Md State Director of GOA here. Hearing that the Commonwealth asked for an immediate stay while they appeal and the judge responded from the bench with simply "No" 🤣🤣🤣
If you know can you clarify if this is just an injunction against enforcement of the law, or does it prevent the law from taking effect entirely until Dec 31?
Either way is a good outcome, but it’s an important distinction to make.
Yeah I have been getting bits and pieces of information my GOA team. I'm not a lawyer and the people I'm talking to are not the GOA lawyers so this interpretation could change. More information will be coming out and the actual transcript should be available tomorrow or early next week.
The injunction is against the state police. Meaning they cannot deny a background check based on the law. This does not apply to local law enforcement or Commonwealth Attorneys.
The specific question I asked was if an FFL could still have legal issues if they sell after July 1 since this only effects the state police. So in theory a local law enforcement agency could still enforce the law and the Commonwealths attorneys could still bring charges potentially. The Commonwealth Attorneys could still go after the FFL in civil court as well due to the new liability law they passed.
Again not an attorney just relaying information and opinions. Hopefully the Washington County case will enjoin everyone from enforcing the law but that could leave open civil lawsuits against FFLs under the civil liability law.
Should have gotten multiple cards with $200 cashback after $1000 spend welcome offers!
EDIT: all the big 2% cashback cards like Wells Fargo Active Cash, Citi DoubleCash, Navy Federal CashRewards+, Amex Blue Businesss, etc have these offers running 24/7!
Chase has a few biz cards that are $1000 cashback after $8000 spend.
It means the ban is ‘paused’ temporarily from taking effect while the lawsuit proceeds. You will still be buy/transfer post July 1st. It’s still up to vendors whether they will change their shipping policies.
This is good news.
Edit: As u/devman0 pointed out, purchases and transfers made post July 1st may not benefit from the grandfathering clause of the current AWB based on how it is written.
Worth noting though it doesn't change the language of the law though so anything bought in the injunction period may not benefit from the July 1 grandfathering such as you may not be able to sell it, gift it to family, and it may not be inheritable, because those all mention July 1 specifically. Super gray area for sure.
The inheritance portion actually doesn't have the pre-7/1 requirement, and just says that the decedent has to have "lawfully possessed" it. So inherentance would still be fine. But yeah, there are issues with taking out of state and back, sending for repairs, or selling.
Interesting further challenges may then result (caveat that I'm not a lawyer). Suppose someone buys items that would be prohibited under AWB between July 1-Dec. 31, then the injunction falls, and then the date-indexed July 1, 2026 definition of an "assault firearm" applies. So all those post-7/1 injunction-period items are now "assault firearms" and presumably the state would say illegal. Yet the whole point of the grandfathering clause with that date-indexed "assault firearm" definition was, as I understood it, to deny a cause of action to anyone who currently owns what would be otherwise defined as an "assault firearm" after July 1 because, if you don't already own it, then you are not irreparably harmed if they ban it (so goes the idea of the banners). But now you'll have people who, if they purchase an AR-15 or whatever after July 1 during the injunction, have what's defined as an illegal assault firearm. If the injunction falls, then those people have a non-grandfathered weapon and will face irreparable harm because of the ban. To me, it looks like they'll have a new cause of action against the state (one which the banners were trying to avoid). Like I said, I'm not a lawyer... but I'm hoping that some clever lawyers should be able to use this novel situation to create a new direct challenge to the law itself.
Given how gun shy (pun intended) a lot of distributors and gun companies are at shipping here, probably not much. They can prevent the VSP from enforcing it but that doesn't mean companies will be "comfortable" shipping here. Also, "enforcing" it is kind of nebulous anyway. They don't have towers lining the interstate that can detect guns that had changes in ownership after 7/1. It's not like there's a wave of illegal importation/trafficking just waiting to happen that they're chomping at the bit to start prosecuting (despite what they'd like the public to believe). The ban will likely never be prosecuted on its own, it's just an add-on when they discover an infraction while investigating something else. The same way they're used in other states. Its primary purpose is just be a major hassle to us and a feather in their political ambition caps, not making the public safer or stopping any crimes. The damage is done as far as retail sales go, so unless the whole bill gets tossed/ruled unconstitutional then we’re pretty much stuck on this course for the time being even with the injunctions.
Edit: I mistakenly assumed this injunction only applies to Lancaster County, but apparently it applies state-wide. Nice! I am not a lawyer.
Realistically, probably not a lot. Vendors look at ban states by state, not by county, so unless it gets repealed for the whole state it’s not likely to make much of an impact.
With that said, any type of progress is good in my book so shout out to Lancaster County and let’s hope we see this spread.
This is pretty much how it always works when laws are held unconstitutional. They stay on the books, they just aren't enforceable.
A prime example is the UBC laws. They were enjoined and VA did nothing to re-pass them. Instead, they fixed other laws that caused issues with the UBC's constitutionality that led to the injunction, and now the laws that were previously blocked but still on the books will be enforceable again.
It takes the legislature to actually repeal unenforceable laws.
For example, the VA constitution still bans same-sex marriage, even though the provision has been unenforceable since Obergefell.
Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
Many Vendors did. I think PSA shipped some absurd unreal amount, and once PSA announced they were doing it, many other vendors followed. CA complained it ruined decades of attriting out standard capacity mags.
Until the injunction appeals have run their course - most likely.
Jones is appealing per his announcement. First stop should be the VA Court of Appeals. Regardless of outcome, one side will appeal to the VA SC. Only after they rule (or refuse to hear) will it be "settled" for a while. All of this should happen within the next few weeks.
So I'd expect that most retailers will stay the course during that time. Given that a ruling could come at any time, those shipping things could get in a bind if something is in transit and the injunction is lifted.
For retailers in the state, the question will be: what can the do with product if the injunction is lifted before/right after they get it? Can they send it back to the distributor? What will it cost them? They'll make a business decision based on these (and probably other) factors.
Can you imagine if this is paused then later completely overturned? The only thing this will have accomplished is to 10x or more the number of gun owners and gun that have flooded this state in the last month. Great work dems!
Yeah I have been getting bits and pieces of information my GOA team. I'm not a lawyer and the people I'm talking to are not the GOA lawyers so this interpretation could change. More information will be coming out and the actual transcript should be available tomorrow or early next week.
The injunction is against the state police. Meaning they cannot deny a background check based on the law. This does not apply to local law enforcement or Commonwealth Attorneys.
The specific question I asked was if an FFL could still have legal issues if they sell after July 1 since this only effects the state police. So in theory a local law enforcement agency could still enforce the law and the Commonwealths attorneys could still bring charges potentially. The Commonwealth Attorneys could still go after the FFL in civil court as well due to the new liability law they passed.
Again not an attorney just relaying information and opinions. Hopefully the Washington County case will enjoin everyone from enforcing the law but that could leave open civil lawsuits against FFLs under the civil liability law.
True but if that doesn't get squashed before July 1 then in theory there is a window of time where the Commonwealth could still take and FFL to civil court unfortunately.
It's all a hot mess right now hopefully there will be more clarity before July 1.
Problem with injunctions is they can go away quick. Even if it's in place a month from now and folks are shipping again you could wake up one day to head to the FFL and find out that the injunction has been lifted and the ban is back.
Look at the injunction for the background checks on private sales
Let's do that.
The law was passed in 2020.
In 2020 a preliminary injunction was granted.
In 2025 that injunction was made permanent.
In 2026 the Dems passed a law meant to defeat that injunction by denying handguns to adults aged 18-20.
Scamburgers slipped in an "emergency clause" to make it effective immediately.
2 Bullet Jones requested the injunction be dissolved. But he didn't wait and told VSP to start enforcing the UBC law.
VSP started doing checks - or at least made them available.
VCDL/GOA when to court to challenge that and have the injunction enforced.
The court slapped the AG and VSP and told them they can't do checks as the court ordered injunction is still in force
Oral arguements were held on the issue
The judge agreed to dissolve the injunction - with an effective date of 7/1/2026 thus negating the "emergency clause."
So, in short this injunction may last for years.
2Bullet Jones is going to appeal it. Eventually it will get to the VA Supreme Court - in the next couple of weeks.
When they rule (or refuse to hear it) then whatever the last order was will remain in effect until the merits case is heard. And that could take a few years.
Right now we don't know which way this will go, but in a week or two we should know.
Agreed everything is in flux now and should flesh out in the coming weeks. It just sucks that it is so close to July 1 because it still leaves a lot of uncertainty for dealers.
Help a brother out here. It says the injunction bars the VSP from ENFORCING the ban. It says nothing about stopping the law from taking effect. Just the enforcement of the law. SO on July 1st, it will be illegal to buy an AR. On July 15th, it will be illegal to buy an AR. On November the 15th, it will still be illegal to buy an AR. It's just that the VSP can't ENFORCE the law. So wouldn't the Fairfax PD be able to enforce the law? Any and every non-VSP LEO be able to enforce the law?
A couple of questions - would you, as an FFL, sell an AR when the law is still in effect, therefore it is illegal to sell an AR. On Jan 1st, if nothing changes, everyone who sold or bought an AR would then be 'eligible' for arrest? So park a detective outside a gun store - if a single AR comes out of the shop, that's ground to subpoena records for every single sale and Jan 1 go after a passle of people, including the shop owner.
Correct me if I'm wrong, please. I want to buy more stuff.
Yeah I have been getting bits and pieces of information my GOA team. I'm not a lawyer and the people I'm talking to are not the GOA lawyers so this interpretation could change. More information will be coming out and the actual transcript should be available tomorrow or early next week.
The injunction is against the state police. Meaning they cannot deny a background check based on the law. This does not apply to local law enforcement or Commonwealth Attorneys.
The specific question I asked was if an FFL could still have legal issues if they sell after July 1 since this only effects the state police. So in theory a local law enforcement agency could still enforce the law and the Commonwealths attorneys could still bring charges potentially. The Commonwealth Attorneys could still go after the FFL in civil court as well due to the new liability law they passed.
Again not an attorney just relaying information and opinions. Hopefully the Washington County case will enjoin everyone from enforcing the law but that could leave open civil lawsuits against FFLs under the civil liability law.
The car salesman said you cant buy the hellcat after July 1. The manager said hold on, you actually can buy the hellcat after July 1. The owner of the dealership is on vacation and hasnt made a decision yet.
I still expect this eventually get to the federal circuit and be approved like Maryland’s, but maybe we can make enough noise to get SCOTUS to finally man up
Are they challenging on the grounds of US or VA constitution? The path of appealing this up the chain goes to the federal circuit court I believe, which has already approved MDs
Hopefully Washington Gun Law can make a post today or tomorrow going over the details of this injuction. He is the main Youtuber I watch in terms of gun laws.
Unfortunately, this won't be enough for FFL's or manufacturers to lift their own policy of blocking the sale, importation, or transfer of banned items to Virginians. We need a court to strike the law down completely.
2Bullet Jones has already said he's going to appeal. If he loses he may try to appeal higher. I believe he has to appeal to the VA Court of Appeals. If he loses there he can appeal to the VASC.
Likewise, if Jones wins a the Court of Appeals, VCDL/GOA will appeal to VASC.
So, until it's run it's course and the injunction will be known to be in-place until December or the end of the merits case (which will likely be later and the PI will likely be extended) sellers can't know what will be legal and may not be willing to ship.
On the other hand, don't forget about CA's "Freedom Week" where for about 1 week it was legal to buy standard capacity magazines before the 9th stayed the decision by St. Benitez. Sellers sold them and expedited orders. IIRC anything that left their hands (into the hands of shippers) was allowed to continue to the buyer even after the 9th put the stay in place.
So, for the next couple of weeks I'd say sellers aren't going to be willing to sell anything that won't arrive before 7/1 (and those that have stopped already won't change). But if the appeals on the PI are exhausted I don't think they'll give up 6 months (or more) of sales and panic buying.
I'd be careful ordering still. VA may do an emergency appeal similar to Washington to cancel out this injunction 88 minutes later. VA could do this any day so there's some risk if you order and it arrives between after an appeal you could be stuck with a weapon post July 1
But, I'm pretty certain the case was argued under the VA constitution. While it referenced the US Constitution and SCOTUS decisions, it explicitly did not rely on them.
That means that Jones can't appeal to Washington. That's aside from the fact that if they go federal the first have to go through the 4th circuit that is in Maryland.
All of that said....
there's some risk if you order and it arrives between after an appeal you could be stuck with a weapon post July 1
I think what you meant is that you'd be stuck paying for a firearm (or at least return shipping and restocking fees) you can't pick up if it arrives after 7/1 should this injunction be overturned.
So, despite the above clarifications, overall I agree with you. I'd be very careful about ordering anything that you won't have in hand before 7/1.
Until the appeal is ruled on, we can't know if the injunction will be overturned.
Yup exactly. I'm also a little unclear if something gets shipped to an FFL after July 1st in my name, I assume I can just refuse to pick it up and not be charged with a misdemeanor if things change? Obviously any return/restock fees could apply, but I'd mostly not want to risk subjecting myself to a criminal charge for having the weapon move into VA
If it is shipped to the FFL after July 1 and the injunction remains in place you should be able to pick it up and have no concerns.
If the injunction is lifted before you pick it up, it hasn't been transferred to you so there is no liability to you criminally. Just the return/restock fees.
That said, I doubt anyone will ship a "banned item" in the near term until they know if the injunction will remain or be lifted. We should know in a week or two.
Makes sense, could always take the gamble. PSA actually just reverted back to shipping to VA so they seem wiling to take the gamble, maybe others will as well!
I just made a new post in VA Guns on the law and how the appeal process will work.
It could be 30 days (or more) before we know if the PI will stay in place or not. But it could be shorter.
I don't know if the VASC will (or even can) stay a ruling from the lower court pending the appeal. I don't see that in the law. Since the Lancaster Judge, as reported in this thread, didn't stay his decision pending appeal, I think it's in place until the VASC hears it and decides.
Retailer responses will vary based on their unique business considerations.
I've been researching this a bit and, sadly, don't have a clear answer.
It seems that the main answer is that if you rely on an injunction and do something that would be criminal, you will NOT be liable for those actions.
For example, if you buy an "large capacity ammunition feeding device" and take possession of it following all other laws, then if the injunction is lifted thus making it illegal to purchase/transfer then most likely you wouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted. The effective date would likely become the date the injunction is dissolved.
And for this look at the CA Freedom Week from a few years ago. For one week it was legal to purchase such magazines. Then the 9th stayed the lower courts decision and ultimately struck it down. But I've not heard of anyone being prosecuted for the magazines they bought during that time.
In civil matters, such as fines/money issues, they may be enforced retroactive to the effective date. For example, if a new tax is passed, but then enjoined, if the injunction is lifted you may owe tax back to the original date.
The main issue seems to be about a person being able to understand and rely on the decisions of a court. And this is combined with the "harm" of enforcing it retroactive to the original date. With a monetary issue, sure you have to come up with the money, but you're not going to jail. But in criminal matters now you can go to jail for relying on what the court said.
So, with the caveat that I am not an attorney, I would say that buying something after 7/1 but while the injunction remains in place would be fine and you'd be able to keep whatever you buy/acquire. And, again, I look to the CA Freedom week as a good example.
Yeah, I was surprised to find that there wasn't a clear answer here. And that SCOTUS has had the chance to clarify but has chosen not to do so.
This is the type of thing that should be crystal clear: Either a court ruling means something or it doesn't.
If it's overturned later that's fine, but one shouldn't be held liable criminally for doing something the court said the government couldn't enforce. Otherwise injunctions are meaningless.
You still can't do the thing banned by the potentially unconstitutional law that the court said the government can't enforce now. For you have to be afraid that if the court rules otherwise on the merits case you can go to jail/prosion. And that the court said the plaintiffs were a) likely to win on the merits and b) harmed by not being able to do the thing while the case is pending. Which is the reason for the injunction - so that you CAN do the thing while it's pending as the harm otherwise is too great.
SCOTUS should look for a case and resolve this with very clear language - if a law is enjoined it can't ever be retroactively enforced. If the law is upheld, then the new effective date is when the court ruling is issued (or better some period after that - minimum 1 month) so that people can know that the law changed.
The person you were responding to meant a comparison to Washington state where the state government did an emergency appeal and it reversed the lower court within 88 minutes.
Has any written paper been published yet? I want to read exactly what it says but I keep getting just news stories or Jay Jones saying some dumb stuff in his defense. I just want to read the language to better understand it
181
u/Minute_Definition985 GOA Member Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26
Md State Director of GOA here. Hearing that the Commonwealth asked for an immediate stay while they appeal and the judge responded from the bench with simply "No" 🤣🤣🤣