Why did Virginia AG Jay Jones withdraw his January 16, 2026 opinion (26-001) on firearm licensing and assault weapon bans, and what does the withdrawal mean for people who relied on the original opinion?

Plain-English summary

On January 16, 2026, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones issued Opinion 26-001 in response to a request from Delegate Michael Webert. That opinion analyzed whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibit (a) a licensure requirement to purchase a firearm and (b) a ban on commonly used firearms, accessories, and components.

Nine days later, on January 25, 2026, Jones withdrew Opinion 26-001 in its entirety. He explained the reason in plain terms: the original opinion rested on a "materially inaccurate factual and analytical premise," specifically the assertion that there is no history or tradition within the United States of jurisdictions requiring licensure or comparable governmental authorization prior to the purchase or acquisition of firearms. Jones concluded that this assertion was factually wrong: multiple U.S. jurisdictions had imposed licensing, permitting, or authorization requirements as a condition for firearm acquisition, both historically and in the modern era.

Because that historical assertion was integral to the opinion's Second Amendment analysis (which under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), requires modern firearm regulations to be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation), Jones determined he could not stand behind the conclusions as written.

The withdrawal letter is careful about what it does and does not do. It does not adopt a contrary constitutional conclusion. It does not opine on the validity of any existing or proposed firearm legislation. It does not preclude a future opinion on the same or related questions. The withdrawal simply removes Opinion 26-001 from the body of guidance the AG's office considers valid. Jones invited Delegate Webert (or any other authorized requester) to submit a renewed or reformulated request that would be evaluated independently and on its merits.

This is an unusual but procedurally significant action. Withdrawals of formal AG opinions are rare. When they happen, they signal that the AG's office has identified a defect serious enough to warrant retracting the prior guidance entirely rather than merely supplementing or clarifying it.

What this means for you

If you relied on Opinion 26-001 in policy or compliance decisions

The letter withdraws Opinion 26-001 in its entirety and states it "should not be cited, relied upon, or treated as reflective of the current views of the Office of the Attorney General." The opinion no longer reflects the AG's position. The letter does not address how anyone who previously cited it should proceed.

If you are a Virginia legislator considering firearm legislation

The letter removes the January 16 guidance from the AG's body of opinions. As of the withdrawal date, the Office of the Attorney General has not opined on whether the Second Amendment or the Virginia Constitution prohibit licensure requirements or bans on commonly used firearms. The letter expressly invites "a renewed or reformulated request" under § 2.2-505 and states any such request will be evaluated independently and on its own merits.

If you are a Second Amendment attorney

The stated reason for withdrawal is that 26-001 rested on a "materially inaccurate factual and analytical premise," specifically the assertion that there is no history or tradition in the United States of jurisdictions requiring licensure before firearm acquisition. The letter states that multiple U.S. jurisdictions, historically and in the modern era, have imposed licensing, permitting, or authorization requirements, and that because this premise was integral to the opinion's historical-tradition analysis the AG no longer has confidence in its conclusions. The letter does not identify the specific historical regimes and does not adopt any constitutional position.

If you are a firearm dealer or industry compliance professional

The letter withdraws an advisory opinion. It does not change any Virginia statute or regulation, and AG opinions are persuasive authority rather than binding law. Firearm sales in Virginia continue to be governed by the operative Virginia and federal statutes; the withdrawal of an advisory opinion has no direct operational effect on retail compliance.

If you are a journalist or civic researcher

The letter is a candid, written withdrawal issued nine days after the original opinion, stating that the prior opinion rested on an incorrect historical premise about firearm-licensing history. Because the Bruen test makes historical evidence dispositive in many Second Amendment cases, the letter ties the defect in the historical premise to a loss of confidence in the opinion's conclusions. The letter does not catalog which historical licensing regimes the AG had in mind.

Common questions

Q: Is Opinion 26-001 still available to read?
A: The original PDF may remain accessible on the Virginia AG's website for transparency purposes, but it should not be relied upon. The withdrawal letter explicitly states the opinion "should not be cited, relied upon, or treated as reflective of the current views of the Office of the Attorney General."

Q: Does the withdrawal mean firearm licensing is constitutional?
A: No. The withdrawal does not adopt any contrary position. It simply removes the prior opinion. As of the withdrawal date, the AG's office has not taken a public legal position on the constitutionality of firearm licensure requirements or commonly-used-firearm bans.

Q: Why does the AG care about historical tradition for firearm laws?
A: After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court requires that modern firearm regulations be "consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." That makes historical evidence dispositive in many Second Amendment cases. An AG opinion that mischaracterizes the historical record is providing wrong guidance.

Q: Can the same delegate submit another opinion request on the same topic?
A: Yes. Section 2.2-505 of the Virginia Code authorizes the AG to issue advisory opinions to specified officials, including members of the General Assembly. Delegate Webert (or any other authorized requester) may submit a renewed request, and the AG has expressly stated that any such request will be evaluated on its merits.

Q: How often do AGs withdraw opinions?
A: Withdrawals are uncommon. Most AG opinions remain in the body of guidance even when later opinions or court decisions effectively supersede them. A formal withdrawal in writing nine days after issuance is unusual and signals a serious defect identified shortly after publication.

Q: What does this mean for someone who has been arguing in court that Virginia gun laws are unconstitutional?
A: Opinion 26-001 cannot be cited in support of that argument anymore. The substantive constitutional argument can still be made on its own merits, but it cannot rely on the AG's withdrawn opinion as authority.

Background and context

Section 2.2-505 of the Virginia Code authorizes the Attorney General to issue advisory opinions to certain state officials, including members of the General Assembly. These opinions are persuasive authority and inform public officials' interpretations of Virginia law, but they are not binding on courts.

The Bruen decision (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022)) restructured Second Amendment doctrine. Under Bruen, when modern firearm regulations are challenged, the government must show that the regulation is consistent with "the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." This makes historical evidence dispositive. Courts and AG opinions analyzing modern firearm laws routinely catalog historical analogues, and the strength of the historical record can make or break a regulation's constitutionality.

The withdrawal letter identifies the core problem: Opinion 26-001 asserted that there is no history or tradition in the United States of jurisdictions requiring licensure or comparable authorization before firearm acquisition. The letter states that premise is incorrect, that multiple jurisdictions have imposed such requirements both historically and in the modern era, and that because the premise was integral to the historical-tradition analysis the AG lost confidence in the conclusions. The letter does not name the specific historical regimes it has in mind.

The withdrawal is candid about its reason. It does not try to salvage portions of the original opinion, and it does not adopt a position on the underlying constitutional question, expressly leaving that for a possible future opinion. It invites a renewed request and commits to evaluating it on its merits.

For the public reading these opinions, the lesson is that AG opinions are revisable. When new analysis or new evidence reveals a problem with an opinion, the office can and does pull the opinion. That is healthy practice. It also means that anyone relying on AG opinions for compliance or legal arguments should periodically check whether an opinion has been withdrawn or superseded.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• § 2.2-505, Va. Code Ann. (Attorney General advisory opinions)

Cases (background, not cited in the withdrawal letter itself):

• New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (history-and-tradition test for Second Amendment regulations)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.oag.state.va.us/annual-reports-opinions/official-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/OAG-Opinion-Withdrawing-Opinion-26-001.pdf

Original opinion text

COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General

Jay Jones
Attorney General

202 North 9th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120

January 25, 2026

The Honorable Michael J. Webert
Virginia House of Delegates
General Assembly Building, Room 714
201 North 9th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219

Dear Delegate Webert:

I am writing regarding Attorney General Opinion 26-001 dated January 16, 2026, in response to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia. The opinion issued addressed whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia prohibit (i) a licensure requirement to purchase a firearm and (ii) a ban on commonly used firearms, accessories, and components.

Reason for Withdrawal

Upon subsequent review, I have determined that the January 16, 2026 opinion rests, in part, on a materially inaccurate factual and analytical premise, namely, the assertion that there is no history or tradition within the United States of jurisdictions requiring licensure or comparable governmental authorization prior to the purchase or acquisition of firearms.

That premise is incorrect. Multiple jurisdictions in the United States, both historically and in the modern era, have imposed licensing, permitting, or authorization requirements as a condition precedent to firearm acquisition. Because the challenged assertion was integral to the opinion's historical-tradition analysis, I do not have confidence in the opinion's conclusions as written.

Action Taken

Accordingly, I am withdrawing the January 16, 2026 advisory opinion in its entirety. The opinion should not be cited, relied upon, or treated as reflective of the current views of the Office of the Attorney General.

Scope and Effect of Withdrawal

The withdrawal does not:

1. adopt a contrary constitutional conclusion,
2. opine on the validity of any existing or proposed firearm legislation, or
3. preclude the Office from issuing a future opinion on related or the same questions.

The withdrawal reflects my obligation to ensure that advisory opinions accurately reflect relevant historical and legal authority and meet the standards expected of official guidance issued by the Commonwealth's Attorney General.

Future Requests

Delegate Webert, you or any other authorized requester may submit a renewed or reformulated request for an advisory opinion. Any such request will be evaluated independently and on its own merits.

Sincerely,

Jay Jones
Attorney General