DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

 

For years, gun owners have watched blue-state politicians pass one unconstitutional restriction after another while the federal government mostly stood on the sidelines. That may be changing.

In a April 10, 2026, letter to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon put the Commonwealth on formal notice: if Virginia enacts a slate of anti-gun bills now sitting on the governor’s desk, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is prepared to sue.

That is the federal government warning a state executive, in writing, that certain proposed gun-control measures appear to violate the Second Amendment and will trigger litigation if signed into law.

The biggest target named in the letter is SB 749, which DOJ says would force Virginia law enforcement agencies to participate in “a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

For ordinary gun owners, this is the heart of the issue. Anti-gun lawmakers have incessantly sought to ban the most popular rifles in America as “public safety” measures. AR-15 pattern rifles are not rare, unusual, or outside the American tradition of lawful ownership. They are among the most commonly owned rifles in the country, used for home defense, recreation, training, and competition by millions of law-abiding citizens.

Dhillon’s letter cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, noting the Court described AR-15s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” She also cites Garland v. Cargill, including Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, for the proposition that AR-15s are “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.” The letter then points to Justice Kavanaugh’s statement respecting denial of certiorari in Snope v. Brown, which referenced arms possessed by “literally tens of millions of Americans.”

In a footnote, the letter acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit currently has contrary precedent, citing Bianchi v. Brown, the case upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons. But DOJ flatly says that the case was wrongly decided. That is a major statement. Federal agencies do not lightly send a governor a formal warning letter saying a controlling appellate decision in that circuit was wrong.

The letter also goes beyond rifle bans. Dhillon warns that bills requiring constitutionally protected firearms to be kept in an inoperable state are unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.

Gun-control advocates love to market storage mandates as “common sense,” but the actual effect is often to make a defensive firearm less useful when seconds matter most. Heller dealt with that problem directly when it struck down a requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. A gun locked up in a way that prevents ready access for self-defense is not much use when someone kicks your door in at 2 a.m.

Dhillon says Virginia lawmakers have sent the governor several bills that would mirror restrictions struck down in Heller or otherwise interfere with the lawful use of protected arms for self-defense. She then broadens the warning further, stating that the General Assembly has forwarded “over 20 bills” restricting Second Amendment rights.

The Civil Rights Division has now formally created a Second Amendment Section and has already begun bringing Second Amendment cases in federal district and appellate courts. States like Virginia may no longer be able to assume they can pass whatever they want and dare private plaintiffs to spend years and fortunes challenging it.

Under Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has already begun treating the Second Amendment like an actual civil right instead of a constitutional orphan. Her division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over concealed-carry permit delays after reviewing thousands of applications, sued the District of Columbia over its ban on registering AR-15s and other common semiautomatic firearms, and sued the Virgin Islands Police Department over licensing practices DOJ said reduced the right to bear arms to a “virtual nullity.”

Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division has also filed amicus briefs backing gun owners in major appellate fights, including California’s ammunition background-check case in Rhode v. Bonta and the New Jersey challenge to bans on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines. In other words, Virginia is not hearing empty talk. It is hearing from a DOJ Civil Rights Division that has already started building a record of intervening when governments treat the Second Amendment as optional.

Of course, gun owners should stay realistic. This letter is not a court order. It is not an injunction. It does not prevent Virginia from enacting these bills on its own. If the Governor Spanberger signs them, litigation will still take time, no matter how aggressive the DOJ chooses to be. It also does nothing to solve the news that the ATF and DOJ plan to enforce Biden-era gun control, as well as a long list of recent betrayals.

However, it is still significant that a formal warning from the Civil Rights Division was sent before the bills were signed into law. It tells Virginia lawmakers and the governor that they are not just picking a fight with gun-rights groups anymore. They may be picking a fight with the federal government as well.

That is exactly what should happen when a state moves to ban some of the most common firearms in America and restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep usable arms for self-defense.

For too long, anti-gun politicians have behaved as though the Second Amendment is the one constitutional right they can regulate, narrow, and insult without consequence. Virginia may be about to learn that this approach comes with consequences after all.

If Governor Spanberger signs these bills, the next fight may not just be in Richmond. It may begin with the Department of Justice walking into federal court and telling a judge that Virginia crossed a constitutional line.