You guys will be able to make your own magazines after July 1. These are the banned action nothing about making magazines.
https://maggedsupplyllc.com/magazine-rebuild-kits/magpul-pmag-30rd-300-blackout-gen-m3-rebuild-kit/
I already wrote another post about the Dark Storm Non-NFA Other, but I wanted to make the point simpler.
The new VA AWB seems to cover rifles, pistols, shotguns, belt-fed firearms, and firearms modified into those categories.
But I do not see a clear “Other firearm” category like California or Connecticut added later.
That matters because a factory-built Non-NFA Other is not a rifle, not a pistol, and not a shotgun. Other ban states like NJ have had Non-NFA Others for years too because their laws are also mostly written around rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
Same idea with an AOW if it is properly made/registered with ATF approval. An AOW with a vertical grip is not designed to be fired with one hand, so calling it a normal handgun seems weak.
So people can still make this.
Hello All,
I talked to VCDL Lawyer and the president and the owner of Dark Storm Industries employee as well and it looks like preliminary that the Non NFA others will be legal to transfer to FFLs after July 1 for the reason it is not a handgun, since it is held with two hands, it is not a rifle because no stock and shotgun either. Anyone a FFLs on here that I can show the email thread too.
I talked about “others” not being banned by SB 749 before while the bill was still moving. I even made a post about it but took it down because I did not want to give anyone ideas to update the bill and add “other firearms” into the text. Now HB 217 / SB 749 is basically in final form and the only thing left is the Governor signing it, vetoing it, or letting it become law without her signature. I still think true Dark Storm Industries Non-NFA “others” have a good argument. The bill bans by category. Rifle. Pistol. Shotgun. Revolving-cylinder shotgun. Belt-fed firearm. I do not see a separate “other firearm” category.
Taylor v. Commonwealth is why I think the exact wording matters. That case happened because the person was carrying a loaded Taurus PT111 handgun with a 24-round mag in Richmond and did not have a concealed handgun permit. The gun was probably centerfire in real life because the PT111 is commonly 9mm. But the Commonwealth failed because they did not put the gun itself into evidence and did not have testimony proving it was actually centerfire. The court said the judge could not just assume that missing element. Since the statute said centerfire the state had to prove centerfire.
Other Virginia cases point the same way. In Dillard v. Commonwealth the court treated the details in the sawed-off shotgun definition as things the state had to prove. In Bruce v. Commonwealth the court said the jury had to decide if the weapon actually met the sawed-off shotgun definition. The judge could not just tell them it did. Person and Cox also matter because they show the other side. If the actual gun is in evidence then the judge or jury can look at the physical features and use common sense. But that still cuts both ways. If the physical features show no stock, over 26 inches, vertical grip, not shoulder-fired, not a handgun, and not a shotgun, then those facts support “other” instead of rifle or pistol.
That same logic matters here. If SB 749 says rifle then prove rifle. If it says pistol then prove pistol. If it says shotgun then prove shotgun. A true DSI other does not cleanly fit those boxes. No stock means it is not made to be fired from the shoulder like a rifle. Over 26 inches with a vertical grip makes it hard to call a normal pistol. It is not a shotgun because it is not designed to fire shot shells from a smooth bore. Virginia’s sawed-off shotgun definition also shows how specific these categories are. It talks about a weapon originally designed as a shoulder weapon with certain barrel lengths. So the state should not be able to just say “it looks like an AR” and stretch a factory “other” into a rifle or pistol. Taylor does not automatically make others legal but it supports reading the statute as written. Not legal advice. Just my read.
Hello there,
I think Spanberger might veto the AWB because there are reports that she will veto collective bargaining bill and that her amendments were rejected by the general assembly. Showing even a democrat priority can be veto because her amendments were rejected and she had rewrote the whole bill. Similarly with the SB 749 amendments rejections she wanted to fundamentally change what the bill was and what was included. Her press release during the time was that the amendments are needed to ensure compliance with constitution which I think the whole bill is unconstititional. So what do you think?
​
The Virginia Supreme Court’s recent referendum/redistricting ruling matters because it showed the court is willing to step into a major political fight and enforce the Virginia Constitution. That case was not about guns, but the broader signal is important: SCOVA may not automatically defer to the General Assembly when constitutional issues are raised.
That could matter if Virginia’s assault-weapons ban is challenged. A case could start in circuit court, an injunction could be granted, and then the state could ask the Virginia Supreme Court for a stay. SCOVA could deny the stay or eventually rule against the law.
Judge Yeatts is one judge to watch because of the earlier 18–20-year-old firearm/background-check litigation. His reasoning showed concern when Virginia law allows young adults to possess firearms but blocks a practical path to acquiring them. That kind of issue could come up again if an AWB restricts common rifles for 18–20-year-olds.
Judge Hurley is another judge to watch because his redistricting ruling was ultimately supported by SCOVA’s 4–3 decision. Different issue, but it shows a circuit court ruling on a major constitutional question can survive.
The fixed-magazine issue could also become a problem if the law does not clearly define what “fixed” means. That could create arguments over vagueness, inconsistent enforcement, and whether things like action-breaking magazine locks are covered.
Politically, this could give Spanberger a reason to veto or delay the bill and try again later. The SCOVA ruling was 4–3, and even one future justice change could shift the court. So supporters may not want to risk a bad statewide precedent while the current court is still willing to enforce constitutional limits.
Bottom line: the referendum case does not prove the AWB is unconstitutional, but it shows Virginia courts may not shy away from big constitutional rulings.
I’ve been thinking about how a Virginia assault-weapons ban might play out if it becomes law. My theory is that the fight may not only be in federal court — Virginia state courts could matter a lot, especially if the case lands before judges like Judge F. Patrick Yeatts in Lynchburg or Judge Jack Hurley Jr. in Tazewell County.
Judge Yeatts is important because of the universal-background-check case. In 2020, he did not strike down the whole UBC law. He issued a narrower injunction for 18-to-20-year-olds trying to buy handguns, because Virginia allowed them to possess handguns, but the UBC system forced private sales through FFLs, and federal law blocks FFL handgun transfers to people under 21.
Then in October 2025, Yeatts went further and struck the law in its entirety. The key point is that he did not decide the broader Second Amendment/Bruen question yet. Instead, he said the law had an as-applied constitutional problem for 18-to-20-year-olds, and that the court could not simply “fix” the statute by carving them out. That would basically require the judge to rewrite the law from the bench, which courts are not supposed to do.
That matters for an AWB because a similar 18-to-20-year-old argument could come up again. If Virginia says adults 18–20 are old enough to possess certain firearms but then blocks them from buying common semiautomatic rifles or forces them into only a narrow set of options, a judge like Yeatts might treat that as a serious constitutional problem before even reaching the full Bruen historical-tradition fight.
Judge Hurley in Tazewell County is also worth watching because of the redistricting/referendum litigation. He blocked the referendum process, and the Supreme Court of Virginia did not immediately stay that lower-court injunction. That does not mean the Supreme Court has made a final ruling, but it may show they are willing to let a circuit-court injunction remain in place while a case continues.
That could matter for an AWB. If a Virginia circuit judge rules an AWB unconstitutional and issues an injunction, the state would ask for a stay. But the redistricting fight suggests a stay may not be automatic.
There is also the political timing. Virginia Supreme Court justices are chosen by the General Assembly, and some are coming up for reappointment. Since the current Democratic majority may not vote to keep certain Republican-appointed justices anyway, those justices may have less reason to avoid controversial rulings just to protect reappointment chances.
So my theory is simple: if an AWB gets challenged in Virginia state court, there is a real path where a judge blocks it, maybe using 18-to-20-year-old adults, common-use arms, Virginia constitutional issues, severability, and Heller/Bruen arguments. And if that happens, the injunction might not be stayed right away.
I’m not saying this is guaranteed. Courts are unpredictable, and AWB cases have gone different ways in different places. But based on Yeatts’ UBC ruling, Hurley’s redistricting ruling, and the Virginia Supreme Court’s recent handling of the referendum injunction, I do not think people should assume a Virginia AWB would automatically survive or automatically go into effect without a serious state-court fight.
