Abigail Spanberger presents herself as a moderate Democrat. But moderation isn’t defined in the abstract—it’s defined by context.

Virginia has long occupied a middle ground in firearms policy. Not constitutional-carry absolutism, but not Maryland or DC either. A balance that allowed broad lawful ownership while maintaining certain guardrails. That balance is part of the state’s political identity.

When proposals include bans on widely owned semi-automatic rifles, 10-round magazine limits, and the absence of meaningful grandfathering, that isn’t perceived as incremental. It’s perceived as a structural change.

You can argue the merits of the policy. You can argue public safety. You can argue comparative standards. But calling it “moderate” depends entirely on what you’re comparing it to.

If the baseline is California, New York, Maryland, or DC, then yes, Virginia’s proposals may seem restrained. But if the baseline is Virginia’s own legal and cultural history—its military presence, hunting tradition, and large population of lawful gun owners—then this feels like a directional shift.

That’s the disconnect.

This isn’t about rhetoric or partisan labels. It’s about alignment with the expectations of the state being governed. For many lawful Virginia gun owners, the current agenda does not feel like moderation within our own political tradition.

And perception, in politics, matters as much as intent.