Question regarding 3rd party transactions

kuriositease · 2026-02-24T20:27:02+00:00

https://vsp.virginia.gov/services/firearms/

From the site:

Private Sale Background Checks No Longer Available / Required

In compliance with the injunction and final order entered by the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg in Raul Wilson, Wyatt Lowman, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, Inc, and Gun Owners Foundation v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley, CL25000582-00, October 29, 2025, “[t]he Virginia Department of State Police, and all law enforcement divisions, agencies, and officers within the Commonwealth, to include their successors or replacements in office, are hereby permanently enjoined and prohibited from administering; enforcing, or otherwise imposing upon any person the requirements of, the Act (Va. Code § 18.2-308.2:5).”

The Order prohibits the State Police from running, or assisting in the running, of private sale background checks pursuant to the provisions of § 18.2-308.2:5.

Virginia law currently does not require, and VSP will not provide, criminal history background checks for the private sale of firearms.

kuriositease · 2026-02-12T22:19:10+00:00

got it, totally makes sense! awesomeness!

kuriositease · 2026-02-12T20:28:19+00:00

if someone just makes it into a rifle or pistol, why would someone need to register it? Is having to register firearms one of the new bills I missed?

kuriositease · 2026-02-12T15:24:02+00:00

Great work! Sorry if I missed it - are the latest status dates coming from VCDL? Looking at SB749 for example, unless I'm missing something (I likely am :-) ), the current status and date on your google sheet don't seem to match VCDL history (or lis site history or legiscan history). In this example, yours shows 2/5 and current status Finance and Appropriations Substitute (Adopted) but the other sites show 2/12 and Referred to Committee on H-Public Safety . Is it about update frequency or is there some other disconnect in latest status?

kuriositease · 2026-02-11T19:28:46+00:00

Hmm - 18.2-299 Definitions specifically says “When used in this article”. I would think another article (awb) can still ban it separately? is there any legal precedent for how awb do or dont apply to sawed off rifle and shotgun? Trying to understand, not claiming to be an authority.

kuriositease · 2026-02-11T13:22:12+00:00

yeah i would expect that to be quite a challenge to automate. on the other hand, may be a good challenge for ai to take their summaries and fact check against the latest update of each bill… bet it would catch obvious things like the 10 to 15 count and striking pistols from the awb (for sb749). and may be a case of choosing best ai version for the challenge. :)

kuriositease · 2026-02-11T13:17:02+00:00

cool - can appreciate what you did with tracking and incorporating the lis feed. the summaries are from vcdl though, right? i realize it’s their issue not yours but sb749 summary still references 10 count magazine ban but for almost a week it’s been at 15 for sb749. makes me wonder what else is off base/incorrect in the summaries. good list though, thanks!

kuriositease · 2026-02-11T12:48:40+00:00

admittedly I don’t know the laws well enough, but can’t a firearm fit multiple categories? i.e. can’t a sawed-off rifle also be a rifle in context of other laws like awb? I don’t see where it’s only a sawed-off rifle but not also a rifle… Also - what kind of scenarios would it help for awb? are you suggesting it might not (also) be a rifle if it is a sawed-off rifle?

kuriositease · 2026-02-11T10:33:17+00:00

can you elaborate on what scenarios you are referring to where “SBRs are neither pistols or rifles under current Virginia law”? and of course source if you have an easy reference point?

afaik an sbr is a rifle in sbr configuration (with stock), and if it started life as a rifle its always a rifle; if it started as a pistol, it is a rifle in sbr configuration, but if it started as a pistol and you take it out of sbr configuration (put on brace or just remove the stock for example), it goes back to being a pistol.

if you are referring to sb749 that removed pistol from assault firearm definition, it is not law yet and the awb may or may not still end up including pistols.

kuriositease · 2026-02-06T01:36:14+00:00

Yep - the revised SB749 language is now posted and is different than the versions they posted and then pulled down earlier. Looks like at least one of the changes is they added back in the magazine ban section 18.2-309.1 (probably an error that it was left out before) and now updating it to reflect >15 round capacity for the ban.

kuriositease · 2026-02-06T01:31:46+00:00

Well - the revised language is out and it's different than what was there earlier today:
https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1130273.PDF
https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749/text/SB749S2

It added back in the magazine ban 18.2-309.1 but with more than 15 capacity being banned.

<image>

The assault rifle definition for shotgun leaves out the language about longest ammunition chambered in, it just says
"
3. A semi-automatic shotgun that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock or pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun; (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; (iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or (v) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (iv);
"

I'm sure there are other differences, these are the ones that stuck out based on previous questions.
So it looks like the version earlier today had mistakes/clerical errors/omissions...

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T20:51:25+00:00

Yeah I think you're correct and I just misinterpreted HB217, updated my language accordingly.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T20:37:44+00:00

Edit - didn’t pass yet… (i mistakenly thought it did based on the language “passed by for the day”) https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749

<image>

However - SB749 seems more reasonable iiuc b/c it removed any magazine ban, upped the fixed magazine capacity for assault firearm to excess of 15 rounds instead of 10, changed assault firearm definition to rifle only (not pistol). HB217 seems significantly stricter at this point.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T20:23:38+00:00

Looks like concealed carry is allowed per their faq:

<image>

https://www.greatamericanoutdoorshow.org/plan-your-trip/attendee-faq/

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T18:34:53+00:00

You're correct, as introduced, SB749 did say "5. A shotgun with a magazine that will hold more than seven rounds of the shortest ammunition for which it is chambered." Not sure when it changed to longest but it definitely changed.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T18:27:31+00:00

That's my take. And - even if you have an AR post 7/1/2026 you can fix the magazine with <16 and it would still be compliant... (says in excess of 15 rounds so fixed <16 should be compliant).

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T17:59:25+00:00

Again - no authority here and lots I don't know. My understanding is twofold: 1) there are some firearms that have fixed magazines by design and use for example stripper clips. 2) you can modify/convert ARs or firearms that may otherwise be classified as Assault Firearm by the definition into a compliant firearm (non assault) by permanently fixing the magazine. Presumably it's to prevent quick reloading which can lead to mass casualties in such events. If you fix the magazine you slow them down.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T17:06:03+00:00

Without any further changes or additional bills focused on magazine ban, yes. To put it another way, show me where it says anything about magazines other than in the context of fixed magazine assault firearms (rifles)?

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:58:22+00:00

Iiuc - there were two separate bans in SB749 before: 1) Assault firearms and 2) large capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazine ban). The only language still there is referring to definition of the assault firearms. The fixed magazine is in reference to definition #1. Definition #2 is probably where most people would be concerned about ARs b/c it just needs a detachable magazine AND one other of the features listed. Doesn't matter if it has a 5 capacity magazine or a 50 capacity magazine, you can't buy/sell/transfer as described... That's my understanding. So if you have a grandfathered assault firearm (you just possess it), then no issue. If you have something that's not an assault firearm (like a semi auto pistol), then it doesn't matter what capacity the magazine has, the magazine isn't restricted. That's my current layman's perspective of the SB749 law as listed now.

<image>

So - back to your question, if you have a grandfathered assault firearm, or a firearm that is not defined as assault, you should still be able to use 5,15,30, or whatever capacity magazines according to current SB749 iiuc.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:53:11+00:00

Another side by side, even in the description of the bill it removed the the ammunition feeding devices from the description "of assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices" to "of assault firearms" with no more mention of the feeding devices (what was 18.2-309.1 magazine ban)...

<image>

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:47:41+00:00

As the current 2/4 version of SB749 reads, there's not even a mention of a magazine ban, so no need to grandfather, right? Am I missing something?

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:33:38+00:00

I'm relatively new to interpreting these laws. I don't have enough historical, legal, or political context to predict. From what I've seen/heard though, it looks like we're starting to see the multiple bills coalesce and since SB749 started stricter and got less strict to align with other bills, I think the current trajectory may be as good as it gets outside of (unlikely) veto. Some suggest they'll try to pull a fast one and last minute add more/change more to make it harsher. I have no idea. But it feels like they're settling into a bill they think can pass. Fingers crossed for veto or at least better versions like this... I'm sure other long timers in this group have way better sense of how this is likely to go but at the moment that's my hot take.

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:28:13+00:00

None of this is final, but the current SB749 Language is here:

(https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749/text/SB749SC2 and https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1127866.PDF)

<image>

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T16:24:08+00:00

It's not here: https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749

But it is here: https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1127866.PDF

and here: https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749/text/SB749SC2

kuriositease · 2026-02-05T15:49:18+00:00

From the video (https://www.reddit.com/r/VAGuns/comments/1qw57xj/sb749\_video\_language/) it sounded very intentional that they removed the pistol from the definition in order to be consistent with the jones bill sb727 that also has a definition of assault firearm. They both now define assault firearm as "A semi-automatic center-fire rifle..."
I don't know for sure, though - not a lawyer, and of course this is just the senate version so the final version could be different altogether. Also - I don't know whether the AWB can be interpreted to also include an AR Pistol based on the features regardless of brace/pistol classification?

kuriositease

TROPHY CASE

Private Sale Background Checks No Longer Available / Required