The top prosecutor in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, told the local sheriff Friday that he will not enforce the state's newly signed bans on semiautomatic weapons and public carry, declaring the laws unconstitutional under three landmark Supreme Court rulings and daring Richmond to do something about it.
Commonwealth's Attorney G. Ryan Mehaffey laid out his position in a letter to Spotsylvania County Sheriff Roger L. Harris, the Daily Caller reported. Mehaffey cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Bruen, Heller, and Miller v. United States as the foundation for his conclusion that the new laws cannot be "lawfully enforced."
Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed the bills into law Thursday evening. Within minutes, pro-Second Amendment organizations filed suit to strike them down. By Friday morning, the county's elected prosecutor had drawn a line in the sand.
Mehaffey's letter identified two pieces of legislation by name: the Assault Weapons Ban (SB 749/HB 217) and the Public Carry Ban (SB 727/HB 1524). He did not mince words about either.
"The Assault Weapons Ban (SB 749/HB 217) and the Public Carry Ban (SB 727/HB 1524) are undoubtedly inconsistent with the historical tradition of Virginia, as articulated by Miller [v. United States], and are thus unconstitutional under Bruen."
He went further, invoking the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, the case that affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms, to make a specific point about the AR-15.
"Moreover, Heller secures the right of Virginians to keep and bear the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15."
That characterization tracks with industry data. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated in a January release that over 32 million "modern sporting rifles," a category that includes the AR-15, are in circulation across the country. Banning a firearm owned by tens of millions of Americans raises obvious constitutional questions under the framework the Supreme Court established in Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation.
Mehaffey is not operating in a vacuum. Spotsylvania County had already declared itself a "Second Amendment sanctuary," a designation adopted by dozens of Virginia localities in recent years as the state legislature moved leftward on gun policy.
Andrew "Drew" Mullins, the vice chair of the Spotsylvania County Board of Supervisors, praised Mehaffey's letter in a post on X. Mullins framed the prosecutor's stance as part of the county's broader posture of resistance.
"My good friend and fellow Oath Keeper, Commonwealth Attorney Ryan Mehaffey is supporting our resolution declaring Spotsylvania County a 2A Sanctuary county. We will not comply with Governor Spanberger's infringement on our unalienable Constitutional rights."
That kind of language from a county official, "We will not comply", signals that this is not just one prosecutor freelancing. It reflects a local government that has decided, as a matter of policy, that Richmond has overstepped.
Virginia's political landscape has grown increasingly contentious in recent months. Democrats have suffered setbacks at the U.S. Supreme Court on redistricting, and the broader fight over the boundaries of state power is playing out on multiple fronts.
Mehaffey's defiance comes as the Trump administration has signaled it is willing to challenge state and local gun bans in court. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon posted on X Thursday night in what the Daily Caller described as a signal of the administration's intent to sue over Virginia's new laws.
The Department of Justice has already moved against similar restrictions elsewhere. On May 5, DOJ sued the city of Denver over a comparable ban. The next day, May 6, it filed separate litigation seeking to throw out Colorado's magazine ban. The pattern is clear: the federal government is building a legal campaign against what it views as unconstitutional firearms restrictions at the state and local level.
That campaign gives local prosecutors like Mehaffey a powerful tailwind. When a county attorney refuses to enforce a state law and the federal government is simultaneously suing to invalidate similar laws in other states, the political and legal pressure on governors like Spanberger intensifies considerably.
The redistricting battles in Virginia offer a useful parallel. Democrats have repeatedly run to federal courts when state-level outcomes went against them, testing the limits of judicial intervention. Now the shoe is on the other foot: it is conservatives invoking constitutional protections against a Democratic governor's legislative agenda.
Gov. Spanberger did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. That silence is worth noting. A governor who signs two major gun bills into law on a Thursday evening, and faces a county prosecutor's public refusal to enforce them by Friday morning, plus immediate litigation from Second Amendment groups, plus signals from the federal government, might be expected to defend her position.
The speed of the backlash is itself remarkable. Pro-Second Amendment organizations filed suit within minutes of the signing. Mehaffey's letter followed the next day. Dhillon's post came Thursday night. The opposition was organized, immediate, and multi-layered.
Virginia Democrats have shown a pattern of pushing aggressive policy changes and then scrambling when courts push back. The narrowly approved redistricting plan that was later challenged as unconstitutional is one example. The gun bans may be another.
Mehaffey's argument rests on solid recent precedent. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen fundamentally changed the legal landscape for gun regulation. Under Bruen, the government bears the burden of showing that a firearms restriction is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of regulation. That is a high bar, one that blanket bans on widely owned semiautomatic rifles may not clear.
The Heller decision, meanwhile, established that the Second Amendment protects arms "in common use" for lawful purposes. With over 32 million modern sporting rifles in circulation, the AR-15 plainly qualifies. A state ban on a firearm owned by that many Americans faces an uphill legal fight under the framework the Supreme Court has laid down.
None of this means the courts will ultimately agree with Mehaffey. But his legal reasoning is not a fringe argument. It tracks the logic that federal courts have been applying with increasing frequency since Bruen was decided.
The broader political dynamic in Virginia has grown more volatile as Democrats have pushed the boundaries of their legislative power. Their attempts to block unfavorable court rulings in the redistricting fight suggest a pattern: act first, deal with constitutional objections later.
Several open questions remain. The full text of Mehaffey's letter has not been publicly released beyond the excerpts reported. It is unclear whether other Virginia prosecutors will follow his lead, though the number of localities that have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries suggests he may not be alone for long.
Sheriff Harris, the recipient of the letter, has not publicly commented on whether his office will follow the prosecutor's guidance. In Virginia's system, the Commonwealth's Attorney holds the charging power, which means Mehaffey's refusal to prosecute effectively neutralizes enforcement in his jurisdiction regardless of what the sheriff's office does.
The litigation filed by pro-Second Amendment groups will move through the courts on its own timeline. The Trump administration's potential involvement, signaled by Dhillon's post, could add federal weight to those challenges. And if DOJ's actions against Denver and Colorado are any guide, the administration is prepared to litigate aggressively.
Spanberger signed her bills. The ink was barely dry before the legal and political resistance materialized from every direction. A county prosecutor, a county board, Second Amendment organizations, and the federal government all moved within hours.
When a law provokes that kind of immediate, multi-front opposition, from local officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, from national organizations, and from the federal government itself, it is worth asking whether the governor who signed it was defending public safety or picking a constitutional fight she cannot win.