DOJ Sues Virginia and California Over Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions

The U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits on July 1, 2026, against Virginia and California, challenging state laws that restrict the sale of popular firearms as violations of the Second Amendment. The actions target Virginia’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles and California’s restrictions on convertible pistols and its Handgun Roster. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche described the Second Amendment as a “sacred right belonging to all Americans” and vowed to halt what the department calls blatant state overreach.

In Virginia, the DOJ sued the commonwealth and the Virginia State Police over a law banning the commercial sale of AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles. The suit alleges the measure unconstitutionally prohibits the purchase and sale of ordinary semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of Americans. The AR-15 ranks as the most popular rifle in the country, with the department arguing that the ban deprives law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

California faces separate challenges to a newly effective law restricting “machinegun-convertible pistols,” including certain Glock models equipped with features allowing conversion to automatic fire via a switch. The DOJ also targets the state’s longstanding Handgun Roster, which limits legally sellable handguns to those meeting specific safety criteria such as microstamping. The complaint seeks to block enforcement of both measures, contending they unlawfully restrict access to constitutionally protected firearms.

These suits arrive as the Supreme Court prepares to consider cases examining whether the Second Amendment protects ownership of AR-15-style rifles, including challenges to bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Recent Court rulings have expanded Second Amendment protections, including decisions striking down restrictions on firearms in certain public spaces and affirming rights for individuals facing federal prohibitions based on prior drug use. The DOJ actions align with this trajectory by asserting federal authority to defend core constitutional rights against state-level infringements.

The Virginia and California laws took effect on the same day the lawsuits were filed, reflecting ongoing state efforts to impose stricter controls on semiautomatic firearms. Proponents of the measures often cite public safety concerns, yet critics argue such restrictions primarily burden law-abiding citizens while doing little to deter criminals who obtain firearms illegally. The DOJ’s intervention underscores the Trump administration’s commitment to robust enforcement of Second Amendment guarantees nationwide.

By filing these suits, the Justice Department positions itself as a defender of individual rights against selective state disarmament policies. Virginia’s rifle ban and California’s handgun restrictions represent attempts to limit access to common firearms used for self-defense, sport, and collection. The AR-15, in particular, enjoys widespread lawful ownership and use, placing it squarely within the protections recognized in Supreme Court precedents affirming the right to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

The lawsuits carry implications beyond the two states, signaling potential federal challenges to similar restrictions elsewhere. They reinforce the principle that constitutional rights do not vary by state lines and that the federal government retains authority to intervene when states enact policies conflicting with the Bill of Rights. Industry and gun rights advocates have welcomed the moves as necessary corrections to overreaching regulations that undermine self-reliance and personal security.

As litigation proceeds, the cases will test the boundaries of state authority over firearms against federal constitutional mandates. The DOJ’s filings emphasize that lawful gun ownership remains a fundamental liberty, not a privilege subject to arbitrary state veto. With the Supreme Court poised to address related questions, these suits contribute to a broader national conversation on balancing public safety with the enduring protections of the Second Amendment. The outcomes could shape firearm policy across the country for years to come.