Anti-gun arrogance, or incompetence, is reaching new heights.
We realize – given the track record of gun control activists – that is a bold statement. But bear with us.
In the U.S. Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes.”
On May 14, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed HB217/SB749, a bill banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines with a capacity greater than 15 rounds. The legislation takes effect July 1.
During the legislative process, Spanberger offered amendments to the legislation that the General Assembly did not adopt. The overall thrust of Spanberger’s changes threatened to ban countless models of semi-automatic guns that no reasonable person - and, indeed even most gun control advocates - have ever considered “assault firearms.” Further, Spanberger’s language threatened to prohibit Virginians from carrying almost all common centerfire semi-automatic pistols for self-defense - even with a carry permit.
Spanberger’s amendments did provide one small improvement (overwhelmed by her harmful alterations) to the treatment of shotguns under the “assault firearms” ban.
The enacted legislation prohibits the sale of semi-automatic shotguns that have one of any prohibited features, including “a thumbhole stock or pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun.” Spanberger’s version removed this language as a prohibiting feature, allowing for the continued sale of semi-automatic shotguns with pistol grips.
In a May 15 signing statement lamenting the General Assembly’s decision to reject her (largely loathsome) gun ban language, Spanberger explained:
“While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language.”
Note the language, “certain firearms frequently used for hunting.”
“Frequently used” is the functional equivalent of “in common use.” And “hunting,” is without question a “lawful purpose.”
Therefore, Spanberger’s signing statement acknowledged that HB217/SB749 prohibits firearms “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes” – the very sorts of arms the U.S. Supreme Court described as protected by the Second Amendment.
Now consider the specific arms referenced in the signing statement.
There are certain models of semi-automatic shotguns designed for turkey hunting that are configured with pistol grips. These include:
Mossberg 930 - Turkey Semi-Auto Shotgun
Benelli Super Black Eagle 3 Turkey
Weatherby SA-459 Turkey Xtra Green
These types of firearms are indeed “in common use… for lawful purposes,” or as Spanberger put it “frequently used for hunting.” Of course, if these particular firearms qualify, by the governor’s own admission, as those in “frequent” or “common” use for a lawful purpose, then logic dictates that the vastly more popular AR-15 and other semi-automatic firearms implicated under the ban are also in common use for lawful purposes (self-defense, target shooting, hunting, collecting, etc.).
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearms industry trade association, estimates that since 1990 32 million “modern sporting rifles” (another term for the rifles targeted under Spanberger’s ban) have been produced. Examining the ubiquity of America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15, the Washington Post concluded in 2023 that “roughly 16 million people” own some “20 million” AR-15s in the United States. Or, as the authors noted even more dramatically, “1 in 20 U.S. adults owns at least one AR-15.”
The banned magazines are even more prevalent. A 2024 NSSF report analyzed manufacturer and sales data on magazines and magazine capacity over an extended period starting in 1991. There are over 413 million rifle magazines capable of accepting thirty rounds or greater in the consumer market.
Anti-gun politicians’ casual indifference, or open defiance, to U.S. Supreme Court precedence necessitates a strong judicial response – and NRA-ILA will continue to work to secure one.
More Like This From Around The NRA
