Virginia Commonwealth’s attorneys, sheriffs have duty not to enforce gun ban
A new gun ban signed into law by recently elected Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia banning so-called assault weapons (SB-749) is facing some resistance from several of the Commonwealth’s attorneys and sheriffs who believe that it’s their duty under the Constitution to ignore the ban and not enforce it.
Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the governor and leftist members of the state legislature who believe otherwise, these attorneys and sheriffs have every right under the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia State Constitution to do exactly as they are doing. We begin with the Commonwealth’s attorneys (via WRIC 8News):
Several Commonwealth’s attorneys said they won’t enforce a new Virginia law that Democrats have called an “assault weapons ban.”
The top prosecutors in Pulaski, Powhatan, and Spotsylvania counties said they won’t enforce the new law, which is set to take effect on July 1, with some citing constitutional concerns and prosecutorial discretion.
“The code of Virginia is just not ever gonna be able to supersede constitutional law, and when constitutional law is clear on the point, I have to remain faithful to the supreme law of the land, and that’s the U.S. and the Virginia Constitutions,” Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ryan Mehaffey told 8News.
Mehaffey said previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings make it clear that the Second Amendment protects the firearms that the new law affects. “Firearms that are in common use are gonna be permitted under the Second Amendment. Under Bruen, any restrictions have to be consistent with the historical tradition of the nation, and in Virginia, the historical tradition was not only to permit people to have AR-15s or basic infantry weapons, but it required them to do so in Virginia’s historical tradition.”
Meanwhile, Pulaski County Commonwealth’s Attorney Justin Griffith said in a letter, in part, “enforcement of criminal laws is at the discretion of the Commonwealth’s Attorney of each locality.” Griffith added, “I am not going to take law-abiding citizens as of June 30, 2026 and criminalize that same behavior on July 1, 2026 solely on the basis of this new law.”
A statement made by a spokesperson for Spanberger said, “Governor Spanberger believes that firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on Virginia streets. This important step to protect families, law enforcement officers, and communities from gun violence was passed by majorities in the General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor. The people of Virginia must be able to trust that all Commonwealth’s Attorneys will uphold the rule of law and keep Virginians safe.”
Well, governor, prepare to lower your expectations. While the Commonwealth’s attorneys are generally required to enforce laws within their jurisdiction, they have complete discretion not to do so if such laws violate state and/or federal legal principles. In states like Virginia, this discretion can be exercised for reasons such as lack of evidence, insufficient harm, or policy considerations — and in some cases, they can refuse to enforce a law if they believe it conflicts with constitutional rights or historical precedent.
In other words, if a law is unconstitutional, a Commonwealth’s attorney cannot enforce it, and in some cases, they may decline to do so to avoid violating the U.S. Constitution. Sheriffs also have the power to ignore and refuse to enforce laws deemed unconstitutional.
In 2019, a group of sheriffs in Colorado took a stand against tyranny when they declared that they wouldn’t be enforcing red flag laws passed in the state at the time. Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams was the leader of this effort to protect and defend the Constitution as he is sworn to do.
A more recent story took place in the bluest of blue states, Illinois, where sheriffs took a stand in defense of the Second Amendment by refusing to enforce the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), a law that prohibited possession of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and paved the way for expedited universal background checks. PICA also sought to establish a state-level gun registry by requiring owners of weapons restricted under the new law to register with state police.
Amazingly, but not surprisingly, legislators from both parties are dismayed in the face of such resistance. According to the constitutionally ignorant “representatives” in most states, sheriffs who refuse to enforce gun control laws are essentially committing a crime. In reality, however, these sheriffs are doing exactly what they’re supposed to do under the Constitution; at least that’s what the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago when another unconstitutional anti-gun law was tried.
When Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Brady Bill) into law in 1993, sheriffs in several states refused to enforce it and sought to have it struck down as unconstitutional. Sheriffs Richard Mack of Graham County, AZ and Jay Printz of Ravalli County, MT filed a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court, and in a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS ruled that sheriffs weren’t required to enforce the law because it violated the Tenth Amendment.
Writing for the majority, Antonin Scalia said the decision was rooted in the fact that the Founding Fathers created a powerful local government as a check against an oppressive federal and/or state government. Quoting President James Madison, Scalia said:
“[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” (Federalist 39)
The office of sheriff is unique in that he/she is directly responsible to the people of his/her county, not the government or the courts. Sheriffs are elected, not appointed, and they have complete authority to reject the acts of any agency of the government if those acts violate the rights of the people. Sheriffs hold executive power and can set up a court, empanel a jury, and form a militia or posse to protect the rights of those he/she represents.
Using words that sound almost prophetic in the anti-Second Amendment environment in states like Virginia, President James Madison confirmed that citizens not only have a right to be armed, but he also confirmed the power of local government to protect citizens against a tyrannical federal or state government.
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” (Federalist 46)
In Virginia (and in every other state for that matter), local authorities such as a Commonwealth’s Attorney or the sheriff are the highest government authority in his/her county, higher than the governor and even the President of the United States, which means that not only can they refuse to enforce Spanberger’s gun laws . . . they would be negligent in their duties to do otherwise.
David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties. He is the author of The New Axis of Evil: Exposing the Bipartisan War on Liberty.
Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.
Subscribe to receive podcasts of his daily radio feature: iTunes | Pandora | Tune In | iHeart | RSS
For media inquiries or to have David speak to your group, use the Contact Us form.
