Contrary to how certain government officials treat it, the second amendment is written using plain, easy to understand language, and insists that government has no right to take away the right for ordinary people like us to defend ourselves, as the constitution and bill of rights do not simply give people rights, but protects them from government manipulation and control. It’s incredibly disappointing and a tragedy that people choose to commit acts of violence with these rights, but restricting those who wish to exercise their rights peaceably due to those who wouldn’t follow these rules in the first place is incredibly naive. I, as well as every other person in the United States, deserve to protect my family with the best technology available. While some people look at certain defense weapon setups as a “why do you need that” situation, 1) I have the right to defend myself with the best tool available, and so I will choose that every time, 2) why do you “need” anything other than basic necessities (fast car, Gucci clothes, etc)? The government has no place in deciding what I “need”, 3) people with the intent to harm will not care what laws govern peaceful people, so what would limiting the victim’s access to proper tools do? You may think that by “banning” or otherwise restricting access to a certain thing would mean that all of the “bad” things would magically go away, but they will not. Evil has always and will always exist, and I have every right to defend myself from it using the best tool available wherever I, or my family, choose to go. Restricting access on certain properties (the government isn’t actively protecting me everywhere), requiring certain training (who is paying for this?), limiting certain types of firearms (go ahead and define “assault weapon” in plain language please), and restricting ammo purchasing (I thought you wanted us to train; how does this help then?) are all means that end up hurting the average person and helping those who wish to hurt others, as the rest of us will be left in a position to insufficiently defend ourselves. I urge you to understand that while, yes, it is awful that evil people commit horrific acts, this right ultimately allows me to protect myself and my family from these evil people as well and as evil will always exist (we certainly like to delusion ourselves into believing that we live in a utopia, but we do not), I will protect my family accordingly. The government has no right to restrict this. Leave the peaceful citizens alone, more firmly punish those who hurt others, and help communities where this is an issue to prevent the upbringing of more evil people.

A lot of these laws contradict one another. I can’t support them. Both of our parties have failed us.

As an Afghan American I understand freedoms and my right to bare arms, please do not take this god given right away from us. Thank you

I'm going to preface this by saying all of the below as a middle aged Black military veteran. I'm not involved in a militia and I didn't vote for Trump. I vote for the candidates that best supports me. Both parties have failed me. You ALL are horrible. Regarding both HB11 and HB113, I'd rather not give up any inalienable right, especially if I've been a law-abiding citizen, which I have. I should not have to give up rights, or even jump through hoops to prove I'm qualified because others broke laws. If a person shoots someone (as an example), that person should be held accountable, not folks who were not involved in the crime. Adding layer upon layer of bills to circumvent inalienable rights is wrong. These two bills are needless layers that hurt law-abiding citizens but do nothing to folks that willing violate written law. What other right has so many qualifiers as the 2nd Amendment? The 2nd does not grant citizens the right to bear arms. The 2nd affirms that the right to keep/bear arms is natural and that the government shall not infringe upon that right. If anything, it's telling the people and the government that the right shall not be violated. You all are attempting to further violate that right by adding yet another layer of needless bills. Is there an argument that current laws aren't working? Does the committee discuss why the current laws aren't working and attempt to shore up the gaps by tweaking existing laws (not creating new bills)? As well, in reference to HB11, a knife is an arm, which is covered under the 2nd (right to bear ARMS). Carrying a knife is a protection for most folks (a secondary defense tool, or even a utility tool). If the concern is that someone will use those tools to murder or assault, murder and assault are already against the law. Possession of those tools do not and should not qualify a person to be unlawful, unless that person already has a criminal record or are using the tools in commission of a crime. Intent should always be the driving factor in determining if a person is unlawfully using or possessing the tool. Legislating laws that involve of a tool that is guaranteed as a right by the 2nd is a poor law. Please do better than approving these bills that are in committee. If they are not sound bills, please do not approve them. Voting along party lines does not make bills satisfactory. The context of the bills make bills satisfactory, AFTER determining if the bills don't violate the rights of the citizens. The committee should be striving to protect and defend the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Virgina. Do the right things in doing your job...don't do what is easiest or most popular based on party lines. Do what is proper. I already know the above will fall on deaf ears but thank you for your time.

I oppose all these unconstitutional, dangerous, and pointless laws.

HB1030. No one should be able to carry a gun without a permit. Each gun owner should also have training on how to use it and how to store