DOJ Challenges Sweeping Virginia Gun Ban: “This Will Not Stand,” Says Assistant AG Dhillon
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon has drawn a line in the sand regarding a proposed sweeping firearm ban by Virginia Democrats. The Department of Justice is making it clear that they will vigorously oppose this legislation, claiming it blatantly disregards the precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. “This is a blatant violation of Supreme Court precedent and it will not stand,” Dhillon asserted, echoing the sentiments of many who feel the rights of responsible gun owners are under threat.
The proposed legislation seeks to criminalize a staggering number of legally owned firearms. It specifically targets “any semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles” and aims to ban magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This means the bill could effectively outlaw many handguns and rifles commonly used for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. Remarkably, the legislation also seeks to include firearms used by law enforcement and the military…highlighting the bill’s vast overreach.
Dhillon’s comments are part of a wider strategy that the Justice Department has adopted under recent leadership. Since February 2025, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has pushed for a clear federal stance in support of Second Amendment rights. Her establishment of a Second Amendment Rights Section within the DOJ illustrates a commitment to challenging state-level firearm bans perceived as unconstitutional. Dhillon leads this section, making her a pivotal figure in this legal landscape.
The Assistant Attorney General referenced the importance of precedent in her arguments. In a previous case before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, she established that governance cannot ban arms that millions of Americans commonly use for lawful purposes. “The government cannot ban arms that are in common use for lawful purposes by millions of Americans,” she argued. Her points resonate with her current stance on the Virginia law as she emphasizes, “The right to self-defense is not a second-class right. It is fundamental.”
Legal precedent backs the DOJ’s strong opposition. The Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller reaffirmed an individual’s right to possess commonly used firearms for lawful purposes. Following that, McDonald v. City of Chicago extended this protection to state laws, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that any firearm regulation must align with historical traditions of firearms law in America. Dhillon argues that the proposed Virginia law fails to meet this constitutional test.
If enacted, the bill could impact up to 40 million Americans, many of whom would suddenly find themselves in illegal possession of their firearms. The proposed restrictions on rifles and pistols that simply use a semi-automatic function would touch nearly all modern firearms sold in the U.S. today. Notably, significant law enforcement standards also recognize a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds…leaving many lawful gun owners in a precarious situation.
Supporters of the bill claim it targets gun violence, but many critics, including Dhillon, have countered that such measures would do little to deter crime while punishing responsible gun owners. “Fear is not a justification for stripping citizens of their rights,” she commented, pointing to how the political environment often distorts discussions surrounding firearm regulations.
The backdrop of this legislative move fits into a larger trend, with various states attempting to impose restrictions on firearm access. States have even introduced bans on sharing firearm-related information with individuals under 18, forcing organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) to limit educational content on gun safety. The NRA underscored their protests against this restriction, emphasizing a significant infringement on freedom of speech.
This legislative patchwork is causing nationwide gun rights organizations and the DOJ to ramp up their responses. Virginia’s sweeping proposal stands out as particularly extreme, prompting immediate legal and political reactions. Although the proposal has yet to pass through the Virginia General Assembly, its introduction has already triggered a readiness for preemptive legal challenges from the DOJ. Internal DOJ analysis reportedly determined that the proposal could be “unconstitutional on its face,” highlighting a significant concern for the rights of gun owners.
The potential impact of this case extends far beyond Virginia; it could become a crucial legal test for gun rights in the broader national context. If the state enacts the ban, litigation is expected to follow quickly, with the DOJ indicating it would support anyone challenging the law. The likelihood of this case eventually arriving at the Supreme Court is growing.
In a charged political climate where gun control debates divide opinions sharply, Dhillon’s assertive response signals a determined approach from the DOJ. “The people of Virginia do not lose their constitutional rights just because the legislature says so,” she stated emphatically. “Rights do not stop at state borders. They belong to the people.”
This situation encapsulates the ongoing conflict between lawmakers advocating for gun restrictions and a federal administration increasingly aligned with the rights of gun owners. For now, the Virginia bill represents not just a contentious proposal but also a critical point for examining governmental authority over individual rights regarding firearm ownership.
"*" indicates required fields
