Virginia Democrats thought they scored a major victory when Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a sweeping new “assault weapons” ban into law last week.
Instead, they may have kicked off a constitutional cage match they weren’t ready for.
One Virginia prosecutor is already refusing to enforce the measure, blasting it as a direct assault on the Second Amendment and the very idea of an armed citizenry — you know, the thing the Founders seemed pretty serious about before modern politicians decided muskets were apparently the only acceptable firearms.
Ryan Mehaffey, the Marine veteran serving as commonwealth’s attorney in Spotsylvania County, says he won’t prosecute Virginians under the new law because he believes it flatly violates both the U.S. Constitution and Virginia’s constitution.
And unlike the carefully focus-grouped language pouring out of Richmond, Mehaffey’s message was crystal clear. In a letter to Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris, the prosecutor declared the law “unconstitutional and cannot be lawfully enforced.” That’s a pretty awkward speed bump for Democrats hoping to roll out the legislation as a public safety triumph ahead of this summer.
The new law bans the future sale and manufacture of many semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, while also outlawing magazines holding more than 15 rounds. Supporters insist the crackdown will reduce gun violence. Critics argue it punishes lawful owners while criminals continue doing what criminals do best — ignoring laws.
Spanberger pitched the legislation as a “critical step toward protecting families, communities, and the law enforcement officers who serve them,” saying she signed it because “firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets.”
But Mehaffey says the governor’s office is ignoring the historical backbone of the Second Amendment altogether. “Our founders were careful to make sure when they drafted our founding document, that the ultimate right of the people was preserved to defend themselves and to defend their community,” he said. “So, the linchpin of the constitutional analysis is going to be does this instrument have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a regulated militia.”
That’s the part gun-control activists tend to skip over while pretending the Second Amendment only protects duck hunters and guys named Earl polishing antique revolvers in the garage.
Mehaffey argued that America’s founding generation expected citizens to possess ordinary military-style arms suitable for collective defense. In the 1700s, that meant muskets. Today, he notes, the standard infantry weapon used by the U.S. military is the M4A1 carbine paired with a 30-round magazine.
“The second amendment may not mean that you are allowed to have a nuclear weapon,” Mehaffey said. “But what it does allow you to have is a basic infantry weapon.
“That sort of weapon is the core of what’s protected by the Second Amendment. Not necessarily a nuclear warhead, but a rifle that you can take out and form either a fire team or a company to defend yourself and to defend your community.”
And Mehaffey isn’t standing alone.
Smyth County Commonwealth’s Attorney Phillip Blevins, an Air Force veteran, also announced he won’t enforce the law, saying: “My position is not based on politics. It is based on constitutional fidelity.” “The Bill of Rights either means something, or it does not,” Blevins added.
Gun-rights organizations are already gearing up for court fights, with lawsuits expected from the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation as the law’s implementation date approaches.
The legal landscape has also shifted dramatically in recent years after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision forced courts to measure gun laws against America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation — a standard that has put progressive gun restrictions under far heavier scrutiny. Simply calling something “common sense gun reform” doesn’t magically make it constitutional.
Mehaffey says his stand has drawn overwhelming support from locals who are tired of watching politicians in Richmond treat constitutional rights like optional suggestions. “The Second Amendment is the supreme law of the land, both in the U.S. Constitution and the analog in the Virginia Constitution,” he said. “So, whatever law is passed by the General Assembly is not going to have the ability to supersede the Constitution.”
For now, Virginia’s gun-control push is colliding headfirst with prosecutors who appear perfectly willing to tell the state: come and enforce it yourself.
Video interview: Fox News Digital
