still undergoing consideration in the state Senate and revisions are always possible, Democrats’ trifecta control of the commonwealth should not give Virginia gun owners cause for comfort. Despite Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s recent claims that she “respect[s] the Second Amendment,” the former congresswoman pledged during her gubernatorial campaign to sign legislation that restricts gun magazine capacities and bans the sale, transfer, and purchase of so-called “assault weapons” throughout the state.

Although the outlook may seem dim, there is a bright spot that should give Virginians hope. Similar gun control laws passed in other states are being challenged in federal court and are currently pending before the Supreme Court.

During conference last week, the justices purportedly considered petitions asking the court to take up and hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Duncan v. Bonta. While Viramontes centers around Illinois’ Cook County criminalizing the sale, possession, or transfer of so-called “assault weapons” (like the commonly owned AR-15), Duncan deals with California’s ban on gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Both cases give SCOTUS the chance to address what it refused to a year prior. As The Federalist previously reported, the court rejected consideration of challenges to similar laws passed by Maryland and Rhode Island that banned the possession of AR-15s and gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, respectively.

Only Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch signaled that they would take up and hear arguments in the cases. (At least four justices must agree to hear a case before it can be considered by the full court.)

In his scathing opinion responding to the court’s decision to deny cert, Thomas noted that he “would not wait to decide whether the government can ban the most popular rifle in America,” adding that such a question “is of critical importance to tens of millions of law-abiding AR–15 owners throughout the country.” He further underscored that the Constitution “allows the American people — not the government — to decide which weapons are useful for self-defense.”

While agreeing with the court’s decision to deny hearing the cases, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh issued a statement calling the lower court’s decision upholding Maryland’s law “questionable.” Equally significant, however, is that the justice said that he would be amenable to taking up such cases should they come before the court in the near future.

“Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review. The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decisionmaking on the AR–15 issue. Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.”

Americans are about to find out within the next few weeks whether Kavanaugh will stick to his word. Should he and the other justices decline to take up the Viramontes and Duncan cases, millions of Americans’ Second Amendment rights will once again be subject to the whims of gun-grabbing Democrat-led governments for years to come.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood