ATTORNEY GENERAL JAY JONES’ DANGEROUS ATTACK ON VIRGINIANS’ RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Virginia’s Attorney General has now advanced one of the most dangerous constitutional arguments we have seen in the Commonwealth. In defending Virginia’s new gun ban, Attorney General Jay Jones’ office has argued that Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia does not protect a true individual right of ordinary Virginians to keep and bear arms. Instead, his office claims that Virginia’s right-to-bear-arms provision secures only a “collective, militia-tethered right.” Let that sink in. The chief legal officer of the Commonwealth of Virginia is arguing that Virginians do not possess a freestanding individual right under our state constitution to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. That argument is not merely wrong. It turns Virginia’s Constitution, the Founders’ intent, the 1971 constitutional revision, and the United States Supreme Court upside down. ## The Text Says “The Right of the People” Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia says: “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed…” Those words are not accidental. The phrase is not “the right of the government.” It is not “the right of the state.” It is not “the right of a government-controlled military unit.” It says **“the right of the people.”** And the same Constitution says that right **“shall not be infringed.”** That language was added in Virginia’s modern 1971 Constitution. The General Assembly and the people of Virginia were not writing in a vacuum. They deliberately used language that mirrors the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The obvious purpose was to recognize that the people of Virginia possess the right to keep and bear arms. Attorney General Jones’ argument asks the court to believe that when Virginia added the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” it did not really mean the people have a right to keep and bear arms. That is legal wordplay. It is not constitutional fidelity. ## The Militia Was the People The Attorney General’s argument depends on separating “the militia” from “the people.” But that is exactly backwards. In the Founding generation, the militia was not understood as a narrow government class detached from the citizenry. The militia was composed of the body of the people. Virginia’s Constitution itself says exactly that: “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That means the people had to possess arms before they could ever be trained to arms. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, one of the great voices for liberty and one of the men whose thinking helped shape the Bill of Rights, understood this clearly. Lee warned against standing armies and argued that a free people must be armed and trained. His understanding was not that the government owns the right and permits the people to borrow it. His understanding was that liberty is protected when the people themselves possess arms. The Founders feared a powerful central government that could disarm the citizenry and then rule over them. That is why the right to keep and bear arms was protected. It was not given by government. It was recognized against government. The Attorney General’s argument takes the very reason for the right and uses it to destroy the right. That is constitutional inversion. ## The Supreme Court Has Already Rejected the “Collective Right” Theory The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this matter. In **District of Columbia v. Heller**, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, unconnected with service in a militia, for lawful purposes such as self-defense. In **McDonald v. City of Chicago**, the Court held that this right applies against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. In **New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen**, the Court rejected the modern interest-balancing approach that allows government officials to decide whether a constitutional right is useful enough to survive. Bruen made clear that when the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government must justify its restriction by pointing to the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That means the government cannot simply say, “We think this weapon is scary,” or “We think this law is good policy,” or “We believe public safety outweighs your liberty.” The Constitution does not work that way. If the government wants to ban commonly possessed arms, it must show a real historical tradition that supports that kind of ban. If it cannot do that, then the ban fails. That is not VAIB’s opinion. That is the law of the land. ## Virginia Cannot Hide From the Federal Constitution Here is the stunning inconsistency. When progressive Democrats want to attack Virginia’s marriage amendment, they point to the United States Supreme Court and say, “Obergefell is the supreme law of the land. Virginia’s Constitution must give way.” They argue that because the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in 2015 to require recognition of same-sex marriage, Virginia cannot enforce its constitutional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. But when the same Supreme Court says the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, suddenly they want to pretend Virginia can ignore that ruling. They cannot have it both ways. If they insist that Supreme Court precedent controls Virginia on marriage, then Supreme Court precedent also controls Virginia on the Second Amendment. If they claim the federal Constitution overrides Virginia’s Constitution when it advances their progressive agenda, then they must admit the federal Constitution also overrides Virginia’s gun ban when it violates the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution is not a buffet line where politicians pick the rights they like and discard the rights they despise. ## The Real Issue Is Not the Word “Militia”—It Is the Word “People” The Attorney General wants the court to focus on the word “militia” while minimizing the words “the right of the people.” But in our constitutional system, “the people” means the citizens. The First Amendment protects “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” And the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” No serious constitutional reader would say the First Amendment protects only a collective government right to assemble. No one would say the Fourth Amendment protects only a collective government right against searches. Yet that is the type of argument now being made against the right to keep and bear arms. The phrase “the people” means the people. Not the bureaucracy. Not the political class. Not the government. The people. ## The 1971 Constitution Did Not Erase Liberty Virginia’s modern Constitution was adopted in 1971. When the right-to-bear-arms language was added, Virginia was not abolishing the right. Virginia was recognizing it. The people of Virginia were not asked to approve empty words. They were not told, “We are adding the phrase ‘shall not be infringed,’ but it will not actually protect your right.” They were not told, “This language sounds like the Second Amendment, but ordinary Virginians cannot enforce it.” They were given a constitutional guarantee. Attorney General Jones’ argument reduces that guarantee to a historical museum piece. Under his view, the right exists in theory but disappears when the citizen tries to use it. That is not a right. That is a permission slip. ## Rights Do Not Come From Richmond This is bigger than one law. It is bigger than one lawsuit. It is bigger than one Attorney General. This is about whether constitutional rights mean what they say. The Founders understood that government is not the source of liberty. God is. Government’s duty is to secure rights, not redefine them out of existence. When government officials argue that the people do not really possess the rights plainly written in their Constitution, they are no longer defending the Constitution. They are defending power. The right to keep and bear arms is not a second-class right. It is not a government-created privilege. It is not limited to a state-approved collective body. It is a constitutional right of the people. ## The Bottom Line Attorney General Jay Jones’ argument must be rejected. Virginia’s Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Founders understood the militia to be composed of the people, not separated from them. Richard Henry Lee and the Founding generation understood that an armed people are a safeguard against tyranny. The United States Supreme Court has already ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. McDonald makes that right enforceable against the states. Bruen requires the government to prove that its firearm restrictions are rooted in this Nation’s historical tradition. And if progressive Democrats demand that Virginia bow to Supreme Court precedent when it comes to marriage, then they cannot turn around and ignore Supreme Court precedent when it comes to the Second Amendment. The Constitution does not change depending on which right the political left likes or dislikes. VAIB will continue to stand for the Constitution, for the rule of law, and for the God-given rights of the people of Virginia. Because your rights do not come from Richmond. They do not come from Washington. They come from God. And no government has the authority to take away what God has given and the Constitution protects.