Virginia is one of several states that allow gun manufacturers to sue the government if they don’t like a law that restricts guns.
The law, signed by Governor Terry McAuliffe last year, gives gun makers the right to sue if a state or federal law restricts the manufacture or sale of a particular firearm, or if a manufacturer’s products or services are unsafe.
The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, does not require the legislature to take up the issue.
In Virginia, where I live, the law lets gun makers sue the feds if the feds ban the sale of their products or make a public safety provision that prohibits their products from being sold.
This means that gun makers can sue the U.S. government in federal court, a practice known as “cross-border action,” in order to stop a law from being implemented in their home state.
There’s a chance that the federal courts will eventually decide to let gun makers go after the federal ban.
But Virginia law also allows the gun makers to sue federal agencies that enact or enforce gun control laws, or to seek injunctions against federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security.
In theory, gun makers could get the money they seek in court from gun owners.
But even if the government is able to get a restraining order, it is still up to the manufacturer to take legal action against the government, which could potentially delay the implementation of a new law.
The gun maker industry has a history of challenging federal gun laws.
In 2012, for example, gun maker Sturm, Ruger and Company filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Justice Department, the U,S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies in federal district court in Washington, DC, after a federal judge ordered the company to cease manufacturing and distributing ammunition for handguns and rifles in the state of Virginia.
Sturm sued the government because of the ATF’s interpretation of a law, the SAFE Act, which is designed to protect gun owners and to prevent the “loss of gun rights.”
Sturm had been working on the litigation, and the company’s president, Todd Egan, told National Review that the gun maker’s lawsuit “had the effect of delaying the implementation” of the SAFEA.
But Egan says that he was only interested in the law and not the gun industry’s interest in winning the case.
“The gun industry is not interested in litigation.
The goal of litigation is to force Congress to enact a law,” Egan said.
“We’re not interested.”
He also told National Reporters that he would have supported a federal lawsuit if it had gone to trial.
“If a federal law has been implemented that is harmful to gun rights, and that’s the case here, it’s the gun manufacturers who are going to be hurt by it.
We’re not going to allow this to happen.”
But Virginia gun owners are also not happy with the law.
Virginia Gun Owners Association Executive Director and former Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring said that the law was designed to prevent “an invasion of our right to self-defense.”
“This law is not only unconstitutional, it violates the Virginia Constitution, which guarantees us the right not to be burdened by government, to pursue our own lawful and just interests,” Herring told National Reporter.
“This legislation is not in the best interest of the citizens of Virginia or the people of the United States.
We urge our state and local leaders to oppose this unconstitutional, unworkable, and dangerous law.”
Herring is not the only gun owner to oppose the law that gives gun manufacturers a lawsuit power.
In July, the Virginia Association of Firearms Owners filed a brief opposing the law in the U.”s U. S. District Court in Washington.
Virginia’s gun laws are the most restrictive in the nation, and this law simply imposes a cost on gun owners,” the brief said.