Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, just made clear on camera that the DOJ is watching Virginia's entire gun package, not just…
The bottom line
Harmeet Dhillon, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, just made clear on camera that the DOJ is watching Virginia’s entire gun package, not just the assault weapons ban. She called out HB40 by name. She flagged HB21 by its legal theory. This is not a press release. This is an ally who actually understands what Spanberger is doing and is saying so publicly.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
Why this clip matters
Most of the mainstream coverage of the Virginia gun package has focused on SB749, the assault weapons ban. That makes sense from a headline perspective. “Virginia bans AR-15s” is a simple story that generates clicks. What it misses is that SB749, as harmful as it is, is not the bill most likely to put an innocent Virginian in prison. HB40 is. And HB21 may do more long-term structural damage to the Second Amendment in Virginia than any single carry or purchase restriction.
Harmeet Dhillon, in her remarks on April 15, demonstrated that she understands this distinction. She mentioned the assault weapons ban and the DOJ’s formal warning letter, yes. But she also specifically referenced what she called the “ghost gun bill about home manufactured firearms or firearms parts,” meaning HB40, and the law that “effectively removes immunity from gun manufacturers,” meaning HB21. She described HB21 as “designed to put gun manufacturing out of business in our country” and said it “appears inconsistent with federal law.” That is a precise and accurate legal characterization.
This is not a politician reading talking points someone handed them. Dhillon has a litigation background. She ran a law firm for years before joining the administration. When she describes HB21 as potentially preempted by federal law, she is making a substantive legal argument, not a political one.
The DOJ’s formal position on SB749
Before April 14, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division sent a formal letter to Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares warning that Virginia SB749 violates the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The Bruen decision established that for a firearms regulation to be constitutional, the government must demonstrate that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” There is no historical tradition of banning semi-automatic rifles based on cosmetic features. The AR-15 has been the best-selling rifle in America for decades. It is in common use by millions of law-abiding Americans. Under Bruen’s framework, common use is a critical factor in constitutional protection.
Dhillon’s statement confirmed what she said in that letter: “I did warn Governor Spanberger that if she signed that bill we will immediately file suit.” Spanberger did not sign it by the deadline. She sent it back to the House with amendments. In Dhillon’s words, those amendments contained “minor technical edits that don’t cure the problems identified in my letter.” So the threat of a DOJ lawsuit remains active. When the Virginia House acts on Spanberger’s amended version of SB749, if they adopt it and she signs it, expect a federal suit filed quickly.
This matters for Virginia gun owners because a federal government lawsuit is categorically different from a private lawsuit by a gun rights organization. The DOJ can move for preliminary injunctive relief with the weight of the federal government behind it. Courts take those motions seriously. If the DOJ files suit and seeks an injunction before SB749 takes effect, there is a real chance Virginia gun owners never have to live under that law while litigation proceeds.
What Dhillon understands that most commentators don’t
The assault weapons ban is the flashy bill. It is the one that gets the national coverage, the one that Everytown and Moms Demand Action hold press conferences about, the one that anti-gun politicians run on. But SB749, even if it survives legal challenge, does not turn ordinary Virginians into felons overnight. It bans future sales and transfers. Current owners are generally grandfathered. The bill is terrible, but its direct harm falls primarily on people trying to buy a covered firearm going forward.
HB40 does not work that way. HB40, the ghost gun ban with no grandfather clause, makes possession of an unserialized firearm a criminal offense after the effective date. If you own one right now, lawfully, you will be a criminal unless you take specific action to come into compliance, and that compliance path is genuinely unclear for most people. You cannot self-serialize. You have to find an FFL who offers serialization services. Most do not. In Virginia, that means most people who own affected firearms have no good option. When the possession ban takes effect, thousands of Virginians who have not committed any act of violence and who legally purchased their property will become Class 1 misdemeanants, with a second offense carrying a Class 4 felony with a mandatory minimum of two years.
That is the bill Dhillon mentioned by name. The fact that she has moved beyond the headline bill to understand the granular harm of the possession ban shows that the DOJ is doing its homework here.
HB21 is the other one she flagged. The PLCAA, passed in 2005, was specifically designed to prevent exactly what Virginia is trying to do. It bars civil suits against firearms manufacturers and dealers for harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties. The exceptions in PLCAA are narrow and specific. Virginia’s HB21 attempts to create a state-law standard of “reasonable conduct” for gun industry participants, which would serve as a predicate for civil suits that technically fall within PLCAA’s exceptions. Several states have tried versions of this theory. Courts have been skeptical. New York’s analogous law, the Sensible Firearms Enforcement Act, has faced ongoing litigation. Connecticut’s law has been partially blocked. Dhillon’s statement that HB21 “appears inconsistent with federal law” reflects the mainstream legal analysis from the gun rights community, and it is accurate.
What we actually need from the DOJ
I want to be honest about what this moment is and what it isn’t. A statement from Harmeet Dhillon is encouraging. A formal warning letter is encouraging. But neither of those things stops HB40 from taking effect. Neither of them prevents HB91’s red flag expansion from being used against Virginia gun owners. Neither of them gives back the campus carry rights that HB626 stripped away.
For those bills, the path is state-level litigation, likely funded by NRA-ILA, GOA, and VCDL, combined with a favorable reception in federal courts. Virginia falls in the Fourth Circuit, which has historically been more hostile to Second Amendment claims than, say, the Fifth or Sixth Circuits. The Fourth Circuit upheld Maryland’s assault weapons ban in Kolbe v. Hogan (2017), reasoning that covered weapons are outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. That precedent is in tension with the post-Bruen legal landscape, but it has not been overturned. Fourth Circuit judges are not uniformly going to strike these laws down.
What the DOJ can do that no private litigant can replicate is bring the weight of the federal government into a legal challenge with the resources and standing to move for emergency relief quickly. On SB749 specifically, that is a real difference-maker. The DOJ’s threat of immediate suit upon signing is the most credible deterrent Spanberger has faced. The fact that she chose to amend rather than sign the bill outright, even having signed nine others, is evidence that the threat is working.
Dhillon’s statement also signals something worth paying attention to for the medium term. The Trump administration’s DOJ is treating Second Amendment rights as a civil rights issue. The Civil Rights Division historically focuses on voting rights, discrimination, and equal protection. Placing 2A enforcement within that division signals that the administration views firearms rights as fundamental rights deserving the same federal protection as other constitutional guarantees. That is a significant institutional posture, and it sets up a framework for federal engagement with state gun control that goes well beyond Virginia.
The reality on the ground right now
Nine bills are law in Virginia today. Four more are with the House waiting for votes on Spanberger’s amendments. Five, including SB749, are still unresolved. The DOJ’s attention is welcome and real. But Virginia gun owners cannot wait for federal litigation to wind its way through the courts. They need lawyers filing in district court now, they need the VCDL actively lobbying the House against the amendments Spanberger sent back, and they need people showing up for the redistricting referendum to register their opposition to what this governor has done.
Harmeet Dhillon is an ally. The DOJ’s intervention on SB749 is meaningful. But the bills that are already law are not going to be unwound by a press statement. That work is going to be done in courtrooms and at the ballot box, and it is going to take years.
This article is based on analysis from Bearing Freedom. Watch the original video. This is commentary, not legal advice.
Get the Weekly Briefing
New analysis delivered every week. Court decisions, case updates, and expert commentary.