Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 7. Crimes Involving Health and Safety » Article 5. Uniform Machine Gun Act
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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 (Va. Ct. App. 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…”
Anthony Wayne Easterling, s/k/a Anthony Wayne Easterling, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Code § 18.2-288(1) defines “Machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
Lowy v. Daniel Def., LLC (E.D. Va. 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.”
Rasheed Daniel Fleming, s/k/a Rasheed N. Fleming v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Code § 18.2-288 (defining a “[m]achine gun” as “any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger”).”
John Quincy Neal, III, a/k/a John Q. A. Neal, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Code § 18.2-288(1). “A conviction for the unlawful possession of a firearm can be supported exclusively by evidence of constructive possession; evidence of actual possession is not necessary.”
Fostech, Inc. v. Admiral Ins. Co. (S.D. Ind. 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 (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…”
Aubrey Dwight Jones, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “2 states: Any person who, while committing a crime of violence as defined in § 18.2-288(2) or a felony violation of § 18.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-288(1) — 3 cases
Sean Marquise Hughes v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 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…”
Anthony Wayne Easterling, s/k/a Anthony Wayne Easterling, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020). “” Code § 18.2-288(1) defines “Machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”
John Quincy Neal, III, a/k/a John Q. A. Neal, III v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). “” Code § 18.2-288(1). “A conviction for the unlawful possession of a firearm can be supported exclusively by evidence of constructive possession; evidence of actual possession is not necessary.”
— 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.”
Aubrey Dwight Jones, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2009). “2 states: Any person who, while committing a crime of violence as defined in § 18.2-288(2) or a felony violation of § 18.”
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.