LaFave v Fairfax County - Carry ban in parks and at events

[Euler]

In November 2023, Kimberly LaFave and two others filed suit in the Federal District Court of Eastern Virginia facially challenging Fairfax County's ban on the carriage of firearms in county parks and at permitted public events.

In August 2024, the district court ruled for the county, stating that prohibiting firearms in parks is consistent with prohibitions in sensitive places and that the prohibition for public events is not unconstitutionally vague.

In September 2024, plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In August 2025, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling that the ban in parks is not facially unconstitutional. The appeals court vacated the district court's ruling with regard to public events, because (it said) plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the challenge in the first place. The sheriff had directed his deputies not to enforce the firearm ban at events if there were no notice of the ban posted. Therefore the plaintiffs were not at threat of arrest for carrying a firearm. Therefore the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the law.

[So if a law enforcement agency makes a policy decision not to enforce a law, perhaps because it's unjust, the people lose the ability to challenge the injustice of the law. I'm not impressed with the soundness of that argument.]

On October 30, plaintiffs asked to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari, from November 25 to December 26. (shadow docket)

[Euler]

On November 5, Chief Justice Roberts granted the extension.

[Euler]

On December 18, LaFave asked for another extension to January 24.

[Euler]

On December 23, Roberts granted an extension to January 19.

[Euler]

On January 19, LaFave filed the petition.

On January 21, the US Supreme Court assigned a docket.

[TomKoz]

More evidence that the Left / Democrats will Never stop trying to use lawfare against our RTKBA !

[Euler]

On February 13, Fairfax County waived its right to respond.

[John Q Public]

On 2/13/2026 at 11:43 PM, Euler said:

On February 13, Fairfax County waived its right to respond.

Okay does mean they gave up the if not enforced, no standing and leaves it for the SC?

[Euler]

A waiver of the right to respond means that the respondent (Fairfax in this case) considers the petition to be a waste of time, a response would be a further waste of time, and the Court should just deny the petition as such.

[John Q Public]

Euler, have we had any real wins on any of this stuff???  Tell me true. 

 

 

 

[Euler]

I'm not sure what you mean by "wins." Usually the Supreme Court requests a response, anyway, and the respondent complies. The waiver is ultimately just an impotent political statement.

[Euler]

Petition denied.