Published July 1, 2026 at 7:06 PM ET · Updated July 6, 2026 at 8:04 PM ET
DOJ challenges Virginia assault-weapon law and California's Glock ban
2 independent outlets are covering this story. Verification: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets. Patriot Watch links to original reporting; we don't republish it.
The Department of Justice is challenging Virginia's assault-firearm law and California's ban on Glock handguns. Virginia's assault-firearms ban took effect amid a murky legal situation and record rifle sales.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 5 d ago, when The Reload reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 3 hr ago from Reason. Verification tier: Corroborated — reported by at least two independent outlets.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Heller struck down D.C.'s handgun ban in the home, confirming an individual self-defense right, though longstanding prohibitions and conditions on commercial sale can stay lawful. Caetano held the Second Amendment covers arms not existing at the founding and that unusual is not the same as not in common use in 1789. Whether these bans survive turns on the history test, unsettled for rifles.
District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Scalia
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The right is not unlimited: the Court noted that longstanding prohibitions (e.g., possession by felons and the mentally ill, carrying in sensitive places, conditions on commercial sale) remain presumptively lawful. D.C.'s ban on handgun possession in the home and its requirement that lawful firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
