More prosecutors in Virginia are saying they will not enforce the state’s new “assault firearms” restrictions, and journalist Cam Edwards says that development could become one of the most important fronts in the fight over the law.
On Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co, Edwards spoke with Armed American Radio host Mark Walters about the growing resistance from commonwealth’s attorneys, the ongoing court challenges to Virginia’s gun laws, and the broader national fight over right-to-carry restrictions after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
Edwards said a number of Virginia commonwealth’s attorneys have already come forward to say they have no plans to enforce the new restrictions, including the ban on carrying so-called “assault firearms” in public.
“I am very pleased to see these Commonwealth attorneys,” Edwards said, naming Powhatan County, Pittsylvania County, Pulaski County, and Smyth County as examples.
Walters said he had also seen signs that a fifth county may be joining that group, though he said he was still working to confirm it.
“This is really encouraging to see,” Walters said.
Prosecutors Enter The Fight
The Virginia law at the center of the discussion does not only deal with the manufacturing, sale, or transfer of certain firearms. Edwards said it also includes a related ban on carrying so-called “assault firearms” in public.
That public carry provision is what Edwards sees as especially likely to affect ordinary gun owners.
From an individual gun owner’s perspective, he said, it may be harder for authorities to proactively enforce the parts of the law that deal with illegal manufacturing or transfers. But a public carry ban could create far more chances for charges against people who are seen carrying the affected firearms.
That is why the response from prosecutors matters.
Commonwealth’s attorneys are Virginia’s local prosecutors. If they tell sheriffs and police that they will not pursue charges under a law they believe is unconstitutional, the law becomes much harder to enforce on the ground.
Walters put it bluntly: if a sheriff makes an arrest but the prosecutor will not take the case, the arrest is “going nowhere.”
This is one of the more fascinating parts of the story because it shows how enforcement can become just as important as passing a law. A statute may exist on paper, but prosecutors decide which cases actually move through court. When enough of them say no, a political victory can become a practical mess.
A Return Of The Sanctuary Spirit
Walters compared the current resistance to Virginia’s Second Amendment sanctuary movement in 2020, when many counties passed resolutions opposing new gun restrictions.
He said that if the prosecutors in those counties step up now, it could send a powerful message to Gov. Abigail Spanberger and Democratic lawmakers.
“If every one of those counties that said we will protect Second Amendment rights step up, if their prosecutors step up, you’ve got 96, 97% of the state that just told Spanberger to go pound salt,” Walters said.
Edwards agreed that the involvement of prosecutors is notable because, during the earlier sanctuary movement, most public resistance came from sheriffs and county supervisors. He said there were not as many commonwealth’s attorneys making public statements at the time.
Now, he said, the balance may be different.
“We’ve actually had more Commonwealth attorneys,” Edwards said, adding that he expects more to follow.
He said he had contacted his own local commonwealth’s attorney to ask whether he would enforce the statutes or join the other prosecutors in saying no.
That local pressure is part of what Walters said gun owners should be doing. He argued that people do not have to wait years for the next election to act. They can contact local officials, support state gun-rights groups, and push prosecutors to take a stand now.
Spanberger’s Gun Control Push Draws Fire
Edwards and Walters both argued that Spanberger’s support for the new gun restrictions is not simply a matter of political calculation.
Edwards said Spanberger had angered parts of her political coalition by vetoing other bills, including proposals dealing with retail marijuana and public bargaining for state employees. But when it came to gun control, he said, she did not use the veto pen.
“She’s basically ticked off every part of her coalition except for gun control advocates,” Edwards said.
He added that Spanberger had a history with gun-control activism before her rise in politics, saying she had been involved with Moms Demand Action.
Edwards said he believes Spanberger is a true believer in gun control, not merely a politician chasing donor money or trying to stay in the good graces of national gun-control groups.
“I think it’s personal,” Edwards said. “I think she really does want to enact these gun control laws.”
He also pointed to Spanberger’s attempt to amend Virginia’s assault firearms bill, saying she tried to make it broader by redefining “assault firearm” in a way that would affect semi-automatic firearms with magazines holding more than 15 rounds if carried in public.
To Edwards, that showed she does not believe Virginians have the right to keep and bear these commonly owned firearms.
Lawsuits Are Already Moving
Walters said several lawsuits have already been filed against the Virginia law in both state and federal court.
“The cavalry has arrived in great strength and big numbers in the state of Virginia,” he said.
Edwards noted that federal court challenges may face an obstacle because Virginia sits in the Fourth Circuit, which has already upheld Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons. He said that makes state-level litigation especially interesting.
He also said the U.S. Department of Justice is expected to sue, though that complaint had not yet been filed at the time of the discussion. The law’s effective date is July 1, so Edwards said there is still time.
Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League have also sought injunctions at the state level, according to Edwards.
The legal strategy appears to be layered. Advocates are fighting in federal court, state court, and now through local enforcement resistance.
That kind of multi-front fight is not unusual in major constitutional disputes, but it does show how high the stakes are for both sides. One court ruling may matter, but so can a prosecutor’s public statement in a rural county.
The National Right-To-Carry Battle
Edwards and Walters also connected the Virginia fight to recent court decisions over right-to-carry laws in other states.
Edwards pointed to a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision that struck down New York’s so-called “vampire rule,” which treated private property open to the public as gun-free by default unless the owner specifically allowed carry.
He said the court found no historical tradition supporting such a broad default ban.
Walters said that ruling was important because it stayed within the framework of Bruen, the Supreme Court decision that requires modern gun laws to be justified through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
He said the Second Circuit ruling made him feel even better about Wolford v. Lopez, a Hawaii case involving a similar private-property carry restriction.
Edwards and Walters also discussed sensitive-place laws in states such as Maryland, where post-Bruen restrictions have targeted parks, government buildings, public assemblies, and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Walters said he found bans on carry in places serving alcohol especially strange when viewed against American history, because taverns were common meeting places during the founding era.
“Most of this nation’s business was taken up in taverns back in the day,” Walters said.
That point highlights a larger argument gun-rights advocates keep making after Bruen: modern governments cannot simply label broad categories of public life as “sensitive places” without historical support.
“Creativity Knows No Bounds”
Walters warned that even if the Supreme Court eventually strikes down assault weapon bans, gun-control advocates will look for new ways to limit access.
He quoted gun-rights attorney Alan Gottlieb’s warning that their “creativity knows no bounds.”
Edwards agreed and said if outright bans fail, states may try something like Colorado’s approach, using permits to purchase as a way to make buying certain firearms as difficult as possible.
The hosts also discussed pending Supreme Court action on magazine bans and assault weapon bans, including cases from California, Washington, Illinois, and Connecticut. Edwards said the worst-case scenario would be the Court refusing to take those cases, which could allow some restrictions to remain in place and create serious consequences for gun owners.
For both Edwards and Walters, the Virginia law is part of a larger national pattern.
They argued that Democratic lawmakers continue to push restrictions until a court stops them, and even then, they look for another route.
State-Level Groups Take Center Stage
Walters urged viewers to support the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other state-level gun-rights organizations, even if they do not live in Virginia.
He said the point is to keep these fights from spreading.
“You do not need to live in Virginia to join VCDL,” Walters said.
Edwards agreed, saying people should support local Second Amendment groups wherever they live and help state organizations facing major battles.
Walters also mentioned Arizona and warned that other states could be next if gun-rights advocates do not act early.
The message from both men was that political fights are not only won during election season. They are fought through lawsuits, local pressure, prosecutor statements, state organizations, and public attention.
That is why the Virginia prosecutor revolt matters. It may not end the law by itself, and it may not replace a court ruling, but it changes the ground under the state’s enforcement plan.
For Edwards and Walters, the growing number of commonwealth’s attorneys refusing to enforce the ban is more than a symbolic protest. It is a warning to Richmond that a law passed at the top can still meet resistance county by county, prosecutor by prosecutor, and courtroom by courtroom.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
