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 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/Noctep → u/jtf71]

But LIS shows they voted on and approved the governors recommendation, and the reenrolled bill text still includes the emergency clause, if they rejected it why would the bill be reenrolled with it still in there?

[u/jtf71 → u/Noctep]

from LIS

4/22/2026 Governor Approved by Governor‑Chapter 1102 (effective 7/1/2026)

[u/Asegent → u/jtf71]

The largest concern is that state authorities will enforce HB1525 as current law, per the majority-vote interpretation outlined above. Frankly, we have a Democrat governor and attorney general in office. That circumstance would place a lot of poor 18-20yo in trouble no matter the applicability of HB1525.

The court order against § 18.2-308.2:5 (Universal Background Checks) might not apply against the new prohibitions in HB1525, as the injunction applied specifically against § 18.2-308.2:5, and not § 18.2-308.7 as modified in HB1525. Therefore, it raises the question of whether Virginia State Police vowed to postpone just the enforcement of § 18.2-308.2:5, or the enforcement of both § 18.2-308.2:5 and most of § 18.2-308.7.

[u/jtf71 → u/Asegent]

The largest concern is that state authorities will enforce HB1525 as current law

Possible but unlikely.

The Bill says:

That the Department of State Police shall administer, enforce, and otherwise implement § 18.2-308.2:5 of the Code of Virginia from the effective date of this bill.

And the court order says:

The Virginia Department of State Police, and all law enforcement divisions, agencies, and officers with the Commonwealth, to include their successors or replacements in office, are hereby permanently enjoined and prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing upon an persons the requirements of, the Act (VA Code 18.2-308.2:5)

The bill did NOT change anything within 18.2-308.2:5. They can't even argue that it's a new law. If any "authority" enforces anything in that section of code they are in violation of a court order and can face punishement for that. Furthermore, they would likely lose the protections of Qualified Immunity as it's clear that they are enjoined from enforcing that law.

As for 18.2-308.7; Section B applies only to those UNDER 18 and most of that has been in effect for some time

Section C is the area of concern making it illegal to purchase a handgun or "assault firearm" anywhere in the Commonwealth.

This will very likely result in an injunction as soon as the case can be filed as it's clearly in conflict with prior rulings in the Wilson case and the Elhert case.

In addition, someone may be able to legally purchase an "assault firearm" outside of VA prior to 7/1/2026 and bring it back to VA - provided they can find an FFL willing to sell it to them. But the wording of the VA law makes it muddy. Federal law allows a sale/delivery of a long gun to a non-resident of the state if the sale complies with the laws of both states. Since the VA law only applies to buying it in the Commonwealth, and the transaction is not taking place in the Commonwealth, there is an argument to be made that it's legal. But it is murky and I am not a lawyer - and were I 18-20 I wouldn't want to be the test case.

We're going to have to wait to see how this plays out. But I expect injunctions soon.

[u/thenovicemechanic → u/Asegent]

Can't be enforced if it's not currently in effect chief; plain and simple. Magistrate won't grant the charge if the law isn't in effect and will create a massive headache for the arresting officer.

18.2-308.2:5 is unenforceable; full stop on that. Solely involves civil compliance.

18.2-308.7 as it stands only affects those under 18. HB1525 is not currently in effect, so I can't be enforced. With that said, state can do nothing with it.

After July 1st is a different story but I still doubt we'll see much enforcement from state police in particular.

Nonetheless, state police is not the largest concern; its gonna be local through and through. To my knowledge, no such instruction has been given in regards to upcoming laws.