On May 14, 2026, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 and its House companion HB 217 into law — a flat ban on the purchase, sale, manufacture, import, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” along with a prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. The ink was barely dry before the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia. And within hours, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted two words on X that should alarm every gun-control advocate in Richmond: “See you in court.”
My read is that this is a strategic disaster for the anti-gun movement. Governor Spanberger did not campaign on a gun ban. She did not campaign on redistricting. And yet here we are — the Virginia Supreme Court already blew up her redistricting bill, and now she has just handed the Second Amendment community a near-perfect vehicle to get this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court faster than almost any other route available.
The Rocket Docket Is Not an Accident
The lawsuit — McDonald v. Katz — was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Alexandria. Lawyers have called that court the “Rocket Docket” for decades. Cases go to trial in under a year. For a Second Amendment challenge, that speed is a gift.
Here is the counterintuitive part. The Fourth Circuit, which oversees the Eastern District of Virginia, sits on Bianchi v. Brown, 111 F.4th 438 (4th Cir. 2024) — an en banc precedent ruling that AR-15-style rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection entirely. The Supreme Court declined to review it last June when the cert petition arrived as Snope v. Brown. The district court judge in Alexandria knows that precedent controls. So do the plaintiffs. The result is that the district court will apply Bianchi, rule against the Second Amendment claimants quickly, the Fourth Circuit will affirm quickly, and the case lands on the Supreme Court’s doorstep fast. There is almost nothing to litigate below — the law is already “settled” in the Fourth Circuit, and that is precisely what makes this circuit the greased rail to SCOTUS.
This is exactly how Bruen happened. When the NYSRPA brought its challenge to New York’s may-issue regime in 2018, the Second Circuit had already blessed the law. That meant quick losses below, a fast cert petition, and an 6-3 win at the Supreme Court in 2022. History is rhyming.
What the Complaint Actually Says
The NRA-SAF-FPC complaint lays out the constitutional argument in sharp terms. The plaintiffs cite District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and Bruen for the proposition that only arms that are both dangerous and unusual can be banned under historical tradition — and an arm in common use by law-abiding Americans cannot qualify as unusual. The complaint marshals the data: approximately 24.6 million Americans own AR-15-style rifles. A Washington Post survey of 2,000-plus gun owners found 20 percent own an AR-15-style firearm — roughly 16 million Americans. The U.S. Supreme Court itself acknowledged in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (2025) that AR-15 rifles, AK-47 rifles, and .50-caliber sniper rifles are widely legal and bought by ordinary consumers. Under Heller and Bruen, a ban on arms this common is indefensible. The complaint is correct on the law. It is going to lose in the Fourth Circuit anyway — and lose fast.
DOJ Involvement Changes the Math at One First Street
The other piece that changes the calculus dramatically is Harmeet Dhillon’s announcement that the Department of Justice will file its own lawsuit against Virginia. When the United States government, through the Solicitor General’s office, asks the Supreme Court to grant cert in a case, the success rate is staggeringly high — somewhere in the 80-plus percent range. Chief Justice John Roberts has a well-documented institutional deference to the Solicitor General. If the SG’s office formally asks the Court to take this case, or one of the related cases, the Court almost certainly grants it.
There is also a circuit split building. The Third Circuit is sitting on Cheeseman v. Platkin — the consolidated New Jersey AR-15 ban challenge — waiting on Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani before it rules. If the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey’s ban while the Fourth Circuit upholds Virginia’s, that is a clean, direct circuit split on whether AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court cannot ignore a split that clean, and Justice Kavanaugh has already signaled publicly that the Court needs to take an AR-15 case in the next term or two.
The Strategic Picture
Governor Spanberger may believe this law is good politics. I think it is a serious miscalculation. She has focused national attention on Virginia at the exact moment when the redistricting debacle already had every set of eyes in the country pointed at Richmond. The DOJ, every major Second Amendment organization, and ultimately the Supreme Court itself are all going to converge on this law. The trend is running hard in our direction. A Supreme Court ruling that AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment would be catastrophic for the billions of dollars the anti-gun movement has spent on state-level bans. The Second Amendment community has been waiting a long time for this fight. Thanks to Abigail Spanberger, we may be about to get it.
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.