By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
The Second Amendment Foundation has become a legal powerhouse on the gun rights battlefield, and the organization just announced its financial support for a case challenging Virginia’s newly-adopted ban on so-called “assault firearms” which takes on the fight from a unique perspective.
The case is brought by former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. Unlike other actions against the law, signed by Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger, this one comes at the new law from a militia perspective. The complaint may be read here.
“Unlike other lawsuits filed challenging this ‘assault weapons’ ban, this case is unique in that plaintiffs are arguing they have the right to buy the banned arms to preserve their ability to function as the militia that is preserved under the Virginia constitution’s Militia Clause,” Cuccinelli said. “Most other cases are making Heller-like arguments, and we feel this case is a good vehicle to ensure this unconstitutional ban is looked at by the court from every angle.”
Virginia’s militia clause has been described as very strong. Historians might say this is not surprising, considering how much of the Revolutionary War was fought there, and how many of the Founders resided there.
The case was filed in the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court. Cuccinelli is representing three Virginia residents, John R. Holloway—individually and in his capacity as a member of the Virginia Unorganized Militia—Margaret A. Stafford, also individually and in her capacity as a member of the militia and James T. Whitfield, individually and head of Whitfield Firearms Instruction & Training. He is a certified firearms instructor. Also involved as a plaintiff is Blue Ridge Arms & Sporting Goods, a licensed firearms dealer.
Defendants are Col. Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police; Major General James W. Ring, adjutant general of the Commonwealth of Virginia; G. Ryan Mehaffey, Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney, and Spotsylvania County Sheriff Roger L. Harris, all in their official capacities.
The complaint opens with a quote from the Virginia Constitution, Article I, Section 13, which states, “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state.”
According to the lawsuit, “Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13. Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing. It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”
“We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – Virginia lawmakers outright lied to their constituency when they said these new laws aren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “As we’ve seen in the news lately, numerous county prosecutors across Virginia have publicly stated they will not enforce this new ‘assault weapons’ ban. When the people who enforce the laws are refusing do so it should be a wakeup call for lawmakers that they passed an unconstitutional law.”
“While SAF is already a named plaintiff in our own federal Second Amendment challenge McDonald v. Katz, we felt it important to support this unique lawsuit,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “When it comes to vindicating the rights of our members, we will pursue every viable legal option. We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to support this state court challenge with Mr. Cuccinelli and think it complements our ongoing federal challenge very nicely.”
