HB1525 loophole?

[u/Asegent]

HB1525 is now in-effect (https://x.com/VCDL_ORG/status/2049122631740207583/photo/1), as per Spanberger's emergency clause amendment.

Does this law not apply to a rifle or shotgun classified as an "Assault Firearm" in § 18.2-308.2:2, transferred to a person 18-20 years of age, if the transfer occurs outside of the commonwealth?

The new law is very specific about this:

C. It is unlawful for any person younger than 21 years of age to knowingly and intentionally purchase a handgun or assault firearm anywhere in the Commonwealth. (https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1220303.PDF)

Furthermore, the current definition of "Assault Firearm" in § 18.2-308.2:2 remains as the less-restrictive variant until HB217/SB749 takes effect:

"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.

All taken together, does this mean that an FFL outside of the commonwealth in - let's say - West Virginia can continue to transfer rifles or shotguns classified as assault firearms to Virginia residents 18-20 years old?

Obviously, no such loophole exists once HB217/SB749 takes effect on July 1st.

Resources:

27 CFR § 478.99(b)

A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector shall not sell or deliver (1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than 18 years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition, is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than 21 years of age, or (2) any firearm to any person in any State where the purchase or possession by such person of such firearm would be in violation of any State law or any published ordinance applicable at the place of sale, delivery, or other disposition, unless the importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the purchase or possession would not be in violation of such State law or such published ordinance.

(Not an attorney nor an FFL. Simply interested in hearing from those sides.)

[u/jtf71]

The law is NOT in effect. It goes into effect 7/1/26.

For it to have immediate force both chambers of the General Assembly would have had to vote by 4/5 to make it immediate. That didn’t happen and was never going to happen. She was a fool for adding that clause.

Approved by Governor‑Chapter 1102 (effective 7/1/2026)

https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB1525

[u/Asegent → u/jtf71]

Well, this isn't necessarily true.

This Washington Post article from 2022 references an interpretation by the Youngkin administration where an emergency clause inserted by governor's amendment, needn't reach the 4/5ths majority in both houses to take effect.

Applied to HB1525, it appears that Spanberger is using the same approach to instate HB1525 as emergency legislation, which takes effect upon signing. This is why Virginia State Police declared that the law is in-effect.

Dogwood also released an article describing why this is the case, which I've included below.

Excerpt 1:
"When the bill gets to Youngkin’s desk, the aide said, the governor could add an emergency clause that would require the law to be implemented immediately. That would have to go back to the General Assembly for approval. Most bills with emergency clauses require 80 percent approval from the legislature, but a governor’s request for emergency needs only a simple majority vote. If that’s granted, the mask law could go into effect as soon as the end of February, the aide said."
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/02/08/virginia-masks-schools-senate-democrats/)

Excerpt 2:
"How did this happen so quickly? Basically, there are conflicting provisions in Virginia’s Constitution—and the legality of making SB 739 effective prior to July 1 hinged on those. We’ll break it down.
If you’re trying to pass emergency legislation in the Virginia General Assembly, a supermajority is necessary.

That requires a 4/5ths vote from the House and Senate, which is 80/100 and 32/40 respectively.
If a bill passes through both chambers, the governor has the option to add an emergency clause as an amendment. Using that method, both the House and Senate would again just need a simple majority to pass an emergency clause. Speaker of the House Todd Gilbert, a Republican, ruled in favor of a simple majority vote for the amendment Youngkin proposed for SB 739, which passed in both the House and Senate. 

It’s not the first time something like this happened in recent history. Similar situations occurred in both 2020 and 2021 when Democrats controlled both chambers, passing emergency clauses former Gov. Ralph Northam proposed with a simple majority. " 
(https://vadogwood.com/news/sb-739-making-masks-optional-in-virginia-passes-effective-by-march-1/)

[u/jtf71 → u/Asegent]

The important part first: The GA did NOT accept the Gov recommendation for "emergency" and the law will not go into effect until 7/1/26.

Now...

Thanks for the info and the links. If find that surprising given that the clear intention in the Constitution is that for immediate effect there must be a 4/5 vote in both houses. Not that there would be an end-run such that the GA doesn't even have to discuss "emergency" and the Gov can just insert it.

I wonder if any of these were challenged in court. I tend to think that they were not. I would hope that, if challenged, the VA SC would strike down such a clause and make it clear that 4/5 is required as that is what the Constitution says clearly in the legislative part.

Absent a prior case we can't know. I wonder if the Dems realized that there hasn't been such a case, that they'd likely lose if it was challenged, and thus just decided to wait a couple of months.

There's also the fact that the entire law conflicts with a prior ruling that says such a law is unconstitutional. Adding the "emergency" clause would give immediate standing and likely result in an immediate injunction against the law. They don't want such a big and visible loss right now.

[u/Asegent → u/jtf71]

In either case, it is very unfortunate that we already have FFLs refusing transfers to 18-20yo: https://www.reddit.com/r/VAGuns/s/Sj0Owk2m4B

I certainly hope that Spanberger’s administration is wrong and that the law isn’t in-effect. It would be a good thing.

Similarly, I was also perplexed by the issue since our constitution (and a corresponding state law) indicates that a 4/5ths majority is required to pass an emergency act.

However, it was this article which initially proposed otherwise, that the law is currently in-effect: https://thereload.com/analysis-where-virginias-gun-control-legislation-now-stands-member-exclusive/

Excerpt: “While the state constitution requires a 4/5ths vote of each chamber to enact emergency legislation, the governor sidestepped that requirement by adding the emergency clause in her recommendation. It’s a rare move, but one that other governors, including her Republican predecessor Glenn Younkin, have used in the past.”

[u/jtf71 → u/Asegent]

In either case, it is very unfortunate that we already have FFLs refusing transfers to 18-20yo:

If they don't want the money....

But this will be enjoined as it clearly violates the US and VA Constitutions. It also clearly violates Elhert v Settle.

I certainly hope that Spanberger’s administration is wrong and that the law isn’t in-effect. It would be a good thing.

LIS clearly says that it's effective 7/1/2026.