My name is Jonathan Gatell, and I am a resident of West Springfield and a veteran of the United States Armed Forces. I am writing to respectfully urge you to oppose HB207, HB919, and HB1094 currently under consideration in the House Finance Committee. As a lawful gun owner, I am deeply concerned that these bills represent an unconstitutional and regressive approach to public safety. Rather than addressing the root causes of violence, these measures create significant financial barriers that disenfranchise low-income Virginians and vulnerable communities. My specific concerns regarding this legislative package include: • HB 207 ($500 Suppressor Tax): This is a punitive tax on essential safety equipment. Contrary to popular media portrayals, suppressors are hearing-protection devices that reduce the report of a firearm to safer levels; they do not "silence" it. Imposing a $500 tax makes shooting sports and self-defense training more dangerous for those without significant disposable income. • HB 919 & HB 1094 (11% Excise Taxes): While the mission of the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund is noble, funding it through a flat 11% excise tax is fundamentally regressive. Much like the "poll taxes" of the past, these costs disproportionately impact lower-income and minority citizens. These are the very groups who are historically the most frequent targets of hate crimes and who may rely on affordable means of self-defense. By imposing these "sin taxes" on a constitutionally protected right, the Commonwealth risks alienating moderate and progressive gun owners who support responsible safety measures but oppose economic discrimination. Rights should not be luxuries reserved only for the wealthy. I appreciate your dedication to mitigating gun violence, but I ask that you seek solutions that do not involve regressive taxation or the financial disenfranchisement of your constituents.

I am a resident of Arlington and a dedicated Democrat. My commitment to the party is deep; I have worked on campaigns for Gerry Connolly and Terry McAuliffe, and even traveled to canvas for Raphael Warnock during his special election. I am writing to you today because I am deeply invested in our party’s success and its commitment to progressive values. However, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose HB207, HB919, and HB1094. As a lawful gun owner, I believe these bills are not only electorally risky but also fundamentally regressive. At a time when we are fighting to protect vulnerable populations, these measures would disproportionately disenfranchise the very people who need protection most. My specific concerns include: HB207 ($500 Suppressor Tax): This is a punitive tax on safety equipment. Suppressors are vital tools for hearing protection at the range. Pricing them out of reach for average citizens does not improve public safety; it simply makes shooting sports more dangerous for those without significant disposable income. HB919 & HB1094 (11% Firearm and Ammunition Taxes): While I support the mission of the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund, funding it through a flat 11% excise tax is a regressive move. Similar to "poll taxes" of the past, these costs overwhelmingly impact lower-income and minority communities—groups that are historically the most frequent targets of hate crimes and political targeting. By validating the "anti-gun" labels often used by the opposition, these bills risk alienating moderate and progressive gun owners alike. More importantly, they create a financial barrier to a constitutional right that will primarily affect those in the most vulnerable economic tiers. I appreciate the focus on mitigating gun violence, but I ask that you seek solutions that do not involve regressive taxation or the disenfranchisement of your own constituents. Sincerely, Samuel Reid Lipton Arlington, VA

I oppose these HB207, HB919, HB1094

I oppose HB207, HB909, HB1094. These bills unnecessarily increase costs for law abiding firearm owners and create a situation where only the wealthy can afford to exercise their rights.

I oppose these bills because it punishes lawful gun owners by making them pay more to practice responsible gun ownership. Being a responsible gun owner requires commitment and training and that means using a considerable amount of ammo at the range. 90% of firearms used in crime are either bought illegally or stolen - so taxes would not apply and they would not help curb crime or violence in any way. Again, this is a bill that punishes responsible gun owners. We all want to same thing - to end gun violence in Virginia. These bills will not do that.

I oppose HB919 and HB1094. These bills impose a regressive 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition on top of Virginia’s existing sales tax. This proposal primarily taxes lawful, regulated retail purchases, not the people committing gun violence. It is fundamentally unfair to make responsible Virginians pay a special surcharge for crimes they did not commit. If the goal is to fund violence-prevention efforts, the funding mechanism should target violent offenders, not lawful commerce. Instead, the General Assembly should consider approaches that require those convicted of gun crimes to contribute (e.g., restitution or work programs), rather than pricing out lawful citizens who are trying to train and remain proficient and safe. The bill is also likely to be counterproductive for revenue. Tripling the effective tax burden on these products increases incentives to buy out of state, delay purchases, or avoid the market entirely. This means Virginia could plausibly collect less revenue, not more, while harming in-state small businesses. Even the Department of Taxation describes its revenue estimate as speculative and the actual revenue impact as uncertain. These bills also expand government bureaucracy and impose new compliance burdens on Virginia businesses. The fiscal impact statement for HB1094 indicates additional administrative costs, including the need for dedicated personnel to administer the new tax. That is more overhead and paperwork for both the Commonwealth and lawful dealers and vendors, on top of an already uncertain revenue stream. Supporters cite Everytown’s data that “gun violence costs Virginia $14.2B each year, of which $288.3M is paid by taxpayers.” However, that figure is not representative of the Virginia General Fund burden. It is a modeled estimate that bundles combined federal, state, and local government spending and includes federal programs and long-term assumption-based items, so it should not be presented as what Virginia taxpayers or the Virginia General Fund actually pay. Virginia’s JLARC analysis, based on Virginia claims data, suggests a much smaller direct public medical cost burden. JLARC found about $28.5M in paid claims for initial treatment over 2021–2023, with Medicaid paying about 80% of that, and noted those Medicaid costs were less than 0.05% of total Medicaid claim expenditures. That implies that 0.05% of annual Medicaid claim spending is on the order of about $8M per year. Even if you still accept the $288.3M figure, it is unfairly being used to justify punishing lawful buyers. Virginia’s overall spending is on the order of tens of billions per year (e.g., $87.5B total spending reported for FY2025), making $288.3M roughly about 0.3% of annual spending. That does not justify creating a new, targeted sin-tax on constitutionally protected, highly regulated purchases by law-abiding residents. Virginia should reject HB919 and HB1094 and focus on targeted enforcement against violent offenders and evidence-based interventions, without taxing responsible citizens and undermining lawful training and safety.

I support this bill because gun violence costs Virginia $14.2 billion each year, of which $288.3 million is paid by taxpayers.

The slew of new "taxes" as well as the attack on firearm's enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment will solidify my moving out of state once passed. It's become very clear that we are fundamentally opposed to each others views and ways of life. However, rather than adopt a live and let live approach like myself, you seek to undermine and impose your views on me. How dare you, how dare you single out citizens and residents of this great commonwealth and demand they pay additional "taxes" on things like firearms and ammunition when they already pay the state sales tax. What's troubling is you will lie and state a myriad of reasons why these additional taxes exist, but the reality is you're just trying to inconvenience and restrict gun owners. You just don't have the integrity to come out and say it. Good riddance.

I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.

The Second Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The US Supreme Court has made clear that this right is not second-class and may not be burdened through indirect means that would be impermissible if applied to other enumerated rights. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – Recognized an individual right to possess arms “in common use” for lawful purposes, including self-defense. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) – Incorporated the Second Amendment against the states. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) – Rejected interest-balancing and held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under Bruen, modern firearm regulations—including taxation schemes—must be justified by a well-established historical analogue from the Founding or Reconstruction eras. Revenue-raising measures that single out constitutionally protected conduct fail this test. Opposition to HOUSE BILL NO. 1094: Firearm and Ammunition Manufacturer Excise Tax (11%) HB 1094 imposes a targeted excise tax on firearms and ammunition manufacturers based solely on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court has long rejected the idea that governments may tax fundamental rights out of reach: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943): “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966): Poll taxes are unconstitutional because wealth or payment cannot condition the exercise of a fundamental right. Just as a state could not impose a special tax on printing presses or church collections, it may not impose a punitive, industry-specific tax on arms and ammunition—the means necessary to exercise the Second Amendment. There is no historical tradition of special excise taxes on firearms or ammunition at the Founding era designed to discourage ownership or fund social programs. General sales taxes that applied neutrally across goods are not comparable. HB 1094 is: 1) Targeted, not general 2) Punitive, not neutral 3) Behavior-modifying, not revenue-incidental Courts applying Bruen have increasingly scrutinized firearm taxes in California, Illinois, and New York, with multiple challenges arguing that these laws are modern inventions lacking historical support. Pro-gun organizations consistently note that firearm and ammunition taxes disproportionately burden low-income citizens, particularly those living in high-crime areas who rely most on lawful self-defense. Law enforcement exemptions underscore the inequity: the state acknowledges firearms are necessary for safety—but only if the government is the user. Adoption of HOUSE BILL NO. 1094 opens the Commonwealth of Virginia to legal action that would inflict an undue and unecessary burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth.

These bills are as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment at their core. Many bills related to firearms this legislative session at least use the cover of safety to cover their anti-gun intention, these bills HB 207, SB 763, HB 919 and HB 1094 do no such thing. They just financially punish law abiding Virginians for using firearms to hunt, target shoot and protect their families. The result of these bills is that law-abiding Virginians will simple go to another state to make a firearm related purchase, and no one will come to Virginia to make a purchaser. The result, at a minimum, will be: 1. reducing state and local sales tax revenue 2. impacting small independent firearm business by reducing their revenue with the potential for staff reductions or closure I do not support this bill nor do the 200+ active members, 2000+ inactive members of Northern Virginia's largest hunting association - The National Sportsman Association.

As the Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic States for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), I respectfully urge you to oppose House Bill 1094 (HB 1094) – discriminatory legislation that would establish an 11% excise tax rate for firearms and ammunition manufacturers, intended to provide funding for the “Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund” which will likely result in the financial burden falling upon law abiding sportsmen and women. Virginia’s sportsmen and women are already the backbone of the funding structure for conservation efforts that benefit wildlife and their habitat throughout the Commonwealth, as well as the citizenry at large. The passage of financially discriminatory legislation like HB 1094, will likely result in an unintended and consequential diminishment of the state’s conservation funding.

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.

Oppose.

As a Virginia resident and voter, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose HB207 and HB 1094. These bills are punitive and will hurt law abiding Virginians financially and make it more difficult for them to carry out their constitutional right to bear arms. I hope you will reconsider and not impose these financial constraints and limitations on law abiding citizens.

I strongly oppose this bill.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently proposed bills on gun control. While I understand the intent behind these bills—to enhance public safety—I firmly believe that they will have unintended consequences that infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms", and it is a fundamental part of what makes this country free. These bills being proposed would place unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on responsible gun owners, making it harder for Virginians to exercise their rights in a lawful and safe manner. Rather than focusing on restricting access to firearms, I urge the General Assembly to consider measures that target criminals and illegal activities, such as enforcing stricter penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of crimes, or improving background checks for gun purchases. It is essential to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues and gang-related activity, rather than punishing responsible gun owners who follow the law. Furthermore, these proposed bills could create significant logistical challenges for gun owners, particularly those who rely on their firearms for self-defense, hunting, or recreational activities. The financial burden and potential legal ramifications of complying with these new regulations would be overwhelming for many Virginians. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and to focus on policies that protect both our rights and our communities. I trust that you will make the best decision for all Virginians, and I sincerely hope that you will oppose these bills.

I am a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a gun owner, and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. I respectfully oppose House Bill 1094, which would impose an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition, directing revenue to the Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund. Democrats campaigned in recent elections on a message of affordability for everyday Virginians, promising policies that reduce financial burdens. An 11 percent tax on firearms and ammunition—on top of existing taxes—is precisely the opposite of affordability. This proposal makes it more expensive for Virginians to engage in constitutionally protected activities, disproportionately harming middle- and lower-income residents who rely on affordable ammunition for training, self-defense, and lawful recreation. The right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on wealth. Supreme Court precedent establishes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and laws imposing substantial financial burdens risk chilling its exercise. By sharply increasing the cost of firearms and ammunition, HB 1094 penalizes lawful gun ownership and interferes with Virginians’ ability to exercise a right recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago. Targeted taxation on constitutionally protected conduct is inconsistent with civil rights principles. Public safety is best served when citizens can train regularly and maintain proficiency. Ammunition and firearms are essential for lawful self-defense and hunting traditions deeply rooted in Virginia’s culture. A steep excise tax undermines those traditions by making common purchases significantly more costly, without evidence that it reduces crime or enhances public safety. HB 1094 also creates perverse incentives. Responsible gun owners contribute to public safety by training and understanding firearms. Making lawful ownership more expensive encourages purchasing outside Virginia or unregulated acquisition, undermining compliance with background checks and safety measures. Revenue may fund intervention programs, but evidence does not show that taxing lawful owners deters violent crime; offenders rarely comply with tax regimes. Affordability is about reducing barriers, not erecting them. This bill contradicts stated affordability goals, placing an undue burden on Virginians who seek to exercise constitutionally protected rights responsibly. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the members of this committee to oppose House Bill 1094. It is regressive, punitive, and inconsistent with principles of affordability, constitutional rights, and effective public safety policy.

As a lifelong resident of Virginia, I am writing to voice my opposition to HB1094. An 11% tax on firearms and ammunition is an exceptionally punitive fee for Virginians to pay in addition to existing local sales tax. Firearms proficiency is a perishable skill and requires consistent practice and training to retain competency. This additional tax would substantially impact the ability for average Virginians as well as law enforcement to be able to afford to maintain a regular cadence of training and proficiency. In addition this will drive Virginians to purchase their ammunition in neighboring states that do not have this tax taking revenue away from local Virginian businesses. The impact of this bill would be an overall net negative for Virginians and this bill should not be passed.

This bill adds an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Is there any other constitutional right that has a tax like this levied on it? No tax on book publishers exercising their First Amendment right? This is a "sin" tax, plain and simple. Owning a firearm is not a sin; it is protected under the Second Amendment. Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. This tax will only hurt "working-class" Virginians, as it may price them out of being able to exercise their God-given right to self-defense. I strongly urge you not to support this bill.