This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Responsibility By The Day
[past discussion here re: Reese]
Wilson v. Hanley was an October 2025 court decision in the state of Virginia. While the case itself originated as a challenge against the entirety of Virginia's 'universal background check' law, the decision tripped on a paradox in Virginia statute. The state's laws on bare possession allowed 18-20-year-olds to own and purchase firearms. However, a separately enacted statute prohibited almost all firearms transfers unless accompanied by a federal NICS background check, which would automatically reject any attempt by an 18-20-year-old to buy a handgun. The constitutional status of complete bans of handgun purchase or possession by under-21s is complicated, since the Fourth Circuit (later) found them constitutional, unlike the Fifth Circuit... but the constitutional status of allowing-but-not-allowing purchase while allowing theoretically-legal possession was more circumspect, and the court found against the law.
The judge, faced with a choice between leaving an unconstitutional statute in place, or trying to cut an age-based exception from the background check requirement that would raise equal protection concerns, instead enjoined the entire law. Even post-CASA, Virginia state law specifically authorized judges to permanently enjoin state laws that are constitutionally suspect with broad or complete scope. There's some procedural funny bits here, such as the not-yet-Attorney General (better known for his other work) trying to appeal or receive an extension to appeal, despite state law strictly limiting who can actually do that, but in the end no valid appeal was filed, the injunction is final, the collateral bar applies, mandate issued, so on.
There was a six-month period where the state was not mandating background checks on private firearms sales.
Emphasis on the "was."
On April 22nd 2026, the governor signed HB1525. This statute put a complete ban on purchase of handguns or 'assault weapons' by anyone under the age of 21. I will give some complaints on that aspect, since this feels a little equivalent to if social conservatives had responded to Lawrence v Texas by insisting that oral didn't count, but that's normal resistance as gun cases go, and one that will at least survive challenge up to the Fourth Circuit, and possibly its en banc. The law was filed as an emergency, and thus active from the date it was signed. It also had one other section:
A statute specifically requiring ("shall") violation of a standing court order is not a common thing.
The Virginia State Police did not immediately begin re-implementing background check requirements on April 23rd. Instead the Attorney General (better known for his other work) requested that the court dissolve the injunction. That is, to be fair, a perfectly legal request. He is, to be completely fair, very likely to win, if not immediately then on appeal.
To be clear, however, the court has not actually let him win yet. The court order still stands.
The Virginia State Police began re-implementing the background check requirements on May 27th. The court order still stands. It just means nothing.
There is no avenue for serious repercussion. The VCDL is going to file a motion for contempt of court, and may have already done so, but the avenues for civil contempt disappear with the injunction, and criminal contempt would be unprecedented and won't be happening. The same Governor has just signed a different bill after initially requesting amendment to except "certain firearms frequently used for hunting", not getting that amendment, and then deciding she's ban em anyway; there's no procedural protection or political blowback over firearms law that will ever matter to her. No one's going to be impeached, or jailed, and any civil trial would result in qualified immunity. A few sheriffs may disavow enforcement, which won't matter when the prosecution comes at the hands of state police and attorney general. Given the fallout of a conviction, few people are going to intentionally break the statute if enforcement has begun, and a good many who unintentionally violate it wouldn't have been prosecuted regardless for optics or case management reasons. At most, a handful of people prosecuted for purchased between today and the actual dissolution of the injunction might have charges dropped if they end up in front of a pro-gun judge ... except possession is still evidence of a crime, and whoops here's your free warrant hope you survive service.
This is further complicated by the public perception of universal background checks. Politicians, reporters, and gun control advocates see it as an overwhelmingly popular, in no small part down to polls that outright call it an 80:20 issue. In practice, actual referenda tend to be much tighter, even after massive pro-background check advertising spends and even in fairly anti-gun states. Once the question stops being a generic policy and has to confront a false-positive rate or range of exceptions or sympathetic defendants, a lot of the simple cell phone poll answers stop anchoring to 'yes' or 'no'. That's even more true under the current ATF doctrine, where the scope of the private sale exemption has shrunk dramatically.
But there's not enough trust to have serious discussion on that. Instead, there's just a lot of people sure that the silent majority will support them, and a court order in the way.
VCDL has filed the motion to rule to show cause for violation of the court order. The evidence is damning, complete, and undeniable. The VSP implementation can't even depend on the new statute, because it hasn't gone into effect yet and can't constitutionally go into effect until July 1st. Though the state's politicians and stenographers are going to pretend it does anyway, since they didn't amendment out the "emergency status" text of the statute that they didn't get the votes to support.
It also doesn't matter.
VCDL's pleading is open-ended enough that it could be asking that Jeffery Katz and Jay Jones face criminal contempt, and the judge could theoretically pass such a recommendation to the local prosecutors or appoint a new one -- and it's not going to happen, full stop, period, it's like shouting about 18 USC 242 or promoting citizen grand juries where even talking about it just marks you as a crank. There's just a
Optimistically, the best-case scenario for VCDL is a declaration that the injunction wasn't dissolved yet, and that Virginia owes them reasonable fees. Aka, the state gets to enforce a law illegally for a few days or weeks, the taxpayer pays a trivial fee, and VCDL only loses time but not money. Maybe the Virginia State Police even comply, rather than just thumbing their noses and pretending a minor tweak or disclaimer and doing the same thing anyway is enough? Not like it'll cost them anything if they don't. And it's just a plausible that the court (or appeals, because sanctions and contempt findings are appealable orders) finds that the injunction was going to be dissolved eventually, and that the value of the intervening weeks is zero.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link