by Dick Hall-Sizemore

The legal maneuvering over legislation recently passed by the General Assembly prohibiting the sale of assault weapons has begun in earnest.  Shortly after Gov. Spanberger signed the legislation, which will become effective July 1, opponents filed suits in four Virginia circuit courts, Washington, Lancaster, Spotsylvania, and Fauquier counties, challenging the law under various provisions of the Virginia Constitution.  In at least one jurisdiction, Lancaster, the plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order.

When there are actions pending in different circuit courts involving six or more plaintiffs that “involve common issues of law or fact and arise out of the same transaction, occurrence or the same series of transactions or occurrences,” Virginia law allows any party to the actions to request that the cases be consolidated and heard by one court.  The decision as to whether the cases are to be consolidated is to be made by a panel of three circuit court judges appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court.  If the panel decides to consolidate the cases, it would designate one of the courts involved to hear the cases.

Invoking this provision, Attorney General Jay Jones asked the Supreme Court to appoint the panel.  In his brief to the court seeking the consolidation, Jones argued that the cases challenge the same law, using similar arguments.  “Absent transfer, decisions on those motions will proceed contemporaneously and lead to confusion and chaos with respect to the significant common questions of law,” he argued.  Despite the opposition of the plaintiffs to consolidation, who argued that different elements of law were involved in the different cases, the Supreme Court on June 3 granted Jones’ motion and ordered the establishment of the special panel to decide whether the cases should be consolidated. 

The hearing in Lancaster, scheduled for July 12, regarding the request for a temporary restraining order, has been canceled.

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association has filed suit in federal court arguing that the Virginia ban violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in accordance with recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

(Credits: I am indebted to the Virginia Political Newsletter for alerting me to this story.)