Will lawmakers in Virginia accept the governor’s gun ban amendment?

Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co says Virginia lawmakers are now heading into a high-stakes decision on Governor Abigail Spanberger’s proposed changes to several gun-control bills, and one amendment in particular could create a much bigger problem for gun owners than many may have expected.

As Edwards explained, lawmakers were set to return one week after the segment aired to either approve or reject the governor’s amendments. If they accept those changes, the bills move forward in their amended form. If they reject them, the measures go back to Spanberger, who would then have to decide whether to sign the bills as originally passed or veto them.

That may sound like routine legislative cleanup. But Edwards and The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski argue this is not routine at all.

The biggest concern, they say, is that one of Spanberger’s proposed wording changes could turn a huge number of commonly carried handguns into what Virginia law would classify as “assault firearms” whenever they are paired with magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

That is a major shift, and one that could catch ordinary gun owners in a legal trap.

The Change That Could Redefine Common Handguns

Edwards laid out the issue in plain terms. The legislature had already passed a bill banning the sale, manufacture, and transfer of so-called large-capacity magazines over 15 rounds, but it did not ban possession or carrying of those magazines by people who already lawfully own them.

Gutowski says Spanberger’s amendment appears to change that in practice, even if not in a clean or straightforward way.

He explained that the governor’s revision removes the word “fixed” from the bill’s definition of an assault firearm. Under the original language, a semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capacity over 15 rounds would fall under the ban. By removing that one word, Gutowski says the language now appears to sweep in any semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a magazine capacity over 15 rounds.

That may sound small, but it is not.

As Gutowski pointed out, guns with detachable magazines do not really have a magazine capacity on their own unless you insert a magazine into them. So under the way he reads the amendment, once someone inserts a magazine holding more than 15 rounds into a common semi-automatic pistol, that gun may suddenly be treated as an “assault firearm.”

That means a standard Glock 17, SIG P365 X-Macro, or Springfield Hellcat Pro could fall into that category with its factory magazine.

And that is where the next legal problem begins.

Why Carrying Could Become The Real Target

Edwards noted that another Virginia bill does not just regulate sales. It bans the public carry of so-called assault firearms on sidewalks, streets, public parks, and other broadly accessible spaces.

That means the definition matters far beyond the gun store counter.

If Spanberger’s amendment is adopted, Edwards says Virginians who already legally own magazines over 15 rounds could find themselves carrying what the state now treats as an “assault firearm” simply by going about their day with a standard defensive handgun.

Gutowski agreed and said that seems to be the practical effect of the language, even if the drafting itself is muddy.

He also raised an even messier possibility. Because the new wording uses the term “with,” not just “inserted into,” a prosecutor or police officer could potentially argue that even carrying a spare magazine over 15 rounds alongside a handgun might be enough to trigger the definition.

That uncertainty is part of the danger here.

This is the kind of legal ambiguity that can make ordinary behavior suddenly risky. And in gun law, vague wording rarely benefits the citizen on the street.

Sloppy Drafting Or A Deliberate Move?

One of the more interesting parts of the discussion was Gutowski’s insistence that the amendment is not written clearly. In fact, he said there are a couple of ways people are reading it.

Still, he leaned toward the idea that the effect is intentional.

Gutowski said he reached out to the governor’s office for clarification but did not receive a response. He also contacted several Virginia Democrats in competitive Senate districts and said they did not respond either. That silence matters, especially because this is not some minor technical change buried in a larger bill. It could directly affect how thousands of gun owners lawfully carry firearms in daily life.

Edwards seemed to share that concern. He said the amendment creates exactly the kind of legal mess that opens the door for aggressive enforcement by anti-gun prosecutors in places like Arlington or Fairfax.

That is a fair point. When lawmakers write unclear laws and then refuse to explain them, people tend to assume the confusion is a feature, not a bug.

And for gun owners, that kind of uncertainty is more than frustrating. It can become expensive, life-altering, and even criminal.

Will Virginia Democrats Go Along With It?

That is the political question at the center of Edwards’ conversation with Gutowski.

Gutowski said lawmakers really have only two choices when they reconvene: yes or no. They cannot rewrite the governor’s changes on the floor and negotiate a middle ground. They either accept the recommendations or reject them outright.

That gives the legislature more leverage than it might seem.

Edwards argued that if lawmakers reject the governor’s amendments, Spanberger is still unlikely to veto the gun bills entirely. In his view, she is not going to anger the gun-control lobby by killing the bills just because lawmakers refused to make them even stricter.

That means the legislature may actually hold the stronger hand here.

Gutowski said that could matter, especially because some of Spanberger’s other proposed changes may irritate lawmakers for reasons that have nothing to do with gun owners. For example, one amendment reportedly removes exemptions for off-duty and retired law enforcement officers and licensed security guards from the public-carry ban.

That could create friction.

Gutowski suggested that police groups may have more influence with Democratic lawmakers than gun-rights advocates do, and if those groups object loudly enough, lawmakers may hesitate to approve the governor’s broader rewrite.

If that happens, the carry ban and the expanded assault-firearm definition may not line up the way Spanberger wants.

The Legal Fallout Could Be Bigger Than Maryland’s Ban

Edwards also raised what may be the biggest long-term consequence if the amendment passes: litigation.

He noted that the Fourth Circuit has already upheld Maryland’s assault-weapon ban, but he argued this Virginia version would be broader in a very important way. Maryland’s law, as discussed in the segment, focused on rifles like AR-15s and leaned heavily on the court’s controversial view that those firearms are close enough to military weapons to fall outside core Second Amendment protection.

This case would be different.

If Virginia’s law ends up treating common semi-automatic pistols as assault firearms merely because they are paired with ordinary magazines over 15 rounds, the legal ground shifts. Edwards said that would bring commonly owned handguns into the fight, not just rifles.

Gutowski agreed that this could change the legal calculus.

That matters because courts may be more reluctant to bless a law that criminalizes the public carry of everyday handguns that come standard with 17-round magazines than one aimed at rifles already singled out under older assault-weapon debates.

That does not guarantee a win in court. But it would likely open up a new and sharper constitutional challenge.

A One-Day Decision With Big Consequences

By the end of the conversation, neither Edwards nor Gutowski claimed to know exactly what lawmakers would do.

Edwards said there is an argument for both outcomes. Gutowski said Virginia Democrats have become much more aggressive on gun policy over the last several years, so it would be foolish to assume they will suddenly push back just because the amendment is clumsy or broad.

Still, he also said this particular move is politically odd.

Spanberger, he noted, often tries to present herself as a relatively moderate Democrat. Yet here she is not softening the assault-firearm ban. She appears to be tightening it in a way that could criminalize what many Virginia gun owners lawfully do right now.

That is not a small tweak. That is a meaningful escalation.

At bottom, Edwards and Gutowski both suggest the same thing: lawmakers are about to make a choice that could either keep these bills close to what the legislature already passed or quietly expand them into something far more sweeping.

And if they choose the second path, a lot of Virginians may not realize what changed until it is far too late.