Interesting point of view.
The Virginia Democrats’ gun legislation is reactionary, not progressive
The United States is an empire, with the most powerful military in the world. It’s also one of only two nations in the world with the right to bear arms enshrined in its founding legal documents, the other being Guatemala. The Second Amendment is considered by many to be the amendment that safeguards all other rights.
Nevertheless, many people have seen the Second Amendment as harmful due to the presence of powerful firearms, such as semi-automatics, in the hands of U.S. civilians. They point to tragedies, especially mass shootings, as justification for regulating firearms.
They see the “well-regulated militia” statement as a caveat that limits what firearms we can possess, claiming that “weapons of war” shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians. They see those who believe in these so-called weapons of war being in the hands of civilians as inherently taking a normatively right-wing standpoint.
For the sake of testing this argument, we can acknowledge that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed only within the context of where there’s a well-regulated militia in the context of the necessity of the security of a free state. In that case, we must also understand what follows if we investigate the premise that the state itself has refused to self-regulate. When the state refuses to self-regulate, we can come to the conclusion that the civilian populace being armed to counter the unregulated militia becomes, in a sense, the regulation of the unregulated militia.
To those who call themselves progressive and also call themselves pro-gun control or pro-gun ban, I ask you to consider your thought process. Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it’s enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Is it a well-regulated militia when it’s engaging in wars to further the longstanding goals of American imperialism that benefit the richest and most powerful, such as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current war in Iran? Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it violates Americans’ constitutional rights, prioritizes corporate interests and targets people based on race?
To me, the answer is no, in all of these cases. Nevertheless, gun-control advocates seem to believe that the government and military is more entitled than the civilian populace, which does not engage in these acts. The irony, to me, is that many within the gun-control advocacy sphere also happen to oppose at least one or more of the aforementioned operations. I join them in opposition to these actions, but I find their belief in disarming the populace to be self-defeating.
In any case, the Virginia Democrats have held full control of the general assembly and the governorship in Virginia, since their sweeping victory in November 2025. When they strengthened their control in the government in November 2019, they attempted gun control legislation, including an assault weapons ban, but abandoned the attempt in 2020. Now, in 2026, the political landscape is different. The Virginia Democrats not only have the votes juridically, but also the drive to push forth highly restrictive gun legislation that might violate the Second Amendment.
The worst of them all is Senate Bill 749, which bans any weapons defined as “assault weapons,” stretching the original definition of the national ban on assault weapons to semi-automatic rifles and other similar firearms. It also bans magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. This bill has a “grandfather clause,” which means firearms banned under this law remain legally possessed if obtained before the law took effect. To possess a grandfathered firearm under this legislation, you must be at least 21 years old. Violating the law is a Class 1 misdemeanor, of which reckless driving and some domestic abuse crimes also fall under the category in Virginia.
The grandfather clause might seem like a sweet deal for those who have these weapons, but it has implications that I see as rather alarming. Transgender people have recently begun to see gun ownership as a necessity, considering the stochastic terrorism that has been incited against them over the past five years. If Gov. Abigail Spanberger signs the bill into law, she’s kneecapping them from obtaining certain firearms. A similar parallel can be drawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, which, if not juridically, did effectively have a grandfather clause in a similar sense for nations that had already obtained nuclear weapons. While this was framed as a cornerstone of international law to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, it also gave rise to the landscape that gave special credence to imperial domination to nations that already had them. This has led to significant power imbalances, as well as international law becoming somewhat of a hypocritical mental gym.
There’s also Senate Bill 496, which makes it a Class 4 misdemeanor to leave a handgun in an unattended vehicle where the gun isn’t securely stored in a locked container. The locked container also has to be secured to the vehicle’s interior through some form of modification, such as welding. This means that if you report a crime of theft to the police, they could end up citing you. This will likely mean many similar crimes of theft will go unreported, which could lead to an increased risk of smash-and-grab in Virginia.
Beyond just bans and storage laws are laws that expand the state’s capacity to disarm, such as Senate Bill 495, and restrictions on your ability to carry, such as Senate Bill 727. S.B. 495 expands the eligibility for filing a petition to a court to have a judge order the disarmament of an individual. Now, struggling with alcohol use could be enough to justify a petition for disarmament by a spouse or other close individual. The threat of violence does not even need to be present.
In my view, being drunk a couple of nights or having periodic alcohol struggles shouldn’t by itself be a reason for a judge to justify forced disarmament. If there’s no threat of violence, the petition should end instantly. S.B. 727 bans carrying semi-automatic firearms with magazines over 10 rounds in public. The bill also bans open carry for a significant number of firearms already owned by many Virginians.
As mentioned earlier, these laws may violate the Second Amendment, but some judges and justices may not acknowledge this. That being said, Clarence Thomas — despite being controversial in many ways — has been very skilled in either rallying the Supreme Court behind landmark decisions strengthening the Second Amendment, writing strong concurrences in favor of gun rights and dissenting in rulings against gun rights. At least two landmark Supreme Court cases in favor of the Second Amendment were written by him, namely In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) and Garland v. Cargill (2024). The hope is that, in the wave of gun control going on across states in 2026, Thomas will be able to replicate that strategy and mobilize at least four other justices to create a 5-4 majority in favor of striking down these gun laws.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, in a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court decided that restrictive licensing laws in New York were unconstitutional. Thomas writes that “to support that claim, the burden falls on respondents to show that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Thomas saved New York from irrational licensing requirements that year. That being said, I even quibble at his wording here. I don’t believe that an originalist interpretation is even necessary for gun rights absolutism, nor do I believe it’s an ideal or rational path to take. Gun control is rooted in racism and classism. Current gun owner culture, however, is highly individualistic and not based on community defense. The Black Panther Party understands the necessity for weapons that can match, at least to some degree, the state and its institutions.
The media has disparaged the likes of the Black Panther Party for decades, deriding them as overly radical and dangerous. I merely see them as militant, to which they have a right to be. The likes of Fred Hampton, Malcolm X and Assata Shakur pushed for a more developed social consciousness surrounding the reality of American imperialism and racism. Even MLK, who was against any militant rhetoric or militant organizing, couldn’t deny the reality that peaceful civil rights activists of the time — including himself — returned home to highly armed communities after protesting for a reason.
In February 2025, white supremacists and neo-nazis marched into Lincoln Heights, Ohio. The Black community held an armed watch to ensure these outside actors did not cause harm to their community. There are pictures of people armed with semi-automatics during this event, which are legal to carry openly in Ohio. These people were in full justification to be on high alert. This is highly understood by the Black community following the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921. Those who make the argument that the presence of arms in the hands of civilians goes both ways should understand that having no arms in the hands of civilians renders groups who are primary targets of discrimination entirely toothless, which I see as much worse than the current landscape.
Contact Patrick Hanover at hanovepv@dukes.jmu.edu.