When used in this article:
(1) "Machine gun" applies to any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
(2) "Crime of violence" applies to and includes any of the following crimes or an attempt to commit any of the same, namely, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, mayhem, assault with intent to maim, disable, disfigure or kill, robbery, burglary, housebreaking, breaking and entering and larceny.
(3) "Person" applies to and includes firm, partnership, association or corporation.
Code 1950, § 18.1-258; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case:
Jones v. Com., 687 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2010).
Jones v. Com., 687 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 18.2-288(2). There is no dispute that Jones was wearing a bulletproof vest when he committed statutory burglary.”
Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2012).
“13, § lla(d)(7) (provisions for violent career criminals); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-288(2) (uniform machine gun act); Wash.”
Virginia Duncan v. Rob Bonta, 133 F.4th 852 (9th Cir. 2025).
“Va. Code § 18.2-288. 78 DUNCAN V. BONTA California’s possession ban just went into effect in 2017, and three States enacted their laws in the last three years.”
Sean Marquise Hughes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1309244 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2026).
· cites it 45× “Hughes argues that, by analogy, the mere presence of a selector switch on his Glock, particularly in light of McCarthy’s testimony that the firearm “only functioned in semi-automatic mode” during testing, is insufficient to establish that the weapon was a “machine gun” under…”
Lowy v. Daniel Def., LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01338 (E.D. Va. July 24, 2024).
· cites it 2× “, and the Virginia Uniform Machine Gun Act, Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288 et seq. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages owing to these alleged acts.”
Fostech, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co., No. 4:24-cv-00137 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 24, 2025).
“, and (iv) Negligence Per Se violation of Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288 et seq."); id. ¶ 30 ("The Lowy-Harris Plaintiffs have alleged that Fostech violated the Virgina [sic] False Advertising Statute .”
Karen Lowy v. Daniel Def., LLC, 167 F.4th 175 (4th Cir. 2026).
“In count 28, plaintiffs sought to hold this same group of defendants liable for negligence per se based on their alleged violations of Virginia’s Uniform Machine Gun Act (UMGA), Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288 et seq. Finally, in count 29, plaintiffs accused Daniel Defense, Magpul, FAB…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288(1): 3 cases
Sean Marquise Hughes v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1309244 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2026).
“Hughes argues that, by analogy, the mere presence of a selector switch on his Glock, particularly in light of McCarthy’s testimony that the firearm “only functioned in semi-automatic mode” during testing, is insufficient to establish that the weapon was a “machine gun” under…”
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288(2): 3 cases
Jones v. Com., 687 S.E.2d 738 (Va. 2010).
“See Code § 18.2-288(2). There is no dispute that Jones was wearing a bulletproof vest when he committed statutory burglary.”
Delgado-Hernandez v. Holder, 697 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2012).
“13, § lla(d)(7) (provisions for violent career criminals); Va.Code Ann. § 18.2-288(2) (uniform machine gun act); Wash.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.