Mathew Silverman is the National President of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and a board member for Law Enforcement Today.
--
In a recent session of the Virginia House of Delegates, lawmakers advanced House Bill 217, sponsored by Dan Helmer, which would prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, and transfer of certain defined “assault firearms” and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
The bill passed 58 to 34 and now moves forward in a markedly different political climate, one where similar proposals are far more likely to become law.
Supporters call it long overdue public safety reform. Opponents warn it is a direct collision with the Second Amendment.
Both sides claim to stand on principle. What is often missing from the debate is a serious discussion about constitutional limits and the role of law enforcement.
Under HB217, violations would constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying the possibility of a three-year prohibition on purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms. Individuals under 21 would face criminal penalties for possession, transport, or sale, with limited exceptions. These are not minor regulatory adjustments. They are criminal statutes with real consequences for otherwise law-abiding Virginians.
The constitutional tension stems largely from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, not simply justified by modern policy preferences. The decision significantly narrowed the framework courts use to evaluate gun laws.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore warned the bill “blatantly defies” Supreme Court precedent and predicted extensive litigation. He may be right. If enacted, HB217 will almost certainly face immediate legal challenge under the Bruen standard.
Beyond the courtroom, there is another concern that deserves serious attention.
Law enforcement officers do not write the law. Agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enforce statutes enacted by Congress and state legislatures. Local and state officers enforce the laws passed by their General Assembly. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to political parties or shifting majorities.
When legislation pushes into contested constitutional territory, officers can find themselves tasked with enforcing a statute that may later be struck down. That dynamic creates operational confusion, exposes agencies to civil litigation, and risks eroding public trust.
There is a growing narrative in parts of the country that law enforcement is being used to attack the Second Amendment. That characterization is inaccurate. The role of law enforcement is not to undermine constitutional rights. It is to enforce duly enacted laws while protecting law-abiding citizens.
At the same time, state legislatures must be careful not to place officers in the position of becoming the front line of constitutional experimentation.
The debate over HB217 is not merely about firearms. It is about the proper balance between public safety and constitutional fidelity. It is about whether the Commonwealth can achieve meaningful violence reduction without criminalizing broad categories of conduct that courts may ultimately deem protected.
Democrats argue these measures are necessary in light of rising firearm deaths and repeated mass shootings. Republicans contend the legislation tramples constitutional rights and invites costly legal challenges. The political momentum is clear. Constitutional durability is another matter entirely.
If HB217 becomes law, the courts will likely be the final arbiter. Until then, Virginians deserve clarity, precision, and restraint, not vague definitions that leave citizens guessing whether they are now criminals.
Public safety and the Second Amendment are not mutually exclusive. Neither can be advanced by ignoring the constitutional framework that governs both.
In the end, the rule of law depends on something simple but profound. Legislatures must legislate within constitutional bounds. Courts must adjudicate faithfully. Law enforcement must enforce with integrity.
That balance is not partisan. It is foundational.
--
In a recent session of the Virginia House of Delegates, lawmakers advanced House Bill 217, sponsored by Dan Helmer, which would prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, and transfer of certain defined “assault firearms” and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
The bill passed 58 to 34 and now moves forward in a markedly different political climate, one where similar proposals are far more likely to become law.
Supporters call it long overdue public safety reform. Opponents warn it is a direct collision with the Second Amendment.
Both sides claim to stand on principle. What is often missing from the debate is a serious discussion about constitutional limits and the role of law enforcement.
Under HB217, violations would constitute a Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying the possibility of a three-year prohibition on purchasing, possessing, or transporting firearms. Individuals under 21 would face criminal penalties for possession, transport, or sale, with limited exceptions. These are not minor regulatory adjustments. They are criminal statutes with real consequences for otherwise law-abiding Virginians.
The constitutional tension stems largely from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, not simply justified by modern policy preferences. The decision significantly narrowed the framework courts use to evaluate gun laws.
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore warned the bill “blatantly defies” Supreme Court precedent and predicted extensive litigation. He may be right. If enacted, HB217 will almost certainly face immediate legal challenge under the Bruen standard.
Beyond the courtroom, there is another concern that deserves serious attention.
Law enforcement officers do not write the law. Agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives enforce statutes enacted by Congress and state legislatures. Local and state officers enforce the laws passed by their General Assembly. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to political parties or shifting majorities.
When legislation pushes into contested constitutional territory, officers can find themselves tasked with enforcing a statute that may later be struck down. That dynamic creates operational confusion, exposes agencies to civil litigation, and risks eroding public trust.
There is a growing narrative in parts of the country that law enforcement is being used to attack the Second Amendment. That characterization is inaccurate. The role of law enforcement is not to undermine constitutional rights. It is to enforce duly enacted laws while protecting law-abiding citizens.
At the same time, state legislatures must be careful not to place officers in the position of becoming the front line of constitutional experimentation.
The debate over HB217 is not merely about firearms. It is about the proper balance between public safety and constitutional fidelity. It is about whether the Commonwealth can achieve meaningful violence reduction without criminalizing broad categories of conduct that courts may ultimately deem protected.
Democrats argue these measures are necessary in light of rising firearm deaths and repeated mass shootings. Republicans contend the legislation tramples constitutional rights and invites costly legal challenges. The political momentum is clear. Constitutional durability is another matter entirely.
If HB217 becomes law, the courts will likely be the final arbiter. Until then, Virginians deserve clarity, precision, and restraint, not vague definitions that leave citizens guessing whether they are now criminals.
Public safety and the Second Amendment are not mutually exclusive. Neither can be advanced by ignoring the constitutional framework that governs both.
In the end, the rule of law depends on something simple but profound. Legislatures must legislate within constitutional bounds. Courts must adjudicate faithfully. Law enforcement must enforce with integrity.
That balance is not partisan. It is foundational.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments