As bad as the Democrat-controlled Virginia General Assembly’s ban on commonly-owned semi-automatics is, phony moderate Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) is seeking to make it even worse. A governor’s amendment offered by the woefully unpopular executive threatens to ban most commonly-owned centerfire semi-automatic rifles and pistols and prohibits carry of some of the most popular semi-automatic pistols in public places.
As passed by the General Assembly, the looming semi-auto ban (HB217/SB749) defines “assault firearm” in several ways. There is a feature test where centerfire rifles and pistols are “assault firearms” when they are capable of accepting a detachable magazine and have, in the case of rifles one offending feature (pistol grip, threaded barrel, etc.), and in the case of pistols two offending features (threaded barrel, barrel shroud, etc.). The definition also includes “A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds.”
The bill prohibits the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of “assault firearms” with minor exceptions. The legislation also prohibits the importation, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds. Possession of these items is not prohibited, effectively grandfathering them for current owners.
Spanberger sent back to the General Assembly a governor’s amendment to the legislation, changing that last portion of the “assault firearm” definition cited above to the following:
A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds.
Note, “fixed” has been removed.
It is not clear if the definition will be interpreted to take into account the magazine presently equipped to the firearm, or if it implicates all firearms capable of having a magazine capacity greater than 15 rounds. If it were the latter, the legislation would ban a huge swathe of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and pistols that no reasonable person - and, indeed even most gun control advocates - has ever considered an “assault firearm.”
Adding concern that it could be the latter, Virginia’s current definition of “assault firearm” (used to in narrow circumstances) provides,
"Assault firearm" means any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock.
Note the language in bold. When the General Assembly sought to implicate only firearms actually equipped with a magazine above a certain capacity in their “assault firearm” definition, they made it abundantly clear.
Gun owners know that semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting detachable magazines can have effectively an unlimited magazine capacity.
For instance, the more than a century-old 1911 pistol often comes with 7 or 8 round magazines. But aftermarket magazine makers produce a 40-round 1911 magazine. Would the venerable 1911, and nearly every other common centerfire semi-automatic pistol, be a prohibited “assault firearm” under Spanberger’s gun ban?
This massive infringement is compounded by another bill Spanberger amended.
As passed by the General Assembly, HB1524 severely prohibits Virginians’ Right-to-Carry and transport commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms (which for the most part match up with the “assault firearms” definition listed under HB217/SB749) on or about their person,
on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, or public right-of-way or in any public park or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public
The legislation practically eliminates the Right-to-Carry the firearms implicated under the bill. Carry permit holders are not exempt.
Spanberger’s amended version directly references the “assault firearm” definition in HB217/SB749 as the firearms a person is prohibited from carrying in the prohibited locations.
Taken along with Spanberger’s ban language, Virginians could be effectively prohibited from carrying almost all common centerfire semi-automatic pistols for self-defense - even with a carry permit.
Even if Spanberger’s “assault firearm” definition only implicates firearms actually equipped with a magazine greater than 15 rounds, the results are dire.
Owners of semi-automatic centerfire pistols equipped with a magazine with a capacity greater than 15 rounds would not be able to carry their handgun for self-defense.
For example, a lawful Right-to-Carry carry permit holder who has been carrying his ubiquitous Glock 17 pistol with the factory 17-round magazines that came with the gun for the last two decades could no longer do so. It doesn’t matter that he purchased the gun long before Spanberger’s gun ban and that the gun and magazines are grandfathered - he could no longer carry it in public places.
The concerns stretch far beyond carry. Consider the following scenario.
Our law-abiding carry permit holder above needs a new self-defense pistol. He wants to stick with what he knows and he already has several grandfathered 17-round Glock 17 magazines, so he buys a new Glock 17 (if they aren’t banned) after Spanberger’s ban goes into effect.
Recall, the ban prohibits the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of “assault firearms” and that term would be defined by Spanberger to mean “A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol with a magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds.”
If the carry permit holder uses his grandfathered magazines in his new Glock 17, has he just “manufactured” an “assault firearm?”
Consider another hypothetical.
Our law-abiding carry permit holder, who has been using the standard 17-round magazines that came with his Glock 17 for decades, wants to sell his firearm after Spanberger’s ban goes into effect. He knows he can’t sell the magazines anymore, so he’s just selling the firearm.
Has the fact that he used the firearm in a configuration with a “magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds” rendered the firearm an “assault firearm” prohibited from being sold?
If not, and the firearm’s status as an “assault firearm” is dependent on being actively equipped with a magazine greater than 15 rounds, that creates separate problems.
Would, after Spanberger’s ban, our carry permit holder (who has owned his Glock 17 and 17-round magazines for decades) be “manufacturing” an “assault firearm” every time he changes magazines?
These scenarios could be run with any number of common semi-automatic centerfire firearms that no reasonable person, or even most gun control advocates, would ever consider to be “assault firearms.”
Worse still, the consequences for getting these questions wrong are severe. A conviction under Spanberger’s ban is a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year imprisonment and a loss of gun rights for three years!
Whether Spanberger’s detestable “assault firearm” language is the result of malice or incompetence is irrelevant. The governor’s gun ban poses the gravest threat to all law-abiding Virginia gun owners.
More Like This From Around The NRA
