We Had Another Massive Second Amendment Win Today

No doubt, the Supreme Court ruling striking down Hawaii’s law limiting carry rights was huge. Following the 2022 Bruen decision, Hawaii attempted to impose unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry permit holders, including a ban on carrying firearms on private property. They would need to ask for permission to enter places like coffee shops or grocery stores. It was a great win for civil rights. Later today, we had another big win in Virginia: the ban on so-called assault weapons has been slapped with an injunction (via Courthouse News):

Today, a Virginia court put an injunction on this unconstitutional gun ban. Bangladesh lost.

Virginians can still buy AR-15s on July 2. Go get yours! https://t.co/AUOnACyFkP
— NOVA Campaigns (@NoVA_Campaigns) June 25, 2026

Bad day for gun grabbers.

Get fucked, nerds. pic.twitter.com/vIQ5Zu4WWx
— Hard Pass (@HardPass4) June 25, 2026

Note: The Lancaster County ruling also temporarily enjoins the magazine capacity limitation of 15-rounds.
— Philip Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) June 25, 2026

Rough day for gun grabbing dweebs nationwide. pic.twitter.com/5datUipQrV
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) June 25, 2026

A judge in rural Virginia sided with gun rights activists Thursday, barring state police from enforcing an assault weapons ban set to take effect July 1.
Lancaster County Circuit Judge John Martin issued the preliminary injunction from his bench in favor of Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League and resident John Crump, finding the commonwealth unlikely to succeed in arguing the impending law doesn’t run afoul of the state’s constitution.
In the hearing, which took a little over two hours, Crump and the organizations argued that the newly passed law conflicts with a provision of the Virginia Constitution enshrining the right to keep and bear arms, added in 1971.
“Article I, Section 13 is the commonwealth’s recognition of a pre-existing right with which Virginians were endowed by their creator, and it operates as a fixed limitation on the power of government to enact legislation affecting firearms,” the plaintiffs said in a motion.
Martin denied the commonwealth’s attempt to separate the state court’s analysis from the analysis the Supreme Court requires of federal courts following its 2022 decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen.
Martin held that the federal analysis — which requires the government to demonstrate that the challenged gun regulation is rooted in the historical tradition of firearm regulations rather than engaging in interest-balancing or policy-laden analyses — is instructive.
The plaintiffs rebutted the commonwealth’s assertion that the weapons at issue aren’t in common use and are thus not the bearable arms protected by the Second Amendment.
“They are not just common, they are ubiquitous,” attorney David Browne of Spiro & Browne, representing the plaintiffs, told the judge. “The challenged statutes in this case concern some of the most commonly used arms and magazines in the nation."