Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a series of gun-control bills Tuesday, toughening a proposed assault-firearms ban before sending it back to lawmakers, which drew immediate backlash from Republicans and is likely to draw a constitutional objection from the Justice Department.

The Democrat governor’s changes to House Bill 217/Senate Bill 749 remove the word “fixed” from part of the bill’s definition of an assault firearm, which could sharply expand the range of semi-automatic rifles and pistols swept into the ban, Republicans say.

“If there was any doubt that Gov. Spanberger was coming for our firearms, this substitute removes it,” House of Delegates Minority Leader Terry Kilgore, R-Scott, told News WCYB 5 in a statement. “Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds.

“That includes the vast majority of firearms in Virginia that are in common use for legal purposes.”

ATLANTA TEEN ARRESTED FOR MURDER AFTER FATAL SHOOTING OF 12-YEAR-OLD INSIDE HOME

The U.S. Department of Justice warned in a letter released Friday that the measure raises constitutional concerns and threatened legal action if the state enforces a ban that infringes on protected firearms.

“This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon wrote in the letter to Virginia Democrat Attorney General Jay Jones before Spanberger’s moves Tuesday. “Specifically, SB 749, as written, would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.

“The Second Amendment protects the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use AR-15 style semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes,” she added, citing the unanimous Supreme Court opinion that the AR-15 is “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Dhillon said her division “will seek to enjoin any attempt to infringe the right of law-abiding Virginians to acquire constitutional protected arms[.]”

“@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed,” Dhillon wrote Friday on X. “We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

DESANTIS URGES FLORIDA LAWMAKERS TO BAN COUSIN MARRIAGES, LINKS PRACTICE TO ‘STEALTH JIHAD’

Undaunted, Spanberger moved forward framing the law as a public-safety push, saying the state is trying to balance Second Amendment rights with efforts to reduce gun violence.

“I grew up in a family where responsible gun ownership was expected, and I carried a firearm every day as a former federal agent,” she wrote in a statement. “I support the Second Amendment. But gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and teenagers in America, and that should motivate all of us to ask ourselves what we can do to mitigate this harm.

“This is why I’ve made amendments to provide clarity for both responsible gun owners and law enforcement, making clear what these changes mean in practice — as Virginians safely purchase and store their firearms,” she continued. “These commonsense steps will help keep our families, our communities, and our law enforcement officers safe.”

GUNS AND GANJA: SUPREME COURT SKEPTICAL OF FEDERAL LAW BANNING FIREARM POSSESSION FOR REGULAR MARIJUANA USERS

The bill would ban the future sale, transfer, manufacture and importation of covered firearms and magazines over 15 rounds, while exempting firearms legally owned before July 1, 2026. It would create a Class 1 misdemeanor for violations and impose limits on how grandfathered firearms could later be transferred or sold.

The legislation now heads back to the General Assembly, which must decide whether to accept Spanberger’s amendments.

DESANTIS CALLS FOR IMPEACHMENT OF JUDGE FOR RELEASING SEX OFFENDER WHO THEN ALLEGEDLY KILLED STEPDAUGHTER

Spanberger also signed several other gun-related bills without changes, including House Bill 21, which requires firearm manufacturers, dealers and distributors to adopt “reasonable controls” aimed at preventing illegal sales and misuse. The law also opens the door for civil action by the attorney general, local governments and private individuals if a firearm industry member’s actions or omissions are alleged to have contributed to public harm.

She also signed House Bill 110, which bars leaving a firearm in plain view inside an unattended vehicle, and House Bill 40, which bans the manufacture, sale, transfer and possession of unserialized homemade firearms, commonly known as ghost guns.

“In all, the General Assembly has forwarded to you over 20 bills that restrict Second Amendment rights,” Dhillon’s warning to Jones concluded. “I urge you to reconsider allowing any bill that would infringe on the lawful use of protected firearms by law-abiding citizens to become law.

“In an effort to avoid unnecessary litigation, the Second Amendment Section stands ready to meet and confer with attorneys in the Virginia Attorney General Office.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens shall not be infringed.”

WASHINGTON — It was hard to miss President Trump’s very public spat with Pope Leo XIV this week.

The split was the first time in modern memory that an American president has so openly badmouthed a sitting pontiff, or, for that matter, distributed an image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Critics cried “blasphemy!” even as supporters continued to stand behind the man whose presidency, some argue, was God sent.

Students of American history will recall an earlier incident that pitted papal and presidential authority against each other. The concern: that a president would align himself too closely to the church, or even take orders from the pope.

That anxiety seeped into the 1960 presidential campaign of John F. Kennedy, whose eventual victory would make him the first Catholic president.

Back then, Kennedy was constantly fending off accusations from Protestant ecclesiastic types who were wary that his nomination meant the pontiff, John XXIII, was already packing his bags for a move into the White House.

The issue was so pronounced that 150 clergymen and laypeople formed Citizens for Religious Freedom, which in a pamphlet warned, “It is inconceivable to us that a Roman Catholic President would not be under extreme pressure by the hierarchy of his church to accede to its policies and demands.”

One particularly loud voice among the ministers was the Rev. Norman Vincent Peale, a popular and influential pastor and author. Peale was especially disturbed by Kennedy’s prospects.

“Our American culture is at stake,” he said at a meeting of the ministers. “I don’t say it won’t survive, but it won’t be what it was.”

The group asked Kennedy to “drop by Houston” to make clear his views on faith and government. He agreed, making a televised speech at the Rice Hotel, where he famously spelled out his firm opinions on the separation of church and state.

“I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy told the group. “I am the Democratic Party’s nominee for president who happens to be Catholic.”

Time magazine reflected on the address some years later, concluding that the speech had gone so well for Kennedy “that many felt the dramatic moment was an important part of his victory.”

Since then, modern presidents have occasionally found themselves at odds with the Vatican. Typically Republican presidents would hear from the pope about foreign wars, while Democratic presidents were derided over abortion policies.

But such disagreements tended to be handled with the decorous language of diplomacy.

President George W. Bush presents Pope John Paul II with the Presidential Medal of Freedom in Rome on June 4 , 2004. The pope reminded Bush of the Vatican’s opposition to the war in Iraq. Bush praised him as a “devoted servant of God.”

(Eric Vandeville/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images)

Then came Trump, who is now being accused of openly mocking the Catholic faith and the 1st Amendment. He called Leo weak on crime and foreign policy, among other things. A self-described nondenominational Christian who says his favorite book is the Bible, Trump’s hasn’t shied from bashing the pontiff, nor has he hesitated to blur the line separating church and state.

Where Kennedy argued for an absolute separation, Trump has advanced a model of religious resurgence, promising “pews will be fuller, younger and more faithful than they have been in years.” Through initiatives including the “America Prays” program launched last year, the White House has sought to bring “bring back God” by inviting millions of Americans to prayer sessions. The webpage for the program focuses features only Christian Scripture.

“From the earliest days of the republic, faith in God has been the ultimate source of the nation’s strength,” Trump said at a National Prayer Breakfast in February.

President Trump, then-Vice President Mike Pence and faith leaders say a prayer during the signing of a proclamation in the Oval Office on Sept. 1, 2017. .

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

In the United States, the Catholic Church historically has “loved the 1st Amendment” and its guarantee of religious liberty and, as a result, largely kept some distance from government, according to Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and religious commentator. After its failures attempting to influence monarchs and politicians in Europe, the Catholic Church “didn’t want the government interfering with them and knew that it wasn’t their right to interfere with the government,” Reese said.

Kennedy loved the 1st Amendment too. He put it above his own religious beliefs, and said as much on his way to the White House.

“I would not look with favor upon a president working to subvert the 1st Amendment’s guarantees of religious liberty,” he said. “Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so.”

Pope Leo XIV meets with members of the community in Algiers at the Basilica of Our Lady of Africa on April 13, 2026.

(Vatican Pool via Getty Images)

House Republicans are demanding ActBlue, a top Democratic campaign fundraising apparatus, turn over international communications, probing whether the organization knowingly misled lawmakers and dodged subpoenas to hide weaknesses in its screening process to weed out illegal, overseas donations.

House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., collectively laid out their demands in a letter published on Tuesday.

“For more than a year, the Committees have conducted oversight regarding ActBlue’s ‘fundamentally unserious approach to fraud prevention,’” the letter reads.

“Recent reporting … strongly suggests that ActBlue deliberately obstructed the Committees’ investigation, including through misleading statements and noncompliance with our subpoenas.”

BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL: LEFT-WING GROUPS DEFIANT AS GOP SHEDS LIGHT ON GROUPS TIED TO CHINA

The letter is addressed to Regina Wallace-Jones, the CEO and president of ActBlue, and is the most recent entry in investigations that began in 2023 when Republicans originally raised concerns about foreign donations possibly influencing American elections.

It also follows New York Times reporting on a memo from Covington & Burling, a law firm, warning that gaps in its screening armor could present “a substantial risk for ActBlue.”

The memo, on its own, does not implicate wrongdoing or indicate that ActBlue accepted international donations. Even so, the reporting caught the eye of Republicans in Congress.

Steil, Jordan and Comer are collectively asking ActBlue to produce two internal documents to examine the internal understanding ActBlue may have had about its own weaknesses.

The first is a resignation letter from General Counsel Aaron Ting — a document Republicans contend centers on liabilities created by ActBlue’s donation security.

Republicans believe the second, a message from ActBlue’s former legal counsel Zain Ahmad, relates to an ignored whistleblower complaint about those practices.

HOUSE HEARING RAISES RED FLAGS OVER FORMER TECH MOGUL’S ‘CCP NETWORK’ ALLEGEDLY FUNDING OF FAR-LEFT GROUPS

Republicans have already requested those documents before, but haven’t received them.

“There is considerable reason to believe that ActBlue may have deliberately withheld this responsive material to impede our investigation,” the letter states.

For its own part, ActBlue has claimed it makes every effort to ensure its fundraising complies with legal requirements.

In ActBlue’s own letter published in Nov. 2023, Wallace-Jones, the CEO, affirmed that the organization maintained the highest standards for scrutiny of its fundraising.

“Our approach is multilayered, with checks and confirmations occurring throughout the donation process to verify donors and donor information,” Wallace-Jones wrote.

“These measures, which include compliance measures, technological tools, and manual reviews, help to ensure the identity of donors, root out potential foreign contributions, and protect donors from financial fraud.”

OVERSIGHT DEMANDS DOJ ANSWERS ON FOREIGN FUNDING OF AGITATOR GROUPS AS IRAN, ANTI-ICE PROTESTS CONTINUE

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Republican lawmakers have given ActBlue two weeks to produce the requested documentation, setting a deadline for April 28, 2026.

“Absent these steps, the Committees are prepared to use available mechanisms to enforce our subpoenas,” the letter reads.