The U.S. Department of Justice filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday challenging Virginia’s new restrictions on AR-15-style rifles, arguing the state’s law violates the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and asking a judge to block enforcement.
“Just as the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, the AR-15 is not a second-class arm,” said Assistant Attorney General of the United States Harmeet Dhillon. “As promised, [the DOJ Civil Rights Division] is moving fast to vindicate Virginians’ rights to acquire the most popular rifle in the country for self-defense.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, targets Virginia’s SB 749, which prohibits the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of firearms classified under state law as “assault firearms.” The Justice Department argues the law unlawfully bans AR-15-style rifles, which it says are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country.
The complaint names the Commonwealth of Virginia and Virginia State Police as defendants and asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and prevent state officials from enforcing it.
“The OAG will review the complaint and defend Virginia’s assault weapons ban against the Trump DOJ’s misuse of the Civil Rights Division,” said Rae Pickett, communications director for Attorney General Jay Jones. “This commonsense law keeps Virginians safe, protects law enforcement, and safeguards communities across the Commonwealth.”
This comes as confusion over whether the newly enacted ban is actually in effect after two circuit court judges placed injunctions against it.
Jones’ office released a memo Wednesday clarifying that the injunctions against the ban apply only to the Virginia State Police and the six localities listed as defendants in a Washington County case.
The Justice Department argues the restrictions conflict with recent Supreme Court decisions outlining how courts should evaluate Second Amendment cases. Citing the court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the lawsuit argues that when firearm restrictions affect conduct protected by the Second Amendment, the government must show the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The complaint argues Virginia cannot meet that standard because AR-15-style rifles are commonly owned and used for lawful purposes, including recreational shooting, hunting and self-defense. The lawsuit cites estimates that tens of millions of AR-style rifles are in circulation nationwide and that millions of Americans own or have owned such firearms.
“The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans to possess and use weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes,” the complaint argues, citing previous Supreme Court rulings.
The Justice Department also argues AR-15-style rifles are not commonly used in crimes, citing federal crime data showing rifles account for fewer homicides than handguns and several other categories of weapons.
Virginia’s law makes violations a Class 1 misdemeanor and prohibits the sale or purchase of firearms that meet the state’s definition of an “assault firearm,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit acknowledges that the challenge conflicts with existing precedent from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban. The Justice Department argues that ruling was wrongly decided and should be overturned.
The case could become part of a broader national legal fight over whether states can restrict the sale and possession of AR-15-style rifles. The Supreme Court has not directly ruled on the constitutionality of assault weapons bans, though several justices have indicated the issue could eventually come before the court.
The Justice Department is also relying on a federal law that allows the government to challenge alleged patterns or practices by law enforcement that deprive people of constitutional rights. The complaint argues Virginia State Police officers enforcing the law would be acting on behalf of the state in violation of that statute.