Two Virginia prosecutors who say they will not enforce the state’s new ban on certain semiautomatic firearms are explaining why they believe the law cannot stand.
Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, signed SB 749 into law on May 14. The measure bans so-called “assault weapons,” a category that includes many modern semiautomatic firearms based on specific features. The law quickly drew legal challenges from gun-rights groups, including the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
Clarke County Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew Bass was among the local prosecutors who publicly rejected the law. On May 29, Bass and Clarke County Sheriff Travis M. Sumption issued a joint statement saying they would not enforce SB 749.
Bass told the Daily Caller News Foundation that he and the sheriff had discussed both the legal and practical problems they saw with the measure before deciding to make their position public.
“It didn’t take a crystal ball to see that proposed legislation from Richmond, including SB 749, would likely come under constitutional scrutiny,” Bass said.
He said his decision began with legal research, adding that he was not “reinventing the wheel” because many public resources had already examined the constitutional arguments surrounding firearms restrictions.
“As I re-familiarized myself with the arguments, I simultaneously had a conversation with our Sheriff about his thoughts on practical enforcement, likely constitutional challenges, and whether we were on the same page,” Bass said. “Unsurprisingly, both being from Clarke County, after further discussion, we agreed that we should put out a joint statement regarding our intent not to enforce SB 749.”
Powhatan County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob Cerullo also said he would not enforce the ban, pointing to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Cerullo said Bruen made clear that firearm restrictions must fit within “the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” He also noted the court’s conclusion that American governments have not broadly banned the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense.
“SB 749 restricts firearms by banning a list of common firearm features. It labels firearms possessing these features as ‘assault firearms,’” Cerullo said. He argued that the law does not consider whether the firearms are commonly owned, lawfully used, or have been used for decades in sporting and other legal contexts.
A growing number of Virginia prosecutors have taken similar positions. As of the report, at least a dozen other county prosecutors had announced they would not enforce the law. Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ryan Mehaffey was among the first, making his declaration on May 15.
Mehaffey said the law is inconsistent with Virginia’s historical tradition and unconstitutional under Bruen. He also cited District of Columbia v. Heller, arguing that the ruling protects the right to own commonly used firearms such as the AR-15.
Other prosecutors have made similar arguments, citing the Second Amendment and Virginia’s own constitutional protections.
Shenandoah County Commonwealth’s Attorney Elizabeth Cooper said the law ignores both the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. Goochland County Commonwealth’s Attorney John L. Lumpkins Jr. wrote that the legislature had passed a law infringing on what he called the “higher law” of the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.
Spanberger has signed several gun-control measures since taking office. She signed HB 1525 on April 22, after lawmakers accepted her amendments directing the Virginia State Police to enforce a universal background check law that had been blocked by a court order. A court later reaffirmed its injunction after a challenge from the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature has also passed bills targeting so-called ghost guns and the firearms industry, both of which Spanberger signed into law. The governor did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
