The charge arrived in a Justice Department press release. Announcing a federal lawsuit against Virginia's new gun law, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said "law-abiding Americans should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction for simply exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms owned by millions of their fellow citizens." [1] The Acting Attorney General added that the Second Amendment "is not a second-class right." [1]
THE CLAIM "Law-abiding Americans should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction for simply exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms..."
- Assistant AG Harmeet Dhillon, DOJ announcement, July 1 [1]
Now the evidence, exhibit by exhibit.
Exhibit A: what the law actually does
Virginia's statute bans the sale, purchase, transfer, import, and manufacture of the firearms it covers, along with magazines over 15 rounds. It does not ban possession. Every gun and every magazine Virginians already own is grandfathered - "guns and magazines already owned by Virginians would not be impacted," as Richmond's CBS affiliate put it plainly. [2] The Reload, an outlet dedicated to gun-rights coverage, states it just as flatly: the law bans sales only, not possession. [4] No Virginian faces criminal sanction for possessing anything they own.
Exhibit B: the department's own complaint
The Justice Department's filing describes the statute accurately: it says the law "makes the commercial purchase of AR-15-style rifles a crime." [3] Purchase. The press release announcing that complaint says "possess." The two documents left the same building on the same day, and only one of them is under the professional obligations that attach to a court filing.
THE RECEIPTS
- The statute bans sale, purchase, transfer, import, and manufacture - possession is untouched, and current owners keep everything. [2][4]
- DOJ's complaint: the law "makes the commercial purchase of AR-15-style rifles a crime." The press release: "possess." [1][3]
- One day before the suit, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the Second Amendment covers semiautomatic rifles at all. [5]
- A state judge had already blocked the sales ban on June 25, through at least December 31. [4]
Exhibit C: the calendar
The press release treats the right at issue as settled. The Supreme Court's docket says otherwise: on June 30 - one day before the department filed - the Court granted review in cases from the 7th and 2nd Circuits to decide whether the Second Amendment protects semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. [5] It took those cases because the question is open, and because every federal appeals court to decide it since the 2022 Bruen decision has upheld such bans; the Court had previously declined to disturb the 4th Circuit's ruling upholding Maryland's. [5]
Data
| Bans upheld | 3 |
|---|---|
| Bans struck down | 0 |
Exhibit D: the law was already blocked
There is one more date that undercuts the urgency. On June 25, a Virginia state judge enjoined the sales ban through at least the end of the year. [4] When the department filed suit to stop the law's enforcement, the law was not being enforced.
The honest version
The Justice Department is entitled to argue that Virginia's ban violates the Constitution - that is a legal position, the courts will decide it, and the Supreme Court's new cases mean the department may yet win the underlying argument. The correction here is about the description, not the position. The department told the public that owners face criminal sanction for possession. The statute, the grandfather clause, a gun-rights outlet, and the department's own complaint all say otherwise. [2][3][4]
THE BOTTOM LINE The suit is a legal argument the courts will settle. The "possession" framing is not: nobody in Virginia faces criminal sanction for possessing what they own, and the DOJ's own filing describes a purchase ban.
The verdict on the framing: misleading - and the impeaching witness is the department's own complaint. [1][3]
