Virginia Judge Extends Injunction Against Assault Firearm Sales Ban Statewide

Virginia Judge Extends Injunction Against Assault Firearm Sales Ban Statewide

A Washington County, Virginia circuit judge ruled on July 7, 2026 that his preliminary injunction blocking the state's new assault firearm and large-capacity magazine sale ban applies statewide, effective July 21, in Santolla v. Katz. The Virginia Attorney General is expected to appeal.

Information last verified on July 11, 2026. This is a developing story; we update it as the record changes.

Status: A preliminary injunction, not a final ruling. On July 7, 2026 the court clarified the injunction applies statewide effective July 21, 2026; it is to remain until July 1, 2027 or a final order. The Virginia Attorney General is expected to appeal.

Jurisdiction scope: This story covers a Virginia state circuit court ruling under the Virginia Constitution. It is a state-law injunction in state court, not a federal Second Amendment ruling and not a decision by the Supreme Court of Virginia or any federal court. It applies only within Virginia.

What Happened

On July 7, 2026, Washington County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell issued a letter opinion clarifying that a preliminary injunction he had entered on June 29, 2026 against Virginia's new restrictions on the sale and purchase of certain semiautomatic "assault firearms" and magazines holding more than 15 rounds applies statewide. The case is Santolla v. Katz, filed in Washington County Circuit Court by gun owners, firearms retailers, and firearms-industry groups, with support from the National Rifle Association, against Virginia officials responsible for enforcing the law.

Judge Campbell's June 29 order had already found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the restrictions violate Virginia's self-defense and firearm framework under the state constitution. After a further hearing, the parties disputed how broadly that order reached: the Commonwealth argued the injunction should bind only the named local defendants, while the plaintiffs argued that a narrower order would leave a patchwork where the law might be enforced in some Virginia localities but not others. Judge Campbell's July 7 letter opinion sided with the plaintiffs, holding that the injunction "enjoin[s] all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and its localities" from enforcing the challenged provisions statewide, and it amended the order's onset date to July 21, 2026, to give the clerk of court time to notify law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth's Attorneys' offices throughout Virginia.

The injunction is set to remain in effect until July 1, 2027, or until the circuit court issues a final order resolving the case on the merits, whichever comes first. The Virginia Attorney General's office publicly disputed the statewide scope of the order, and the Attorney General is expected to appeal.

What the Law Actually Says

The challenged law is Virginia's 2026 legislation restricting the sale, purchase, manufacture, and transfer of certain semiautomatic "assault firearms" and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the legislation on May 14, 2026, with an original effective date of July 1, 2026. The law does not require current owners to surrender firearms or magazines already lawfully possessed; it restricts future sales, purchases, and transfers of firearms and magazines meeting the statutory definitions.

The plaintiffs in Santolla v. Katz argue the restrictions violate Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which provides:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

That is a state constitutional provision, separate from the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Santolla case is being litigated entirely in Virginia's state courts under Virginia's own constitution.

A preliminary injunction is not a final ruling on the merits. It is a temporary, pretrial order that pauses enforcement of a challenged law while litigation proceeds, based on the court's assessment that the plaintiffs are likely, though not certain, to succeed once the case is fully litigated, that they would suffer irreparable harm without the pause, and that the balance of equities favors relief. A court can, and sometimes does, reach a different conclusion after full briefing, a trial, or an appeal than it reached at the preliminary-injunction stage. Readers researching self-defense and firearm laws across the states should treat this ruling as a snapshot of an active case, not a settled statement of Virginia law.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. A statewide preliminary injunction changes who is affected by a single circuit court's ruling. Ordinarily, a circuit court's order binds only the parties before it, which can produce uneven enforcement, a law paused in one jurisdiction while still in force in the next. By extending the injunction to bind "all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth," Judge Campbell's July 7 letter opinion attempts to avoid that patchwork for as long as the injunction stands. Whether a single circuit court judge has the authority to bind non-party agencies statewide is itself a contested legal question, and it is one the Attorney General's office has already challenged publicly.

State constitutional arms-rights challenges like this one proceed differently than federal Second Amendment litigation. They turn on the text and history of a state's own constitution and on that state's own precedents interpreting it, which can produce different standards, different procedural postures, and different outcomes than a comparable federal case would, even where the underlying constitutional language is similar. This is worth noting alongside a recent Supreme Court decision on firearm regulation, which addressed a distinct question, carry rights on private property, under the federal Constitution; the two cases are not part of the same litigation track and a ruling in one does not determine the outcome of the other. Nothing in this analysis predicts how the Virginia Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia, or the Washington County Circuit Court on a final merits ruling will resolve this case.

What Happens Next

The Virginia Attorney General's office has publicly disputed the statewide scope of Judge Campbell's order and is expected to appeal, most likely to the Court of Appeals of Virginia, with further review potentially available from the Supreme Court of Virginia. An appeal of a preliminary injunction typically asks a higher court to decide only whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting relief pending trial, not to resolve the underlying constitutional question on the merits, though appellate courts sometimes address merits issues along the way.

Absent a stay or a reversal on appeal, the injunction is set to remain in place until July 1, 2027, or until the Washington County Circuit Court issues a final order resolving the case, whichever comes first. A final order following a full trial on the merits, rather than an appeal of the preliminary injunction alone, is what would convert this into settled law one way or the other. Litigation over this and related challenges to the same 2026 law is ongoing in more than one Virginia circuit court, a dynamic comparable to another 2026 firearm-rule court fight in which a federal rule was vacated while an appeal remained possible. This article will be updated as the appeal and any related rulings develop.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. It covers Virginia law and reflects sources verified on July 11, 2026. This is a developing story involving a preliminary injunction and an expected appeal; consult a lawyer licensed in Virginia for advice on your specific situation.

Related articles

• Virginia Self-Defense Laws
• Self-Defense Laws by State
• Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii's No-Carry Default on Private Property
• ATF "Engaged in the Business" Rule Vacated Nationwide in Texas v. ATF

---

Last updated: 2026-07-11. This is a developing story; details verified as of 2026-07-11.