Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Virginia gun owners just got another reminder that when anti-gun politicians talk about “public safety,” what they often mean is more control over peaceable citizens.
Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed HB40 into law, adding Virginia to the growing list of states targeting so-called “ghost guns,” the media-approved label for privately made firearms (PMFs) and unserialized frames or receivers.
Under the bill, the Commonwealth is moving to ban the manufacture, transfer, sale, importation, and eventually even possession of unserialized firearms and unfinished frames or receivers unless they are brought into the government-approved serialization system. Most of the law takes effect January 1, 2027, while the possession ban takes effect July 1, 2027.
For generations, Americans have made their own firearms for lawful personal use. It is part of the country’s history, part of the gun culture, and part of the broader understanding that free citizens do not need government permission to build lawful arms for themselves. HB40 tries to end that.
Virginia’s new law goes well beyond banning guns that anti-gun politicians love to talk about. It creates a new section of law targeting unserialized firearms and unfinished frames or receivers.
The bill makes it unlawful to knowingly import, purchase, sell, transfer, manufacture, or assemble covered items without a valid serial number, and it separately makes possession of an unserialized firearm or covered frame or receiver unlawful once the delayed possession provision takes effect. The bill also lays out a process under which a federal firearms licensee can imprint a serial number and retain transaction records.
The political sales pitch is “traceability.” The practical effect is forced serialization, mandatory paper trails, and another step toward turning a traditionally private activity into one that passes through a regulated intermediary. In plain English, Virginia is telling gun owners that if they want to keep a privately made firearm, it has to be registered in a system the government can inspect and track.
Forced serialization is not really about engraving numbers on metal. It is about forcing privately made firearms into a government-legible system.
Once the state knows what you have and where it is, confiscation becomes much easier to enforce. That is why gun owners have long viewed registration schemes not as harmless bureaucracy, but as the foundation for future confiscation.
What makes this law especially dangerous is that it does not truly grandfather in the older, privately made firearms that law-abiding Virginians already own.
Rather than leaving existing guns alone, the state is forcing owners of those firearms into a serialization and record keeping scheme if they want to remain on the right side of the law. That means this is not just a ban on future conduct.
It is a retroactive-style crackdown on possession, with only a narrow set of exceptions for antiques, certain pre-1968 firearms, some nonresidents, law enforcement, and new residents who comply within 90 days.
Under the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework, the government cannot wave around public-safety talking points and call it a day.
If the plain text covers the conduct, the burden shifts to the government to show a historical tradition of analogous regulation. That is where Virginia has a real problem.
The right to keep and bear arms necessarily assumes a right to acquire arms. And acquisition is not limited to buying from a store. Americans acquire firearms in a few obvious ways: they buy them, inherit them, or make them. A law that directly burdens the lawful making of firearms for personal use is burdening conduct that sits very close to the core of the right itself.
The state will now have to explain where, exactly, this Nation has a historical tradition of forcing peaceable citizens to serialize personally made firearms and place them into a recordkeeping system simply to keep them lawfully in the home. That is a steep hill to climb.
As Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner highlighted in his latest video, Virginia’s law also collides with the deeper American tradition of private gunmaking. As Joseph Greenlee explains in the NRA’s amicus brief in Bondi v. VanDerStok, early Americans were not treated like suspects for making their own arms. Private gunmaking was widespread, lawful, and often encouraged in a nation that understood an armed citizenry had to be capable of acquiring arms independently.
That history cuts directly against modern laws that force homemade firearms into a serialized and traceable government-readable system. In other words, Virginia is not preserving an American tradition here. It is breaking with one.
The immediate takeaway is simple: this bad law is on the books, but the key compliance dates are still ahead.
That gives gun-rights groups, affected gun owners, and potentially the Department of Justice time to decide whether and how to challenge it. Gov. Spanberger announced the signing on April 10, and the law’s staged effective dates mean the legal fight may start before the possession ban fully kicks in.
Virginia Democrats are not just regulating criminal misuse. They are targeting the idea that a free American can still make a lawful firearm outside a state-managed chain of custody.
Once the government gets the power to demand serialization and records for homemade firearms, nobody should pretend the fight ends there. The same political faction that says it only wants “untraceable guns” off the street has already shown, over and over again, that it is willing to push through any gun control it can when it has the votes.
Virginia’s HB40 is not just a “ghost gun” bill. It is a challenge to the tradition of private firearms manufacture in America and another example of lawmakers treating the Second Amendment like a regulated privilege instead of a constitutional guarantee.
Gun owners should pay close attention to what comes next, because this law is exactly the kind of measure that could become a serious Bruen test case.
And if the courts are willing to apply the Second Amendment as written instead of as hostile politicians wish it read, Virginia may have a hard time defending this one.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
They say everything is bigger in Texas, and a lawsuit recently filed by a gun club in the Lone Star State is, indeed, a big one.
On March 10, the Temple Gun Club filed a federal lawsuit challenging the federal statute that prohibits the possession and transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Temple Gun Club v. Bondi was filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of the club’s 1,000-plus members, with three individual members also listed as plaintiffs.
According to a report at Ammoland.com, the law originated as a floor amendment during the 1986 debate over the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA). Sponsored by Rep. William Hughes, D-New Jersey, the amendment was introduced with little committee review or recorded debate.
It passed by voice vote and was described by its sponsor as uncontroversial. The final law grandfathered in machine guns already registered with the ATF before the May 19, 1986, cutoff date. While it allowed continued possession by government agencies, it closed the registry to new civilian-owned machine guns.
In the complaint, Temple Gun Club is arguing that banning machine guns is outside the scope of Congress’s limited, enumerated powers, and it is an unnecessary, improper usurpation of power.
“Any ‘powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,’” the complaint states. “There are seventeen specific powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, along with the power ‘[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.’
The power to prohibit possessing a firearm is neither implicitly nor explicitly among the federal government’s powers. To the contrary, the drafters of the Constitution included a direct prohibition on ‘infring[ing]’ upon ‘the right to keep and bear Arms.’”
The complaint also notes that plaintiffs aren’t seeking total deregulation of machine guns.
“Machine guns are highly regulated at the federal level,” the complaint states. “The NFA provides a comprehensive registration and licensing scheme that tightly controls who may possess and transfer a machine gun. This case does not challenge the NFA. It only challenges Congress’s extra step in § 922(o) to ban possessing machine guns manufactured after 1986.”
Ultimately, Temple Gun Club and the other plaintiffs are asking the court to strike down the law.
“Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and that the Court: (1) declare that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs because it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers;
(2) issue a permanent injunction against the Defendants, as well as all agents, administrators, employees, or other persons acting on behalf of the Defendants, from enforcing 18 U.S.C. 922(o) against TGC and its members, including any corporations, limited liability companies, trusts, or other entities that TCG members own, control, or serve as officers, beneficiaries, or trustees.