Virginia’s Democratic majority passed House Bill 217 out of the House of Delegates 58–34, and the target is clear: 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old Virginians who want to possess semi-automatic centerfire rifles — what the bill brands “assault firearms.” Under HB 217, those young adults would face a Class 1 misdemeanor and a three-year firearms purchase prohibition if caught possessing a covered firearm, regardless of when it was acquired. The bill’s companion, Senate Bill 749, mirrors the same restrictions. The constitutional case against this law is overwhelming — and it starts with the same Congress that gave us the Second Amendment.
What HB 217 Actually Does
The bill defines an “assault firearm” as a semi-automatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting more than 15 rounds. The under-21 possession bar applies even to guns lawfully owned before the law takes effect on July 1, 2026 — a retroactive dispossession order aimed at adults who, under every other area of Virginia and federal law, are treated as full legal adults.
These adults can vote, sign contracts, marry, serve in the military, deploy to combat zones, and die for this country. Virginia is now telling them they cannot possess a semi-automatic rifle. That contradiction goes directly to the constitutional analysis.
The Bruen Framework Shreds This Law
Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the analytical path is straightforward. Step one: does the plain text of the Second Amendment cover the conduct being restricted? The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that “the people” in the Second Amendment refers to
a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
An 18-year-old American citizen living in Virginia is unambiguously part of that national community. The conduct — possessing a semi-automatic rifle, which is a bearable arm — is squarely covered by “keep and bear Arms.” Plain text: implicated. The burden shifts to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Step two requires Virginia to demonstrate a long-standing historical tradition of firearms regulation sufficiently analogous to HB 217 — specifically, a tradition at the founding of stripping 18–20-year-olds of their right to keep and bear arms. Good luck with that.
The Militia Act of 1792 Is Dispositive
Here is the killer fact. In 1792 — one year after the Second Amendment was ratified — the very same Congress enacted the Militia Act of 1792 (1 Stat. 271). That law did not merely permit 18-year-olds to acquire firearms. It commanded them to. The statutory text is unambiguous:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled that each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states resident therein who is or shall be of age of 18 years and under the age of 45 years shall be severally and respectively enrolled in the militia … [and] shall within six months thereafter provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, and a box therein to contain not less than 24 cartridges.
Let that sink in. The founding generation did not restrict 18-year-olds from owning firearms. They imposed a federal legal obligation to go out, spend their own money, and equip themselves with firearms and ammunition. There is no historical tradition of disarming this age group. There is an affirmative, nationwide, federally mandated tradition of arming them.
Disposing of the Anti-Gunners’ Best Counter-Argument
The anti-gunners’ go-to counter: founding-era commercial law allowed minors — persons under 21 — to void contracts, so there was a tradition of treating under-21-year-olds differently with respect to firearms purchases.
This falls apart on multiple levels. First, Bruen requires a historical analogue that is a firearms regulation. A consumer-protection rule letting young people void bad commercial contracts with merchants is not a firearms regulation — it is a contract-law doctrine, not remotely analogous.
Second, even within that contract doctrine, there was a well-established exception for “necessaries” — items so essential that the voidable-contract protection did not apply. At the founding, firearms, powder, and ammunition were necessaries: needed for personal defense, for hunting, and — as the Militia Act confirms — required by federal law. Second Amendment attorney Alan Alexander Beck, who argued Wolford v. Lopez (No. 24-1046) before SCOTUS on January 20, 2026, published a detailed piece in The Reload explaining precisely how firearms fell within this exception.
Third, even granting the anti-gunners their best-case reading, United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), says courts must derive a principle from historical analogues, not import a rule wholesale. The only derivable principle from any founding-era restriction on under-21-year-olds would be that governments may restrict firearms rights of minors. But 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are not minors today. They are full legal adults. That principle, properly applied, cuts against HB 217, not for it.
What Comes Next for Virginia Gun Owners
My honest assessment: the Fourth Circuit is not going to save Virginia gun owners here. Senior Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III — a Reagan appointee who has publicly criticized Heller as potentially becoming “the conservatives’ Roe v. Wade” — has long dominated the circuit’s Second Amendment jurisprudence, and the court has a consistent track record of refusing to faithfully apply Bruen. HB 217’s sponsors almost certainly know that. They are running a clock: pass the law now, let it stand for a few election cycles, and worry about Supreme Court review later.
Virginia gun owners need to preserve the record meticulously, make the right arguments at every stage, and be prepared to take this all the way to the Supreme Court. The Militia Act of 1792 alone should be dispositive — but getting there requires fighting through a hostile circuit first.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.