The Law Office of John Pierce, Esq.

Today brought major news in the ongoing litigation over Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity magazine” law, SB 749.

At a hearing in Lancaster County Circuit Court, in the case brought by VCDL and GOA, the judge reportedly granted a preliminary injunction preventing the Virginia State Police from enforcing SB 749. That law was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026, and would impose new restrictions on the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of certain firearms defined as “assault firearms,” as well as certain magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.

According to reports from those familiar with today’s hearing, counsel for the Commonwealth requested an immediate stay of the injunction pending appeal. The judge reportedly denied that request.

If those reports are accurate, this is a significant development. But it is not the end of the matter. In fact, for many Virginia gun owners, FFLs, NFA applicants, and firearms-industry members, today’s ruling creates a new set of urgent questions that will need to be answered in the coming days.

What the Injunction Appears to Do

Based on the reports currently available, the preliminary injunction prevents the Virginia State Police from enforcing SB 749 until December 31, 2026, or until a final order is entered, whichever occurs first.

That matters because Virginia firearm transactions generally depend upon a Virginia State Police background check approval. If the injunction prevents the State Police from denying transactions based on SB 749, then at least for now, the State Police should not be using SB 749 as the basis for denying a background check for a firearm or magazine covered by the new law.

That is the good news.

But the exact language of the written order will matter tremendously. Until the written order is available and carefully reviewed, no one should assume more than we actually know.

What the Injunction May Not Do

The most important limitation appears to be this: the injunction is against the Virginia State Police.

That means it may not directly bind local law enforcement, local Commonwealth’s Attorneys, or other officials who are not parties to the order.

That distinction matters. SB 749 is not merely a background-check statute. It creates criminal penalties for conduct involving covered firearms and magazines. If the injunction only prevents the State Police from denying background checks, it does not necessarily answer whether a local Commonwealth’s Attorney could later attempt to prosecute a sale, transfer, purchase, importation, or manufacture that occurred after July 1, 2026.

That does not mean such a prosecution would be valid. It does not mean it would succeed. It does not mean such a prosecution would be likely in every locality. But it does mean that the injunction may not be the complete statewide shield that many people are hoping it is.

FFLs Should Be Especially Careful

FFLs are likely to face some of the hardest practical questions.

If the Virginia State Police cannot deny a background check based on SB 749, can an FFL lawfully complete the transfer after July 1?

Maybe. But that is not the only question.

An FFL also has to consider whether the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacture might still be alleged to violate SB 749 by someone other than the Virginia State Police. The injunction may solve the VSP background-check problem without fully resolving the broader criminal-enforcement problem.

There is also a separate issue: HB21/SB27, Virginia’s new firearm-industry civil-liability law, is not part of this injunction.

That law creates new standards of responsible conduct for members of the firearms industry and allows civil enforcement in certain circumstances. Because HB21/SB27 was not enjoined by today’s reported ruling, FFLs and other industry members will need to consider whether sales during the injunction period could create separate civil-liability concerns, even if the State Police background check is approved.

In short, FFLs should not treat today’s news as a simple green light without further legal analysis.

The Grandfathering Problem

One of the most important unanswered questions involves the wording of SB 749’s grandfathering provisions.

The statute does not simply say that firearms or magazines possessed before the law “takes effect” are grandfathered. Instead, it repeatedly uses the date “July 1, 2026.”

That creates a serious question: what happens to items purchased after July 1, 2026, while the injunction is in place, if the injunction is later dissolved and the law is ultimately allowed to go into effect?

For example, suppose someone lawfully buys a covered firearm on July 15, 2026, while the State Police are under an injunction and therefore do not deny the transaction based on SB 749. If the injunction is later lifted and SB 749 is enforced as written, does that firearm qualify for the same grandfather protections as one purchased and possessed before July 1, 2026?

The answer is not immediately clear.

Because the statute uses a fixed date, rather than tying grandfathering to the eventual effective date of enforcement, there is a real concern that items acquired during the injunction period may not fall within the statutory grandfather language if the Commonwealth ultimately prevails.

That issue may be addressed by the courts. It may be addressed by later legislative action. It may be addressed in guidance from state officials. But as of today, gun owners should understand that the injunction may allow a transaction to proceed without answering whether the item will be grandfathered later.

NFA Items Present Another Layer of Uncertainty

The same problem may apply to NFA items.

The injunction could theoretically allow certain Form 1 or Form 4 items to proceed where SB 749 would otherwise have created a Virginia-law barrier. But NFA transfers and making applications add more layers: federal processing time, ATF review, state-law certification issues, and the timing of possession.

If an NFA item is approved after July 1, 2026, during the injunction period, but SB 749 is later allowed to go into effect, will that item be treated as grandfathered?

Again, the statutory language raises concern because it focuses on whether the item was lawfully purchased and possessed before July 1, 2026.

That may create a particularly difficult problem for short-barreled rifles, machineguns, and other items that require federal approval before lawful possession can occur. A person may have submitted paperwork before July 1, but not actually received approval or possession until after July 1. Whether that is enough will likely depend on the exact statutory language, the type of item, the transaction history, and future court rulings or agency guidance.

There is also a practical question: will ATF process and approve Form 1s and Form 4s involving items affected by SB 749 while the injunction is in place?

The answer may depend on whether ATF recognizes the injunction as sufficient to remove the state-law barrier during the injunction period. At this point, we do not have enough information to know how ATF will handle those applications.

The Commonwealth Will Almost Certainly Appeal

This ruling is very unlikely to be the last word.

The Commonwealth is expected to appeal quickly. It may seek emergency relief from a higher court. A higher court could stay the injunction, modify it, expand it, narrow it, or leave it in place. The procedural posture may also be affected by other pending challenges to SB 749 including attempts at consolidation of the various cases.

That means the legal landscape may change rapidly.

Anyone making decisions based on today’s ruling needs to understand that the ground is still moving. This is not a finished bridge. It is scaffolding in a windstorm.

What We Are Watching For

In the coming days, we will be watching for several things:

• The exact written language of the Lancaster County injunction.
• Whether a higher court stays, modifies, or dissolves the injunction.
• Whether the Virginia State Police issues guidance to FFLs.
• Whether local Commonwealth’s Attorneys or local law enforcement agencies announce how they will treat SB 749 during the injunction period.
• Whether ATF provides any indication of how it will handle Form 1 and Form 4 applications involving items affected by SB 749.
• Whether the General Assembly or Governor takes any further action before or after July 1.
• How HB21/SB27, the firearm-industry liability law, may affect FFLs and other industry members even if SB 749 enforcement by the State Police is temporarily blocked.

Bottom Line

Today’s reported ruling is unquestionably important and VCDL and GOA, and their attorneys, deserve our support and praise for the hard work that made this victory possible.  It is a major development!

But it does not answer every question.

It may not bind every potential enforcing authority. It may not protect every FFL from every risk. It may not guarantee grandfathering for items acquired after July 1, 2026. It may not control how ATF handles pending or future NFA applications. And it may be altered quickly on appeal.

For now, the safest answer is also the most honest one: we have a major development, but not yet a complete roadmap.

We will continue monitoring the case, the written order, any appeal, any agency guidance, and the practical effect on Virginia gun owners and FFLs. As soon as reliable answers are available, we will provide further updates.