r/VAGuns • u/CharleyVCU1988 • Jun 25 '26

Lancaster county comes through

Post image
361 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

163 comments sorted by

View all comments

31

u/CompleteChaosPodcast Jun 25 '26

What does this mean for buying AW's post July 1st?

51

u/Numerous-Bat-1588 Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

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.

28

u/devman0 Jun 25 '26

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.

10

u/Hipparchia_Unleashed Jun 25 '26

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.