Citizens of all races bought there firearms in a legal manner.Now with a stroke of a pen possibly made illegal..Oppressing and infringement laws are a racist act..The legislators are infringing on rights of different ethnicities, color,culture.The majority of the authors who wrote the bills are white..Some have come from other countries where there rights were oppressed. Now in turn they are the oppressors of American citizens..Citizens are brothers and sisters..And you decide Are the legislators racist in writing these bills..? Sad to see..This will be in record for future generations to see..Let's hope they learn from history and not repeat it .

Why are you discriminating against people of different races and ethnicity. ,? And for a person who is poor? Imposing the bills will make it expensive ,less affordable for someone to purchase a firearm for self defense..

Why discriminate against the constituency whom voted you into office? Vote against the bills..

Firearms were used to free slaves, And self defense..This mantra of self defense carries on ..A hundred years later..You would attempt to limit a constituents right to self defense.. Illegal discrimination ..Do the right thing Vote against the bills..

This critique is true. Will one of you legislators have the courtesy to step out of the groupthink and vote against the gun bills ..? The challenge is to have the guts to do it..Firearms are used for self defense..Freeing citizens from slavery. Sport shooting creates tax revenue and jobs.

The authors of the bills know they cannot ban guns outright..Create hardship bills so a constituent will not want to carry..Delegate, because you possibly do like firearms ..Is it your role ,to treat constituents in a discriminating way..? Against a class of citizens..? Liberals own gun too Not just conservatives..Vote against the bills.

The second amendment is a right not a privilege that can be taken away or will be taken away. Our right or sovereign under the constitution second amendment shall not be in French. Why don’t y’all work on making punishments more harsh for the criminals that rape people moles, children murder, and so on. Instead of trying to make hard-working, taxpaying citizens criminals

Good morning, As a lifelong Virginia resident I can’t believe what bills are even being considered. My name is Chandler Cobb and I currently reside in Isle of Wight County in Smithfield, VA. I’m a Christian, a disabled Veteran, a husband, and I am against any bills that take away our God-given, govt protected, Second Amendment rights. I’ve been a concealed weapons licensee for over 20 years and have never had to fire my weapon in defense of myself or another. That is the story with 99% of Virginian concealed weapons license holders. We also prevent harm without having to fire a single round. The recent Supreme Court precedent set in Bruen and Heller, makes every anti-second amendment bill written UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will eventually be overturned by SCOTUS. Please do not support any bills that take away our rights. These bills will do absolutely nothing nothing to make VA safer and will actually make us less safe. Legal gun owners in this country and this state follow the laws, but criminals don’t care what laws you write banning firearms as they don’t follow laws. These bills only hurt us law abiding concealed weapons license holders and gun owners in VA. Furthermore, there are millions of standard capacity magazines and AR15 sporting rifles and handguns that carry standard capacity magazines. You all are making instant criminals out of not only every Virginian, but anyone driving through our great state. I ask you all to vote NO on EVERY gun bill that infringes on our rights and that’s any bill adding regulations and restrictions on the firearms millions of us own. Thank you and God bless, Chandler Cobb Soli Deo Gloria~ Sic Semper Tyranis~

I stand with the VCDL's position on the firearms related bills. I oppose all Gun Control.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I write in support of HB1388, as a voting executive board member of the local FOP Lodge and a 25 year resident of the Town of Purcellville, VA.. This bill does one narrow but important thing: it ensures that before a locality removes its chief law enforcement officer, there is notice, a process, and a review panel with citizen participation. Communities invest significantly in their police leadership. Citizens deserve to know why that leadership is being changed. HB 1388 creates transparency around that decision. It does not prevent removal for cause. It does not override local governing authority. It simply requires that the decision be made openly and for stated reasons — the same standard we expect of every other consequential government action. This is good governance, and I respectfully ask for your support. Our Interim Police Chief has been threatened by a former subordinate and is now a sitting town council member who has conveyed retaliatory action against her for doing her job, under his own delusions of being politically targeted and not accepting responsibility for his own actions. This TC member is currently under investigation by the VSP and has been charged with 6 separate special grand jury felony indictments after his actions and questionable behavior caused multiple internal and external investigations. All police chiefs across the commonwealth should be protected and not have to work in fear of losing their job for doing their job. Respectfully and thank you!

Mr. Chairman, I submit these comments as President of the Southwest Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, representing approximately 40 Chiefs across Southwest Virginia. We support HB 1388. This bill establishes three important safeguards before a chief may be removed: written notice, a fair and defined process, and review by a panel that includes citizen representation. These provisions promote accountability and transparency while ensuring our communities have a voice in decisions regarding the retention of their Chief of Police. Chiefs who are committed to providing the highest level of professional service to their communities may not always align with an administration’s preferences. HB 1388 ensures that any decision to remove a chief is conducted through a transparent process and, at minimum, provides a clear explanation for that action. This legislation protects the public’s investment in experienced, professional police leadership. I respectfully ask for your support of HB 1388.

Mr. Chairman, I support HB 1388. The bill requires three things before a chief is removed: written notice, a fair process, and review by a panel that includes citizens. It does not impede accountability — it ensures transparency. Chiefs who implement difficult reforms, including the reforms this General Assembly has rightly enacted, should not face removal without explanation. This bill protects the public's investment in professional police leadership. I ask for your support. Angela Comer Associate VP for Public Safety and Chief of Police Longwood University Police Department

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I write in support of HB 1388. This bill does one narrow but important thing: it ensures that before a locality removes its chief law enforcement officer, there is notice, a process, and a review panel with citizen participation. Communities invest significantly in their police leadership. Citizens deserve to know why that leadership is being changed. HB 1388 creates transparency around that decision. It does not prevent removal for cause. It does not override local governing authority. It simply requires that the decision be made openly and for stated reasons — the same standard we expect of every other consequential government action. I am the Chief of Police for the Rocky Mount Police Department with over 30 years of service as both a deputy sheriff and a police officer. I am one of the most community engaged Chief's in the State. If you don't believe me, take a look at our Facebook page. It would be a shame if I could be removed from office without reason and without cause. All I ask is that you support a fair chance, the same chance my officers get. This is good governance, and I respectfully ask for your support.

The proposed legislation aims to address a fitting omission in current Virginia code, an effort I endorse. However the language of this bill has several issues I find lacking or possibly troubling. The definition of "Chief of Police" or "police chief" means the highest-ranking sworn law enforcement officer who is the head of a police department.. This language does not take into account acting chief's or a Chief Deputy in case a chief steps down. By strict interpretation this legislated process would have to take place to then put in place a new Chief. I suggest the need to identify an "Acting Chief" as exempt from this process and define that they would fall under the existing Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights. In the case of a Campus Police Chief, I would see it more appropriate that the Virginia Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators pick a member rather than the Virginia Municipal League. With regard to the third member picked by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, I would think it appropriate that this individual be picked from the active voter roles of the jurisdiction involved.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I write in support of HB 1388. This bill does one narrow but important thing: it ensures that before a locality removes its chief law enforcement officer, there is notice, a process, and a review panel with citizen participation. Communities invest significantly in their police leadership. Citizens deserve to know why that leadership is being changed. HB 1388 creates transparency around that decision. It does not prevent removal for cause. It does not override local governing authority. It simply requires that the decision be made openly and for stated reasons — the same standard we expect of every other consequential government action. This is good governance, and I respectfully ask for your support.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I support HB 1388. Virginia rightly expects professional, reform-minded police leadership. Achieving that goal requires chiefs who can make hard decisions — implementing body camera programs, revising use-of-force policies, and holding officers accountable — without fear of arbitrary removal for doing so. HB 1388 does not guarantee any chief's job. It guarantees only three things: written notice of the reasons for termination, a defined process, and review by a panel that includes citizen members. These are the same basic procedural safeguards Virginia already extends to the officers chiefs supervise. A chief who cannot meet professional standards will not survive this process. A chief who is implementing difficult reforms will not be silenced by it. I urge your support.

Mr. Chairman, I support HB 1388. The bill requires three things before a chief is removed: written notice, a fair process, and review by a panel that includes citizens. It does not prevent accountability — it ensures transparency. Chiefs who implement difficult reforms, including the reforms this General Assembly has rightly enacted, should not face removal without explanation. This bill protects the public's investment in professional police leadership. I ask for your support.