I am against this bill along with a variety of other bills proposed. Please consider the following analogy: Would the actions of a vehicular homicide offender bring up a proposed limit on fuel tank capacity for all vehicles in order to prevent more vehicular homicides? Not to over simplify here, but the thought of “less bullets = less gun violence” sounds just as asinine as “less gasoline = less vehicular homicide”. Adding more restrictive laws, further overloading the justice system to weakly enforce them is not the answer. Hold malicious shooters accountable for their actions, and leave the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners alone.

I am against these proposed bills to impededany sort of restriction on the carry of firearms, banning any sort of accessory, type or feature of a firearm, or any law that adds additional penalties, burdens, fees, or taxes on firearms. The punishment the law abiding citizen with burdensome laws and infringe upon their constitutional rights. The 2nd ammendment is very clear in "shall not be infringed," yet these bills infringe on the freedom of people to bear arms. The propososers of these bills know they're illegal bills and are not constitutional. Virginia has long been a beacon of freedom, and was instrumental in in the American Revolution to secure that freedom. It is disguisting seeing its politicians try to forcibly take that freedom away from its people. I am opposed to these bills and urge the legislature to throw them out, with prejudice.

HELL TO THE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLER SAYS THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!

The gun bills are problematic for all of Virginia ..Every race will be affected.Dem Repub.Etc. It is plain to see in the form of complaints that democrat gun owners did not expect this.A moderate admin was expected.Now they realize the vote outcome was an extreme swing to the left bordering on communist traits..We may disagree or support some bills but there is common agreement that the gun bills are over each to the max..Join VCDL ,Gun owners of America, write your legislator..The problem iis just not gun bills .It is other dumb ideas such as a dog walking tax.That come from Richmond..Ideas that are empty in substance. And produce a lot of gibberish confused words..

I am writing as a concerned military member stationed in your district regarding the ongoing debate about proposed firearms legislation. As someone deeply committed to both public safety and constitutional liberties, I want to respectfully express my strong belief in the continued importance of the Second Amendment and share why I feel proposed restrictions could have unintended consequences. Recent events in Minneapolis, Minnesota have highlighted intense tensions around law-enforcement interactions and individual rights. On January 7, 2026, Renée Good, a 37-year-old citizen, was fatally shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Independent reporting indicates that the agent fired multiple shots at her vehicle, and eyewitness accounts have raised questions about whether those actions were justified. Later, on January 24, 2026, federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital. Pretti’s death occurred amid a federal immigration operation, and while Department of Homeland Security officials contend he approached officers with a firearm, video footage and local accounts show him filming agents with a cellphone before he was pepper-sprayed, pinned to the ground, and shot multiple times. These incidents have sparked widespread protests and raised difficult questions about the use of force, accountability, and community safety. They also underscore the complexity of real-world encounters between armed individuals and law enforcement — whether federal agents or private citizens — and how quickly such situations can escalate. For many Americans, the Second Amendment serves as more than a constitutional phrase: it represents a safeguard for personal defense, protection of loved ones, and a check on potential abuses of power. As policymakers consider new regulations that could further restrict lawful firearm ownership, I urge careful consideration of the broader implications. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens may not prevent tragic events like those in Minnesota, especially when questions remain about how force was applied and whether existing policies and training were sufficient. Rather than broad legislative restrictions, I encourage: Strengthened enforcement of current laws to ensure that responsible gun owners aren’t unduly affected; Investment in community safety and law-enforcement training to de-escalate tense encounters before they turn deadly; Support for mental health services and conflict resolution programs that address underlying causes of violence; Enhanced transparency and accountability for all use-of-force incidents, whether involving federal agents or private citizens. The Second Amendment is an integral part of our constitutional framework. I believe that any legislative approach should respect that framework while promoting public safety in ways that do not diminish the rights of responsible citizens. Thank you for your service and for considering the diverse viewpoints of your constituents. I hope you will weigh these concerns carefully as you engage with ongoing legislative discussions.

With the exception of HB1303, HB229, HB871, and HB1300 I reject these bills as common sense gun law as written. Several are patently unconstitutional and a waste of committee time as they will be overturned on issuance. To my democratic friends, we do agree to common sense laws, but adding state licenses to federal tax plays is unacceptable. HB19, remove "or an offense substantially similar" as it vague and could not be reasonably enforced. HB21 does not provide a reasonable method to determine straw buyers. This is an enforcement issue and should be changed to fund LEO records reviews to identify and pursue straw buyers. HB40, material type and detectability should be irrelevant. While I support serialization of all components, 2A rights should not be infringed in place of enforcement methods. HB93 doesn't make sense. We want a prohibited person to get rid of firearms and LEOs can already apply for a warrant if they think prohibited persons still have firearms. If the law currently doesn't provide a window for prohibited persons to get rid of firearms we should focus on that aspect. HB110 remove the unattended motor vehicle may subject to removal clause and I am ok with this bill. HB217 anyone who uses the term "assault firearm" has no business writing legislation on firearms. This is a meaningless term. Magazine capacity, by itself, has no realistic baring on firearm lethality. 3-10 round vs 1-30 round mag with minimal practice is a 2-3 sec difference. HB626 creates complexity and vagueness where all we need are posted signs to prevent carry. HB702 is there really a police station that would turn you away if you wanted to turn in a weapon? This seems like unnecessary use of funds. HB969 is already covered by DOH, we do not need a new center bill to execute this work. Just increase their budget for this line item. HB1359 is the bill I reject the most. We already have federal background checks and do not need an additional tax/time delay to use our 2A rights. In general, I wish our democratic representatives to work with our republican representatives to find common sense and compromise. Focus on the bad guys with guns as the majority of Virginians respectfully and appropriately manage their firearms. The polls show where the common ground is and both sides ignore this in the search for whatever rationale they use to put forth bills and vote. You are making it harder than it needs to be, ignoring the will of the people, and failing to faithfully represent the majority.

The bill creating a penalty for leaving an unattended firearm in a vehicle puts the onus on the law abiding citizen and not the criminal breaking into the locked car. I am against this bill . The bill criminalizing possession of commonly owned firearms and feeding devices violates the constitution, and will make millions of decent people, regardless of party, criminals for owning property they've legally had for years. I am against this bill. I am an independent voter and a constitutionalist. I voted mostly democratic but I do not support any of these infringements.

Dear Delegate Helmer, I’m writing in support of HB 217. Thank you for advancing gun safety legislation in Virginia. Patricia Welch Chantilly, Virginia

Magazine restrictions do not serve any legitimate public purpose. It has already been proven that standard-capacity magazines do not increase homicides compared to restricted-capacity magazines. Washington Post obtained Virginia State Police records of guns seized at crime scenes after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. Standard-capacity magazines replaced restricted capacity magazines in the years following the expiration of the ban, but Virginia's homicide rate continued its steady decline unchanged. There was no increase in homicide victimization following the end of the Federal magazine ban. Virginia's proposed ban therefore is clearly unjustified, unneeded, and constitutionally suspect. "Assault weapons" are rarely used in crimes and most homicides. According to FBI crime data, all rifles combined (including the subset that are "assault weapons") account for 3% or less of homicides in most years. Restricting commonly-used rifles harms law-abiding citizens while having no effect on public crime. The National Institute for Justice studied the Federal Assault Weapons ban, and found no measurable or significant change in violent crime attributable to the Act. Again, this bill in the Virginia legislature serves no legitimate public purpose, and accomplishes no public good. Further, under existing jurisprudence, such a bill is unconstitutional under both Virginia and US constitutions. US v Miller held that certain weapons could be taxed (not banned) ONLY based on a lack of suitability for militia use. DC v Heller disallows bans of commonly used firearms. The current bill to ban commonly-used rifles goes against all constitutional doctrine. The radical bills offered by Virginia Democrats go against reason, evidence, sense, and legal doctrine. These bills are inimical to a Free State, and should be opposed by all rational people.

I appreciate your efforts to move this forward on behalf of the safety of all Virginians. Please stay courageous in the face of folks who use bullying and troll like behavior to mask their own fear.

I fully support this bill and hope you will too. My daughter was a freshman at Virginia Tech during the shooting there. We have to get assault rifles out of the hands of anyone except the military and police.

I am a member of Moms Demand Action and we support this bill.

Given the events in Minneapolis, I find it extremely troubling that now the virginia house is attempting to restrict our second amendment rights. We're seeing real tyranny, people brutalized for protesting, federal LEO going door to door and potentially violating people's 4th amendment rights. Now that an ICU nurse is gunned down for conceal carrying lawfully, we decide to remove gun rights? Really? How is this not in service of the already extremely powerful, corrupt federal government? How does this serve regular virginia citizens? It does not. Not to mention the conditions, and lack of oversight/consequences/remediation for the terrible conditions in what are correctly described as concentration camps across the country, this is not the time to disarm. We haven't had a mass shooting at a school since VTech nearly 20 years ago and the laws at the time should have caught it, he should've been barred via red flag laws already. Can we address the real, structural gaps that led to shootings, instead of this meaningless criminalization of responsibly owned guns/magazines? I agree even to raising the minimum age for certain firearms, I agree you should show a period of mental, emotional, social stability to earn the trust of society to own more capable firearms, but to unilaterally remove that trust forever is uncalled for, and ultimately places that trust in a government that is doing more to prove it cannot be trusted. I'm sure as members of the establishment dems you're aware of the ratchet effect, the party has been doing it since the late 60s. Until you start pushing for actually left policies, that put power back in the hands of people via collective bargaining, workplace protections, etc. AND also show that the federal government cannot trample virginian rights, there should be no attempt to restrict our gun rights. You have not earned that trust yet, and the federal government is losing it rapidly by the day. Thank you for considering my words, I say them as a lifelong democrat voter. I fear the outcome of this bill will decide if I ever vote for a dem again, this cannot pass.

My name is Kaleigh Leager, and I am the Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic States for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). I write to you today in opposition of House Bill 217 (HB 217) – Importation of Assault Firearms. HB 217 prohibits anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing and possessing popular modern firearms, which will likely create an additional barrier for the recruitment, retention, and reactivation (R3) efforts of sportsmen and women, in addition to negatively impacting critical conservation funding in the Commonwealth.

Please vote no to any bill restricting the freedom offered to us through our beautiful consititution! This bill restricts our personal freedom.

These bills violate Article I Section 13 of the Virginia Bill Of Rights. They also violation the Supreme Law of the land, our US Constitution. We have the right to keep and bear arms, and this an obvious attack on our rights.

Maybe the legislators will realize of how there infringing on citizens rights..The problem is the Democrat mindset.It is a deep-rooted disturbing system .The system is invoked in most Democrats.A system that started years ago.Created to manipulate laws,create new laws They seek to shape history in there own manner. Micromanage citizens lives through penalties for not complying.The simplest thing such as not paying for a car registration on time invokes a penalty.The U.S has become a penalized society .This was not the founders idea of a system..England did this ..Dictators , fascists, monarchs do this. And we see this in the gun bills introduced in session.A legal firearm today will be confiscated and be illegal tomorrow.It is amazing to see to see legislators copy other dictators systems and be proud of there accomplishment..Citizens will buy into this form of rights suppression.This happened during the American revolution ..Citizens become dependent on gov. to manage there life.Sad to see. This will remain on record and hopefully citizens 30 ,50 years from now,read this and learn about infringement of rights created by the authors of these bills..You , citizen can apply this to all Bill infringing ideas...

I hope Delegate Helmer’s bill gets passed because the 2nd amendment is about a well regulated militia “ not allowing citizens to carry around and use machine guns.

I hope Delegate Helmer’s bill gets passed because the 2nd amendment is about @ a well regulated militia “ not allowing citizens to carry around and used machine guns.

Why would you give Noncitzens have rights to anything? We do not need more illegals with guns. We have lost a lot of people in this country due to illegals. If they are not legal citizens of Virginia they do not get any rights. They need to apply for citizenship first before any rights should be given. Common sense. Also Our gun rights are set by the Constitution. You trying to change our rights is not ok with any of us and you know it. We have the Right to bare arms. To try to make any changes to that is not ok. Stop impeding on our rights and Actually help the Citizens of Virginia Not the illegals. Let ICE do their jobs and stop with the drama. Use COMMON SENSE.

The statements here are a permanent record.Of how citizens opposed oppressive infringing behavior by legislators creating bad laws.Infringing on citizens rights.May future generations read this and oppose any bad law that is oppressive to citizens and the constitution. If you do not believe look at other countries of past that oppressed there citizens rights.God Bless

Good afternoon I write to this committee today to show my concern over these unconstitutional bills that lay before you. Every bill that is being proposed does nothing to save one Va citizens life. These bills are about control. This nation was founded on principals to keep governing officials and tyrannical measures off the shores of America. Guns are not the problem, we have a problem of the heart when it comes to humanity. The tool does not change the outcome. We have seen time and time again where nations have stripped the rights of citizens only to still use issues with gangs, drugs and government corruption. With the 1st amendment we are allowed to speak against our government and others who seek to destroy our constitutional republic. The second amendment is what keeps the rest of our right in tact. By limiting the types of firearms and or magazines we are allowed to own you are taking our fundamental liberties as Americans away. Many of you from the larger cites and or other less rural areas don’t understand that semi auto firearms allow us to hunt coyotes that harm the live stock of the farmers in our areas. They are also need in some instances when there are more than 2-3 attackers in a home invasion. Just because some of you didn’t not grow up with guns and or hunting doesn’t meant you legislate it away from those us who use firearms for sport and protection. I grew up in a family that mostly only hunted deer and squirrels but as I got older and really understood what the 2nd amendment was for I quickly have changed my families out look on firearms and there importance in the American household. Mental illness is where politicians need to spend their efforts but neither the state or federal level wants to tackle that. If you fix the mental health crisis and gang crisis in our nation there’s no reason for individuals to resort to violence that takes innocent life.

I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed gun control bills currently under consideration. Although I doubt that you will personally read this email, I feel compelled to emphasize that these bills, such as HB217, HB207, SB27, HB21, HB24, HB19, HB40, and HB1359, SB 115, SB 173, SB 272, SB 323, SB 348, SB 496, SB 727, SB 749, are flagrantly unconstitutional. The Second Amendment, which states "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was drafted in 1787 with a specific purpose in mind. This purpose was not merely for hunting or target practice, but rather to ensure that citizens would never be disarmed. Our founding fathers were deliberate in their wording, recognizing that an armed populace serves as a safeguard against tyranny. The proposed bills are attempting to erode this fundamental right, imposing onerous restrictions that would discourage Virginians from exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. It is essential to recognize that the Second Amendment protects all other amendments, and any infringement upon it undermines the very fabric of our democracy. As a nation founded on the principles of liberty, it is distressing to witness the erosion of our fundamental rights. I urge you to consider the long-term implications of these bills and the potential consequences of disarming our citizenry. As a Christian and a citizen, I am reminded that there may come a time when we must defend ourselves against foreign or domestic threats. It is our duty to ensure that our citizens are equipped to do so. The Second Amendment was not drafted for the military or the national guard, but for the people. It is our responsibility to safeguard this right and prevent its erosion. I implore you to take a stance against these unconstitutional bills and uphold the principles of our founding fathers

I STRONGLY oppose this bill. This will make law-abiding and responsible gun owners criminals. While I deeply care about public safety and safety of our communities and children, this bill would not address the core issue. The other side is presenting misleading stats. AR-15 is a common firearm and 99% of owners are law abiding citizens with NO criminal history. This bill is unconstitutional. Also the recent supreme court precedent must be taken into account. Please focus on passing bills that would focus on safe storage, restricting gun ownership for teens or anyone under 21, stronger background checks etc. The solution is not AWB. I voted democrat on many elections, and I am NoVA resident. This bill and many other similar bills would make many independents and democrats sit out the next election or vote red. Please use commonsense and vote NO to this bill.

Giving up your right to the 2nd amendment For those who think that the 2nd Amendment does not matter then read giving up the right to protect yourself from unlawful may again lead to this!!!!!! Disarmament of the German Jews The Holocaust warns us of the deadly consequences of antisemitism and hatred, dehumanization and apathy left unchallenged those who perished in Nazi death camps The disarmament of the German Jews started in 1933, initially limited to local areas. A major target was Berlin, where large-scale raids in search for weaponry took place. Starting in 1936, the Gestapo prohibited German police officers from giving firearms licenses to Jews. In November 1938, the Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden prohibited the possession of firearms and bladed weapons by Jews. The legal foundations that the Nazi Party later used for the purpose of disarming the Jews were already laid during the Weimar Republic. Starting with the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928, weapon purchase permits were introduced, which only allowed "authorized persons" the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory registration of weapons was introduced, which gave the government the opportunity of accessing weapon owner and their weapons at any given time. Manufacture and sale of weapons was only permitted if authorized so. The purpose was to ensure that firearms were only issued to "reliable individuals". Starting in 1930, bladed weapons were also regulated. The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit Immediately following the "Machtergreifung" in 1933, the weapon laws of the Weimar Republic were used to disarm Jews, or to use the excuse of "searching for weapons" as a justification for raids and searches of homes. Because the weapons law of 1928 gave the police the authority to issue or withdraw weapon permits, Jewish weapon owners were disarmed through warrants issued by the police. For instance, the president of the police of Breslau enacted an order on 21 April 1933 which stated that Jews had to give their weapons and shooting permits to the police immediately. After the Jewish population was judged as not to be trusted, no weapon permits were issued to them The weapons law was also used for searches of homes and raids. The preface for that was the allegation that the victims of these searches stored large amounts of weapons and ammunition. A prominent example is Albert Einstein, whose summer residence in Caputh, near the Schwielowsee was searched in spring 1933. The only item found there was a bread knife. Raids, for instance on 4 April 1933 at the Scheunenviertel in Berlin, also took place. Not only many weapons were found, but also a lot of publications that included criticism of Nazi Germany. Sometimes, Jews without residence permits were also found and arrested. Starting in 1935, the Gestapo prevented the issue of weapon permits and weapon purchase permits to Jews. The police authorities were the executing authorities and had to comply with the orders issued by the Gestapo. The self-defense of Jews was abolished, and they were subjected to the arbitrariness and terror of the police authorities, without the need to introduce a new law for this. Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945. For all groups persecuted by Nazi Germany

As a Virginian, I am writing to urge you to support and prioritize passing life-saving gun violence prevention bills this legislative session. Legislation that does things like: Ban the sale of all assault weapons regardless of when they were manufactured Prohibit ghost guns Require enhanced background checks for firearm purchasers Hold the gun industry accountable for the gun violence epidemic Establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention Require gun owners to store their guns securely Strengthen protections for survivors of intimate partner violence 2026 can be the year that Virginia becomes a leader in gun safety, and I’m counting on you to take action to protect me, my family, and my community this session. Thank you! Noel Miller

I oppose the proposed bill. The language in the bill is exceedingly broad and will effectively ban all firearms except bolt-action rifles, which are a minority of firearms in the state. This is a blatant violation of constitutional Second Amendment rights and an attempt by the government to monopolize force, something which the founding fathers stood staunchly against. This bill goes way too far over the line, and will certainly not stand under judicial review. I am a law-abiding citizen who is generally concerned with safety and security of my community. However, making it so that those in power are the only ones with firearms, does not do that. We have to be able to stand up for ourselves, and not make our government more susceptible to abuse. Please join me in opposing this bill as it violates our rights as citizens to ensure our own safety.

Dear Members of the House Committee, Thank you for the time and effort you give to reviewing legislation that impacts the safety of our Commonwealth. I am writing as a law-abiding Virginia resident who cares deeply about public safety and about protecting the constitutional rights of responsible citizens. My concern with the firearm bills currently before this committee is not rooted in politics, but in whether these proposals truly make our communities safer or instead place additional burdens on citizens who are not the source of violent crime. Respectfully, I ask the committee to consider the following: Public safety is ultimately about people, not objects. Acts of violence are committed by individuals who choose to harm others. Laws that focus primarily on regulating firearms owned by responsible citizens do not address the behavior of those intent on committing crimes. These proposals largely affect law-abiding Virginians. Criminals, by definition, do not follow firearm laws. Restrictions on possession, transfer, or technical features primarily impact citizens who already comply with the law and use firearms responsibly for self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed individual firearm rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognized an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. More recently, NYSRPA v. Bruen held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. Many modern restrictions raise serious constitutional questions under this standard. The public safety benefit of these measures is unclear. Research and court findings show mixed or inconclusive evidence that bans or feature-based restrictions reduce violent crime. Meanwhile, illegal markets, theft, and repeat offenders remain largely unaffected. True public safety solutions focus on violent behavior. Enforcing existing laws, addressing repeat violent offenders, improving mental health resources, and targeting illegal firearm use would more directly improve safety without limiting the rights of responsible citizens. I believe most Virginians want safer communities and effective solutions that address violence at its source. I respectfully ask this committee to consider whether these bills accomplish that goal, or whether they risk limiting constitutional rights without meaningfully improving public safety. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration. Respectfully, Ron Lowman Virginia Resident

Our children will be safer when Helmer’s bill passes. The 2nd amendment says “ a well regulated militia “ , not private citizens should have machine guns .

If a nation's government becomes so oppressive and tyrannical, we have the right to fight it. Our guns provide us with self defense against tyranny, evil, and malice. Our forefathers knew this and that is the very reason for the second amendment. It shall not be infringed!

Oppose this bill! Totally unconstitutional.

Our freedom was won with illegal and unregistered firearms. Please look to VCDL and G.O.A. for guidance on second amendment issues.

I appose these bills.

When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they had just won their independence from a tyrannical system. The 2nd Amendment was right at the top behind freedom of speech because it’s THAT important. As elected representatives of the greater Commonwealth you MUST vote NO on any new legislation that will restrict law abiding citizens from exercising their rights under the US Constitution. It states “Shall not be infringed…” which means any rule or law attempting to be enforced or passed is in direct violation of our country’s constitutional rights. Enough is enough. NO on all these bills. Radical tyranny must be met with vigilance from FREE people. Do the right thing.

Please OPPOSE: HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry.  All of these are infringements on Americans' Second Amendment Civil Rights and will not address their stated intent

Gov Spangenberger received support from Virginia Police benevolent association, claims she was a federal law enforcement officer.But cuts ties with immigration enforcement . To place detainers and notify federal authorities of criminals being released from detainment.The claim of supporting law enforcement and doing the opposite when it comes detainer notification is hypocrisy..Same deal with firearms owners..

Our Bill of Rights are the Laws Of We The People for the Government State and Federal to abide by. Not for the Governments to use and change the definitions to meet their agenda to make Conservative Christians into criminals. Any and all anti gun regulations, restrictions or bans against law abiding America Citizen the Rights to bare Arms shall not infringed and will not be permanent. An act of the legislature which is repugnant to the Constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008.

The Justice and Witness Action Network of the United Church of Christ – VA supports HB217. As people of faith, the devastation we see created by gun violence is unacceptable. We are called to proclaim peace and we will not be content to let the current state of affairs continue. The use of an assault weapon is a common thread in mass shootings. These weapons are designed for use on the battlefield, to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. They are not designed for sports, or to protect an individual from an assailant, and have no place in the hands of civilians. We urge you to stand up against gun violence and prioritize human life by voting for HB217.

My husband and I are both proud Navy veterans who have served our country honorably. After completing our military service, we chose Virginia as our home and have lived here for over 30 years. We have continued to serve our nation in a civilian capacity and have always been proud to call Virginia our home. We are law-abiding citizens who pay our taxes, contribute to our community, and have never committed a crime. However, we have reached our breaking point. The relentless push for stricter gun control measures — including House Bill 217 — has made it clear that Virginia is no longer a welcoming state for responsible gun owners. We are deeply tired of being treated like potential criminals simply for exercising our constitutional rights. This bill represents yet another step toward punishing law-abiding citizens while doing little to address actual crime. Because of this constant erosion of our freedoms, combined with rising taxes and policies we strongly disagree with, we have made the decision to leave Virginia. After 30+ years, we are relocating out of state. We personally know four other productive, veteran families who are also planning to leave Virginia for the same reasons. We are not isolated cases — we are part of a growing exodus of military veterans and responsible gun owners who no longer feel welcome here. Virginia cannot succeed by applying one-size-fits-all urban policies to our entire state. Rural Virginians have a very different way of life, culture, and relationship with firearms than those living in Northern Virginia or urban centers. Treating us the same is both unfair and disastrous. If this trend continues, Virginia will suffer a significant mass exodus of productive citizens, veterans, and businesses — resulting in major economic and cultural loss. We refuse to allow our tax dollars to continue funding policies that undermine our rights and prioritize other agendas over the safety and freedoms of Virginia’s citizens. We will not allow our tax dollars to fund policies that prioritize protections for illegal immigrants and enable the kind of corruption we have seen in states like Minnesota. We strongly urge you to reject HB 217 and all similar legislation that further restricts the rights of responsible gun owners. Respectfully, Christy Spaulding King George, VA

As a Moms Demand Action Volunteer, a mother of two small children and a former teacher, I STRONGLY support this bill. Similar bans have been statistically proven to significantly reduce the number of mass shootings and lives lost to gun violence. Our lawmakers have a responsibility to protect the lives of their constituents and passing this bill would be a huge step toward public safety in our commonwealth. Assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible and they have no place in our communities. I have read the devastating details of the Sandyhook shooting countless times. Many if not all of the 26 precious lives that were taken in those 4 minutes could have been saved if the shooter had not had access to such a deadly weapon. I cannot thank Delegate Helmer and all of our representatives who have supported this bill enough for working to prevent such tragedies in our communities. Thank you for working hard to keep my children and all of our fellow Virginians safe.

I retired from the military after 26 years of service. I could have chose any state to settle. However I chose Virginia. Taking our right away or any part of it to bear arms is unconstitutional. What is an assault weapon. The Ar platform is just a semiautomatic rifle. Law abiding citizens use these for sport and hunting nuisance animals such as coyotes etc. Speed limits are what they are yet people buy sports cars that double or triple speed limits. That is the great thing about America we live free. I’m not against gun reform; but let’s use common sense gun reform. Make gun owners have guns stored in locked safes. Let’s look into mental health. These two things will prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands. My belief is that criminals will always get guns because they don’t follow law. Why are we punishing law abiding citizens? If these bills amongst others I will be deciding to relocate and support a state that stand behind the second amendment I so longed to protect and preserve. God bless Virginia.

I support this bill.

I am a member of Mom's Demand Action and we support this bill, HB217.

Thank you Delegate Helmer for this important effort to make us safer. These weapons of war do not belong in our community. I support this bill.

I'm an active duty USAF officer with a new family. We're an interracial couple and the recent events around the country make it very clear we are not safe from state violence, intentional or unintentional, or from violent extremists who may very well be our neighbors. Despite my 14 years of service, I don't feel safe being unarmed against the growing uncertainty the federal administration is fomenting. Please oppose this bill and help us feel secure against state terror and extremist violence.

The same politicians whom plan to penalize citizens for lawfully owned firearms by making them illegal.Plan on reducing mandatory minimum sentences and bail for criminals. makes sense..Semi auto ban,magazine ban,penalties and more for honest citizens

The qualify immunity bill if can give scitizen rights to sue the judiciary for illegal gun control bills

The 14 bills manufactured with only one thought behind them .Passing the bills at all costs.Sacrificing citizens rights with down the road illegality which is what oslegal today.Oh we will pick and choose what to grandfather. In other words firearms are legal now but we will do you a favor citizen and grandfather them in when we make them illegal. Big egos and ideas that don't work.

I oppose these bills.

VOTE NO as written, exclude CHP holders and any FFL. This is unconstitutional both at the State and Federal Level and SCOTUS will make all the parts of this bill Not putting the grandfather clause back in is also unconstitutional. Is VA going to buy back all weapons and Mags found illegal?

I agree with the VCDL on these bills

Please focus on arresting criminals and making VA affordable again. Every year prices taxes, energy bills, and regulations increase. Outside of Virginia Beach, VA does not have a gun crime problem. I beg of you to please please please focus on passing laws that actually make VA a state that is affordable and worth living in. No average American who is politically moderate views this as 100% politically motivated. Please work for the people and not your party. Do better.

I adamantly oppose all of these bills and their overreach. You going to take the bulk of Virginia citizens and make them criminals by the stroke of a pen.

I am opposed to HB217. HB217, as drafted, is legally and practically unsound for two related reasons: it retroactively criminalizes lawfully owned property by omitting a grandfather clause, and it does so without demonstrating a meaningful public safety nexus. HB217 specifically criminalizes the use of private property for sporting and self-defense purposes. The bill contains no grandfather clause for magazines lawfully owned prior to enactment. Virginia constitutional law has long disfavored retroactive legislation that impairs vested rights or criminalizes conduct that was lawful when undertaken. Article I, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution protects property rights, and the Supreme Court of Virginia has repeatedly emphasized the importance of reliance interests and fair notice. In Shiflet v. Eller, the Court held that “[r]etrospective laws are not favored” and that legislation may not retroactively impair substantive rights consistent with due process. 228 Va. 115, 120 (1984). Similarly, in City of Chesapeake v. Gardner Enterprises, the Court explained that once rights have vested, “they may not be legislatively abrogated.” 253 Va. 243, 246–47 (1997). Magazines regulated by HB217 have been lawful, commonly owned personal property in the Commonwealth for decades. Criminalizing their continued possession—without compensation, registration, or safe harbor—undermines reasonable reliance and fair notice principles. As the Court noted in Hess v. Snyder Hunt Corp., due process requires that individuals be able to “order their affairs in reliance on existing law.” 240 Va. 49, 53 (1990). Even apart from retroactivity, HB217 fails to demonstrate that banning magazines based solely on an arbitrary capacity threshold bears a real and substantial relation to public safety in Virginia. While the General Assembly may exercise its police power, that power is not unlimited. The Supreme Court of Virginia has made clear that police-power regulations must not be arbitrary and must have a genuine connection to the harm asserted. In Tanner v. City of Virginia Beach, the Court stated that such regulations must be “reasonably related to the protection of the public health, safety, or welfare” and may not be “arbitrary or unreasonable.” 277 Va. 432, 438 (2009). Likewise, in Board of Supervisors v. Rowe, the Court invalidated regulations lacking “a real and substantial relation to the public welfare.” 216 Va. 128, 140 (1975). HB217 provides no Virginia-specific evidence that magazine capacity—independent of criminal intent or prohibited status—materially contributes to violent crime or that banning such magazines would reduce criminal harm. The bill regulates inert accessories rather than criminal conduct, despite the fact that violent misuse is already addressed through existing statutes governing prohibited persons and violent offenses. Finally, Virginia courts have repeatedly held that criminal statutes must be narrowly construed. As the Court reiterated in Taylor v. Commonwealth, “[p]enal statutes are to be strictly construed against the Commonwealth.” 298 Va. 336, 344 (2020). HB217’s broad criminalization of mere possession, untethered from misuse or intent, departs from this principle and magnifies its constitutional vulnerability. Taken together, these defects render HB217 overbroad, weakly tailored, and legally exposed.

This bill is overly broad and primarily targets features of firearms that make them more accessible for people with joint issues, mobility challenges, or other disabilities. All members of the commonwealth deserve to be able to compete and train, and this is excludes already marginalized citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.

11 percent tax,500 dollar suppressors, what happened to the promise of lower costs..Did anyone offer a gun bill to lower concealed permit fees?

Stop harassing citizens you need to stop the criminals instead of letting them free and trying to keep us from protecting ourselves. Over and over you stand against your people . I do not understand.

Why can you not vote for a pro gun bill? Why are law abiding citizens penalized for owning firearms?

The legislators took an oath to serve it's citizens.The actions taken creating the gun laws create penalties for the citizens of Virginia.Is this protecting and serving citizens...?

Legally owned firearms can possibly become illegal. Honest Law abiding citizens can be penalized if there is no compliance.Are the legislators serving citizens by this type of action?who came up with this plan? The same plan in all blue states.

Gun violence is the #1 cause of death in children and teens in the U.S. As a registered nurse and volunteer with Moms Demand Action, I am in full support of these bills. Thank you, Del. Helmer, for using your experiences as a war veteran to make this Commonwealth safer for its citizens.

I am writing as a Virginia resident to express my strong opposition to all proposed anti-gun bills and to respectfully remind you of the constitutional limits placed on the General Assembly with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is explicit and unambiguous: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This language is not conditional, qualified, or ambiguous. It is a direct limitation on GOVERNMENT power and reflects the understanding that the militia consists of “the body of the people,” not a select or state-controlled class. Likewise, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affirms that this right “shall not be infringed.” As a state, Virginia is bound by both its own Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Legislation that criminalizes or restricts the ownership, possession, transfer of commonly owned firearms or standard magazines, or restricts where a person may carry or how to store their firearm, directly conflicts with both. I respectfully urge you to uphold your oath to support and defend the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States. Virginians expect their elected officials to respect enumerated rights, even when doing so is politically inconvenient. Thank you for your time and for your service to the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Sean Fredericksburg, VA.

Citizens of Virginia, do not give up..I. They love to see citizens defeated.Thy thrive on misery .The chaotic bills are a reflection of there own self.Miserable spoiled and confused.

Ban magazines,semi autos,and more. you don't comply your penalized..It is disgusting to see law abiding citizens being placed in this position.And the legislators using law enforcement as there tool to enforce the penalty side..This shows how the Democrats will use ,abuse anything and body whom stands in there way..To get to there power goal..Throughout history dictatorships have done the same thing to there citizens .

It’s my belief that blanket bans based solely upon firearm features rather than measures that tackle the cause of gun violence, poverty, domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental illness will not meaningfully make Virginians safer; and merely cover up systemic issues. These feature laws also criminalize millions of law abiding Virginians, redirecting law enforcement resources away from solving said systemic issues and having them chase down arbitrary invented infractions. Instead of fostering a sense of responsibility and openness with the firearms community which could help law enforcement recognize potential crisises before they occur, by criminalizing a majority of firearms from the last 50 years, you enclose criminal and lawful citizen together under the same umbrella . In summary, I am not opposed to the these laws because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by gun violence, I am opposed because I believe that laws based on features of firearms rather than the circumstances which created the violence does a disservice to those victims, their families, and to the community at large.

This bill proposed does little to address the real problems of gun violence that stem from mental health and upbringing and environmental factors such as community, family. This bill aims to tackle the symptoms of the problem not the root cause. This legislation simply aims to ban features that are in common use such as folding stocks, threaded barrels, heat shields, and other common features that do nothing to the firearms function.

The leading cause of death for children in America is GUNS, specifically assault weapons used in our schools and other gathering places, such as theaters, malls, and churches. When an assault weapons ban was in place in America (for 10 years), mass murder events were dramatically reduced. This law does not impede the rights of people to hunt or participate in activities at shooting ranges. There is simply NO need for anyone to have one of these weapons for personal use. Assault weapons with large magazines are used in WAR because their purpose is to kill as many people as possible. The trauma inflicted on our children is despicable. Active shooter drills create fear and more trauma. I support this bill because I care about the safety of American families.

Assault Weapons Bans have not been shown to impact violence. Maryland passed a ban in 2013 and did not see an impact on violence. Community violence intervention has actually shown results in the last few years. Do not materially decrease the ability of Virginians to defend ourselves. The features targeted by this ban make firearms easier for individuals with disabilities to use. Standard capacity magazines are essential for self defense, as most individuals only have one magazine with which to do so, and for individuals with stokes or amputations, a single magazine is their only option. Individuals with joint issues or recoil sensitivity need muzzle brakes to mitigate those issues. Vertical fore grips help individuals with lower strength or joint issues. Donald Trump has profited greatly off of selling the idea of simple solutions, and scapegoats. He argues that specific ills in the country are the fault of immigrants, or trans people, or ‘elites.’ There is a tempting power to the idea that a group one inherently disagrees with is the problem, and that there is a simple solution that both punishes that other group and also solves the problem. Mass shootings are a real issue. But there is no threshold at which force against innocent people is acceptable. There is no magazine capacity at which such violence is acceptable. The simple solution which punishes an outside group doesn’t actually solve the problem. Trans people aren’t responsible for child abuse, eliminating immigrants won’t fix the economy, and a 10 round magazine limit won’t stop mass shootings. The solutions to these problems are much harder, and require the political and cultural will to look deeper and find the actual causes and mechanisms which will work against those root causes. Don’t reach for an easy answer that doesn’t solve the problem. Do the work to get at the root cause. Do not rob Virginians of their right to protect themselves.

I am a member of Moms Demand Action, and we support this bill.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment.

I very much support this bill.

These bills the Virginia Democrat 2026 general assembly will infringe on people's God given rights, look at the statistics gun laws cause more deaths by causing law abiding citizens to jump through hoops.especially the bill which requires a VA resident to obtain a permit to rent, purchase a firearm, that bill alone will cost people their lives and if it passes the blood on the hands of the general assembly. The bills which Sadaam are passing are unnecessary measures, and a total slap in the face to all people in Virginia. Abigail promised tax breaks but then she did a 360 reversal and proposed 150 percent pay raise for her and her constituents, 15 percent sales tax on many services and goods. It was extremely reckless for the governor of 2026 to end state police corporation with ICE, NOW these bills will further infringe on Virginians rights. It makes absolutely no sense to enable criminals by taking away the minimum sentence requirement, so the general assembly is pro criminal and doesn't care about Virginians. If these bills are passed then what I've stated is true. Police are already underrated, pass these bills and you further jeopardize Virginians safety and well being. Most likely will be taken to the supreme Court

Please scrap these gun control billsbills. These bills restrict current and future safe and lawful gun owners access to their current and any future firearms while limiting their ability to protect themselves and their families in the commonwealth. Second amendment restrictions in the name of safety dont make us safer in all communities of the commonwealth. Most all the states that have more second amendment restrictions on firearms have more crime statistically. Disadvantaged neighborhoods are more at risk of drug pusher/gang violence with the flow of drugs to all the cities and towns in the US today. Making more gun free zones makes it better for those with criminal intentions to commit crimes. These state government restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights can result in legal challenges in the commonwealth. These bills will raise the cost of ownership and will slowly but surely whittle away all of our ability to afford the protections all of us enjoy now

I support this bill

NO to all firearms bills, laws, and unjust documentation. You are warned, we will fight until we have no breath left. This is the line. We will organize, and fight tyranny. This is Virginia! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.

This is NOT why I voted for Spanberger. I have lost my faith in my own party. It's a shame to say I will have to vote as my husband suggested, with the republican party. I have been bleeding heart blue since I was 18. This state that I love is slowly dying with these crazy laws! I'm blue, but I believe in our constitution. Abigail is a LIAR! Figures the CIAs pet would lie to us. I can't believe how embarrassing it is that it only took 2 days to show her colors. I feel duped!

I am a member of Moms Demand Action and I support this Bill

I proudly served for 30 years with the New York State Police retiring and moving to Virginia in 2017. I attained the rank of Major and my last assignment was leading a state wide narcotics and weapons task force. The majority of my career was spent in criminal investigations including homicide, major crimes and counterterrorism. Based on my experience, these proposed pieces of legislation will do nothing to curb crime and will make law abiding citizens less safe. A common sense proposal to increase the penalty for using a gun in a crime was defeated in committee on a party line vote. What a missed opportunity to protect the citizens of Virginia. Criminals by definition will follow none of these laws if enacted and will only be emboldened. Additionally, most if not all of these proposals fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions in the Heller and Bruen cases. I urge you to vote against any bill which strips the rights of law abiding citizens from exercising their God given right to self defense and does nothing to address the root causes of violence.

We strongly oppose every bill against the 2nd amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. You will force action with these unjust laws. Be warned

The Justice and Witness Action Network of the United Church of Christ – VA supports HB217. As people of faith, we are horrified by the needless carnage from gun violence. There's a common thread in mass shootings: the use of an assault weapon—a weapon designed for use on the battlefield, to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. These firearms are not designed for sports, or to protect an individual from an assailant. We urge you to prioritize human life by voting for HB217.

We strongly oppose All of the bills and tax increases this governor is pushing. She ran as a moderate, And has lied about everything she stood for. We will not stand for unconstitutional Bills, This is the line in the sand. Virginia is the state where our great constitution Was written, It's disgusting to see all of you taking a piss all over the Constitution of the United States of America. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I have just moved to VA from Florida where I fought very hard to put the socialism and communism to the dust bin of history there. I will fight with my last breath the garbage you people are trying to do here in Virginia. All of you disgust me, look forward to debating many of you in the future. Enjoy the win while you can, real conservatives are coming with lawyers and organization.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! VOTE NO TO ALL FIREARMS LAWS, OR WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT. NO TO ALL TAX INCREASES. NO TO RAISING YOUR MONEY FOR HOUSING, AND PAY! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! DONT MAKE US USE OUR RIGHTS AGAINST TYRANNY, TYRANTS

My name is Jennifer Earley, Alexandria VA, a member of Moms Demand Action and we support these bills.

I support the passage of HB217. It does not impede the responsible ownership of guns, but does restrict weapons of war that plague our communities and help provide the United States with a gun death rate 25X higher than other comparable countries. This type of weapon is not the kind needed for defending one's home or for hunting. It is designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. We can "well-regulate" our citizenry without disarming them. Thank you for attempting to make our neighborhoods safer.

I vehemently oppose all anti second amendment bills. I urge you to reconsider your support of these bills and remember your oaths to the Virginia State Constitution and US Constitution. Though I doubt that will happen. Thus they will be challenged in a court of law and very highly likely to be found unconstitutional, and therefore, unenforceable.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This language establishes an individual right, a conclusion affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). While the government retains authority to enact certain regulations, broad or restrictive anti-gun laws that substantially burden law-abiding citizens exceed constitutional limits and undermine the intent of the Amendment. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties, including self-defense. The right to bear arms is not contingent upon government permission but is recognized as pre-existing and inherent. Laws that impose excessive restrictions—such as blanket bans on commonly owned firearms or arbitrary licensing regimes—effectively nullify this right for ordinary citizens, contradicting both the text and historical understanding of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has emphasized that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, making sweeping bans constitutionally suspect. Beyond constitutional concerns, strict anti-gun laws often fail to achieve their stated public safety goals. Criminals, by definition, do not comply with gun laws. As a result, restrictive legislation disproportionately affects responsible gun owners while leaving violent offenders largely undeterred. Numerous jurisdictions with stringent gun control measures continue to experience high rates of gun violence, suggesting that such policies address symptoms rather than root causes such as gang activity, drug trafficking, and repeat violent offenders. Additionally, overly restrictive gun laws can weaken personal and community safety. Firearms are frequently used defensively, often without a shot being fired, to deter crime and protect lives. Limiting access to lawful self-defense tools may leave vulnerable populations—particularly those in high-crime or rural areas—less able to protect themselves when law enforcement response times are delayed or unavailable. Anti-gun laws also raise concerns about unequal enforcement and civil liberties. Complex regulatory frameworks can result in arbitrary or discriminatory application, exposing citizens to severe penalties for minor or unintentional violations. This undermines public trust in the legal system and diverts resources away from prosecuting serious violent crime. A more effective approach to public safety respects constitutional boundaries while focusing on evidence-based solutions: enforcing existing laws, targeting violent offenders, improving mental health interventions, and strengthening community-based crime prevention. Protecting constitutional rights and promoting public safety are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are best achieved together. In conclusion, anti-gun laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon a fundamental right explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. They are also ineffective as public policy, burdening lawful citizens while failing to address the underlying drivers of violence. A constitutional, balanced approach is both legally sound and more likely to produce lasting improvements in public safety.

HB21 I oppose this bill. There is no reason that a firearms manufacturer should be held liable for the use of the product they produce. The seller of the product does their due diligence in verifying that the customer has the credentials needed to purchase the firearm and after that point what is done with the firearm is solely the responsibility of the individual customer. HB217 I oppose this bill. There is no reason that outweighs our constitutional rights to own firearms that allows the ban "assault weapons" from being purchased, the grandfather clause is irrelevant and only exists to sedate the backlash of this. Even the definition of "assault weapon" being used is wildly broad. Not allowing the purchase or ownership of standard size magazines is ridiculous and forces gun owners to pay a premium for these silly 10 round magazines. What is the tangible benefit to this? These types of laws only work to hamstring law abiding citizens and empower criminals, but I'm sure you all are already aware of that. HB871 I oppose this bill. I can understand keeping loaded firearms under lock and key in a home with minors, however, what is the reasoning behind needing to be biometric? It is an unnecessary requirement that affects lower income citizens disproportionately as biometric firearm storage is significantly more expensive than non-biometric. Biometric should not be required for this.

HB1359 line 425 will result in the crown taking firearms if the permit simply expires.

I oppose this bill. I stand with VCDL on each of these bills.

With due respect to those who reportedly represent the people of this fine state, As a Veteran of the United States Navy I swore an oath to protect and uphold to Constitution of the United States! That’s oath has no expiration. I fully support the right and responsibility of a free people to the right to bear arms. Any member of political office who truly represents the American people who are in fact their constituents should also fully support and defend the right of a free people to bear arms. All the proposed bills being reviewed today are an infringement on those rights and will do nothing to make the lives of good people better. They will only restrict the freedom of law, abiding citizens, while doing nothing to prevent crime as the definition of a criminal is an individual who does not follow or respect the rule of law. As a veteran who served this great country, I am very much ashamed of the direction that politicians have gone in, trying to restrict the freedoms and the quality of life that myself and other members of the military fought to uphold so it is with all due respect that I strongly encourage these these bills to be rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and express my views. Mr Jeffrey Nortman. Franklin county.

All of these measures will cost a large amount of money to fund and enforce. This goes against the message the governor ran on of affordability for the state and living in it. This will also only affect people who already abide by the laws the state has in place. Criminals will not abide by these laws. Criminals will continue to disobey the law, and will possibly put legal gun owners at risk when they cannot defend themselves. If we are going to charge gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals using their products, we need to do the same with the spirits industry involving cases where a drunk driver kills someone, after they have left a bar.

I stand with VCDL on all bills

I support the points the VCDL makes. Delegate Helmer is a liar and a coward. Delegate Cole is a coward that blocks people because he cannot handle Logic pointing how he is dishonest and ignorant.

hb217 unjustly bans many firearms in common use by many virginians, many of which for mere quality of life features that do not affect lethality like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, or foregrips. This bill only adds more needless red tape and hardship to legal gun ownership, whereas its just another charge for a career criminal.

Southern Tactical is strongly against this be not only will it limit legal gun ownership to the citizens of these state. Southern Tactical would no longer be able to manufacture or import guns you deem assault weapons or high-capacity magazines in the state of Virginia anymore. This bill would also prevent Southern Tactical from even selling to out of state federal firearms dealers & law enforcement agencies. It would also prevent us from being able to export Southern Tactical's products to our distributors around the world. This would cause Southern Tactical to have to possibly lay off up to 7 employees consisting of disabled vets and current army reservists. If this bill was to be passed as written, it would force Southern Tactical and its employees to have to uproot families and leave the great state of Virginia. There will be significant financial impact from this bill as written to dealers across the Commonwealth. We are a small to medium sized importer and manufacturing of firearms. There are much larger firearms businesses in the state that will be affected as well as many smaller ones that are the back bone of there community. To my best knowledge, this could affect 1000's jobs in the state with 10's of millions of dollars of lost taxes and revenue to the state. The 50,000-dollar figure given in financial impact statement needs to be reviewed. We are sad this bill would even come up for a vote at all, when there is so many other ways to reduce gun violence without infringing on law abiding citizens rights. We ask you to kill this bill now once and for all. Do what's right not what anti gun lobbyist are telling you to do! We are better than that in Virginia.

As a concerned Virginia resident, I am deeply concerned with the bills introduced regarding firearm legislation. These bills I feel are only hurting law abiding citizens and will not help with gun violence by criminals. It seems like the laws that have been introduced to punish criminals have been voted down but laws that will hurt the average legal Virginian continue to advance. I would ask that you please consider to vote no on these introduced bills. Thank you.

The attached testimony opposes proposed firearm legislation in Virginia, arguing that it unconstitutionally infringes on Second Amendment rights as protected by the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedents like District of Columbia v. Heller. It highlights Virginia's historical role in the founding era, critiques the bills as bureaucratic overreach targeting law-abiding citizens rather than criminals, and uses statistics to show that such measures fail to reduce gun violence. Specifically, it urges rejection of HB 217 (banning "assault firearms" and high-capacity magazines), HB 21 (imposing industry standards leading to potential lawsuits), and HB 1359 (requiring purchaser licenses), emphasizing that they impose undue burdens without addressing root causes of crime. The purpose is to advocate for upholding constitutional rights and rejecting these "common sense" gun control proposals at the January 29, 2026, Public Safety - Firearms meeting.

I strongly oppose any of the bills that infringe on the 2nd amendment. The only people that these bill affect are law abiding citizens. Criminals and ill willed people don’t get their guns legally. Why should I be punished for never committing a crime? More gun control makes our state that more unsafe and will not solve any of the issues that the patrons of the bills are wanting to solve. Taking more rights away from law abiding citizens is just a way to reward the criminals. Thank you for your time Steve Bennett Spotsylvania county

I respectfully request you oppose these unreasonable and overly restrictive anti-gun bills which are unnecessary and violate or 2nd Amendment rights. Gun owners are responsible citizens. We already have laws that adequately address crimes and harmful actions by people. We need to remember that people conduct these crimes, not inanimate objects. Heavy automobiles kill people regularly but we don’t try to outlaw them. Virginia needs to remain a state that respects the rights of our responsible citizens. Thanks

I strongly oppose HB 217 and urge lawmakers to reject it. This bill represents a misguided approach that threatens to create significant harm while offering little in the way of meaningful solutions. HB 217 imposes broad and rigid requirements that ignore the complex realities faced by Virginians. Rather than addressing root problems, it risks expanding government control, increasing costs, and limiting individual and local autonomy. Legislation of this magnitude should be narrowly tailored and evidence-based, yet HB 217 falls short on both counts. The General Assembly should not advance legislation that prioritizes political convenience over practical outcomes. Virginians deserve policies that respect personal freedoms, empower communities, and avoid unnecessary government intrusion. For these reasons, HB 217 should be decisively rejected.

I oppose all of these. I have been a gun owner for over 20 years. I've never broken a law aside from a moving violation. Why should I have to give up a constitutional right. When this state now wants to protect others who have broken the law. I can not believe we have elected a man who wished harm on someone else and their children. He is the one who shouldn't have a gun. Anything can be an assault weapon , should we next limit cars to not go over 65 mph? Someone could hurt a lot of people with those too. My point is the problem is the people, not the guns.

As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)

As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)

Thank you Delegate Helmer for continuing the lus for this vital legislation. Our communities will be safer for your efforts. Thank you!

As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)

I would encourage the members of this committee, and most particularly the sponsors of the bills being considered, to reflect upon what their goals are when evaluating these items. If thoughts of “safety” come to mind, I would then encourage members to consider matters which address criminal behavior(sentencing guidelines, support for law enforcement, etc). Arbitrarily setting magazine capacity limits, withdrawing concealed carry permit reciprocity, or establishing a purchase permit system does not protect the general public from criminals who do not follow these laws. Setting magazine capacity limits to make the world safer is like trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions by enacting gas tank volume limits. Mr Helmer appears to like to tout his military service, particularly when speaking about his bills. As a fellow veteran I find this repugnant, and it makes me question his frame of reference. Anyone who has been in the military understands that merely having served(a great and noble act regardless) does not equate into automatically being an expert in firearms. Most particularly in how their regulation in the continental US affects things like violent crime. Over my career in law-enforcement, I’ve seen firsthand the regard criminals have for the law, as well as the way they capitalize when others are handicapped by it. Enacting barriers to make it more difficult to lawfully obtain firearms, or banning ones that are very commonly owned(and turning untold amounts of people into criminals overnight) will not make anyone safer. Through this evaluation, one could easily begin to suspect that claims of making things safer by nature of this legislation are at a minimum ill-informed, if not completely disingenuous. While the former could be explained by possible good intentions driven by emotion or misunderstanding, the latter is naturally of more sinister nature. Such an accusation cannot be made lightly, but it must be considered when examining the facts. Thus I call on the members of this committee to do a thorough self reflection on what their goals are, and how the bills being considered will affect law abiding Virginians.

As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)

I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support these bills. Thank you to the patrons.

I am a longterm resident and homeowner in the commonwealth of Virginia. I am a wife, a mother, and a teacher. I also am an advocate for our constitutional rights, especially the second amendment. I open carry often and have had my conceal carry permit for over 5 years. I have read the laws and stayed as up to date on the topic as I can. It seems these days that people are making decisions based on emotions rather than logic. “Shall not be infringed” is clear as clear can be. If that’s not clear enough, look at the cities and states with the strictest gun laws. Those are the most violent areas with the greatest rate of criminal activity. Emotional decisions come with the gravest outcomes. Look at the countries throughout the world fighting for their lives. They are the ones who have lost their right to bear arms. Do not dig our own grave by ignoring our constitutional rights. It is your duty to uphold the constitution, not let your emotions drive you to treason. Respect the constitution and respect the second amendment in its entirety. Nothing less. Thank you.

I STRONGLY OPPOSE ALL OF THESE BILLS. I agree with VCDL stance on all of these bills. They are unconstitutional!

I strongly oppose all of these bills except for HB1303. These proposed changes will do nothing to make our Commonwealth safer, if anything it will become more dangerous for all. HB217 is an egregious attempt at violating our constitutionally protected right. Using the justification that other states have enacted similar laws is a weak argument since these bans do not pass review using the Bruen standard established by the US Supreme Court. The bills fail the two part test required by Bruen. The first part requires looking at whether the conduct is covered by the plain text of the second amendment. Which these bills are blatantly unconstitutional, since it would impede our ability to keep and bear arms. The second part requires historical analogues of founding era laws restricting ownership of commonly owned arms. Of which, there are no laws from that era to outright ban entire classes of firearms. Furthermore, the state should not waste millions of taxpayer dollars that will inevitably be exhausted attempting to defend a set of unconstitutional laws that the courts will rule in favor of we the people of the commonwealth of Virginia in the end.

Stop violating our continuation! Especially now that all these situations have risen with ICE. The ones that shouldn’t have guns is them.

I am a progressive voter writing to oppose this bill as currently drafted, while fully sharing this committee’s goals of public safety, harm reduction, and preventing mass violence. I urge the committee to delay the bill or substantially amend its scope. As written, the bill defines “assault firearm” primarily by cosmetic and accessory-based features rather than by lethality or demonstrated use in crime. Characteristics such as threaded barrels, muzzle devices, adjustable stocks, or pistol grips primarily affect ergonomics, accessibility, and safe handling, and are used safely and lawfully by hundreds of thousands of Virginians for sport shooting, hunting, and home defense. These features do not meaningfully change the basic operation of a semi-automatic firearm, yet they trigger criminal penalties under this proposal. This approach risks criminalizing ordinary, non-violent Virginians without clear evidence that it will meaningfully reduce gun violence. While existing firearms may be grandfathered, the bill also creates a complex compliance trap for people relocating to Virginia or attempting to lawfully acquire commonly owned firearms, turning technical features into criminal liability. The inclusion of vague catch-all language such as “any characteristic of like kind” further compounds these problems, creating uncertainty for lawful owners, retailers, and law enforcement alike. Laws that are ambiguous or overbroad undermine compliance, invite arbitrary enforcement, and are more likely to face costly constitutional challenges. I am especially concerned about enforcement impacts. Broad, feature-based prohibitions expand discretionary enforcement and historically have been applied unevenly. Firearm laws have often been enforced most aggressively against Black, Brown, and low-income communities, even when rates of lawful ownership are similar. Creating new classes of non-violent firearm offenses risks deepening over-policing without addressing the drivers of violence or improving public safety outcomes. There are also real political consequences to this approach. Gun ownership among Democrats and liberal-leaning voters has increased in recent years, including among women, people of color, and LGBTQ Americans. Broad bans based on features rather than misuse risk alienating voters who otherwise support Democratic priorities and weakening the coalition needed to pass effective, evidence-based reforms. If the goal is to reduce gun violence, broader consensus exists around measures such as enforcing existing laws, targeting straw purchasing and trafficking, strengthening background checks, funding violence-interruption programs, and expanding access to mental health care. These strategies save lives without sweeping in lawful and responsible owners. I respectfully ask the committee to slow this bill down, substantially narrow its scope, or refer it for further study. Thank you for your time and service.

Thank for a strong gunsense bill. We can work towards a safer community! We thank the patron of the bill.

These bills should all be opposed. Refer to the opinion issued by the Attorney General on why HB217 and HB1359 are unconstitutional and would not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court based on the Bruen decision. HB217 bans firearms which are in “common use” and constitutionally protected. HB1359 should not require a license to exercise a constitutionally protected right. This is true whether to speak freely, protest, be free from search and seizure, or keep and bare arms. https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/26-001-Webert-issued.pdf HB40 is masquerading as “ghost gun” bill but bans historic and antique firearms which may be hundreds of years old and made before serial numbers were even conceived. Requiring antique firearms to be serialized will destroy both history and their value. Additionally this bill will ban the home production of personal firearms, of which Virginia has a rich history. There is no “history and tradition” of banning firearm manufacturing for personal use, and this bill will or stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. OPPOSE HB21 This bill allows one of the most highly regulated industries, the firearms industry, to be sued civilly for a variety of already illegal actions. No way to foresee what the actions of a third party might be; good or bad. OPPOSE. HB40 Specifying the material from which a firearm is constructed doesn't contribute to public safety. OPPOSE. HB 110 . It’s still a crime to burglarize an automobile so why not targe the burglar? The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. OPPOSE. HB 217 VA has no problem to solve and this solution doesn't make VA measurably safer targeting law abiding owners. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm 'in common use' is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. OPPOSE. HB 702 This is a waste of money as there is no measure of success. If a person wants to sell their guns there are plenty of qualified buyers that will pay the market price. OPPOSE. HB 969 Additional government bureaucracy that has an ill-defined mission and no measure of success. Funded by law abiding citizens rather than felons. Also, guns are incapable of violence. OPPOSE. HB 1359 We have instant background check and by all accounts it works fine with little delay in the process. We don’t need additional bureaucracy in the middle. Further, we don’t need permits for any other basic rights guaranteed by the US and VA constitutions, why this one? Don’t our constitutions keep the government’s hands off? OPPOSE.

I write to you today as a young, concerned citizen of Virginia. It has come to my attention that two bills discussed here today are very damning for this state’s citizenry and their ability to enact their 2nd amendment right. Specifically, HB1359 and HB217. These bills wish to make criminals of your citizens for the possession of firearms and firearm components that have been legal to be sold and transferred in this state for decades. Magazines over 10 rounds are no longer protected under the previously discussed grandfather clause. Is it the intention of this representing body to make millions of the citizenry criminals overnight for refusing to follow this lunacy? Your inclusion of a firearms permit in ideals is understandable, however you have fundamentally barred young adults from practicing their 2nd amendment right. No licenses are to be issued to anyone under the age of 21, why? Nor have you considered the lead time of bureaucratic paper pushing for the filing of these licenses. You are slapping a wait time on people’s self-defense. The average police response time in Virginia is 3 to 15 minutes. The average length of an active shooter incident is 12 minutes with 69% occurring within 5 minutes; according to Heals "Autopsy of an Active Shooter". The length of a self-defense incident can be as short as a few seconds. It won’t be the criminal caught by these bills. It will be the mother who got off work late walking home alone in the dark. The convenience store clerk whose only option was to comply or die and still paid the price. The father who just wanted to protect his children. The 2nd amendment is beyond political parties; it is not republican nor democrat. It applies to us all as Americans and you should respect that. I do write to you from a place of ignorance or ill-understanding. Gun crime is a problem in the United States and Virginia Inner Cities. However, please do not oppress the citizens of Virginia for the actions of people who the system has failed. We must assess the problem of crime in this state, not the symptoms. The funding from enforcing such a Bill would be much better spent on community improvement, infra-structure expansion, and youth assistance programs in inner city areas subject to gang crime. I am young, and I am tired of being scared to advocate for my rights and the rights of others. I ask you to please advocate for the re-evaluation of these Bills. Stand with your people not your investors Thank you for your time, and I oppose these bills.

Dear Legislators While I am fairly sure all of these bills were created with the thought of public safety but one will never be able to legislate morality. Many of these bills take law abiding citizens and turn them into felons..I do not support any of these bills as they are a clear violation of the second amendment which id remind you of the oath you swore to uphold that constitution.

I strongly oppose HB 217. Banning firearms based on arbitrary physical features does nothing to address the underlying issues of gun violence; instead, it strips law-abiding citizens of their ability to effectively defend themselves. ​Most concerning is the bill’s impact on minority and immigrant communities. This legislation creates a pathway for increased police intervention and selective enforcement, effectively putting a target on the backs of POC gun owners. By transforming law-abiding residents into "criminals" overnight through arbitrary definitions, this bill risks inviting federal overreach by agencies like ICE into our communities. I ask the committee to reject HB 217 in favor of solutions that do not disproportionately endanger marginalized Virginians.

I am against HB217 because banning firearms and magazines that have been and are widely owned and responsibly used by countless millions of Americans and law-abiding Virginians is wholly and completely against the US Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia AND clearly against recent decisions of the US Supreme Court. Any politician who supports this HB217 is against the basic rights of the ordinary citizens to exercise their Constitutional rights and should be punished and removed from office. HB217 is an abomination and should be rejected loudly and completely by all honest and sincere representatives in Virginia. We don't need SB217. We don't want SB217. We want our cherished freedoms. Sic Semper Tyrannus!

Regarding HB217, this bill imposes an arbitrary definition on firearms. Why does a firearm automatically become an "assault weapon" when it can carry an 11th bullet instead of the 10 proposed? Does the 11th bullet and beyond does anything more than the first ten? The features listed on the bill do not inherently make the firearms dangerous. The person wielding said firearms with malicious intents is. 30 round magazines are not "high capacity". They are considered standard capacity by many manufacturers as well as police forces and militarizes around the world. Why do common folks who want to defend themselves have to limit their ability to do so? Are we second class citizens compared to law enforcement officers? If all people are created equal, they should have equal opportunity to use the same capacity magazines to defend themselves and their family. The July 1, 2026 date limit imposed also does not make sense. If two identical firearms were created, but one was manufactured on June 30 while the other July 1, why is the July 1 one an "assault weapon" if it is identical to the one made the day before? "Assault weapon" is such a broad term to apply to just firearm. If someone wanted to, they can assault people with eating utensils, writing utensils, vehicles, rocks, etc. Are we going to ban those as well to "protect" the people? Leading cause of death in the US is obesity. Can we look forward to a food and eating utensils ban as well? There are also exemptions in the bill to allow former law enforcement members. This includes ICE agents. With the current events happening in MN, is this what we really want to allow? If this bill passes, VA residents will be at a significant disadvantage if ICE agents decide to go rogue as they have the past few weeks.

I oppose the following bills for the following reasons: HB217: This bill violates the United States and Virginia state Constitutional right to bear arms. This bill will not promote public safety. It will diminish the defensive capabilities of the average person and strengthen the power of criminals as time passes and less people have access to the subjected firearms in HB217. Submission of this bill is a clear violation of the oath sworn to the Unites States and Virginia state constitution. HB229: I oppose this bill because law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones regardless of the location. This bill makes hospitals a soft target for criminals wishing to do harm.

I oppose any bill that limits a Virginian’s ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. They only affect law abiding citizens.

I agree with the VCDL on these bills!

The creators of these bills. Have backgrounds in Law,Finance,etc. They are wordy long meaningless statements. Often contradicting one another.Serving to confuse the citizen firearm owner on what is lawful,not lawful,what is legal,illegal..Where can I carry a firearm and not carry..This is a tactic that legislators use with all bills,laws, Example, The reciprocity bill. Reciprocity is harmless ..The Creator of this bill saw something and decided to make a harmless entity.into a big deal..This is the mentality of the design plan of all of the anti gun bills. The creator of the reciprocity bill does not understand, not willing to understand the benefits of reciprocity. It is the same with all creators of the bad bills..Create wordy legalese mumbo jumbo.That sounds intellectual at first read but are actually hollow words.The end goal is to ban firearms which cannot be done outright but make it difficult enough so citizens will not bother owning a firearm..The founders kept the law simple because they knew the common man had to understand there rights .But as you can see lawyers judicial system complicated it with addendums to the addendum so the common man no longer understands the law and has to be confused on what lawful or not..

These bill are yet another example of government overreach. The constitution of the United States of America is very clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed." These bills are in clear violation of our rights and will only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals who they're supposedly supposed to affect. I urge you to stand up for what is right and stand up for the oath you took to uphold our constitution.

I object to bills HB 21, 40, 969, and especially 217, 1359 on the basis that they are unconstitutional and do not represent the best interests of the law abiding citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. While the remaining bills with the exception of hb 1300 and 1303 have their own issues, I wish to focus my comments on the most significant infringements to both the second amendment as well as to our own state constitution. Starting with HB 1359, this bill as written effectively bans individuals who do not currently own firearms from being able to in the future. The current language of the bill bans rentals, which are commonly used for training and educational purposes, but also requires live fire training before a permit may be issued. Even with this issue resolved, the process laid out for the application and obtaining of a permit to purchase a firearm is an undue and unreasonable burden. In cases where urgency is required because someone justifiably believes themselves to be in danger there would not be time for the full process. Additionally, this process would limit firearms purchases to only those individuals with the time and resources to be able to afford expensive training courses. A single mother working multiple jobs to support her family may not have the time or money to spare for this process but still has a right to defend herself and her family. Furthermore, similar laws have already been struck down by the US Supreme Court in other states, see New York Rifle and Pistol Association vs Bruen. These are but a few of the issues with this bill. HB 217's ban on certain firearms and magazines would not only be unconstitutional, with similar bans on items in common use having been struck down in other states, but also would do little to reduce crime. According to commonly available statistics, use of these weapons in criminal activity accounts for an almost negligible fraction of overall crime involving firearms. HB 21 creates an absurd precedent that would allow for law abiding businesses to be sued for crimes committed by outside individuals. As written, this would be equivalent to someone suing an auto parts store for selling seat covers found in a vehicle that was used in a DUI incident. Furthermore, this unfairly impacts small, family own businesses who may now have the same amount of resources to fight spurious lawsuits this bill would allow. Many of these businesses are heavily involved in educating and training law abiding citizens on firearms safety. Especially in combination with bill 1359, the disappearance of these businesses would make proper training incredibly difficult to obtain. HB 40 would ban individuals from manufacturing their own firearms, a right that has always existed. The current wording of this bill also creates a potential for severe overreach with the wording around materials that could be made in to firearms. The phrasing "may readily be completed, assembled, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver" is overly vague and could be construed to include raw materials such as sheet metal, etc. HB 969 does not directly infringe upon the rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth as the above bills do, but is a solution looking for a problem. Violent crime in general is already extensively studied, and the creation of a Gun Violence Prevention Center would only waste taxpayer funds to create a policy center with an incentive to come up with ways and reasons for future infringements.

I side with the VCDL’s position on these gun bills. I oppose all gun control efforts. As a Federally Licensed Dealer, all of these bills will either make my costs higher or end all or most commerce in the Firearms Industry. Individually: HB19- misdemeanors should not remove firearms rights HB21 - this bill will skyrocket liability insurance and effectively end all firearm business in Virginia. Advertising alone could be used in spurious lawsuits. Dealers already have more regulation than necessary. Additionally, there is no exemption for LE or Military or agency sales. HB40 - since PMF (privately made firearms) are legal and their numbers are unknown, this is unenforceable. There are no serials on the prior produced units. As a Dealer, I will not touch these for both liability and federal excise tax. As a gunsmith, we will not work on these already. I will not take these in as I do not want my credentials marked on these units. Bruen requires a historical review- citizens have always been able to produce their own firearms in America. HB93 This bill is poorly written and will bar often lawful ownership from access to firearms should another person in the household be convicted. HB110 victims of crimes should not be penalized for thefts or attacks. Stop limiting carry in buildings and the firearms will not get stolen. HB217 - this bill is why the 2nd Amendment exists. This bill will NOT meet the Bruen test, This Bill is substantially different than MD’s ban as compared to in the senate meeting, This bill will effectively ban 90% of the most common firearms and magazines. In Virginia it is estimated that 75% of the magazines already here will be prohibited- there are millions of these magazines. The arbitrary “features” ban represents an abuse of power. This bill will also undermine commerce in Virginia. HB229 disarming law abiding citizens creates a higher risk of attack in places where often mentally unstable individuals and criminals congregate. HB626 adults in college should not be disarmed for seeking higher education HB702 creates a slush fund that should not destroy otherwise valuable property which could be lawfully sold to dealers. This bill encourages waste. HB871 bruen decision requirements will not be met by this bill- Americans can conduct their homes as they see fit. Also, most owners already have safes that are often better than the cheap biometric ones. HB969 - these organizations not only represent a waste of time, money, and resources, they historically only undermine commerce while using taxpayer funds to work against the interests of the people. This is a slush fund. HB 1303 45 days is plenty as it is. A right delayed is a right denied. HB1359 permitting will not survive the bruen test. We should not have to get a background check before getting a background check to buy a gun. This bill potentially also creates a 45day to 2 month lag in business that could end many retailers business in virginia. This bill is unconstitutional.

As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE several of the "gun control" bills in your committee. Although some of the bills under your review may possibly have some merit (HB93, HB110, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB1300, HB1303), most will only have an impact on law abiding citizens and businesses, and do nothing to prevent criminals from continuing to commit crimes and gun-related violence. Criminals do not abide by the law. Creating additional laws won’t change that. Bills like HB21, HB40, HB217 and HB1359 only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. HB21 holds the seller responsible for actions of the purchaser/offender. Should we similarly hold an automobile dealership responsible for the driver that crashes their vehicle? HB40 disallows possession of a firearm without a serial number, impacting gun hobbyists who have built lawful firearms for personal use without government interference, who lawfully purchased unfinished frames before the effective date. HB217 prohibits ownership based on a biased classification of a firearm and/or the number of bullets it can hold. This isn’t a measure to prevent gun violence, it’s plain and simple gun confiscation by definition and an infringement on the second amendment. According a quick Google search, Virginia had 421 homicides in 2024, with 86% by firearm and of those, approximately 2-4% were committed by any category of rifles. That's 7-14 deaths by all rifles, with no clear distinction of an assault rifle. If the goal is to reduce gun violence, you’re missing the target. Suppressors/silencers being included in this is baffling, as their intent is protect the hearing of the shooter, as well as reduce the audible impact to others. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," do nothing to address the actual crime in the Commonwealth. What is will do is turn law abiding citizens into new criminals overnight for the ownership of lawfully purchased common handguns, semi-auto rifles and shotguns. The Commonwealth should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes and increase minimum sentences commensurate with the offense do deter the crime from being committed. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE the noted gun control measures in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.

We The People of Virginia would like to remind you that the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states, "Shall Not be Infringed" yet you continually attempt to Infringe on the 2nd Amendment which is CLEARLY a BLATANT and Willful VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment. We The People will not stand for the violation of our rights. Need we remind you of your oaths off office and to the Constitution....If you violate our rights you will be held liable. Do not pass these bills. Sic Semper Tyrannis.

This is the 2nd amendment. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Read the last four words of that sentence. Now, read it again. Now, read it a third time. It hasn't changed has it? Vote no to gun "control", the infringement of my 2nd amendment rights.

HB 93, Delegate Bennett-Parker, requires a person with a protective order against them or a person with a domestic violence conviction to surrender, sell, or turn their guns over to someone 21-years-old or older and someone who does not live with them. It requires the person to be advised that if a police officer believes they have not turned over all their guns, that the officer can get a search warrant to look for any such guns. There are multiple problems with the bill as written. If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun for home defense, for example, and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that co-owned shotgun. That punishes the wife and needlessly endangers her life. There is also the question of not allowing a person 18 to 20-years-old to retain the guns. A person in that age range can legally possess rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Young adults should be able to hold the guns. HB 110, Delegate Laufer, creates a $500 civil penalty and subjects a vehicle to towing if a person leaves a visible handgun in an unattended vehicle. The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. This bill would put a handgun in the possession of, and under the control of, a tow truck company! Punish criminals and stop harassing good people. HB 217, Delegate Helmer, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, and transport of an “assault firearm” made on or after July 1, 2026. It also prohibits sale, possession, transfer, and transport of an “assault firearm” to anyone under the age of 21. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and were made on or after July 1, 2026, are prohibited. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands.

I've been working in healthcare for up to 40 some years and say the biggest issue that we have this truck related to death and alcohol-related deaths, I see more stabbings than I do gunshots. As a proud Jewish American I also am against this abandoning and outlawing of certain firearms due to their style and look and how they are fed. I'm also against the magazine restriction that y'all want to put in place. I'm also against wanting to raise the tax rate on purchasing firearms and ammunition. Reason being my grandfather had his firearms/weapons taken away from him in Germany and was told the government would keep them safe and fed... this was not the case has later on they were rounded up and stuck in camps and had no means to protect themselves when they came through and pulled them from their homes and their families. I never got to meet him or an uncle of mine. I did not want to have a government tell me what I can and can't have to protect my family and loved ones when the biggest issue we have right now here in America is law enforcement going door to door ripping families apart and deporting them and the current drug epidemic we have in our country. If you really support and care about the safety and lives of the American people and The Virginian residence you allow them to have and use what they think is best to protect them and their families.

This is a direct attack on my 2A rights as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in multiple decisions.

While each bill is presented as a discrete public-safety measure, taken together they represent an overbroad and legally fragile expansion of firearm regulation that exposes the Commonwealth to constitutional, fiscal, and enforcement risks without a demonstrated link to reduced violent crime. 1. Constitutional vulnerability and litigation risk Several proposals regulate possession, transfer, manufacture, or availability of arms and components that are in common lawful use or impose liability standards untethered from criminal intent. This places the Commonwealth on unstable ground under modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, which requires historical analogues and narrow tailoring. Enacting multiple overlapping restrictions increases the likelihood that a single successful challenge could invalidate broad portions of the framework, wasting legislative effort and public funds. 2. Overcriminalization of lawful conduct Bills addressing storage, vehicle possession, transfers, and manufacturing sweep broadly enough to penalize responsible, non-violent citizens for technical or situational violations. This diverts law-enforcement resources away from violent offenders and undermines respect for the law by treating lawful ownership as presumptively suspect rather than protected conduct. 3. Enforcement ambiguity and regulatory incoherence The combined effect is a patchwork of prohibitions, civil penalties, and standards that are difficult for citizens to understand and for law enforcement to apply consistently. Vague or expansive definitions—particularly regarding firearm components, classifications, and “responsible conduct” standards—invite selective enforcement and uneven application across jurisdictions, raising due-process and equal-protection concerns. 4. Civil liability expansion without fault Imposing novel civil liability on firearm industry participants for downstream criminal misuse departs from established principles of proximate cause. Such provisions risk collapsing lawful commerce through litigation pressure rather than adjudicated wrongdoing, exposing the Commonwealth to economic harm and predictable constitutional challenges. 5. Weak alignment with public-safety outcomes The proposals do not meaningfully address repeat violent offenders, illegal trafficking networks, or prosecutorial follow-through—areas with the strongest evidence of impact on gun violence. Programs such as buy-backs and new administrative centers risk becoming symbolic expenditures with limited measurable return. 6. Disparate impact and equity concerns Complex compliance regimes disproportionately burden lower-income and rural residents who lack ready access to legal counsel, storage infrastructure, or permitting resources, resulting in inequitable enforcement outcomes without corresponding public-safety benefits. Conclusion If the General Assembly’s objective is violence reduction, these bills should be rejected or substantially narrowed in favor of constitutionally durable measures focused on violent-crime enforcement and due-process protections. As drafted, the package increases legal exposure, enforcement confusion, and public distrust while offering minimal demonstrable benefit.

I am writing to respectfully voice my disagreement with HB 217 and HB 1359 as written. While there are reasonable regulations that can be made to ensure the safety of our communities and still stay within the bounds of the second amendment, both of these bills go far past that standard. With regards to HB 217, the Supreme Court has been clear in it's rulings in Heller v. District of Columbia that arms in common use cannot be regulated - HB 217 seeks to ban the purchase and transfer of some of the most commonly used and owned arms in Virginia and the country as a whole. While many of you reading and supporting this bill on its face (and by it's disingenuous title, the "Assault Weapons Ban") may believe that this bill only affects rifles such as the AR15 and AK platform, the bill would in fact ban the purchase, transfer, and sale of almost every modern semiautomatic rifle, handgun, and shotgun. I also oppose the specific carve-outs for active duty law enforcement, and especially for retired law enforcement officers who may still purchase these weapons for personal use. If, as Delegate Helmer says, these are weapons of war that have no place on our streets, why should civilian law enforcement officers still have access - and who are they going to be waging war on? Similarly, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruled that firearm regulations cannot be made in consideration only of the public good, but must follow a historical tradition of firearm regulation - no such tradition exists, in Virginia or elsewhere, for this type of overreaching regulation. With regards to HB 1359, I oppose on similar grounds - to quote the majority opinion in Bruen, "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need." The requirement to obtain a permit prior to purchasing a firearm is not consistent with historical tradition, nor is it applicable to any other right guaranteed to persons in the US. Should we start requiring permits, for example, to exercise our right to free speech? Should only those persons who have received a government-issued permit be free from worry about illegal search and seizure? No - and as the court ruled, the second amendment is not subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I would also point the committee towards states that have implemented permit-to-purchase schemes in the past - implementation of these systems invariably leads to long delays, and while the bill states that the timeline from application to grant of a permit may be only 45 days, look no further than states like Connecticut to see the reality - permits often take in excess of six months, significantly longer than their process allows. As Dr. King said - a right denied is a right delayed. I strongly urge the delegates to consider prioritizing policy that has been shown to actually reduce violence in our communities rather than blanket bans - a strengthening of mental healthcare access, addressing socioeconomic divides and lack of opportunity in our most vulnerable communities, and an emphasis on enforcing existing laws that would keep violent criminals off our streets.

I do not support any further restrictions on our second amendment rights. It is a right given to us by God and guaranteed by the VA and US constitution. This constant attack on our second amendment rights is an illegal immoral nuisance and it seems to me an attack on the people who enjoy using their second amendment rights. These bills do nothing to make us safer. I further note that while allowing far more latitude for criminal behavior in sentencing this legislative body seems intent on disarming innocent civilians making them more vulnerable to the criminals being released. One additional point. Several of these bills would make almost all modern firearms illegal with out any grandfather clause, thus immediately making people who have done nothing wrong liable for criminal prosecution. This further leads me to to believe that this is a veiled attack on people that this legislative body doesn’t like vs an attempt at public safety.

I stand in firm opposition to these bills, which both infringe upon my protected rights, and squander taxpayer money both in defending against the inevitable lawsuits that will follow in their wake should they pass, and in establishing state sponsored programs that will accomplish virtually nothing, save to take a slap at the faces of lawful gun owners and supporters of the Constitution, both state and federal. These various bill cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard that the Supreme Court has established with regard to second amendment issues. They will tie up resources better spent elsewhere in protracted court battles that will inevitably end with such legislation being overturned. Virginia does not have an "assault weapons" problem, nor a problem with ownership of standard capacity magazines, that is those holding more than ten rounds. There is likewise no pressing issue with infractions of existing laws by legal firearms owners, particularly concealed carry permit holders. Thus, there is no need to call for any additional licensing, notwithstanding the demonstrable fact that criminal elements of the population would ignore such requirements, regardless of the penalties. Then there is the matter of the takings clause, as thousands, of not tens of thousands of Virginians would have the value of their property destroyed, or have their property taken without recompense. Barring any grandfathering of already owned firearms and magazines, this places the state in an even more precarious legal position. Finally these laws smack of being ex post facto in nature, turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, simply for continuing in the possession, or in activities that were entirely legal previously. These laws appear to be nothing short of punitive in nature, intended not to improve public safety, but to cause maximum pain towards political opponents and defenders of liberty.

I am a member of a Northern VA Hunting Club called the National Sportsman Association. We have over 200 members that hunt on 20+ properties that cover over 20, 000 acres in the greater Northern Virginia Area and Shenandoah Valley. Additionally, we have many past members we are in contact with. This group is aware of the firearm legislation being moved thru the l VA legislature. I specifically have permission to represent a large group of these members. We strongly oppose HB 21 - it will make it extremely challenging and expensive for the firearms industry to do business in Virginia. The pretense under which they may be sued and criminally charged is extremely vague and is left up too much speculation - it will be a moving target. We strongly oppose HB 1359 - The permit process is not necessary. The amount of data being collected on citizens is extremely alarming. One begs to ask - for what purpose? We strongly oppose HB 217 - we hunt with so-called assault firearms and semi-automatic firearms for a multitude of sound reasons. We are law-abiding citizens under attack; we do not assault people. Furthermore, limiting magazines to 10 rounds is arbitrary and will have little impact on someone that has the intent to use their firearm as a weapon. Maintain the 20 round limit. On a personal note, I have voted democrat most of my life. I voted blue this election mostly as an anti-Trump vote and I believe many moderates did as well. I have buyer remorse. This party, this legislature does not have the mandate to turn Virginia into a NY, MD, CA, etc, that it may think is does. If it swings far left, it will be out of power in a few short years. Tread lightly.

What is being presented today supports a decline of freedom for law abiding citizens. Criminals dont follow laws therefore these carry zero weight on the people who would choose to abuse our rights and freedoms. These laws will restrict law abiding citizens of their right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. These bills also go against the constitutions 2nd amendment for us to bear arms and it states "it shall NOT be infringed". As this legislation seeks to make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice their 2nd amendment rights and decrease law abiding citizens freedoms you same people are trying to limit minimum sentences for some of the worst criminals. I ask you.... Why do your actions work against law abiding Virginians, to limit our recourse against those who would do us harm and at the same time work to assit criminals? Your allegiance is logically and morally askew.

I oppose HB217. It seeks to ban most semi automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines available. - banned rifles include the most in common use rifles - banned magazines include the most in common use standard capacity magazines for both rifles and handguns. - banned firearms ban the most effective defensive tools to defend themselves and loved ones. These include individuals, parents, and members of marginalized communities. - banned rifles represent a very small percentage of gun deaths and will do little to improve community safety. - recent events show the need to protect 2a rights. Alex Pretti was carrying magazines with more than 10rd capacity. I oppose HB 1359. It seeks to permit a constitutional right and chill the 2nd ammendment. - imagine having to take classes with a qualification test to vote, costing prohibitively large amounts of money eye. - it restricts the rights of 18-20 year olds from exercising their 2a rights. Even though they can serve in the military, drive a car, and vote. I oppose HB 871. Safe storage of firearms is critical, but adds unreasonable requirements. - biometrics are new and untested, expensive, and prone to failure. - biometric locks can fail when trying to defend one's home, adding time when every second counts. - storing unloaded firearms in a non-biometric safe and/or inaccessible to.children, adds time to defending your home and loved ones, when seconds matter.

I agree with the VCDL on these bills!

Restricting free ownership and bearing of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” does not come with any “except for” situations. Any American citizen should have the ability to own and carry any firearm they wish without any restriction as the Constitution intends. Morality cannot be legislated and individual freedom is of the highest priority. Citizens should have the freedom (and they do, per the constitution) to have the firearm of their choosing with a magazine size of their choosing as well. As the state motto is “Sic Semper Tyrannis” this nation was built on refusing tyranny from government oppressors. Most of the proposed bills already have Supreme Court precedent as being unconstitutional. The right thing to do is immediately withdraw every firearm related bill from consideration immediately.

As a Virginian and US Marine Corps veteran, I urge you to OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. An "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, a "permit to purchase," and others, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. I request that you instead pursue legislation that HOLDS CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE for their crimes and establishes substantial penalties for criminal activity, NOT legislation that targets law-abiding citizens. I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee and support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

All of these bills infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights. I'm a retired Chesterfield County Police Officer and I see nothing that these bills can do to lower "gun crime". What needs to be done is to pass laws that will go after the criminals that misuse firearms. All of these bills along with their companions in the senate will only reduce the availability of firearms that the good law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth want to own. HB21 will shut down the firearm and firearm accessory business here. As a retired police officer an AR-15 is an excellent firearm to own for the shooting sports and self defense along with other lawful activities. If I could carry one in my patrol car, I should be able to have access to one at home as well. I should also be able to purchase them in the future along with standard capacity magazines. Oppose HB217! HB1359 is totally unnecessary. I've lived in Virginia for almost 40 years and I see no point in this law. This is a back door registration that I'm sure will extend to having to have this permit to purchase ammunition, accessories, and firearm possession in the future. It will add more expense to trying to buy a firearm. The infringements that this bill if it becomes law will be unlimited. You want people to be properly trained with firearms but these bills will keep people away from that goal. As a police officer I carried a Glock with a 15 round standard capacity magazine, a Remington 870, and an Armalite AR-15 with 30 round standard capacity magazines. As a citizen of this Commonwealth I should have the same ability to have those firearms at my disposal as well. My fellow gun owners should have the same options. All firearms are dangerous to use. All firearms can be considered "weapons of war". I received firearm training from father when I was young, then more training in the Marine Corps, then even more training with the police department. Having worked at a shooting range, many gun owners came to practice to become proficient in handling firearms. These laws will prevent citizens from participating in their 2nd Amendment rights.

I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “

I strongly urge that the HB217 proposed legislation to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds not be passed. For one, turning legal gun owners into criminals with the stroke of a pen is a slap in the face to all of us who voted for you to help Virginia’s economy and affordability. Two, it’s common, particularly in handguns, for standard magazine capacity to be more than 10 rounds right from the assembly line. Virginians have already voiced concerns with affordability, and requiring us to dispose of perfectly good magazines and spend money acquiring new compliant magazines is another slap in the face.

I do not support any bill that restricts my ability to keep and bear a firearm. Assault weapon bans, and other restrictions are unconstitutional under the original US Constitution and further under the Bruen decision. These bills will be defeated in court. Having the AG spend my tax payer dollar to defend a tyrannical law is not what an affordable Virginia means to me. Wife and I have donated lots of $ to gun rights groups to fight this now and in the courts. Please honor your VA and US constitutional duties.

Responsible gun ownership is on the rise among Virginians of all diverse backgrounds, sexual orientations, and political affiliations. This is not the time to restrict access to firearm ownership, especially in light of recent events in which the federal government has displayed attacks on First and Second Amendment rights. Passing of all of these bills would only further distrust in our government and leadership across all communities. This would only strip law-abiding Virginians of their ability to control their own safety and that of their families and communities. I oppose all bills that restrict access to commonly owned firearms, invade personal privacy and data, or impose unreasonable financial burdens on the ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Remember our state motto.

I oppose all the anti-2nd amendment bills being considered. These bills will limit and in some cases strip me of my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, especially if there is no grandfather clause included in the bills

HB19- I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill to add random "intimate partners" into the mix HB21 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, we do not hold any other industry to this standard its discriminatory to hold the firearms community to it. HB40 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as there is already federal law relating to serializing firearms. HB93 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as it could endanger the family or other inhabitants of a home by leaving them defenseless HB217 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill in its entirety, Heller and Bruen decisions by the SCOTUS are VERY clear in the protections of "in common use" the sheer "desire" for this bill shows the fact these arms are in common use. HB701 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state should be force to SELL not destroy the firearms, thus creating revenue for the state and removing another tax burden from its citizens. HB871 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state already has laws in place to deal with this for minors (endangerment) the government has NO place making decisions inside a citizens home. HB969 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, as the legislature refuses to keep minimum sentence requirements for violent criminals, a prevention fund is a moot point HB1303 - I Vote/stand FOR this bill, if the state police cna not accomplish this task in 90 days there is a clear lack of competency in the agency. HB1359 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, no other constitutional right is EVER subject to a fee for the state. This is nothing more than a play to extort citizens and create a gun registry to be used for unknown purposes.

I respectfully oppose Virginia House Bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359 for the following reasons: 1. Undermining Fundamental Rights Without Clear Justification Several of these bills (e.g., HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB217, HB1359) impose new and expansive restrictions on the purchase, possession, transfer, manufacture, and sale of firearms and related items. These proposals, including potential bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and requirements for civil liability standards on lawful businesses, risk infringing on Virginians’ constitutional rights without clear evidence that they will reduce violent crime or improve public safety. Laws regulating firearms must be narrowly tailored, respect due process, and align with constitutional protections; sweeping and punitive restrictions do not meet that standard. 2. Overly Broad Criminal Penalties and Civil Liabilities Bills such as HB21 create standards of “responsible conduct” with vague criteria that could expose lawful industry members to civil liability for nearly any outcome. This creates unreasonable legal risk for businesses operating within existing federal and state laws and could chill lawful commerce. Ambiguous legal standards harm predictability and fairness in our legal system. 3. Expansion of Regulatory Burdens Without Demonstrated Benefit Provisions in bills like HB110 (unattended firearm in vehicle civil penalty), HB229 (health data collection duties), and HB871 (storage or related provisions) extend regulatory reach into areas that are already covered by existing law or established best practices. Imposing new penalties or requirements without strong data showing a public benefit contributes to unnecessary complexity in the legal code and may divert law-enforcement resources from more impactful public-safety priorities. 4. Risk of Unintended Consequences for Law-Abiding Citizens Many of these bills expand what qualifies as prohibited conduct or expand definitions of prohibited persons in ways that risk penalizing individuals who have not demonstrated a threat to public safety. For example, expanding liability or prohibitions based on association with an industry, ownership of lawful equipment, or civil data-reporting burdens can cast too wide a net and punish responsible citizens. Public policy must balance safety with fairness in application. 5. Lack of Clear Evidence Supporting Policy Changes Committees are reviewing many of these measures early in the session, and there is not yet a robust public record of bipartisan evaluation or impact analyses demonstrating that these bills will achieve stated policy goals more effectively than existing law. Responsible governance requires empirical support for expanding penalties and regulations — especially where constitutional rights are implicated. In conclusion, while Virginians are committed to public safety, effective legislation must be evidence-based, constitutional, and carefully scaled to address specific harms. These bills, as currently drafted, create broad regulatory frameworks, new criminal liabilities, and unclear standards that threaten individual liberties, burden lawful commerce, and could redirect enforcement resources without clear benefit. For these reasons, I urge legislators to reconsider, substantially revise, or reject these proposals.

I support and agree with the VCDL on these bills.

The semi auto magazine bill would turn thousands of LAW ABIDING citizens into law breakers. Is that the role of legislators. What was once legal and then make it illegal with the stroke of a pen. Government system does not work like that.A million gun owners Democrat and Republican will be affected. Time finance,paying taxes into local, state economy, training wasted because of a legislative elected power grab. 11 percent tax on ammo,500 dollar suppressors. The new admin claims to want to end discrimination for citizens. And lower costs ..Yet again legal firearm owners are placed in a class of discrimination..Protect every other right but the rights of firearm ownership. Why is it that that every new anti firearm law placed the burden on a law abiding citizen? The concealed permit bill restricting other states and Virginia will have the negative effect of the reciprocating state rescinding reciprocity.This is a good program .Yet it is a ridiculous bill that the author has no clue of what they have created. Why were ex ,retired police officers exempt from these bad bills?Policing is a hard job . But ex or retired police means relegated to citizen status. The flurry of bills is a result of the giddy power effect of I can do this because I can. Discriminating and favoring certain classes is a civil infraction and illegal . This is what is happening right now.All who favor the gun bills .Think..Of the discrimination against firearm owners . And then decide thank you

I agree with the VCDL on these bills.

I oppose all of these bills. The focus of these bills is criminalizing ordinary law abiding citizens while not enforcing harsher punishments for actual criminals.

I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills.

Dear Representatives, I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 217. As a homeowner and an active-duty member of the United States military, I take personal responsibility for the safety of my family and my community, and I am deeply concerned about the implications of this legislation. HB 217 places additional restrictions on law-abiding citizens who have already demonstrated responsibility through training, education, and compliance with existing laws. These proposed regulations do not meaningfully address criminal activity, but instead limit the ability of responsible individuals to effectively protect themselves and their families. Extensive evidence from other jurisdictions has shown that similar legislation does not significantly reduce violent crime. Rather, it places unnecessary burdens on citizens who follow the law, while doing little to deter those who do not. I am also concerned that this bill represents a serious infringement on constitutionally protected rights—rights that I have sworn an oath to defend through my military service. I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 217 and to consider solutions that focus on enforcing existing laws and addressing the root causes of violence, rather than restricting the rights of responsible citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration of my concerns. Very Respectfully, Derek Sutton

I oppose these bills. HB 217 and HB 1359, in particular, are egregiously unconstitutional and contrary to clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It is difficult to overstate the shocking breadth of HB 217. It bans the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. It also bans the standard magazines for essentially all modern handguns. Approximately 45% of Virginian adults have firearms in their household. Given that this law impacts nearly all modern handgun magazines (as well as standard magazines for many of the most popular rifles), it is likely that 20-30% of Virginians, if not more, possess arms that would be banned under this law. Criminalizing the conduct and lifestyle of 20-30% of all Commonwealth citizens is not reasonable, is not moderate, and certainly does not represent common sense. It is also clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which forbid bans on arms in common use. Finally, there is no evidence that these laws would reduce crime or promote safety. Regarding HB 1359, the law's unconstitutionality is self-evident. It forbids anyone from exercising their most basic Second Amendment rights unless they go through an expensive and lengthy permitting process--apparently on a repeated basis. The Commonwealth could not constitutionally forbid all citizens from buying books unless they first go through lengthy, costly, and intrusive permitting processes. It can no more do the same for constitutionally protected arms under the Second Amendment.

To the committee, I am a Democrat writing in opposition to HB217. Specifically section 18.02.308.09 on disqualifications for a concealed handgun permit as it has the potentially to adversely affect me. 10 years ago I went through a mental health crisis and ended up having my firearm rights rescinded. Two years ago, I went through the legal process of having my firearm rights restored. It was an arduous, exhaustive, and personally embarrassing process as I was treated in such a manner by the court as if I was a criminal despite having committed no crime. I find the current proposal by the state as an affront to my rights which I fought to have restored. This new law will make me have to wait an additional 3 years to apply for a concealed permit despite already going through the legal process to nullify any legal objection from me being able to attain such permit. While I am not eager to own a handgun for the sole purpose of concealing it; this permit would help me as a safeguard from protecting me from prosecution should I possess a handgun and not have it fully concealed while in transport to a gun range, gun smith, or from one property to another if I were stopped by law enforcement. This law will also further scrutinize in the section 18.02-308.2.2 despite the fact that I have gone through the legal process and been adjudicated by a judge already to be able to possess a firearm. The fact also that the committee has tapered down the ammunition quantity from 20 rounds to 10 rounds demonstrates to me the total lack and understanding by this committee to understand fire arms and seems purely a punitive measure towards individuals who already legally own firearms.

So frist of all how can a lying governor who has went against everything she promised in her campaign . Trying to take our guns away this is va so good luck with that we have this thing called the second amendment an our rights shouldn’t be fringed upon. Then they all gonna double there pay that’s why she’s goin to raise taxes in the state to pay for that. People won’t move to Va company’s won’t move to Va with taxes the highest in the us. She needs to be removed from office as she didn’t not comply with the promises she’s has done. If she’s all about having illegals here let them live with her an the rest of her crew. Nobody else wants them here. Every thing our great president is doin she is undermining them. Va we can’t let her go on we need governor youngkin back in office for good he made Va great

I’m a left-wing voter. You won the House and Senate because of Trump’s lawlessness—not because I wanted assault weapon bans, not because I wanted 10-round magazine limits, not because I wanted biometric safe mandates. You do not have a mandate on guns. If you pass any of these bills without grandfather clauses, you will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals for items they purchased legally. I will never vote Democratic again, and I will march. At a moment when we may need to resist actual tyranny, you’re ensuring only the right remains armed. This is political malpractice.

More people are killed in this country with hands, fists, and blunt objects than with ALL Rifles combined. "Assault Firearms" as you call them make up a fraction of those rifles. Yet, here you are wanting to ban something used for homicides at such a low rate. Not only that, but your colleagues want to make hundreds of thousands of Virginians criminals overnight by banning possession of items they legally purchased. This violates multiple amendments in the Bill of Rights. It is a direct violation of Heller and Bruen and the Supreme Court will be shutting these violations down sooner rather than later.

I do not support these bills. All place undue restrictions on the exercise of an enumerated right while not achieving their stated goal of promoting public safety. A "Right" that requires a license, is not a right, but a privilege.

These so called “gun safety” bills are done in bad faith and only benefit violent criminals.

I strongly oppose HB 217. Prohibiting firearms based on cosmetic or arbitrarily defined physical features fails to address the root causes of gun violence and instead places undue restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves. Of particular concern is the bill’s disproportionate impact on minority and immigrant communities. By expanding the scope of prohibited conduct through vague and subjective definitions, this legislation risks increased police encounters and selective enforcement. In effect, it could criminalize otherwise lawful behavior overnight, exposing marginalized communities to heightened legal jeopardy and potential collateral consequences. I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB 217 and pursue evidence-based approaches to public safety that do not place an unequal burden on vulnerable Virginians.

I oppose HB 217 as submitted. I am especially concerned that today the Public Safety Committee will remove the grandfather clause regarding magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. An outright ban of magazines now lawfully owned by many thousands of Virginians is unenforceable. It will encourage gun owners throughout the state to revive the 2A Sanctuary movement.

U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". These are a slap to the face of law abiding gun owners of the state of Virginia. I'm atonished at the blatan ignorance of a firearm and my rights, who voted for these idiots?

I support Bill HB1303. I oppose bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, and HB1359.

I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.

I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.

Please see attached PDF with comments showing opposition to each of the proposed anti gun legislation.

Any bill that would remove the ability of a citizen to protect himself from threats both foreign or domestic is in stark contrast to the spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I oppose the selected bills.

I am writing to express my outrage and disbelief at the level of government over reach being exhibited by the newly eleccted Virginia Assembly. The idea that jewish implants from New Jersey to muslims from Bangladesh, funded by outside sources think they can simply erase Americas consitutional rights at the stroke of a pen is outrageous. Maybe the assemblys time would be better spent making sure that Virginia is represented by real Virginians by barring foreign born actors from elections.

I am a responsible person and have spent 26 years in the U.S. Navy. I do not want my rights infringed upon. I enjoy target shooting as a hobby. You politicians need to go after criminals with guns. Right bills that effect crimes that people do with guns. Leave law abiding tax paying citizens alone. R, Tom Hofsiss Virginia Beach USN Retired.

CONSTUTION STATES NO RETRO ACTIVE LAWS, WHERE ARE THE LAW 0N HE REAL PROBLEM NOT PHONY BILLS THAT ONLY EFFECT THE LEGAL STATUS OF LAWEN ABIDING CITIZENS!

I strongly oppose the above-identified bills. First, while HB 21’s creation of responsible standards for the firearms industry sounds reasonable, it is obviously an effort to create a state cause of action for things well-beyond the type of liability other industries are subject to—e.g, Mazda never worried that it’s “ZoomZoom” marketing campaign would expose it to liability for a buyer that speeds and commits vehicular homicide—and would allow the state to evade the PLCAA and its protections for the firearms industry. HB 21 bad for Virginia businesses and bad for Virginians. Second, HB 217 is another bill in a long line of performative and ineffective gun control measures. Physical feature bills like this are easily defeated by criminals and only restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners who are, by definition, not the problem. Laws of this sort have existed in other jurisdictions for decades without meaningfully decreasing gun violence. Just look to our border state of Maryland, which passed an assault weapons ban in 2013. According to the Maryland Department of Health, between 2015 and 2024, gun deaths have stayed consistent at a rate of 10.9, increasing to a peak of 13.3 in 2021, and decreasing to a low of 10 in 2024. In other words, in the decade following its assault weapons ban, Maryland saw an overall *increase* in gun death rates. But this is to be expected as FBI data shows that nationally, in 2024, rifles were used in only 2.5% of homicides (and AR type rifles a subset of that). HB217 would infringe upon Virginians’ Second Amendment rights without addressing the major drivers of gun deaths: suicide (60% of all deaths) and handguns (90% of all gun crime). Third, while I support safe storage laws (depending on implementation), HB 871 as written, is a tax on families and households that own guns. I care about the safety of my family, our children, our neighbors, and our community, and I have already purchased safes that effectively secure our firearms. The bill’s requirement that firearms be stored in *biometric* safes is arbitrary and would require my family, and other families, to spend thousands of dollars to replace our existing safes. Virginia’s working families are living paycheck to paycheck and will have to decide whether to replace their safes with *biometric* versions, forfeit their firearms, or risk criminal charges. As written, HB 871 is a tax on working families and should be reconsidered.

2A not to be infringed

HB21 is a blatant stab at the gun industry and a push to disarm all of Virginia and her people by pushing the gun industry out of selling in the state it is tyrannical and a massive overstep of power on this power hungry government's part. HB217 is going to make everyone a criminal over night with the no grandfather clause of standard capacity magazine's I am in complete opposition of this bill and all that it stands for. The tyrannical passing of this bill would neuter basically everyone's lawfully purchased and licensed concealed carry pistols while criminals would still have the upper hand. Taking away standard magazines that were legally bought and paid for has shown me the true colors of these swine that we elect and let rule over us with no sense of how the real world works there will always be bad people doing bad things in this world and giving them the upper hand is not the way to go about this. Thank you for your time my name is James Michael Moomaw Sic Semper Tyrannis

These proposed gun control bills are the epitome of government overreach. They're completely unconstitutional and I heavily urge you all to vote no on every single one of these! Representation of what this state wants as a whole should be at the front of your minds. Not simply what the few small districts with the big population centers have been lead to believe will help gun violence. These laws will do nothing whatsoever to curb crime, as criminals dont care what the law states . Thank you for listening.

In reference to HB21, I don't see how we should punish the manufacturers of a product. How are they at fault for how a person with ill intent uses a product? Can I sue the makers of Tylenol if I disregard their warning label and take more than the recommended dose and become ill because of that? We should only punish evil actors of this world, not the producers. In reference to HB217, I find this to be a severe infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights. As a 1st-generation American, my family escaped countries that had some restrictions, and because of that, they did not have the 1st Amendment rights we cherish today... Which I must say is protected by our 2nd Amendment rights. I do not see how punishing law-abiding citizens will reduce crime, as you propose. If you are concerned about crime, the previous Firearm safety device tax credit should be reinstated, as it will continue to encourage citizens of this great state to safely secure their firearms. On top of that, you could offer a tax credit for firearms safety classes to expand each user's education. The violent crimes you hope to prevent are not happening because of firearms; they are happening because we as a society have lost our moral way, and this won't fix that. Instead of wasting time on bills like this, we should reinvest in our communities through the school and the many after-school programs that I have noticed have just vanished over the years. These built a sense of community and brought safety because of that.

As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.

This bill is unacceptable. You want to make VA citizens second class with respect to citizens of other states that respect the US Constitution, to have us choose to get on our knees or become criminals. I don't know how it can be legal to forcibly require the surrender of property previously deemed common and legal. I will support every legal action brought against you and the state. You will never be forgiven.

All of these bills are unconstitutional infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting any of them requires that you violate your oath of office. With respect to the "permit to purchase" scheme, what other enumerated right requires a permit to exercise? Persons who have reached the age of eighteen may marry, enter into contracts, join the military and be deployed to hazardous duty, and a host of other things. But may not purchase a handgun? If one is mature enough any of those things one is mature enough for all.

In light of these events, I respectfully oppose the proposed bill limiting magazines to ten rounds on several grounds. First, such a measure would divert legislative attention from pressing concerns about the use of lethal force by federal officers and the urgent need for meaningful reforms to safeguard civil liberties and public safety. Second, arbitrary capacity limits on magazines would burden responsible firearms owners without demonstrably addressing the root causes of violence or preventing tragedies like those we have witnessed. Third, policy should be rooted in evidence and focused on strengthening oversight, accountability, and respect for constitutional rights rather than imposing symbolic restrictions that may prove ineffective in enhancing public safety. Thoughtful, comprehensive approaches that address both public safety and the protection of individual rights are far preferable to measures of limited utility and questionable efficacy.

I urge all Delegates to vote AGAINST all these anti-gun/2A bills. -The current laws on the books aren't enforced. -No one should lose their gun rights over a misdemeanor conviction. -Guns & magazines of all types that are in 'common use' are to be allowed to be owned & purchased by no prohibitive persons. ie SCOTUS Heller decision. -Thus the majority of these bills are unconstitutional & not injunction with the meaning & history of the US Constitution. They also violate VA's Constitution. -No one needs a license to purchase a firearm. They already have to go through a background check through the FBI NICS system. Fingerprints are not needed & overkill. Guns can be legally sold, stolen, lost, etc. Guns are already expensive & requiring another fee to do repetitive checks is unreasonable & unaffordable to some. -I've had a VA CHP since 2003 & has been renewed every 5 years as required. I've taken many training classes over the years & been to ranges countless times. I know what I'm doing & shouldn't be required to take some 'other' course to prove I can fire 10 rounds safely. It's ridiculous! -So called 'assault rifles' account for less then 5% of all homicides each year. These rifles & their equivalents are not the problem or is magazine capacity. . Criminals aren't going to obey any gun laws, so how can a person defend themselves against multiple intruders with 30 round magazines each & the defender only have 10 rounds. The defender will lose their life & possibly their entire family as no criminal is going to wait for a defender 'wait to reload'. -Reciprocity is very important to VA CHP holders & for CCW holders from other states. Not allowing reciprocity with other states because of some arbitrary requirement they lack puts VA CHP holder's lives in DANGER. -You cannot retroactively punish citizens who purchased any gun or magazine LEGALLY. This is acceptable. Please enforce the laws on the books, prosecute those criminals, & if convicted keeo them in prison. More laws solve nothing & are 'feel good' measures. -Guns are tools just like a knife or a bat. They can be used to save lives or take them. It's the individual that makes these decisions, not the tools. 99% of gun owners in VA are law abiding & VA CHP holders are the safest group in VA according to VSP. -Homicides across the nation are down to their lowest levels since 1900. None of these are needed & will only hurt law abiding citizens. -Please stop the constant attack on gun rights by VA Democrats in the General Assembly. It's every 2 years & never ends. End it now! -Focus on much more important of issues than adding to your pile of gun laws. Which the tax payers in VA will have for as these laws will have numerous lawsuits fighting against them. Many have already been declared by SCOTUS. -The Second Amendment is a RIGHT & was given to us by our creator. Why is this continuously ignored? No other right is under constant attack as the 2A, especially in VA. -Stop blaming tools & fix the real problem. Bad people & our society. for starters!

I oppose this. bill. The rights of our citizens shall not be infringed upon by any government. I agree with VCDL. Taking away rights from law abiding citizens gives privilege to criminals and tyranny.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment, just as the whole of the Bill of Rights, is a God-given right affirmed by the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect individual liberties from government encroachment. Not the other way around. A legislative desire to enact Second Amendment infringements runs afoul of any Constitutional application. Every one of these anti-Second Amendment bills constitutes an outright infringement, in one form or another, on an individual’s right to keep and bear Arms. To claim otherwise is either woefully ignorant or deliberately deceitful. The Second Amendment's imperative, "shall not be infringed,” is free from ambiguity or pretense without exception and is an unqualified command despite assertions to the contrary. No permit was required of me to exercise my freedom of speech, here, in order to comment (redress my grievance) on these proposed bills that reek of oppression. The same applies to the Second Amendment and other protected rights. As to “gun violence,” no gun ever served time in prison for committing a crime. Besides, the Second Amendment is no more contingent upon rates of crime than the First Amendment is subject to rates of literacy. Responsibilities may come with the exercise of Constitutionally-affirmed rights, but not infringements. None of these bills should see the light of day or remotely be considered. So let it be written, so let it be done.

I support all proposed Gun Control Legislation before the assembly. I hope that the Assembly has the courage to stand up to the guns everywhere agenda of the firearms industry. For decades the weapons industry has used emotionally manipulative marketing to trigger consumers' amygdala responses. The weapons industry makes people believe that they are not safe in their homes without loaded guns. Their manipulation of consumers' emotions and fear responses has in fact made American homes unsafe. Rather than taking rational measures to secure their homes, Americans keep loaded guns which have become responsible for the most deaths of American young people (ages 0-18 ). For this reason I support secure storage laws and all measures for enhanced permitting and licensing. Requiring citizens to think rationally about how to secure their homes safely is not a violation of the second amendment. Speaking of the second amendment, Americans have a fixation on the most emotionally charged clause of this amendment. The so called "right-to-bear arms." This clause appeals to directly to the ego and is the focus of America's fixation, while the first clause about well-regulated militia is ignored. In this time of emotionally-charged political protesting, which has boiled over in the event of a man carrying a concealed handgun being killed by Border Patrol agents, our national conversation around guns has reached a terrifying new low. Some on the political right have labeled the man killed in Minneapolis as a domestic terrorist because he was carrying a concealed weapon. Elements of the political left have lionized the slain man for exercising his constitutional right to "bear arms" and resist tyranny. This conversation is a case of both the left and the right abandoning principals in favor of cheering for their side. Right wing demonstrators have frequently paraded with assault weapons as props to protest pandemic health codes, and library books. This fantasy of our "right to bear arms " to resist tyranny should be anathema to Americans who believe in using our political process to solve conflict without brute force and violence. That is what our system is designed for, and fantasy about resisting tyranny with guns is really fantasy for civil war. I am also appalled at the brutal actions of federal agents in our cities, but our conversations are turning quickly to fantasy about open armed conflict before all civil avenues for policy correction through the ballot box or the courts (see amendments 3-9) have been exercised. The second amendment is not a blank check for citizens to have max fire power to appeal to their egos or irrational fears. A lone interloper carrying a gun into a tense situation between law enforcement and protesters is not the well-regulated militia. Self-proclaimed civil defense leagues who stalk protesters they may disagree with are not part of the "well-regulated militia" either. Looking back on the events of this month and many other similar events that have occurred in America demonstrate that guns everywhere undermines our right to protest more than it helps.

I am a constituent of Chesterfield, Virginia, and I am writing regarding proposed bans on certain firearms and magazine capacities. I understand the goal of improving public safety, and I appreciate efforts to reduce violence. However, after reviewing available data, I do not see clear evidence that these specific bans meaningfully reduce overall gun violence. Most research showing an effect focuses on rare mass-casualty events, not total firearm deaths or violent crime as a whole. In absolute terms, the number of incidents affected is small compared to the millions of responsible, law-abiding citizens who would be directly impacted. For me, firearms ownership is both a lawful hobby and an important part of personal and family protection. I train regularly, store my firearms safely, and follow all existing laws. Proposed bans would restrict commonly owned equipment that is in widespread lawful use, despite no history of misuse by the vast majority of owners. As a society, we accept that many regulated activities—such as driving or alcohol consumption—carry risk, yet we focus on enforcement, education, and accountability rather than broad prohibitions that primarily burden responsible users. I believe public safety policy should follow a similar approach by targeting criminal behavior and violent offenders, not lawful ownership. I am also concerned about the constitutional implications of banning firearms and accessories that are commonly owned for lawful purposes. I respectfully urge you to consider approaches that enforce existing laws, address repeat violent offenders, improve mental health resources, and strengthen penalties for criminal misuse of firearms without unnecessarily restricting constitutional rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.

As a US military veteran who has also been a victim of violent criminal use of a firearm, I appreciate the numerous sacrifices that have been made throughout the years to preserve our God given rights from frivolous political tinkering that fail to provide significant increases in public safety in exchange for undue infringement upon our citizens’ rights and liberties without certifiable evidence of the intended results. As an example, I provide the following report to show why lawful citizens 2A rights should not be infringed for any notional do gooder political brownie points to just “do something.” The following 11 year old probably wouldn’t be with us today if some of these current gun control measures being considered in Richmond were in effect in her state. “ 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: 1) they were in Montana and 2) Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control! Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.' I like this kind of E-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes”

I absolutely agree with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon's opinion that the proposed bill does NOT stand up SCOTUS precedents!

I stand with the VCDL on these bills.

The weapons and magazines covered under this bill are simply modern firearms that are in common use by tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens across the Commonwealth. What good could possibly come from turning them into criminals? What good has come from any of these bans? Crime in my birth state of Illinois has not been reduced by the similar bill that was passed there. The people committing violent crimes do not respect these laws any more than they respect any other laws, so why punish law-abiding citizens knowing full well that no crime reduction benefits will follow?

The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of our Constitution and a safeguard of individual liberty. It affirms that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, recognizing that a free society depends on citizens having the means to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. This right was never about hunting or sport alone—it was about ensuring that power ultimately rests with the people and that freedom is preserved against tyranny, lawlessness, and chaos. I say this not only as an American, but as someone who has sworn oaths to defend this country and its laws. I served in the United States military, where I learned firsthand the value of responsibility, discipline, and the role of armed citizens in securing a free nation. That service instilled in me a deep respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it protects, including the Second Amendment. Those rights are not theoretical—they are practical, deliberate protections earned through sacrifice. Today, as a law enforcement officer, I see the importance of the Second Amendment from another perspective. Police officers cannot be everywhere at once, and response times, no matter how fast, still mean citizens are often their own first line of defense. Law-abiding, trained, and responsible gun owners are not the problem—they are part of the solution. The Second Amendment empowers good people to stand ready, reinforces accountability, and strengthens public safety rather than undermining it. Protecting this right is not just about firearms; it’s about preserving liberty, responsibility, and the fundamental freedoms that define our nation. As a veteran who served honorably through 3 combat tours to Iraq and Afghanistan, and a law enforcement officer for nearly 12 years, I pray and ask of you to reconsider the attack on our people’s right to protect themselves, their household, and their families. Especially as a police officer, we feel more confident with our good citizens being armed and understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment. As Thomas Jefferson stated: Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I urge the Committee to reject HB217. This bill imposes sweeping bans on the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms mislabeled as "assault firearms," along with standard-capacity magazines. It criminalizes peaceful transactions as Class 1 misdemeanors and restricts those under 21 from possessing such firearms (even grandfathered ones). First, HB217 violates the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms protects weapons "in common use" for lawful purposes like self-defense. AR-15-style rifles are America's most popular rifle platform, owned by millions for home defense, sport shooting, and hunting. Semi-automatic pistols and shotguns affected by this bill are also ubiquitous for self-defense. Banning future sales and transfers of these arms, while grandfathering existing ones, still severely burdens law-abiding citizens' ability to acquire arms in common use—precisely what Bruen prohibits absent historical analogues. Second, the bill is ineffective at reducing crime. Studies (e.g., CDC reviews, RAND analyses) show no conclusive evidence that "assault weapon" or magazine bans reduce mass shootings or overall gun violence. Criminals ignore such laws, while law-abiding Virginians hunters, competitive shooters, and those defending homes, lose access to effective tools. Features like pistol grips or detachable magazines improve ergonomics and reliability, not lethality in criminal hands. Third, it creates enforcement problems and unfair outcomes. Grandfathering pre-2026 firearms creates a two-tier system: the wealthy or early buyers retain access, while others (especially younger Virginians) are barred. The under-21 possession ban ignores that 18-20-year-olds have full constitutional rights, as recognized in recent federal rulings. Criminalizing private transfers will burden families and drive activity underground. Virginia should prioritize proven measures like enforcing existing laws against violent felons, improving mental health resources, and addressing root causes of crime, not infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights. HB217 is unconstitutional overreach that won't make us safer.

Assault weapons are for war, not for mass shooting of children in schools, people at concerts, grocery stores, the movies, in places of worship or ANYWHERE. I support prohibiting the sale, manufacturing, purchase and transfer of ALL assault weapons and high capacity magazines, especially those with military features - regardless of the manufacturer's date. This is key to getting these weapons off of our street and out of VA. Ten other states prohibit assault weapons with our neighbors in MD having one of the strongest bills in this arena, that should be used as a model in the Commonwealth.

The right to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed. These laws all in their rhetoric and restrictions seek to unduly limit and abridge the constitutional right of the American Citizens who reside in Virginia. None of these proposals have merit and the members of this legislature know they do not.

After the supreme court ruled on the Bruen case in 2022, Clarence Thomas wrote “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition.” HB 217 is a clear violation of this precedent. More importantly, this bill violates the 2nd amendment of US constitution stating “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” Making law abiding, tax paying, patriotic citizens felons by the stroke of a pen is an act of tyranny. I urge you to withdraw this legislation immediately as it is a blatant violation of Virginian’s God given rights.

I oppose the bills as I do not think they are a solution to the problems facing us today. Further, they will cost the commonwealth more legal resources and expenses.

HB217 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB217. This bill bans the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” and it also restricts certain ammunition feeding devices based on manufacture date/capacity. These are arms and components commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, which places them squarely within the protection recognized in Heller and subject to Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. Broad category bans do not target criminals; they burden only the compliant and invite years of expensive litigation. Virginia should pursue violent-crime enforcement and mental-health interventions—not bans on commonly owned firearms and standard magazines. HB19 (McClure) — OPPOSE I oppose HB19. This bill imposes a broad firearm disability based on a misdemeanor assault-and-battery conviction involving an expanded set of relationships, including “intimate partner,” and then bars purchase/possession/transport for a defined period. That is a serious deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right without the kind of historically grounded analogue required under Bruen. It also risks sweeping in non-dangerous conduct (including cases arising from contentious domestic disputes), while doing little to stop violent criminals who already ignore weapons laws. Virginia should focus on punishing violent misuse of firearms and enforcing existing laws—not creating new, broad disarmament categories for otherwise law-abiding citizens. HB21 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB21. This bill creates sweeping “standards of responsible conduct” for firearm industry members and then exposes lawful businesses to expansive civil liability theories (including public nuisance-style claims). The practical effect is to chill lawful commerce and constrain the supply of constitutionally protected arms through litigation pressure rather than democratic process—an indirect burden on the right to keep and bear arms that Bruen does not permit. Criminals do not buy guns through lawful channels and won’t be deterred by civil lawsuits against retailers and manufacturers. This proposal targets constitutionally protected conduct instead of violent offenders. HB40 (Simon) — OPPOSE I oppose HB40. This bill criminalizes broad categories of firearms, frames/receivers, and parts based on serialization status—including possession prohibitions that take effect later—while also restricting transfers. It risks criminalizing ordinary Virginians for paperwork/technicalities rather than misconduct, and it directly burdens the ability of law-abiding people to acquire and possess arms that are in common use. We should prosecute prohibited possessors and violent criminals, not create new possession crimes aimed at people who are otherwise lawful.

Hello Today, January 29, 2026 is my BIRTHDAY, I AM 46 YEARS OLD TODAY. I was born in 1980 in Byrn Mawr, PA to a WW2 and Korean war Vet named William S Lindsay and my mother Mary Lindsay. Because of my upbringing, and the constant talk about History and other topics; i was raised with healthy understanding of both Guns, engines and Cars. When i became old enough; i served my country for 8 years in Submarines before leaving the navy for civilian work in submarine repair. During my life, i have owned many rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I have target shot, carried defensively and on two occassions in my life-i had both need of a firearm and the firearm was with me to provide defensive effect. I think sometimes about what would have happened if i had lived in a state that did not permit me to have firearms or limited my choices with beauraucratic hurdles? In both instances i might not be alive to retell the story. Simply put; both times-the mere presence of having a firearm detured or otherwise changed the outcome of me being robbed or carjacked. Now-Va democrats would rather have me become a victim or a deceased casulty than admit that having a legal firearm with a substantial number of rounds in the magazine is the ultimate deterant to crime. I would point out to anyone listening that those 27 words mean more than people think they do; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This is not just the quintessential AMERICAN IDEA, BUT AN IDEA THAT HAS PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN THAT WE ARE STRONGER WITH OUR GUNS THAN WITHOUT. IF we allow these bills to pass, then we as Americans are surrendering to the theory that our Amendments are little more than suggestions, and that the founding fathers didn't really mean for us to follow them. I SAY AGAIN; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. WHAT PART OF THIS IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THE END

Dear Representatives, I am writing to urge you to oppose HB217/SB749. Supporters often cite public safety, but this bill misses the mark and creates serious unintended consequences. I want to address 9 common arguments in favor of this bill and why each one falls apart under scrutiny. 1. “This will reduce mass shootings.” Rebuttal: Most mass shootings are committed with illegally obtained firearms or weapons that would still be legal under this bill. Criminals do not follow purchasing bans. This bill targets lawful owners, not the people planning violence. 2. “High-capacity magazines make shootings more deadly.” Rebuttal: Magazine limits do not stop attackers from carrying multiple magazines or reloading in seconds. Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens lose lawful defensive tools when facing multiple attackers or home invasions. This trades real self-defense capability for symbolic limits. 3. “Other states have passed similar bans.” Rebuttal: Several of those laws are tied up in court or have produced no clear evidence of reduced violent crime. Policy should be driven by results, not by copying what is politically popular elsewhere. 4. “These weapons are designed for war, not civilian use.” Rebuttal: The firearms targeted are some of the most commonly owned in the country and are used for home defense, sport shooting, and training. Their mechanical function is no different from many legal firearms already allowed. 5. “Law-abiding owners won’t be affected.” Rebuttal: The bill makes magazines over 10 rounds contraband and bans future transfers. That directly criminalizes ordinary citizens who bought legal equipment and restricts inheritance, resale, and lawful transport. Also, imagine the impact on VA’s business economy & tax payers moving to another state due to this change. 6. “Raising the age to 21 will reduce violence among young adults.” Rebuttal: At 18, citizens can vote, serve in the military, and are fully responsible under criminal law. Creating a separate class of adult with fewer rights does not address violent behavior - it only restricts lawful ownership. 7. “If it saves even one life, it’s worth it.” Rebuttal: Policy must be based on measurable outcomes, not emotional slogans. Bad laws that fail to reduce crime while harming constitutional rights do not become good laws simply because the goal is noble. 8. “Police will be safer with fewer of these weapons in circulation.” Rebuttal: Criminals already obtain weapons illegally. This bill reduces lawful ownership while leaving black-market supply untouched. Disarming citizens does not disarm criminals. 9. “This is a reasonable compromise.” Rebuttal: A ban on common firearms, possession of magazines, and legal transfers is not compromise - it is prohibition. Real compromise focuses on violent offenders, illegal trafficking, mental health interventions, and enforcement of existing laws. If the goal is public safety, then legislation should target violent criminals, repeat offenders, and illegal gun trafficking - not people who follow the law, pass background checks, and store their firearms responsibly. This bill shifts the burden of crime prevention onto citizens who are not committing crimes. That is not effective policy, and it is not fair. I respectfully ask you to oppose this bill and instead focus on measures that directly address violent behavior and criminal networks, where real gains in public safety can be made. Thank you for your time. - Alan Moreno

​I strongly oppose HB 217. Banning firearms based on arbitrary physical features does nothing to address the underlying issues of gun violence; instead, it strips law-abiding citizens of their ability to effectively defend themselves. ​Most concerning is the bill’s impact on minority and immigrant communities. This legislation creates a pathway for increased police intervention and selective enforcement, effectively putting a target on the backs of POC gun owners. By transforming law-abiding residents into "criminals" overnight through arbitrary definitions, this bill risks inviting federal overreach by agencies like ICE into our communities. I ask the committee to reject HB 217 in favor of solutions that do not disproportionately endanger marginalized Virginians.

I do not want my 2nd amendment rights taken away. I am a law abiden citizen who wants to feel safe. I can't believe my representives want to take my safety away. This is only happening after the Governors election. You now will be increasing our taxes, lowering our safety while catering to illegals. This State which I love is being destroyed by this liberal platform

​I strongly oppose HB 217. Banning firearms based on arbitrary physical features does nothing to address the underlying issues of gun violence; instead, it strips law-abiding citizens of their ability to effectively defend themselves. ​Most concerning is the bill’s impact on minority and immigrant communities. This legislation creates a pathway for increased police intervention and selective enforcement, effectively putting a target on the backs of POC gun owners. By transforming law-abiding residents into "criminals" overnight through arbitrary definitions, this bill risks inviting federal overreach by agencies like ICE into our communities. I ask the committee to reject HB 217 in favor of solutions that do not disproportionately endanger marginalized Virginians.

​I strongly oppose HB 217. Banning firearms based on arbitrary physical features does nothing to address the underlying issues of gun violence; instead, it strips law-abiding citizens of their ability to effectively defend themselves. ​Most concerning is the bill’s impact on minority and immigrant communities. This legislation creates a pathway for increased police intervention and selective enforcement, effectively putting a target on the backs of POC gun owners. By transforming law-abiding residents into "criminals" overnight through arbitrary definitions, this bill risks inviting federal overreach by agencies like ICE into our communities. I ask the committee to reject HB 217 in favor of solutions that do not disproportionately endanger marginalized Virginians.

As a lifelong resident of Virginia. I have enjoyed the shooting sports, even as far back as on the rifle team in high school. Also, as a retired law enforcement officer of over 30+ years. I am saddened to see our general assembly doing nothing more than a knee-jerk feel good effort to restrict law abiding citizens. let’s bring back and strictly enforce. If you commit a violent crime with a firearm you will serve a minimum of five years in a penitentiary there’s are all saying, and I have seen it before criminals do not care at all what laws that are past restricting firearms, they will continue to be just that lawbreaking individuals who do not care.

I oppose all of the checked bills. Most of them are wildly unconstitutional, and none of them will make a single person safer.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the anti-gun bills scheduled for consideration in your subcommittee meeting on January 29, 2026. As a law-abiding citizen who values the rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, I urge you to vote against these measures that infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. These bills, including but not limited to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, represent direct assaults on this constitutional protection. They impose unnecessary restrictions on firearm ownership, possession, and transfer that disproportionately burden responsible gun owners while doing nothing to address the root causes of crime. It is a well-established fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Measures like bans on certain firearms (HB217), mandatory storage requirements (HB871), prohibitions on unserialized firearms (HB40), and penalties for leaving firearms in vehicles (HB110) will only disarm law-abiding citizens who follow the rules. These individuals are not the source of violent crime; rather, they are often the ones who rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Criminals will continue to acquire and use firearms illegally, unaffected by these new regulations, leaving ordinary Virginians more vulnerable. History and data show that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates but instead empower those who operate outside the law. For example, cities with strict gun laws often experience higher rates of violent crime compared to areas where law-abiding citizens can more freely exercise their rights. These bills will create more "gun-free" zones and bureaucratic hurdles that criminals ignore, effectively turning law-abiding citizens into easier targets. I respectfully request that you reject these infringement on our constitutional rights and focus instead on policies that target actual criminal behavior, such as enforcing existing laws against violent offenders and supporting mental health initiatives. Protecting the Second Amendment is essential to preserving our freedoms and ensuring public safety for all Virginians. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will vote NO on these anti-Second Amendment bills. Sincerely, Bailey Pratt

In reviewing these various bills it seems that many of them disregard the Constitution that was sworn to be upheld. Additionally several have already been ruled on in various courts across the country. They serve to divide constituents especially those who vote rather than provide civil discourse and leadership. They further fail to address larger issues that plague our society. Punishing those who abide by the law and creating penalties for innocent civilians is conceptually flawed. I urge you all to reexamine the methods behind these bills and abandon them at this point. Work toward the greater good and try something that hasn’t already failed repeatedly. Truly focus on serving this great Commonwealth. It will serve all of us better in the future.

HB1303, I support. The remaining bills are unnecessary and bureaucratic. You are creating bills meant to solve statistically insignificant events. HB1359 and HB217 are particularly objectionable. Requiring a "purchaser license" infringes on the right to bear arms and is a complete duplication of existing background checks. The assault firearm definition is unconstitutional and will not stand up to legal challenge. Our tax dollars and attorney general resources will be wasted on such an obviously flawed legislation. Gun buy back programs are have proven to be a waste of tax payer dollars with no impact on gun crime statistics. HB110 is very heavy handed. Just because someone could detect a weapon in a private motor vehicle should not make that vehicle subject to confiscation by the state nor a penalty applied to the firearm owner. This is totally a way to punish firearm owners without solving any real gun violence crimes that you, as legislators, could better focus your time and effort on. Focus on enforcing existing laws and not letting habitual criminals get away with warnings or light sentencing for their crimes. That is the common sense approach. We have more than enough laws, we do not need more ways to trap law abiding citizens and our merchants with this slew of bills.

As a responsible gun owner, these Bills to limit our ability to use rifles and firearms for sporting activities is against our second amendment rights. Even further to take away or make it against the law to have magazines greater than 10 rounds makes no logical sense. It only helps out the criminals who will still have them. It is proven in Chicago with strict gun laws they don’t work as they have the highest murder rates. Please stop these bills and focus on keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

While I support common sense laws, I feel this bill is unfair because it removes the grandfather clause for people that own magazines for their firearms already. Most firearms sold and owned in Virginia have magazines larger than this and it is not fair to to ask law abiding and responsible citizens to foot the bill for disposal, conversion, and replacement of their existing magazines. The state should either allow people to keep the firearms and accessories they already own (my preference) or offer to buy back the magazines at market rate, or allow a tax deduction for the purchase of replacement magazines. I am especially worried about the case where women and other people who are at a disadvantage to harassment and attack and who own normal, common firearms for defense will now be found to be criminals under this bill. Gun rights are womens rights. Gun rights are trans rights.

To Whom it may concern. I write you today, to hopefully persuade you in NOT voting for HB217, HB 626, HB 1303 and HB1359. I am retired military and a conceal carry holder. I am a avid hunter and visit the range often to shoot at different types of firearms and also Sporting Clays. With these bills you are now criminalizing hundreds of thousands of Virginians who do this legally, without any issues. These bills will do nothing but hurt the law abiding citizen. For the permit to purchase, if I have a conceal permit, and I still go through a background check everytime I buy a gun, why do I need a card that says I am good. My 2nd Amendment right, and fact I have passed a background check is all I should need to purchase a firearm. For HB 217, Assault Weapons ban, once again is taking away majority of the guns that law abiding citizens have, this bill will not do anything for the people who already plan harm on someone. Assault Weapons by definition are not allowed to purchase unless you go though the NFA process. A Semi Auto weapon is not a "Assault Weapon". 10 round magazine, this bill is once again just hurting the law abiding citizen. What I would like to say to finish this off is PLEASE take the time to think about these bills. I ask you, Do criminals care what the laws are? Are they going to turn their stuff in? If we can hold criminals accountable then we start there. Lets take some time and come up with laws that require Firearm Safety in schools. Kids that have gun safety and know about them and have been around them will act differently then those who have not.

HB 217 proposes to unlawfully strip VA citizens of their right to bear arms.

If passed, HB 217 will criminalize my family overnight and many families throughout Virginia. This bill will do nothing to reduce crime or provide treatment to the mentally ill, but instead seeks to disarm law abiding Virginians.

This bill is unconstitutional and seeks to criminalize my family and other families like mine in Virginia. This type of weapons ban will only negatively affect law abiding citizens and will do nothing to prevent firearm related crimes.

Dear Members of the Virginia House Public Safety Firearms Subcommittee: I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding several of the bills currently on the docket at today’s meeting that I believe impose overly restrictive and chilling effects on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. As someone with over six decades of active participation in shooting sports, I feel compelled to share my perspective based on extensive experience in the responsible exercise of these constitutional rights. For more than 60 years, I have been a devoted participant in shooting sports across various disciplines. Throughout this time, I have witnessed firsthand how responsible gun ownership and proper safety training create a culture of respect for firearms and the rights they represent. I am both an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer and a United States Marine Corps Certified Range Safety Officer, credentials that reflect my commitment to the highest standards of firearm safety and education. In these roles, I have dedicated countless hours to ensuring that shooters of all skill levels understand and practice safe firearm handling. Much of the proposed legislation before your committee, in my view, risks discouraging lawful participation in shooting sports and responsible firearm ownership without demonstrably addressing criminal misuse. Overly broad restrictions often burden those who already comply with the law, while doing little to deter individuals who disregard it entirely. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to carefully consider whether these measures strike the appropriate balance between public safety and the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians. Shooting sports have been an integral part of American culture and Virginia's heritage. They teach discipline, responsibility, focus, and respect. These are values that strengthen our communities. Overly burdensome regulations such as those on the docket today do not distinguish between those who respect the law and those who do not; instead, they disproportionately affect those of us who have demonstrated decades of safe and responsible firearm use. I urge this committee to carefully consider the unintended consequences of legislation that may seem reasonable in theory but proves impractical or unjust in application. The rights protected by the Second Amendment are fundamental, and any restrictions placed upon them must be narrowly tailored, clearly justified, and respectful of Virginia's long tradition of responsible gun ownership. I thank you for allowing me to submit this written response and for providing the opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns on these important matters. More importantly, I thank each of you for your service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The work you do on behalf of our citizens is vital to our democracy, and I appreciate your willingness to consider all perspectives as you deliberate on these critical issues. Respectfully submitted, George Mather, Jr. 6212 Sudley Church Court Fairfax Station, VA 22039 Email: mather.george.6212@gmail.com Mobile: 1.703.598.8848

The bills under consideration are only going to affect those who have no intention of breaking the law. Coupled with the other bills lessening the penalties for many violent crimes, these will do nothing to prevent crime. Criminals do not follow the law. That is a textbook definition. We have plenty of laws to deal with those who perpetrate crimes. What is needed is to deal with the existing criminals. Stop what leads these people to break the law to begin with. Punish those who commit violent crimes firmly. Stop the revolving door justice that keeps them on the streets committing more crimes. Making the law abiding public defenseless while turning more violent criminals loose makes no sense. Police forces are not bodyguards! All that can be expected after calling 911 is the victim being taken to a hospital, or possibly the morgue, and an investigation, hopefully followed by an arrest. The only person that can hope to defend themselves from these violent criminals is the victim. It would be better to provide a system for more self defense classes for the public. Better help for the victims of violent crime. And fitting punishment for those who have broken the law. None of the proposed bills will do that. I hope that the Constitutional rights of the public will be considered over feel good measures. I thank you for your time in reading my comments and hope you will consider these points in voting on the proposed bills.

I urge committee members to vote against these bills, many of which infringe on our God-given rights as Americans, and some of which are already unconstitutional under existing rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States. Respectfully, a lifelong Virginian.

Hi, My name is Catherine Shultz and I’m writing this as a woman that survived almost being strangled to death, then stalked for 2 years. I was in fear of my life and I bought my first firearm and trained. My personal defense weapon saved my life and I didn’t have to pull the trigger. A piece of paper does nothing to protect survivors but I stand with VCDL & am co director of Women for Gun Rights in Va. I’m also disabled and an amputee & I can’t run from danger but I can use my firearm to protect myself. People don’t seem to understand that educating oneself vs restricting mags etc… they affect people like me and it shows me that the “gun safety” laws are simply a psychological bandage & does nothing to protect women like myself. Thank you, Catherine Shultz Women for gun rights

To the legislators; Not one of the proposed HBs should be approved. The authors of the proposed bills lack experience or insight into gun ownership or general safety of the public. Not one of these bills can be proven to save lives or stop criminal acts. What I do see is the potential for a level of state bureaucrats to create new jobs for their buddies. Let’s monitor who has a gun or who has too many bullets in their magazine. Whose family member is related to someone involved with domestic violence. This sounds like the state boys and girls are out to get their hands into Virginians pocket's again. Vote no for everyone of these HBs.

Shall not be infringed was and still is very clear. The bill of rights was written to limit the government. Please stop infringing on my god given rights.

HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB21 A firearm accessory seller could not know they were selling a accessory to a prohibited person. A car parts store cannot be sued if they sell a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery. HB40 This bill is unconstitutional, there is no analog in history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the US existed. HB93 If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that shotgun. That punishes and needlessly endangers her life. HB110 Car owner should not be at fault for a criminal stealing a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. This bill could put a handgun in the possession of a tow truck driver that is a convicted felon. HB217 U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in both DC v Heller, and The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. Guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common in the US, making this bill unconstitutional. HB229 Disarming visitors and guests, including CHP holders, violates their right to protect themselves. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB626 Students have a right to self-defense. HB702 Destroying a functional, and possibly valuable firearms is a waste of money. State could offset costs by selling firearms to gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program. HB871 Biometric safes are more expensive and can be unreliable when being used under stress and require batteries to work. There are other locking mechanisms that are just as secure. HB969 Center would only target violence committed using firearms and ignoring root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm. Term “Gun Violence” gives away true agenda: “gun violence” is a term coined by gun-control lobby to blame guns, which are inanimate objects, and not criminals that misuse guns. If a police officer shoots someone, officer gets blame, not his gun. If a criminal shoots someone, gun gets blame, not criminal. No one says, “tire iron violence” or “hand and feet violence.” It is just called “violence.” But there is a disarmament agenda with firearms and “gun violence” is just an excuse to go after firearms with more gun control. HB1300 Oppose HB1303 Oppose HB1359 Bill will get innocent people killed, it will take at least two months before a person can purchase a first firearm.  If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long.  Price to get a permit, likely in hundreds of dollars, will be prohibitive for poor people and is equivalent of a poll tax.  And even with all hoops to get a permit, even citizens with a CHP will be limited to one handgun a month.  Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country.

My entire life I have taken great pride and stewardship in being a law abiding citizen of a great country. A very large part of my patriotism is the freedom and trust the founders of the nation gave me in the Second Amendment of the US constitution and Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. The anti-gun bills that have been introduced in Virginia show me that the supporters of these bills have zero regard for the Constitution, my rights as a lawful citizen and my rights to be able to defend myself and others from violent crime. The supporters of these bills have lost all sense of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I see this when early release is granted to hundreds of violent felons, many of which then go on to reoffend and violently prey on the very people you are supposed to protect, all for nothing more than some misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when prosecutors do not pursue charges against violent offenders in a misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when legislative efforts focus on the law-abiding and do nothing to violent felons who will not bother to be hindered by any gun laws. I see this when legislators talk about “gun violence” and do nothing about the underlying problem of “violence” and how to reduce it. I see this when I see news stories of repeat violent offenders who have been arrested for dozens of violent crimes, including murder, who end up killing someone yet again due to some form of “catch and release”. The laws are in place to remove violent felons, whether or not they use firearms, from society and prevent them from preying on your law-abiding constituents. Please use them. I urge opposition to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969 and HB1359. I urge support for HB1300 and HB1303.

I oppose all legislation which seeks to undermine our Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment. Therefore, I would encourage all members to vote against these bills with a resounding NO!

As a life long Virginia resident and lawful firearms owner, I speak for myself and millions of other Virginians in saying that all of us strongly oppose any bill being introduced that restricts and infringes upon our Second Amendment rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of Virginia and of the United States. These gun control bills have been drafted under the guise of safety and crime prevention, while simultaneously doing the opposite and only increasing further resistance in both crime and safety. For decades, Virginia has been a pro-2A state where generations of families have been born into and raised on safe and responsible gun ownership. Hunting, personal protection, or simply being an enthusiast does not make someone a criminal or implies criminal intent because of the technology behind modern firearms has far surpassed the firearms of our grandfathers’s generation. Manufacturing methods and technology is ever changing, but our natural rights as law abiding citizens should never be hung in the balance and toyed with as privileges. I implore the General Assembly to please review these bills with logic, with reason, and with the hope that our state government will not make a mockery of the Second Amendment to further a political agenda not based upon fact, but upon incessant fear mongering and disarmament of the people.

Team, All of these bills infringe my rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Especially egregious are 217 banning weapons and magazines that are in common use. Secondly, is 969 creating another state agency to use up taxpayer money when what should be done is simply enforce the laws that are currently on the books. Do not allow liberal DA's and judges to release violent criminals back onto our streets, they must be held accountable for their crimes. Finally, 1359 creating some type of permit simply to be able to buy a weapon which will create a weapon registry. The current procedures of checking the buyer's background through both federal and state databases is more than sufficient. Thank you. Roger R. Scott

Not only will these bills harm those who wish to acquire firearms legally, these bills especially HB217 go against the supreme court decision on DC v Heller and the most recent Bruen decision which protect firearms that in "common use" the firearms detailed in HB217 are protected as they are in common use.

Name: Brad Toohill Location: Loudoun County, Virginia I strongly oppose the following bills. These proposals punish law-abiding Virginians, undermine due process, and infringe on constitutionally protected rights while failing to address violent crime. Criminals do not follow gun laws—these bills target citizens who already do. HB 19 (McClure) This bill allows permanent loss of firearm rights based on vague “dating relationship” misdemeanors. Fundamental rights should not be stripped without clear standards and robust due process. HB 21 (Helmer) Holding firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for crimes they did not commit is unjust and dangerous. This policy attacks lawful commerce instead of criminal behavior. HB 40 (Simon) Criminalizing unfinished frames and receivers turns peaceful hobbyists into felons without evidence of crime reduction. This is regulation without results. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) Forced firearm surrender under protective orders risks disarming innocent family members. Rights should not be suspended by accusation alone. HB 110 (Laufer) Penalizing lawful gun owners for storing a handgun in a vehicle is excessive and punitive. This bill targets responsible citizens, not criminals. HB 217 (Helmer) This bill bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines that are clearly protected as arms in common use. It is unconstitutional and ineffective. HB 229 (Hernandez) Blanket bans on firearms and knives in medical facilities leave lawful citizens defenseless and create confusion without improving safety. HB 626 (Callsen) Disarming adults on college campuses does not enhance safety. Law-abiding individuals should not lose their right to self-defense based on location. HB 702 (Cole) Taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy programs waste public funds and show no measurable impact on crime. HB 871 (Downey) Mandated storage methods and biometric safes intrude into private homes and impose unnecessary costs on families. HB 969 (Price) Creating a new state agency focused solely on firearms expands bureaucracy while ignoring repeat offenders and enforcement failures. HB 1359 (Hope) This permit-to-purchase scheme creates delays, costs, fingerprinting, and a de facto registry. It burdens lawful ownership and disproportionately harms low-income Virginians. Virginia should focus on enforcing existing laws and prosecuting violent offenders—not restricting the rights of responsible citizens.

I urge you to oppose all of the proposed bills. None of these bills will have meaningful impact on crime committed with fire arms. The only honest way to reduce crime committed with firearms is to enforce mandatory and harsh penalties on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Once has to realize that guns can only commit a crime in the hands of a criminal. The criminal, not the tool is the problem that needs to be addressed. A case in point: England has super strong regulations on guns. Was that effective? Did the crime rates really drop ? No, crime rates didn't drop all that much. Eliminating firearms just shifted the criminals over to using knives as their weapon of choice. These proposed regulations seem to be more aimed at annoying firearm owners, as opposed to solving any real problems. While I want to vote Democratic, these essentially useless regulations are making me seriously reconsider which party I will support in the future. Please put regulations in place to SOLVE problems, not these silly things that only provide talking points. Never forget, RESULTS are what voters want.

Not one of these bills will make anyone safer, but rather strip the rights of law abiding citizens of which pose no threat. Maybe try enforcing or increasing the penalties for laws against murder or violent felonies that are already in place? The problem isn't guns. It's the mentally ill people who misuse them. Making good people criminals for simply owning common firearms or magazines will not make a difference to people who have no regard for law.

Ladies and Gentlemen of this subcommittee, I am deeply concerned by several of the proposed bills. I am a resident of Patrick County, named after the esteemed Virginian Patrick Henry, who opposed ratifying the Constitution because it did not provide protections against the government overreach. Patrick Henry knew that without expressed rights of the citizens government would naturally strip those rights from them. And here we are in a situation that is natural, in proposing the current slate of firearm bills you are just doing what is in your nature: Size power and control from the citizens of this state and give it to yourselves. You are proposing to make yourselves the arbitrary authority on what is right for me to protect myself and my family. Why a 10-bullet magazine? What is so magical about that 11th bullet that you must prohibit me from having it in my guns? Why is commonwealth exempt from this law? Why is the state entitled to more than 10 rounds, but not me? Are the law enforcement officers in the state not trained? It would seem to me that well trained officers should need less, not more ammunition than an average citizen in order to defend themselves, if that is indeed why we are limiting capacity to 10 rounds. But that is all beside the point because who are you to dictate what I might need in any given violent encounter. Most home invasions do not involve just one perpetrator, how are we to be able to determine what is needed to stop a gang? And on that note wouldn’t a semiautomatic firearm be best to stop such threats. Of course it would. That is true common sense. But all these bills are blatant attempts to control the populace and destroy the second amendment. You may not live in a rural area and may lack understanding of how remote parts of Virginia are. The police are not going to come fast enough to save anyone. My safety is my responsibility. Limiting how people can defend themselves is putting blood on your hands. Telling people how to store the very lifesaving instruments they need is negligent. Under the proposed law you would make it so a teenager would not be able to access a firearm in the case of someone attempting to break into their home. I guess you would rather they be raped or murdered then be able to defend themselves. Where is personal responsibility? Where are parents teaching children right from wrong? Why is the knee jerk reaction when one person is negligent to punish everyone? Punish the actual offender, crazy concept I know. Please understand that this is not what the people of Virgina want. They do not want any more restrictions on their ability to purchase firearms. They do not want, nor approve of needing to obtain a permit to purchase a firearm. You may be confused because you passed similar bills in the last two sessions, but people knew we had the backing of Governor Youngkin to protect us. I for one chalked up these bills as nothing but virtue signaling and did not raise my voice. Now, I and many others see this for what it is: complete government overreach. Please stop these bills now in committee. Respectfully Shawn Cagle Patrick County VA

Thank you - see file attached

All these bills infringe on citizens AMENDMENT RIGHT we the people been lied to BY OUR Government OFFICIALS & mainly democratic officials ABIGAIL SPANBERGER is one of them

As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee.

My family and I OPPOSE all these insidious, un-Constitutional anti-2A Bills you're proposing.

Dear Legislators, You have been elected to a position for the purpose of representing citizens in VA. You have taken an oath to the state and U.S. Constitution. It is not your place to push radical agendas or ideologies that clearly oppose those Constitutions. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Whether you agree or disagree with it is not important. Whether you appreciate firearms or hate and fear them, is not important. What is important, is that you respect my Constitutional right to own them, carry them, use them, transport them, have immediate access to them, decide for myself how I will store them in my own home. It is NOT your place to infringe upon these rights in any way. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to be able to repel, remove, and defend against a tyrannical government. Don’t be a tyrannical government. Remember and honor your oaths. Put aside the partisanship. Sincerely, One of millions of gun owners

All these proposed are laws are just awful. The right of self-preservation is a fundamental human right and having the best tools for self-preservation furthers that fundamental human right. Without those tools, you degrade the most important human right in the world, the right to live and live free. Suing gun dealers and manufacturers will prevent the public from acquiring guns. Banning large swaths of arms and accessories prevent the public from defending themselves with the best tool possible. All these proposed laws are bad. Bad for Virginians and bad for human rights. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry.

My name is Cossie Scott a lifelong Virginia resident. This is my first time speaking here. I strongly oppose HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1359 I do support HB1303 45% of Virginia homes own guns lawfully. Nationally, 93% of the guns associated with crime are obtained illegally. So how are any of these regulations moving the needle in illegal gun trafficking? Or attacking the root cause of violent crime? Furthermore, the majority of the average gun related crime occurs in 9 districts in Virginia (Richmond and Hampton Roads). So you are proposing punishing the entire state and every law biding gun owner for an “illegal” gun problem in Hampton and Richmond. Not to mention 63% of the gun related deaths in Virginia are suicide related. That means that all of these bills listed are not scientifically proven with sound data, but emotionally charged by political gun grabbing rhetoric and is saturated with slippery slope informal fallacies with proposed changes being made without analytical data to suggest we have a need to change. Why do we not first address Richmond and Hampton locally before pushing your unfounded ideology on the rest of the commonwealth. Gun laws do not solve for the human condition problem in those 9 districts. We would be better served spending our time, and tax dollars, addressing the poverty problem that drives violent crime, rather than trying to make law biding citizens criminals.

I’ve been a lifelong Democrat because I believe deeply in protecting working people, expanding access to healthcare, safeguarding civil rights, and investing in strong public institutions, but I’ve never fully aligned with my party on gun control. To me, supporting the Second Amendment isn’t about ideology or partisanship — it’s about personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the belief that law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their families. I value evidence-based policy, and I worry that many proposed gun laws primarily burden responsible owners while doing little to address the root causes of violence like poverty, mental health gaps, and systemic inequality. I want safer communities, but I believe that comes from smarter enforcement, education, and prevention rather than broad restrictions that limit constitutional rights. Holding these views sometimes puts me at odds with fellow Democrats, but I see it as proof that political identity doesn’t have to mean agreeing with every plank of the platform — it means thinking critically and standing by the principles you believe in. Please vote no to any gun restrictions that are being presented.

I write in opposition to the magazine-capacity provisions of House Bill 217. The most common pistols used for lawful self-defense today—including the Glock 19 and 17, SIG Sauer P365, Smith & Wesson M&P Shield Plus and Equalizer, Springfield Hellcat Pro, Walther PDP, Taurus GX4, and Ruger MAX-9—are all designed with standard capacities exceeding ten rounds. HB217 provides no grandfather exemption, meaning ordinary Virginians could become criminals overnight for possessing standard magazines they already own. Per the USCCA, approximately 8.3 percent of Virginians—over 700,000 people—hold concealed carry permits. This bill would expose many of those law-abiding citizens to serious criminal penalties without any violent conduct. That concern is heightened when penalties under HB217 are incongruent with those proposed in HB244 addressing robbery and HB863 addressing rape and child pornography. This imbalance undermines proportional justice. I respectfully urge the House to reject the magazine-capacity provisions of HB217.

Banning assault weapons at a time when ICE is killing American citizens and the president is "joking"about a 3rd term is short slighted.

The attachment contains my comments on the proposed bills.

Nearly half of all households in the Commonwealth own a firearm and yet Virginia has one of the lowest gun related death rates in the nation (5.6 per 100,000). Not only are you trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist, you're sacrificing your constiunts to pander towards national politics.

As a law abiding gun owner and retired military Virginia Citizen I vehemently oppose any law that opposes our Constitutional Right via the Second Amendment. All of the bills you are considering meet this criteria. Please cease and desist any band all actions that would infringe on my rights…those that our Founding Fathers of whom many were from our Great Commonwealth, believed to be self-evident. Very respectfully, Shannon J. Cornelius, USA/USAF (Ret)

I strongly urge voting against the following bills as all of them will cause undue hardship on legal gun owners, go against the spirit of the US 2nd amendment, will place firearm manufacturers in legal jeopardy solely because their products may have been used in an unlawful fashion (same as suing Ford for getting a speeding ticket). HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. Thank you,

I oppose the passage of these bills. HB 19, 21, 40, 93, 110, 217, 229, 626, 702, 871, 969, 1359.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Stop writing and putting Unconstitutional Legislation in the Virginia Code. That covers just about everything I have seen the Democratic Majority propose as new legislation. Want to live in a communist paradise - Move to Cuba - They do not get Snow and sleet there, and you will have someone to give you instructions on how to live your life.

Just to let you know, I am an independent in every sense of the word. I tend to lean left on many issues but on the subject of the second amendment I am a firm believer. I don’t think we need these new restrictions being proposed. The topic is so complex and polar I don’t know how to convince you all of the folly of this legislation except to say many of us are single issue voters regardless of how we feel about certain social issues. I know many democrats in this state who regularly use these weapons that are the subject for future restrictions or outright banning. I will try to touch on a few issues. Assault weapons and high capacity magazine are the current boogie man of the anti gun lobby and have been since the 1990s. This was originally a deliberate attempt to confuse modern civilian semiautomatic weapons with their more dangerous fully automatic assault military versions as a prelude to ban handguns. The term assault weapon is a purely political term that has no universal meaning and it was chosen to instill fear and confusion in the public’s mind. I ask you to review these laws and ask yourself which one of these features makes these weapons more dangerous than other rifles. Is a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or similar feature what makes a rifle dangerous? Or is it caliber, muzzle energy, and rate of fire? If public safety is the true goal why doesn’t this legislation address these factors instead of cosmetics? I will tell you why. Because the average hunting rifle is more powerful than an ar-15 by a wide margin. These are not overpowered rifles as some would have you believe. It’s a semiautomatic version of an intermediate powered rifle - part way between the power of a pistol and a full power hunting rifle. Did you know even Great Britain has no restrictions on weapons with military style features? Their ban is on the caliber and rate of fire. You can even have a semiautomatic uzi there witt a 50 round magazine as long as it is chambered in 22lr. Silencers have very few restrictions there as well because they protect hearing and help minimize noise pollution. Let’s talk about the legality as well. Most of these restrictions are unconstitutional because the weapons and features are in common use. It’s unconstitutional to ban any weapon that is in common use as per DC vs Heller and Brien. If the state court doesn’t overturn these unconstitutional restrictions the Supreme Court will. I will end this conversation by saying our founding fathers faced the same issues we do. At that time most governments restricted civilian arms because they wanted to remain in power. They reasoned through their dealings with Great Britain that an armed population could never be slaves to any tyrannical government or foreign power. This may sound like a tired old saying that is often made fun of. I have heard people saying things like deer don’t need bullet proof vests and you can’t fight against a government without f-16s but is this really true? The ar-15 for instance is not powerful enough to take down a large elk humanly so the bullet proof vest comment is just plain silly. That cartridge is commonly used in other rifles as a varmint round. As far as f-16s are concerned, the Taliban sure kicked us out of their country with nothing more than small arms and guerrilla tactics. Civilian resistance movements rarely fight pitch battles with tanks and fighter jets. They use hit and run tactics combined with numbers to wear the enemy down.

Dear Committee Members, I urge you to reject the blatantly unconditional and egregious anti Second Amendment bills before you. This will do nothing to curb crime, and you know that, but will make criminals out of your political opponents, as well as many of your constituents. Scencerly, Sal DeGennaro

PLEASE PROTECT OUR GUN RIGHTS AND DO NOT DEGRADE VIRGINIANS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!

IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT ME IMMEDIATELY STEP IN AND COME UP WITH LAWS IN AN ATTEMPT TO FRAME ME AS A CRIMINAL FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS. IN NO WAY HAVE I BROKEN ANY EXISTING LAWS, NOR DO I OWN ANY ITEM CURRENTLY CONSIDERED ILLEGAL. THAT THESE "REPRESENTATIVES" CAN, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN, PENALIZE ME, MAKES ME WONDER JUST WHO THEY "REPRESENT". WE DO NOT NEED MORE LAWS TO "LESSEN CRIME", WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE.

Our Second Amendment is clear and succinct: "... the right of the People to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." What I see is an example of the government overstepping its bounds under the illusion of public safety. Many of the measures including assault weapons, magazine capacities, and "ghost guns" are based on buzz words that strike fear because people do not understand them. Let us embark on a few definitions: Infringe: "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on" -Oxford Dictionary. Synonyms include Erode, Impair, and Weaken. ANY legislation that limits impairs, or weakens a citizen's right to own and carry weapons is, by definiton, infringement, and therefore a violation of our beautiful country's constitution. Ghost Gun: the ATF classifies the part of the weapon containing the trigger assembly as a "firearm," colloquially called a Lower Receiver. It is possible to manufacture this part and therefore build a weapon that has no serial number and is unregistered with the police department. This takes skill and specialized, expensive tooling; these firearms sound scary, but are by and large produced by hobbyists, not killers. Assault Weapons (HB217): The limiting, reduction, and impairment of the size of magazine that one can purchase, keep, and carry is simply a violation of the 2nd amendment. Storage (HB871): The State government has no business inside my home and how my weapons are stored. I learned to handle guns at 7 years of age, children can learn. If I lock my weapons as this bill requires, I can no longer access them in an emergency. Its safer to gun-proof my children than child-proof my guns. Permit to purchase (HB1359): We do not need a permit to exercise our first amendment rights. We do not have permits to secure our rights against inappropriate search and seizure, the 4th amendment. We also do not have permits to protect ourselves from cruel and unusual punishment. No other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights requires a permit, why do we treat the 2nd amendment differently? We already strip this right from convicted criminals, we have background checks, leave us law-abiding gunowners alone. I understand these bills have good intentions. We want to see our communities safe, healthy, and thriving, and have our neighbors and friends go about their days without fear. But let us not succumb to fear to such an extent that we throw away our freedom for the illusion of heightened safety. Let's look at California, llinois, and New York, who have the strictest policies in the nation, yet rising rates of violent crimes, and instantly the illusion is dispelled. These measures do not increase safety. What they do accomplish is an erosion of freedom, disarmament of law-abiding citizens, and violation of our country's constitution. I ask you please, as your neighbor and constituent, vote NO to these measures.

This bill represents one of the most extreme and unconstitutional gun bans proposed in Virginia in recent years. HB 217 would prohibit the sale, possession, transfer, and transport of an entire class of commonly owned firearms and magazines that are lawfully used by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, and other legitimate purposes. The firearms and magazines targeted by this bill are unquestionably "in common use," a standard explicitly recognized and protected by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. With more than 20 million AR-15 style rifles and hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines in civilian hands nationwide, there is no serious legal argument that these items fall outside the scope of Second Amendment protection. HB 217 attempts to evade constitutional limits by restricting firearms based on arbitrary cosmetic features and manufacturing dates rather than functionality or criminal misuse. A firearm that is legal today would become illegal tomorrow solely because of when it was made, not because of any increased danger. This kind of legislative manipulation undermines respect for the rule of law and invites years of costly litigation for Virginia taxpayers. The bill also unlawfully discriminates against adults between the ages of 18 and 20 by prohibiting them from purchasing or possessing firearms that they are otherwise legally entitled to own. These young adults can vote, serve in the military, and exercise other fundamental rights, yet HB 217 would deny them the ability to defend themselves and their families. There is no credible evidence that bans on commonly owned firearms reduce violent crime. Criminals do not follow weapon bans, and they routinely obtain firearms through illegal means. History has shown repeatedly that these prohibitions primarily affect peaceful citizens while leaving violent offenders undeterred. HB 217 would also impose severe economic and practical burdens on Virginians who have invested lawfully in firearms and magazines that would become prohibited under this scheme. Law-abiding owners would face confiscation, forced surrender, or criminal prosecution for possessing property that was legal when acquired. This proposal reflects a broader effort to redefine constitutionally protected arms as "dangerous" in order to justify prohibition. If the legislature can ban firearms that are owned by tens of millions of Americans today, there is no principled limit on what may be banned tomorrow. The public safety is best served by enforcing existing laws against violent criminals, not by banning constitutionally protected arms. HB 217 abandons that principle in favor of symbolic legislation that violates fundamental rights.

The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands. This bill if passed would certainly face legal challenge wasting public money in its defense.

HB19 It is improper to deprive citizen rights for a misdemeanor violation Deprivation of rights is part of the accepted sentence for felony crime (voting, firearms, etc) Proposed Fix – Make domestic violence and intimate partner violence a felony level crime. HB40 Causes a wide variety of hardware store supplies felony crime to own. Proposed Fix – Table bill and remove references to unfinished frames/receivers, remove references to serialization until a method of applying for serial number is available to the general public HB110 Tow truck drivers are NOT the ideal steward for firearms The tow yard is not a safe storage location Proposed fix – Police can call a locksmith and have the vehicle opened at owner expense, firearm can be removed and held at police station for recovery HB217 Large capacity varies by firearm, the most common standard capacity is 28-32 per magazine, 100 per belt Shotgun capacity is variable based on shell length If exemptions are made for police, CHP holders (who commit crimes at a rate LOWER than police) should also be exempt (DHS/ICE are making this argument stronger every day) Proposed fix – Change “High Capacity” from 10 to 60 for magazines, and 200 for belts. Define “High Capacity” for shotgun tubes based on a defined shot-shell size. Exempt CHP holders from all magazine restrictions. HB229 As with all prohibited places, if right to self defense is abridged, a duty to protect is created Secure storage should be provided, as due to Arlington Car-Free Diet, many trips are multi-modal, preventing use of anchored, steel, hidden, locking car safe storage. Proposed Fix - Security screening and armed protection must be provided in all prohibited places, failure to protect disarmed individuals to be held under strict liability. At one or more entrance, a staffed safe-storage location to be provided for weapons to be checked-in. HB871 Biometric safes are typically the WORST QUALITY OF ALL SAFES ON THE MARKET Proposed Fix – Allow for any kind of lock, or else indicate a cypher/combo/key lock. HB1300 The police commit crimes at a higher rate than CHP holders Police get paid and can buy guns normally Suggested Fix – Table and do not reintroduce, bill is not needed HB626 As with all prohibited places, if right to self defense is abridged, a duty to protect is created Secure storage should be provided, as due to Arlington Car-Free Diet, many trips are multi-modal, preventing use of anchored, steel, hidden, locking car safe storage. As with the open-carry on streets prohibition currently in place, CHP holders need to be exempted. Proposed Fix - Security screening and armed protection must be provided in all prohibited places, failure to protect disarmed individuals to be held under strict liability. At one or more entrance, a staffed safe-storage location to be provided for weapons to be checked-in. CHP holders to be exempted. HB1359 A criminal record history check is already performed for all firearm transactions DCJS training is for armed security guards and police, if all firearms owners are DCJS certified, then exemptions for armed security and police should apply to purchase permit holders Proposed Fix – Table bill and do not reintroduce, it is redundant to already existing protections, alternatively exempt all purchase permit holders from any firearms regulations that have specific exemptions for police

I disagree with any and all laws pertaining to our gun rights and any law that infringes our right to own,sell, trade or gift. These amendments are a total outreach of our constitutional rights and we the people will not stand for it.

These bill do nothing to address criminals and only affects law abiding gun owners. As a black man I feel they are racist as well. Vote NO to all of these bills.

I stand with Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League in opposing any attempt to restrict law abiding Virginians 2nd amendment rights. These bills will do nothing to stop crime and only serve to limit the rights of the people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. As a constituent, I urge you to OPPOSE these gun bills: HB 19, Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB 21, This bill is designed to have a chilling effect on all aspects of the firearms industry. HB 40, This bill is unconstitutional, as there was no analog in the history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. HB 93, This disctriminates against people in the same household and also discriminates against young people who are legally allowed to own fire arms. HB 110, Punish criminals who do this, not the law abiding citizens. HB 217, The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands. HB 229, Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB 626, A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students are adults and have a right to self-defense. HB 702, The name of the program implies that the Commonwealth gives firearms to citizens and now wants citizens to give them back. That is not the case. The State does not give us our rights and does not own our property. HB 871, Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes and often times more unreliable when being used under stress, This discriminates against those people who are poor and still have a right to self protection. HB 969, we do not need to grow the state bureaucracy to study violent crime when most violent crime does not involve firearms. HB 1359, please find me a constitutional right that you have to get a permit for. There is not one and we should not be limiting the rights of the people by require a permit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I SUPPORT the following bill: HB 1303, 90 days is more than sufficient for the State Police to issue a non-resident permit. There is no reason that this should take longer than this.

I’m against all these worthless anti-gun / anti-freedom bills that will do nothing to reduce crime, but will only serve to reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Please retract them and do something good for Virginians. Thank you.

Virginia opposes all these illegal unconstitutional bills. The second amendment is a right not a privilege.! I oppose these bills as an individual taxpayer.

I do not support these bills.

My family and I enjoy recreational shooting and hunting. House Bill 217 bans the firearms and magazines that we use lawfully on a regular basis. This is very upsetting to most gun owners. HB 217 punishes lawful gun owners for the misuse of firearms by criminals. Should this bill pass, I will encourage my college age children to relocate to other freedom loving states and not settle in Virginia where their rights are being taken.

HB21 This bill seeks to punish law-abiding hardworking gun manufacturers and those they employ, either directly or indirectly, by making them conspirators in crimes committed using guns. Besides it being unconstitutional, this law is also discriminatory in that it does not impose the same laws against car manufacturers whose autos and trucks are used in the commission of crimes and a plethora of other legal products used in the commission crime. HB-217 is arbitrary and capricious in that there is no such objective definition or standard for what constitutes a “standard magazine capacity” and/ or firearm. HB-702. This is misuse of public funds. It represents an ideological or charitable function that should be funded like other charities - voluntary contribution. As such it should require the same federal approvals as any other authorized charity. HB-1359. This is textbook 2A infringement prohibited by the US Constitution. Infringe is defined by Meriam-Webster dictionary as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”. Imposition of taxes, requisite training, purchase delays, etc constitute infringement. Time and public funds are better spent funding law enforcement and executive offices to enforce civil and criminal laws that directly affect or deter criminal activities.

I oppose any and all restrictions on our God given and Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms. None of this nonsense passes constitutional muster. And will have the effect of making the lives Of law abiding citizens less safe while you are Lowering penalties for real crime and turning Law abiding citizens into criminals... These bills are nothing more than a government power grab. What part of "Shall NOT be infringed " do you not Understand??

All bills with the exception of HB 1303 are unconstitutional and I do NOT support them.

I oppose these bills

When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.

I oppose every gun-control bill pending before this committee because they are prohibited by both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that this language protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, independent of militia service. The Court emphasized that the Amendment protects arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens and forbids bans on entire classes of such arms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court reaffirmed that this right is fully incorporated against the states, binding Virginia to the same constitutional limits as Congress. Virginia’s Constitution independently protects this right, stating in Article I, Section 13 that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court rejected interest-balancing tests and adopted a text-history-tradition standard: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, it is presumptively protected, and the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Modern policy goals, crime statistics, or legislative preferences are insufficient. Many pending bills restrict semi-automatic rifles, including AR-style firearms that are owned by millions of Americans and commonly used for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting. Under Heller, arms in common use cannot be banned, and the “dangerous and unusual” exception does not apply. There is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned firearms based on rate of fire, operating mechanism, or cosmetic features, and under Bruen the absence of such historical analogues is dispositive. Other bills ban magazines over ten rounds, which are standard components of many commonly owned handguns and rifles. Because magazines are integral to firearm function, such bans operate as functional prohibitions on protected firearms. There is no Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of limiting ammunition capacity, making these bans unconstitutional under Bruen. Permit-to-purchase schemes likewise unconstitutionally burden a fundamental right by converting it into a government-granted privilege. The right to keep arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them, and fees, training mandates, biometric requirements, and processing delays disproportionately burden citizens and lack historical justification. These schemes invite arbitrary enforcement and indirect suppression of a constitutional right. While public safety is a legitimate concern, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional rights cannot be traded away through legislative cost-benefit analysis. Regulations unsupported by historical tradition fail regardless of asserted benefits. For these reasons, the pending gun-control bills before this committee are inconsistent with both the United States and Virginia Constitutions and should be rejected.

Please no more gun bans

These proposed actions would increase the amount of money that is already taken from us in taxes. They make no sense, as we have a 2.3 billion surplus. These actions only hurt Virginians. The democrat party ran on affordability, and these bills do just the opposite. The taxes on firearms, and the banning of them and accessories have already proven to do nothing but punish law abiding citizens. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS! Reducing manditory sentecing for rape and other horrible crimes only make us less safe. Combined with TRYING to disarm us and helping criminals you out us at risk, and rob us of our rights and money. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for being bought off. You all remind me of our flag. You are acting like tyrants. You talk of affordability, yet you are trying to take more of our money. The people will not stand for tour unconstitutional actions. You may have control for the next two years, but your political careers will be destroyed. Tou have become radical tyrants. You hate the other side so much, that you are willing to destroy us. Shame on all of you. The pendulum always swings back, and you are just guaranteeing it will swing so far back that you will wish you never did this. The destruction of our constitution, and your petty attacks are not worth the backlash that will come when the people rise up against what you believe in.

Leave my second amendment rights alone and worry about all the criminals both legal and illegal. Don't screw with law-abiding citizens who work and pay your salary

Hello, I agree and stand with the opinions of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America on these troubling bills. The right to keep and bear ares enshrined as a God given right in both the US (2nd amendment) and Virginia (article 1, section 13) Constitutions. Please do not legislate millions of peaceful, law abiding Virginians into criminals with the stroke of a pen.

Please Protect Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Thank You.

Please don’t support any Bills that restrict or infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.

To whom it may concern, It is important to recognize that criminals, by definition, disregard existing laws and are unlikely to be deterred by the introduction of new legislation. Consequently, the implementation of additional laws often impacts only law-abiding citizens, placing new restrictions or obligations upon those who already comply with legal standards. The focus, therefore, should not be on drafting further statutes but rather on ensuring the consistent and effective enforcement of the laws currently in place. By allocating resources toward upholding existing regulations, society can enhance public safety, maintain fairness, and uphold the integrity of the justice system without unnecessarily burdening responsible citizens. Respectfully, Mr. Jones

You were elected as a protest against the President. You definitely weren't elected to cancel Virginians constitutional rights. I'm sure your big donors outside of Virginia will be happy. But last time you tried this 90 of 95 counties, Cities and Town revolted against you. Plus once your donor lists are published by the influential VCDL and the lawsuits start. The people will find out who you actually serve. Unless you represent Arlington or Fairfax all democratic seats will be in jeopardy for the next election. Finally: You take an oath to honor the constitution when you get the privilege to serve the people. Someone who immediately violates their oath has no honor and can never be trusted with authority. People will remember that when it's time to vote again. I know I will. I used to be a Democrat and donor. But I will never vote for a Democrat again.

Please consider this by destroying the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia. You also will eventually come to the repercussions of your decisions, ie court action and loss of tax payer money etc.Now the 2nd amendment to the constitution in short says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ,basically no laws are to go against the constitution and also as per article 6 clause two of the constitution. Thank you and think wisely because your constituents as whole do not want this. Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amdt2.1Overview of Second Amendment, Right to Bear Arms Amdt2.2Historical Background on Second Amendment Amdt2.3Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence Amdt2.4Heller and Individual Right to Firearms Amdt2.5Post-Heller Issues and Application of Second Amendment to States Amdt2.6Bruen and Concealed-Carry Licenses Amdt2.7Rahimi and Applying the Second Amendment Bruen Standard

Not one of you liberals submitted a bill to address the real evil that is using a gun. So all of these bills are designed to punish legal law abiding gun owners and protect the real criminals. Im78 years old and have owned and bought guns from the age of 15 when I purchased my first gun with money earned from a paper route. NOT ONE OF THE GUNS I'VE OWNED EVER HARMED ANYONE. IT'S AN INANIMATE OBJECT

As a veteran, I am against any so called gun control legislation that has not demonstrably proven to improve public safety while only minimally impacting individuals’ God given rights and liberties. It is unconscionable to think that elected leaders would even think about passing legislation that infringed upon individual rights merely for purposes of “doing something” without having weighed the impact on law abiding citizens and the innumerable sacrifices made to sustain and protect those rights and liberties through the years. Having served myself and also been the victim of illegal firearm use I staunchly support the 2A rights and individuals’ right to self-defense. Each person’s situation and experiences are different and they deserve to exercise their rights and liberties in a way that accommodates those circumstances, experiences, limitations, etc. So called “assault weapons” (a misnomer in itself) may have features and appearances that some persons find scary or intimidating but, to someone possessing that firearm for their own, individual law purposes, most all of those features actually improve the performance or safety related to the use of that same firearm. All semi-automatic firearms, regardless of how they might LOOK to a casual or uninformed observer basically function the same. Stocks, forearm, bipods, scopes, rails, magazines, etc. do not alter the fundamental intended purpose of this “tool.” I certainly understand those who do not appreciate firearms, in general, or who might actually be scared by their existence or appearance. But our 2A and self defense rights should never be indescribably infringed upon merely for these type reasons. There are very good reasons our fore fathers were adamant about including these inalienable rights as foundational principles in our founding documents. These foundational principles are as relevant today as they were at our founding. Anyone who is arrogant enough to think that they have studied and researched and experienced as much as the founding father scholars and thinkers should reconsider their actions carefully before indiscriminately treading upon one of our sacred rights and liberties without certifiable proof of the amount of public safety that would be realized by their actions. Anything less goes against the solemn oath you have sworn to uphold.

I oppose this bill, honor your oath

i OPPOSE any legislation that restricts 2nd amendment rights

I agree with the VCDL on these bills.

Opposite any gun laws. They will not stop any crime. Try enforcing the laws we already.

These sorts of draconian proposals severely restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves against threats of violence. None of the proposed measures which have been inflicted on the citizenry of other states have made one iota of difference in crime levels. They HAVE however restricted law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights via the 2nd Amendment. Vote now to cease this onslaught on the rights of law-abiding Virginians. Gun violence is perpetrated by CRIMINALS, so focus on the criminal prosecutions. Limiting the rights of law-abiding Virginians is tantamount to fascism. And as always, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!". That's what you are saying to Virginians. If I cannot be trusted to defend myself legally, then you cannot be trusted to run the Commonwealth.

These legislations violate many sections of the Virginia Constitution not just the U.S. Constitution. Legislations like these does nothing to prevent, curtail, deter or otherwise stop crimes or acts of violence. These legislations do not hold criminals that cannot legally possess, purchase or own firearms accountable for their possession, use or handling of a firearm. These legislations do not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Cliché but true rhetoric (Criminals will get guns and magazines and commit crimes regardless of the laws. These legislations are immoral, unethical and down right oppressive and serve no purpose other than to infringe upon rights and deny rights. Reminder: - 18, 19 and 20 year old men and women are entrusted in the operation, use, carry and implementation of the following in the service of our country as Servicemembers, Coast Guardsmen, National Guardsmen and Air National Guardsmen and Reservists as well as law enforcement: Semi-automatic Pistols with high capacity magazines, Semi- Automatic Rifles with 30 round magazines, machine guns, rockets, tanks, missiles, rocket Launchers etc and yet Virginia Legislators want to strip away the rights of civilians of that age group of their right to own and bear arms. That is hypocritical and it undermines the Constitution. Our nation foundation and freedom was earned through the blood and sweat of young 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 year old men from the Revolutionary War for our independence and that of our 17 year old to 20 year old war fighters today standing tall and maintaining our soon to be 250 years of being a Constitutional Republic and our Freedom. Do not allow the stripping of the rights of these military aged men and women that serve and defend our nation, our freedom and our Constitutions. Do not insult them or slap them in the face or turn your backs on them. Fight for them because at some point we have fought and we have sacrificed for you and these young men and women will too. Any legislation that denies and deprives this age group the use, ownership while expecting them to serve in our country and have them carry, operate and use them in the defense of our nation and potentially die, be seriously injured or maimed is diabolical and is disgraceful. Magazine capacity restrictions: (Do not limit or stop the intent of criminals or those intent on committing any act of violence. We have seen the demonstrated and factual extreme actions/tactics that have been used for example: Using a vehicle to run into crowds, Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devises (VBIED), Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), mass stabbings, gas attacks and chemical warfare, fire, and more Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights Sections 1,2, 9,10,11. These legislations below, restrict the right to self- defense. Legal gun owners are not committing crimes and do not intend to committ crimes. These legislations are not about accountability for criminals. They are written to suppress and take away the rights of law abiding citizens and ro take away a means of self-defense. These legislations do not create a safer Virginia. HB110, HB1359, HB969, HB871, HB702, HB24, HB21, HB700, HB229, HB217, HB110, HB93, HB19, Example: - HB700: Denies and delays the access to firearms in an emergency situation where a victim of stalking or domestic abuse are in imminent danger. V/R Raymond Carter SFC(Retired)

I strongly oppose this bill

All of these bills are intolerable infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting these bills is a violation of your oaths of office. In addition, as should be evident, these bills will only affect law-abiding gun owners, the very people least likely to offend. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They are unlikely to obey these.

Please do not consider any anti-gun bills. Any potential law that goes against our Constitution is wrong and should not be acknowledged. We shouldn't have to pay for our rights. No innocent person should be penalized for a criminal's actions. A gun's capacity is irrelevant. If a person comments a REAL crime, they should be convected and sentenced accordingly. A right should be lost only through certain major criminal actions, not some fool's option of potential. No manufacturer should be responsible for how their product is used. The one responsible is the one in possession of said product, even if it was stolen. Our last Governor understood this. Our new Governor and her political party desperately needs to. We have seen the failures of worthless states like California, Maryland, New York and others. We don't need to be another one. No law will ever stop a crime. The law should provide proper penalties or real crimes. No law should be made for the sole purpose of controlling and wielding power over the citizens of this State or our country.

I am opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, I support HB 1300 and HB1303.

My father was born in Romania in 1933 and as a child lived under the fascism of socialism. The first thing the fascist socialists did was to confiscate guns. Nearly 400,000 Jews were slaughtered by the socialists after having been disarmed in Romania. Now socialists have taken power in Virginia by running as "moderates" and immediately showing their true selves once safely elected. Democrats, like their brethren Nazis, seek to disarm and enslave the general population. I oppose any legislation which punishes law-abiding citizens from protecting themself, their family, and their property. I oppose any legislation which punishes a citizen for potentially being robbed, as if the thief is not the problem-- the victim is treated as the criminal. I oppose any legislation which allows accusations to remove the rights of others. If I accuse every member of government of being a child abuser, are you forced to remain away from your child(ren)? I oppose Nazis and Democrats for the same reasons.

As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. I support HB 1303 by Delegate Ware. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.

Disarming the population is not a viable means to promote public safety. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves from physical harm that may occur by criminal activity. It is not the responsibility of politicians or police. That is why bills like HB 19, HB 21, HB 40, HB 93, HB 229, HB 1359 are unconstitutional and put the general public in more danger as violent criminals will take advantage of unarmed civilians. HB 110 and HB 702 will promote criminal use of firearms as the firearms will be taken away from the registered owners' possession which greatly increases the likelihood the firearm will end up on the black market for resale where violent criminals obtain their weapons. HB 871 will also be ineffective as gun violence prevention means while again adding a monetary burden and serious disadvantage to law a biding citizens in the immediate face of danger. The people of Virginia do not support these policies that waste the time of politicians and money of the tax payer.

I oppose all of these unconstitutional bills.

HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. ALL of these bills are Unconstitutional and will cause Lawsuits and MASS NON COMPLIANCE

Greetings, These bills that are being proposed will do more than infringe on Va citizens rights , they will cause many to loose their jobs and cause hardship on an already financially strained population. I work for a firearms manufacturer, these bills will shut us down. Put numerous citizens like me out of work! I hope you reconsider what you are proposing and realize the harm that you are causing! Our state needs caring leaders not over burdening tyrants! These bills and those like them appear to be from a communist playbook , not from a State of Virginia elected delegate. Thank you for your consideration on this matter!

I oppose all these bills!

As a fellow virginian I am very disappointed in these outrageous bills proposed. They do nothing to stop criminals cause they don't follow rules or laws anyways it just hurts people trying to protect themselves from being hurt or God forbid something worse. I have lived in virginia my whole life and love this state but i also love the 2nd amendment and freedom to bear arms so please take in consideration myself and thousands of other virginian's that love the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia and strike down these outrageous bills. Thank you for your time god bless the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia!

All these bills are an infringement on our constitutional second amendment rights!

You ran as a middle of the road moderate ticket, and wanted to bring everyone together. all these bills go against that and alienate half of the state. You want bi partisan support? Well to get that you can not be going after law abiding citizens and take away a constitutionally protected right.

Hello, as a true Virginian whose family goes back to the founding of this state, country and fought in the revolutionary war. The anti gun bills being pushed on us are completely unconstitutional. My ancestors would be rolling in their graves right now knowing what you all are trying to do to our personal liberties, freedom and property. All of the anti gun legislation being pushed is not only unconstitutional but against previous Supreme Court rulings. You plan to turn over half of your state into criminals overnight for legally purchased items. So not only are you infringing on the 2nd Amendment but now on our 5th Amendment. 12 months in jail! Sounds like an 8th Amendment violation. True Virginians do not want these unconstitutional laws placed on us. Virginia is where freedom was won and not taken! I urge you all to vote against these unconstitutional bills. We are not California or New York. Our friends in Northern Virginia do not speak for all of Virginia anymore. My kindness regards. True Virginian.

These bills are ill-advised “solutions” in desperate search of largely non-existent problems. The 2nd amendment was quite clear. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly those words. These bills will only make law-abiding citizens less safe. Please actually consider your constituents safety instead of your partisan talking points.

I urge a vote against this, and any gun related bill, that would arguably restrict gun rights, or increase the cost of having,/buying firearms or ammunition, or create any kind of registry of such, of law abiding citizens of Virginia. Most of these bills would do nothing for saving lives, and criminals will not abide by them.

These anti-Second Amendment legislations violate the Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Virginia Constitution. These bills will not make Virginians safer. but will put us at risk for predatory criminals. Also, the Second Amendment wpuld protect us from a tyranical government. Who protects us from you? Do you so crave power that you must disatm us? Why do you hate fireams?

I oppose these bills. Limiting our right to defend ourselves will not reduce crime or make anyone safer, except violent criminals.

Dear Committee Chair, I am writing to respectfully urge you to OPPOSE these bills. These proposals place unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root causes of criminal misuse of firearms. Measures such as taxpayer-funded gun turn-in and destruction programs, knife and firearm bans at medical facilities, and magazine capacity restrictions unfairly target responsible gun owners in my community without demonstrable public safety benefits. I ask that you vote “NO” on this legislation and instead support policies that enforce existing laws and address criminal behavior, rather than restricting the rights of lawful citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jan

My family and I hope you will reconsider all of these unconstitutional and tyrannical bills that seek to limit the God given right of citizens to defend themselves. Supporting these unconstitutional. bills as the Governor simultaneously supports the actions of Mr. Petti as a legal firearms owner, is indeed hypocrisy.

Good Morning. I respectfully oppose the following House Bills, which collectively place excessive burdens on law-abiding Virginians while offering little evidence of meaningful reductions in violent crime. These proposals raise serious concerns related to constitutional rights, due process, public safety, and cost. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for certain misdemeanors involving a broadly defined “dating relationship.” This imposes severe constitutional consequences without felony-level due process protections and relies on vague definitions prone to misuse. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. This abandons long-standing liability principles by holding lawful businesses responsible for third-party criminal acts, increasing costs and reducing lawful access without improving public safety. HB 40 (Simon) criminalizes unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized, burdening lawful hobbyists and small manufacturers despite a lack of evidence that such items meaningfully drive crime. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) mandates firearm surrender under protective orders in ways that may disarm innocent family members who are not accused of wrongdoing, undermining due process and property rights in shared households. HB 110 (Laufer) penalizes and allows towing of vehicles when a handgun is left unattended, even if secured. This may discourage lawful compliance with firearm-restricted locations by eliminating practical storage options. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines manufactured after July 1, 2026. Such bans target arms in common lawful use and raise serious constitutional concerns while failing to address criminal misuse of existing firearms. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities, removing lawful self-defense options from patients, visitors, and staff, including permit holders who have already undergone background checks. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts lawful firearm possession on college campuses, treating adult students and faculty as if they forfeit constitutional rights despite documented safety concerns and delayed emergency response times. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy program with no demonstrated impact on violent crime, diverting resources from proven enforcement and prevention strategies. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage methods and biometric safes in homes with minors, imposing costly, one-size-fits-all requirements that intrude into private homes and may delay access in emergencies. HB 969 (Price) creates a new state agency focused solely on firearms while ignoring broader contributors to violence such as repeat offenders, mental health access, and community-based interventions. HB 1359 (Hope) establishes a costly permit-to-purchase system with fingerprints, training mandates, and a de facto registry, creating delays and barriers to exercising a constitutional right without clear public safety benefits. Conclusion: Taken together, these bills represent a sweeping expansion of government control over lawful firearm ownership. They burden responsible citizens, weaken due process, and prioritize symbolic regulation over effective crime reduction. I urge the General Assembly to reject these measures and focus on enforcing existing laws and addressing violent criminal behavior.

Forum: These Bills are an attack on the lawful Citizen and will not stop the criminal element from doing harm. This has been proven time and time again. The intent of these Bills is to discourage the Citizenry from exercising their rights as protected by the US Constitution and the VA Constitution. These documents are explicit that our rights are being protected and not being given to us by the Govt. It is the Govt responsibility to protect our Bill of Rights and not to subvert them at the Federal and Local level. These bills seek to create a list and registry as forbidden by law. The declaration that all guns that are semi-automatic are "assault weapons" is absurd. The look of a gun does not define it as an assault weapon. These Bills have been stricken down by the highest court(s) in the land time and time again. The only reason for these bills is too attack the lawful citizen and will not do anything to stop the aggressor in his/her intent to do harm. There is significant history that illustrates that an armed populace in society is a peaceful and secure society. I respectfully oppose these Bills that attack the fundamental Bill of Rights that the Federal and State Constitutions protect. V/R, Mr. Charters

I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “

I oppose these bills because they are unconstitutional!!

I urge you not oppose all of these bills.

I oppose bill 217, and ask for a grandfather magazine amendment to be placed back into the bill. This bill without that clause will make many thousands of state wide gun owners immediate criminals. These are magazines that citizens have already lawfully purchased, the cost of replacing them will be high, but the cost of every citizen who lawfully conceal carry will also be placed in legal bind and create accidental crimes. Please specifically amend this bill to include grandfathering both firearms and magazines for use.

All of these bills pushing further gun control only hurt law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of criminals. Further they aim to disarm potential victims in a lame attempt to establish “common sense” gun control that is anything but. California, Chicago, New York are the model for many of these bills and the evidence is clear that they are not effective and even harmful. If a criminal stole a car and drove it into a crowd of people, you wouldn’t hold the car’s owner responsible. You wouldn’t hold the vehicle’s manufacturer responsible. You wouldn’t pass a law that requires safe storage of vehicles. If someone exhibited a “red flag” you wouldn’t take aware their location driver’s license with no due process or investigation. We don’t do any of that because “common sense” says that it’s ridiculous. The difference between cars and firearms however is there is no Second Amendment for cars, which means that these laws make even less sense and are directly unconstitutional.

All of the aforementioned bills are a substantial attack the God given rights & the 2nd Amendment. These in fact are the opposite of good governance. How does the aforementioned reduce the size & scope of government? How does the aforementioned lead to affordability? There are no statistics that show a benefit to society! Furthermore the aforementioned will only lead to a higher government cost to the citizens while squashing the rights of the citizens!

I do not believe these bills are in alignment with the constitution of Virginia: Article I. Bill of Rights Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Each of these will infringe on the right of the people of this state to bear arms. I expect the legislature to pass laws in accordance with the state and federal constitution, not in opposition to it. For these reasons, i am opposed to these bills.

As a single woman and trained gun owner, I object to any kind of restrictions against my rights as protected by the 2nd amendment. My safety and those of women like me depends on having unrestricted access to the purchase and ownership of a "great equalizer". The next training facility is over an hour from my house, and another I use is more than two hours away. If I cannot leave my gun unattended in the car, I cannot even take a break on my way to or from the range? And since when have taxpayers given you permission and a mandate to use our hard-earned tax money to "buy back" something you haven't bought in the first place? These programs have shown to be a proven failure in other communities. Please vote no.

The banning of so called "Assault weapons" and high (they are actually standard) capacity magazines goes against already decided case law at the Supreme Court and there flaunt the rule of law. These are firearms and magazines not only in common use, but the most commonly owned firearms and magazines. Personally I would have to wait up to 15 minutes for police response putting me at a marked disadvantage to criminals who would simply disregard this onerous law.

As a resident of York County I am opposed to the bills listed above and wish for them to be rejected by this committee.

As a Virginian, I am completely opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359. Similar ideas have been tried in the past in other states, and have been proven not to reduce any crime, but only serve to unnecessarily burden law-abiding citizens in the lawful exercise of their Second-Amendment rights. If "common sense" were used to try to reduce violent crime, it would be completely obvious that inanimate objects, can, by themselves, do nothing. The sole responsibility lies in the hands of the person who commits the crime, not in what object they chose to use in the perpetration of the crime. The focus of "public safety" initiatives should be keeping violent criminals off the streets, not limiting citizens of their Constitutionally -protected rights. I do not appreciate my tax dollars being used to advance this agenda, and then being further used to try to defend it in the inevitable litigation of these infringements on Virginian's rights. Thank you for your time.

All Anti-Gun bills are Unconstitutional and Impede Citizens' right to Self Defense. We, the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia OPPOSE any and all of these and will fight each and every one of themthem

As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Many of the bills proposed have already been declared unconstitutional by multiple Supreme Court decisions. Most others are likely to be struct down in future court proceedings. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Respectfully, Mark Salamone

Unconstitutional. What part of shall not be infringed is misunderstood?

I firmly oppose any laws or policies that infringe upon my Second Amendment rights. I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional protection, and I do not support legislation that restricts law‑abiding citizens from exercising that right. Tucker Ophof Bristow, VA 20136

Stop all bills restricting our Second Amendment rights.

No more gun control. Gun control is racist. Gun rights are a civil right. All guns are protected under the second amendment including AR15 and STANDARD 30rd magazines

I strongly oppose this bill. HB 217

HB21 Status: In SubcommitteeFirearm industry members; creates standards of responsible conduct, civil liability. This law will make it impossible to sell firearms in Virginia. How do you expect a firearm manufacturer to make their guns thief prooof. The owner of the gun is responsible for safeguarding their weapon but criminals can still steal weapons. The manufacturer shouldn’t have any responsibility at that point. If someone broke into my car and found a way to steal it, it’s not Toyota’s fault, it’s the thief’s. The onus is on the citizens to not be criminal and steal guns or misuse them. Not on the manufacturer. This will make it hard for law abiding citizens, not criminals. HB40 Status: In SubcommitteePlastic firearms or receivers, unserialized firearms, etc.; transfer, etc., prohibited, penalties. We’re legislating against criminality that doesn’t exist. It should not be a criminal offense to have these. This turns normal citizens exercising their 2A rights into criminals. The actual criminals are those that plan to use their firearms against innocents. Not amateur gunsmiths with blank pieces of metal. HB 626, Delegate Callsen, restricts firearms at public institutions of higher education by requiring such firearms be part of an authorized program or activity inside a building. A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students are adults and have a right to self-defense. HB 1303, Delegate Ware, sets 90 days as the maximum number of days that the Virginia State Police can take when processing a non-resident concealed handgun permit. If the permit has not yet been approved after 90 days, then the permit is issued at that point. If the applicant is later found to be disqualified, the permit is revoked, and the applicant has to return it. This makes a lot of sense. No reason to delay law abiding citizens from being able to have access to self-defense. We cannot rely on police for 100% of the violence that happens in the community as they are not omnipresent or omnipotent. HB 217, Delegate Helmer, prohibits the sale, possession, transfer, and transport of an “assault firearm” made on or after July 1, 2026. It also prohibits sale, possession, transfer, and transport of an “assault firearm” to anyone under the age of 21. Magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and were made on or after July 1, 2026, are prohibited. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands. HB 110, Delegate Laufer, creates a $500 civil penalty and subjects a vehicle to towing if a person leaves a visible handgun in an unattended vehicle. The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. This bill would put a handgun in the possession of, and under the control of, a tow truck company! Punish criminals and stop harassing good people.

I am a resident of Ashburn in Loudoun County, Virginia. I respectfully submit the following written testimony in opposition to the bills listed below. HB1359 – Firearm purchase requirements; penalties I oppose HB1359 because it adds additional requirements and penalties that burden law-abiding purchasers without clear evidence of reducing criminal misuse. HB1427 – Limitation on handgun purchases I oppose HB1427 because purchase limits restrict lawful ownership while failing to address how firearms are obtained by those who commit crimes. HB19 – Firearms; purchase after assault & battery of family or household member I oppose HB19 due to due process and proportionality concerns, as it restricts rights prior to full adjudication rather than focusing on enforcement of existing protections. HB21 – Firearm industry members; civil liability standards I oppose HB21 because it expands civil liability in ways that risk penalizing lawful businesses for the actions of third parties without improving public safety. HB217 – Assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices I oppose HB217 because it targets lawful ownership based on firearm type rather than criminal misuse and lacks evidence of meaningful public safety benefit. HB229 – Weapons prohibited in certain hospitals I oppose HB229 because blanket prohibitions rely on disarmament rather than appropriate security and enforcement in sensitive facilities. HB24 – Concealed handgun permit reciprocity I oppose HB24 because limiting reciprocity penalizes lawful permit holders without deterring criminal activity, while Virginia’s current framework has functioned effectively. HB40 – Plastic or unserialized firearms I oppose HB40 due to overbroad definitions that risk unintended impacts on lawful ownership and small businesses rather than targeting criminal conduct. HB540 – Carrying firearms in restricted locations I oppose HB540 because expanding restricted locations increases complexity and the risk of unintentional violations by law-abiding citizens. HB700 – Waiting period for firearm purchases I oppose HB700 because mandatory waiting periods delay the exercise of a constitutional right without clear evidence of reducing violent crime. HB871 – Firearm storage requirements in residences I oppose HB871 because it imposes criminal penalties through broad storage mandates that may be difficult to apply consistently and fairly. HB907 – Security requirements for firearms dealers I oppose HB907 because it adds regulatory and penalty burdens on lawful dealers without clear evidence that such measures reduce criminal misuse. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to oppose the bills listed above. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record.

I appose this bill.

My name is Cole Zerrenner, and I am a registered voter residing in Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia. I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to the following bills scheduled before the House Public Safety – Firearms Subcommittee: HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359. I oppose these bills because, taken individually and collectively, they impose additional restrictions and penalties on law-abiding citizens while failing to meaningfully address criminal misuse of firearms or the underlying causes of violence. Many of these proposals expand prohibitions, create new compliance burdens, or rely on vague standards that raise concerns regarding due process, inconsistent enforcement, and unintended consequences. Several of the bills before the subcommittee emphasize preemptive restrictions or broad prohibitions rather than focusing on enforcement of existing laws, accountability for criminal conduct, or effective mental health interventions. Policies that reduce procedural safeguards or delay the exercise of constitutional rights risk undermining public confidence without clear evidence of improved public safety outcomes. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider whether these measures meaningfully target criminal behavior or instead primarily impact responsible Virginians who already comply with the law. Public safety is best served through targeted enforcement, due process protections, and policies that address root causes rather than symbolic or duplicative restrictions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record and for your consideration of my views. Respectfully submitted, Cole Zerrenner Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia

First and foremost, I fully support any comments made by Virginia Citizens Defense League, The NRA, and Gun Owners of America in regard to support for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. A lot of these proposed bills are unconstitutional and may even be a civil rights violation due to the fact that they most certainly will disproportionally have a negative effect on minorities, women, and people of lower income and certainly violating an 18–20 year-old persons 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms. If they have to work and pay taxes and be held accountable as an adult you can't legally deny them any rights under the constitution. Many of these proposed bills have already successfully been challenged at the U.S. Supreme court in rulings supporting the 2nd amendment. Examples cases- v Heller and v Bruen, so you are intentionally trying to pass bills that will not hold up in court and wasting valuable taxpayer money to pursue these bills. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Sincerely, Chris McDorman

Why I Oppose Each Bill below: HB 19 – Opposition: Punishes a non‑violent misdemeanor unrelated to firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); Hayes (4th Cir. 2009) – proportionality; Bruen (2022) – no historical basis for such a blanket ban. HB 21 – Opposition: Imposes strict liability for third‑party crimes, chilling lawful commerce. Violates: Heller (2008); Printz (1997) – cannot commandeer private actors; Bruen (2022) – no historic analogue. HB 40 – Opposition: Criminalizes already‑lawful homemade components and deprives property without compensation. Violates: Heller (2008); Miller (1939) – regulation must have a reasonable safety link; Bruen (2022); Lucas (1992) – takings. HB 93 – Opposition: Overbroad removal punishes lawful spouses and 18‑20‑year‑olds who may already possess firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); McDonald (2010); Bruen (2022) – age‑restriction lacks history; Carpenter (2018) – vague “if officer believes” standard violates due process. HB 110 – Opposition: Penalizes mere visibility and treats the gun as property that can be seized without due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Jones (2012) – towing = unlawful seizure; Bruen (2022) – no historic precedent. HB 217 – Opposition: Bars weapons in common lawful use and imposes capacity limits without historical support. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Miller v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2021). HB 229 – Opposition: Prevents lawful armed visitors in public medical settings without a narrow justification. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Katz (1967) – potential Fourth‑Amendment search issues. HB 626 – Opposition: Denies adult students the right to self‑defense on public campuses. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Washington v. Davis (1976) – lacks rational basis. HB 702 – Opposition: Authorizes confiscation/destruction of lawfully owned property without compensation or due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Kelo (2005) – takings require just compensation; Bruen (2022) - no historic precedent. HB 871 – Opposition: Expensive, tech‑exclusive requirement makes lawful loaded storage impracticable. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) – overinclusive impact on owners with minors. HB 969 – Opposition: Single‑issue agency risks viewpoint discrimination and may enable firearm‑specific regulations lacking constitutional footing. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) – inadequate procedural due process. HB 1359 – Opposition: Creates costly, time‑consuming barriers that effectively deny the right to acquire firearms for lawful purposes. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); McDonald (2010); Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966) – fee structure resembles a poll tax. The Virginia Constitution’s Article I § 16 protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and the state Supreme Court requires any limitation to be narrowly tailored, historically grounded, and consistent with due‑process (§ 13) and takings (§ 14) protections. The bills listed: HB 19, 93, 110, 871 (mandatory surrenders/penalties); HB 21, 40, 1359 (civil‑liability or costly licensing); HB 217, 229, 626, 702 (bans on common‑use firearms or accessories); and HB 969 (a gun‑only state agency)—all impose restrictions without a clear historical analogue, over‑reach permissible regulation, and create undue financial or procedural burdens. Consequently, they conflict with Virginia’s constitutional guarantees.

I SUPPORT HB1303. A right delayed is a right denied. I OPPOSE HB19: Misdemeanors should not remove rights. I OPPOSE HB21: How could a firearm accessory seller reasonably know if they were selling a gun sling to a prohibited person? Should a car parts store be sued if they sold a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery? I OPPOSE HB40: Even a chunk of aluminum, if sold to the public to become a frame or receiver once completed, must be serialized under this bill. The bill doesn’t grandfather existing homemade firearms. This bill is unconstitutional under Bruen. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. I OPPOSE HB93: There are multiple problems with the bill as written. If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun for home defense, for example, and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that co-owned shotgun. That punishes the wife and needlessly endangers her life. Also, a person 18-20yo can legally possess rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Others right can not be removed because of the actions of another. I OPPOSE HB110: The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. I OPPOSE HB217: The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently in Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the 2A. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the US & VA, making this bill unconstitutional. I OPPOSE HB229: Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under Bruen. I OPPOSE HB626: A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students and staff are adults and have a right to self-defense. I OPPOSE HB702: Destroying what might be perfectly functional, and possibly quite valuable, firearms is a waste of money. The State could offset any costs by selling the firearms to licensed gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program, the government never owned them. I OPPOSE HB871: Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes. Biometric safes can be unreliable when being used under stress and they also require batteries to work. There are plenty of other locking mechanisms for safes that are more secure. I OPPOSE HB969: The Center would only be targeting violence committed using firearms and ignoring the root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm! I OPPOSE HB1359: This bill WILL get innocent people killed, as it will take at least two months before a person can purchase their first firearm. If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long. The price to get a permit, is not equitable. Even citizens with CHPs will be limited to one handgun a month. Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country. It is sickening to see this bill even proposed.

I oppose this bill and any bill that turns citizens into criminals for something they legally purchased. The senate modified this bill to do just that using misinformation that magazines can easily be modified to limit rounds to 10. That is simply not true. Also, many commonly owned firearms (standard pistols and rifles) do not have available 10 round magazines making them useless under any law which does not grandfather existing items. Tens of thousands of Virginian own the items called out in this bill. Many, without even realizing it, will become criminals risking arrest if this bill passes, especially with changes similar to those made to the Senate bill. These rifles and accessories are clearly in common use and protected by the Heller and Bruen decisions.

Disarming the law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry of the Commonwealth is going to drive me away from this state. Stop creating unconstitutional efforts that curtail my Rights as an American Citizen. If you want to change the Right, then change the Constitution through the amendment process. Otherwise, focus on what you can really change and fund. Schools and roads. Quit wasting my hard earned money that I spend on local businesses that keep Virginians employed. I am not the only one who will vote with my feet. I left California for a reason...not you're trying to re-create it on the East coast.

oppose bill HB217.

In summary, I support House Bills 19, 93, 110, 201, 691, 696, 702, 871, 901, 909, 969, 1303, and 1359. I oppose House Bills 21, 40, 207, 217, 229, 626, 700, 907, 919. Please refer to my attached document for further explanation.

I've been voting blue no matter who for the last twenty years. You should look up my voting record during that time. I may have missed one election because I was out of town, but normally I vote in every election. If you make me into a criminal by passing all this gun control legislation, PARTICULARLY WITHOUT A GRANDFATHER CLAUSE, I am absolutely done voting for you. I keep waiting for my side to wake up and stop ignoring a full twenty percent of their constituency, and it never seems to happen, but now is make-or-break time. This legislation is irresponsible and incredibly tone deaf given what's going on in this country. One side is murdering us, and you want to make us easier to murder. That doesn't really leave me with a choice does it? --Matt Siegel

I strongly oppose HB 217

Please vote down this Bill. This is a ridiculous bill that affects multiple constitutional amendments to include the 2nd and the 5th. Thank you.

STRONGLY OPPOSE HB217

As a law-abiding and responsible citizen, I respectfully submit my strong opposition to HB217. The provisions of this bill fail to address the fundamental causes of gun violence, including the critical and ongoing underfunding of mental health services. Instead, the legislation focuses on arbitrary firearm characteristics that do not, in themselves, increase public danger. Recent examples of federal overreach underscore the necessity of steadfastly defending and upholding every American’s Second Amendment rights. Legislation that burdens lawful citizens without meaningfully improving public safety is both ineffective and unjustified.

I stand strongly with the VCDL on these proposed laws. VA has always been a bipartisan state on gun issues, and although the second amendment has may purposes- it must be preserved to protect the citizens of this state. Overreaching federal law enforcement, and all threats domestic and foreign are kept in line by responsible firearm ownership. Gun control also impacts lower income groups, impoverished populations, and people of color disproportionately. We must preserve the 2nd amendment.

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 write to express my strong opposition to HB217, which imposes sweeping restrictions on the importation, sale, and possession of assault firearms and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. While I understand the concerns behind this bill and the desire to address gun violence, its approach is overly broad and risks penalizing responsible, law-abiding gun owners rather than effectively targeting criminal behavior. The provisions of this bill would criminalize the sale, transfer, and possession of firearms and ammunition devices that are not inherently dangerous and are legally owned by many Virginians for purposes such as self-defense, hunting, and recreational shooting. This bill does not distinguish between criminals and responsible gun owners who follow the law. The imposition of Class 1 misdemeanor penalties for individuals who legally own or transfer certain firearms could lead to unjust criminal charges, particularly as the bill’s language is vague in some key areas, such as what constitutes an "assault firearm" and how broadly that term could be interpreted. Furthermore, by creating a blanket prohibition on possession for those under 21, HB217 restricts a large group of young, responsible gun owners who may need to defend themselves or engage in lawful activities like hunting. This overreach could infringe on the constitutional rights of Virginians without adequately addressing the actual causes of gun violence, which often stem from illegal trafficking, mental health issues, and domestic violence, not from lawful gun owners. Rather than enacting broad bans that punish responsible Virginians, I urge the House to focus on more targeted solutions—such as stronger enforcement of existing laws, better resources for mental health services, and cracking down on illegal gun trafficking—that will more effectively address gun violence without unduly infringing on Second Amendment rights. It is crucial that any regulation we impose respects both the rights of law-abiding citizens and the need for public safety.

The exceptions to this bill go against the very purported reason it was introduced in the first place. If "assault weapons" are so dangerous to our society, why is there an exception for those made before July 1, 2026? What makes a weapon magically less dangerous, less likely to be used in a mass murder, if it was manufactured before a certain date? This alone shows that the sponsors of this bill move to implement a framework for increasing the overreaches of this prohibition down the road. Citizens of this Commonwealth have roundly rejected this type of legislation year after year. The federal Supreme Court has even made the rare move to declare these types of bans as unconstitutional as they would prohibit some of the most widely owned types of firearms in the country. Yet year after year the same group of delegates continue to ignore this and repeat their cries ad nauseam. I do not support this bill and this Commonwealth does not either.

I strongly oppose this bill! The second amendment clearly states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second amendment was signed into the Bill of Rights to allow the people of United States to protect every other right set forth in that bill and the Constitution, I.e. "...being necessary to the security of a free State..". Furthermore, Article 1 section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia states "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;". HB217 is in direct violation of these rights. Making any firearm illegal WILL NOT stop bad things from happening. Just like putting up a "No Guns" sign on a door to stop a criminal from causing harm. I agree that our society as a whole suffers from all kinds of tragic occurrences but much like putting a sign on a door to stop a criminal, a law will also do very little if nothing at all for the root cause of the issue. I cannot speak to what the root cause is, but I can say that it is not the firearm that decides to cause these issues. Again, I am very strongly opposed to this bill and what damage this bill can do to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Hello, I am writing this comment in opposition of HB217. While I agree certain steps should be taken to make sure firearms are only in the hands of law-abiding members of the community, a ban of specific firearms will do nothing but weaken an individual's and community's ability to protect itself from harm. Harm that we see the federal government currently inflicting on communities all across this country. I have voted Democrat since I was able to vote and agree with many of the policies that the part would look to implement. However, this is not one of them. While I hope that armed conflict never takes place between the citizenry and the federal government, seeing everything going on across the country, I would not put it passed Trump to push us to that point. Please reconsider pushing this bill through and work on other forms of safety that are not just blanket bans. Thank you.

I am a lifelong resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am writing to respectfully urge you to oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 27, SB 38, and any other legislation introduced this session that seeks to restrict the lawful gun rights of Virginians. HB 217 proposes a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms based on cosmetic and ergonomic features such as pistol grips, folding or adjustable stocks, and threaded barrels. These features exist to improve comfort, control, and customization for lawful owners—not to increase lethality—and they are widely present on firearms platforms that have been legally owned for decades. The bill also bans standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, despite such magazines being the standard for many firearms since their introduction. Similar bans enacted in other states have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any meaningful reduction in violent crime, while placing unnecessary burdens on responsible citizens who follow the law. Criminals, by their nature, do not comply with these restrictions, making this legislation both ineffective and unjust. Punishing law-abiding Virginians based on arbitrary classifications does nothing to address criminal misuse or improve public safety. HB 207 would impose a $500 tax on suppressors—lawful, federally regulated devices that are commonly used by responsible gun owners. Suppressors do not make firearms “silent,” as often portrayed in popular media; rather, they significantly reduce hearing damage and are widely regarded as personal protective equipment. This excessive tax functions as a financial barrier to the exercise of a constitutionally protected right and bears no rational relationship to public safety. Notably, many European countries, including Norway, regulate suppressors less restrictively than the United States already does at the federal level. Supporting HB 207 would actively harm public health by discouraging the use of hearing protection and reinforce misinformation rather than evidence-based policy. SB 27 creates sweeping civil and criminal liability for firearm manufacturers and dealers, holding them accountable for the independent criminal actions of third parties. No other lawful industry in the United States is treated this way. Automobile manufacturers are not liable for reckless driving, and alcohol producers are not responsible for alcohol abuse. Singling out one industry sets a dangerous precedent that threatens Virginia businesses, jobs, and the broader state economy, while doing nothing to deter criminal behavior. SB 38 further expands state control by imposing new restrictions on firearm transfers involving prohibited persons and mandating detailed reporting to the courts. These provisions compel law-abiding citizens to surrender private information and grant the state expanded authority to search or seize firearms, raising serious concerns about government overreach and erosion of both Second and Fourth Amendment protections. Taken together, these bills represent a significant threat to the constitutional rights, privacy, and livelihoods of Virginians. They rely on ineffective, punitive measures rather than addressing the root causes of crime. I urge you to uphold the Constitution, and vote no on HB 217, HB 207, SB 27, SB 38, and any similar legislation that undermines our fundamental freedoms. Thank you for your time.

I support the presented gun laws that will improve the Commonwealth’s safety

I am writing in opposition of this bill. This is "feel good do nothing" legislation. The use of semi-automatic rifles in crime is statistically low (apart from a few notable tragedies all outside of Virginia). This bill has the feeling of retribution on towards law abiding citizens. Other bills that would have promoted public safety (HB696, etc.) were passed by. This one should never have been entered.

My name is Jon Whittington. I am a constituent of the Commonwealth, a retired Navy SEAL, a combat veteran of multiple deployments, and a former BUD/S Instructor. Much of my professional life was spent assessing risk under stress, identifying credible threats early, and intervening before harm came to my team or innocent people. I share the Committee’s concern about violent crime and public safety. Where I struggle with HB 217 is how it is expected to work in the real world. In my experience, violence is not driven by the mere existence of an object. It is driven by people, by intent, behavior, and escalation. Individuals who commit acts of violence almost always show warning signs beforehand. Effective prevention depends on identifying those individuals early, intervening when risk is apparent, and ensuring that violent conduct is investigated and prosecuted decisively. HB 217 does not appear to address a gap in existing law related to violent behavior. Instead, it primarily restricts the lawful possession, transfer, and sale of firearms and magazines commonly owned and lawfully used by responsible citizens. From an enforcement perspective, this risks diverting attention and resources away from the individuals who actually pose a threat, while imposing broad restrictions on those who do not. As someone who has spent years in force-on-force environments, I can state plainly: equipment does not make decisions. People do. Public safety improves when policy aligns with how violence actually occurs, not with assumptions about inanimate objects. This concern is reinforced by current constitutional law. Since District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment has been recognized as protecting an individual right applicable to the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme Court made it clear that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and that generalized public-safety balancing is insufficient. Broad restrictions on firearms or magazines in common lawful use, without clear historical analogues, face substantial constitutional risk. Other states have already demonstrated the likely results: immediate injunction litigation, prolonged appeals, and significant taxpayer expense. Defending constitutionally vulnerable statutes diverts public resources from core public-safety priorities, including enforcement, prosecution, and accountability for violent offenders. I respectfully urge the Committee to consider whether HB 217 materially improves public safety beyond existing law, or whether an enforcement-focused approach, prioritizing early identification of violent individuals, effective prosecution, and incapacitation of repeat violent offenders, would yield clear and measurable benefits while reducing constitutional and fiscal risk to the Commonwealth. Thank you for your consideration.

HB217 would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of so-called "assault firearms" (including many common semi-automatic rifles like AR-15 platforms) and large-capacity magazines (>10 rounds) manufactured after July 1, 2026, with grandfathering for pre-existing items. These firearms and magazines are in common use by millions of law-abiding Virginians for lawful purposes like home defense and sport shooting, and are protected under the Second Amendment per U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and Bruen. I am a disabled veteran who served this country for 20 years in the United States Marine Corps and participated in several combat tours overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan. To have one of the rights granted by the very document I swore to support and defend for those 20 years being legislated out of existence in the state I have now come to call "home" is a travesty. I strongly urge you to not support this bill.

In 2021, my elderly stepmother shot through a closed door during an argument with my elderly father, striking him in the back and paralyzing him. My father has spent the past five years in extreme physical agony, unable to walk, paying caretakers out of pocket to hoist him in and out of bed, unable to care for himself. The lack of movement in his life has led to horrific bed sores, which become bone infections, which lead to extended hospital stays and a horrible quality of life. All this because my stepmother was allowed to have a gun. There are countless stories like this of the bullet's aftermath: of the lifelong physical and mental damage that comes from guns. It has been a horrific five years, full of physical pain and mental anguish for our entire family. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The bills before you now will not only save lives, they will spare whole swaths of our neighborhoods from needing to deal with these horrors. One bullet, lodged in my father's spine, didn't kill him. Instead, it has shattered the life he had, his ability to work and care for himself, and his family. Each bullet we allow in our communities has the ability to do the same. His care has bankrupted him personally, and now he relies on state care and Medicaid, an avoidable burden on taxpayers. There are numerous reasons guns have no place in our society, and I hope my father's story is just one that helps make change. Please support all bills that make guns harder to access, harder to keep. Please do everything you can to keep guns out of the hands of our society. Thank you for the great work you are doing to keep Virginians safe.

I have many “assault” firearms, and have never harmed anyone nor wished to do so. By banning such a common gun as the ar15 you would be hurting so many law abiding family’s throughout Virginia who rely on them for home defense. Criminals DO NOT FOLLOW The law. And gun laws only stop law abiding citizens from their birth right of self defense. A over whelming majority of homicides are committed by felons. Also an over whelming majority of homicides are done with HAND GUNS. Do not tread on the rights of Virginians. Make your forefathers proud. We are counting on you to vote no on this bill. Thank you, Taylor Gershowitz of king William county

I am an every day citizen who was born and raised in Virginia. I vote democrat because I believe this party serves the better interests when it comes to investing in our communities, improving education and access to resources, addressing climate change, and looking out for the working class. I have witnessed gun violence all over this state, in my neighborhood, and was a student at Radford during the Virginia Tech massacre where several of my friends were real victims of that mass shooting event. I do not believe that mass shootings are something we should have to just live with, but I do not agree that any of these bills that ban types of weapons will do anything to reduce gun violence in Virginia. This bill in particular is written without any real-world knowledge on how typical guns work, are manufactured, or how common they are in our homes. I am appalled that democrats continue to ignore the majority of Virginians regardless of their political affiliation or voting preferences, who do not agree with weapons bans. Bills that address the people perpetuating violence and accidental death from firearms are welcomed as they address the persons and not the objects themselves. Public safety is rooted in human behavior, not the tools by which violence is committed. Consider the number of “assault weapon” firearms in each Virginian household relative to the number of mass casualties committed using these firearms in Virginia, and it is obvious to people that the type of weapon is not the fundamental issue here. Democrats have complained for years that Republican lawmakers block legislation that supports mental health funding and mass shooting studies to better understand the reason for the evil acts, but instead of capitalizing on your majority to focus on that kind of legislation you are alienating voters in your own party who own and use a variety of firearms per our 2nd amendment rights. Because many democrats do disagree with you, and virtually all republicans certainly oppose this bill, this means the majority of Virginians are not in favor of weapons bans and you are doing your constituents a major disservice. I am also a hunter. The author of this bill is quoted saying this doesn’t impact hunters and that is flat out untrue. This bill will make it impossible to purchase many semi-automatic every-day-hunting-guns in the future due to the magazine restrictions imposed. Tube extenders are available for many semi-auto shotguns by default, and they are commonly used in the special snow goose conservation season. They are not used during regular seasons, but many common shotguns can accommodate one. As written, this bill classifies semi-automatic shotguns with the ability to accommodate tube extenders (increased magazine capacity) illegal. This is ridiculous and unnecessary, and does nothing to improve public safety. All it does is limit access to a variety of common hunting shotgun brands, makes and models. Arbitrary gun bans punish citizens and turn every day Americans who participate in shooting sports and hunting into criminals. You will sink this party with this kind of legislation.

I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to HB110, HB21, HB217, HB229, HB24, HB623, HB626, HB700, HB871, and HB916. These proposals represent a sweeping expansion of firearm regulation that raises serious constitutional concerns under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. Recent Supreme Court precedent makes clear that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Broad restrictions on commonly owned firearms, magazines, permitting, carry, storage, commerce, and industry liability extend well beyond that tradition and place undue burdens on law abiding Virginians. Several proposals also seek to impose increased taxation of firearms, ammunition, and accessories such as the proposed $500 tax on suppressors. These proposals are nothing more than a means of discouraging lawful ownership. Using taxation to create financial barriers to the exercise of a constitutional right is deeply concerning and disproportionately impacts lower income Virginians. Constitutional rights should not be accessible only to those who can afford significant additional fees or penalties. Many of these bills do not meaningfully target criminal misuse, but instead regulate the conduct of responsible citizens who already comply with existing laws. Measures such as expanded prohibitions, waiting periods, altered permitting standards, reciprocal permit limitations, storage penalties, civil liability expansion, forfeiture hurdles, location based carry bans, and punitive taxation risk criminalizing otherwise lawful behavior while doing nothing to address violent crime or its underlying causes. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to reject these proposals in their entirety. Virginians should not be asked to surrender constitutional rights through cumulative restrictions, financial barriers, or regulatory complexity that would never be tolerated if applied to any other enumerated right. Public safety and constitutional liberty are not mutually exclusive, and legislation that undermines one in the name of the other ultimately serves neither. The Commonwealth can and must pursue solutions that respect both the Constitution and the Virginians it exists to serve.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Such bills if passed would provide little benefit to the safety of Virginia citizens. Gun violence is not a major concern in Virginia, and criminals will neither abide nor be limited by such legislation. Instead, many responsible citizens would lose their rights. There is no reason to pass such measures. In addition, many of these bills are not written to an excellent level of clarity and will spur much confusion on what remains legal or illegal.

I am writing to oppose House Bill 217, a proposal that would unfairly target responsible gun owners and fail to address the core causes of violent crime in our state. I urge you to vote against this bill. As a Virginia resident, I deeply value both safety and the rights of responsible citizens to lawfully own firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting. Fairfax County has more than 250,000 estimated gun owners, and despite this large number, the region has seen relatively low levels of gun-related crime. In fact, Fairfax’s violent crime rate is significantly lower than the state average, with gun violence accounting for just 3% of overall crime. Similarly, Loudoun County, one of Virginia’s fastest-growing areas, is home to over 100,000 gun owners and enjoys one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation. In 2024, only 1% of violent crimes in Loudoun involved firearms, reflecting the low rates of gun violence in NOVA. These statistics show that the majority of gun owners in Fairfax and Loudoun are law-abiding citizens who do not contribute to gun crime. Thousands of Virginians in these counties have passed background checks, obtained permits, and taken gun safety courses to ensure they are responsible owners. Restricting access to commonly owned firearms and magazines would place unnecessary burdens on responsible citizens who pose no threat to public safety. It is important to recognize that illegal firearm trafficking and criminal possession — not legal gun ownership — are the true drivers of gun violence. While we all want safer communities, statistics show that the vast majority of gun violence stems from criminal activity and illegal firearms use, not from lawful owners abiding by current regulations. Furthermore, only a small share of seized guns in criminal cases can be linked to the last legal purchaser, suggesting that illegal markets — not lawful transactions — are major drivers of violent incidents. Most firearm violence is concentrated in a few localities, not statewide. This suggests that targeted interventions, such as enhanced enforcement against illegal possession, trafficking, and investments in mental health, may be more effective than broad prohibitions on lawful ownership. Further, this bill could inadvertently harm local economies, including small businesses that legally sell firearms and accessories. Virginia's gun industry generates billions of dollars in economic activity, and many businesses depend on lawful trade. Overregulation, especially of commonly owned firearms, would create logistical challenges for both businesses and citizens. Instead of focusing on banning commonly owned firearms, I urge lawmakers to target illegal gun use and trafficking while focusing on evidence-based policies, such as mental health support and stronger penalties for criminals who misuse firearms. As residents of Fairfax, Loudoun, and other counties with large populations of responsible gun owners, we trust our elected officials to consider the facts and the real impact on our communities when voting on this issue. We want common-sense gun safety laws — NOT outright bans on widely used firearms like the AR15. Thank you for considering my views and for your continued service to the Commonwealth. I respectfully ask you to vote against HB-217 and protect the rights of responsible Virginians while focusing on true public safety solutions.

Committee Chair and Members of the House Public Safety Committee: I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to HB217 (Assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices; importation, sale, etc., prohibited). I am speaking as a Virginia citizen. HB217 seeks to prohibit “assault firearms” and certain feeding devices without any historical analogue that fits within the post-Bruen framework. Modern semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines are among the most widely owned arms in the United States; the Supreme Court in Heller confirmed that commonly owned arms are protected by the Second Amendment, and McDonald incorporated that protection against the states. Bruen requires consistency with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, which is absent for broad bans on commonly owned arms based on cosmetic features or arbitrary age classifications. There is no analogue in early American or Virginian law for banning arms because of detachable magazines or stocks, nor for creating new prohibited classes based on misdemeanor convictions. Comprehensive reviews by RAND find inconclusive or limited evidence that bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines reduce violent crime or homicides, with most studies unable to show reliable effects on broad crime rates. There is limited evidence suggesting possible reductions in mass-shooting deaths in isolated contexts but no consistent effect on overall gun crime. HB217 defines “assault firearm” by features rather than function, sweeping in many lawful firearms widely used for self-defense, hunting, and sport. The classification creates redundancy with existing prohibited possessors statutes while criminalizing ordinary transactions and creating new misdemeanor categories that strip rights for three years. The age-based prohibition on otherwise lawful adults under 21 strains logical coherence, given that such adults may serve in the armed forces and otherwise exercise full civic duties. By burdening lawful commerce and increasing enforcement complexity, the bill is likely to disproportionately impact lower-income Virginians and historically marginalized communities who rely on affordable arms for self-defense and livelihood. Enforcement discretion risks selective application that further exacerbates disparities without addressing the underlying drivers of violent crime. For these constitutional, empirical, logical, and equity reasons, I urge the committee to oppose HB217. Thank you. Respectfully submitted. Citations: HB217 text and summary: Virginia Legislative Information System.  RAND gun policy evidence on assault weapon and magazine bans.

I respectfully submit this comment as a Virginia citizen and, parenthetically, a member of the r/VAGuns subreddit, in principled opposition to HB217. I oppose HB217 as currently drafted. Article I, §13 of the Virginia Constitution and the Second Amendment secure an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago make clear that arms “in common use” for lawful purposes are constitutionally protected. HB217 directly targets such arms by prohibiting the manufacture, sale, transfer, and importation of widely owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines that are plainly in common civilian use nationwide. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Commonwealth bears the burden of demonstrating that such prohibitions are consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Feature-based bans on commonly owned arms lack any relevant historical analogue from the founding or Reconstruction eras. Because HB217 attempts to prohibit arms that sit at the core of Second Amendment protection, it invites facial constitutional challenge and is unlikely to withstand judicial review. Enactment would therefore expose the Commonwealth to substantial litigation costs in defense of a statute that is likely to be enjoined or invalidated. Claims that bans on defined “assault firearms” or ammunition feeding devices reduce violent crime are not supported by strong empirical evidence. RAND’s firearm policy reviews consistently find limited or inconclusive evidence that such bans produce measurable reductions in violent crime. FBI UCR/NIBRS and CDC WISQARS data continue to show that the overwhelming majority of violent offenses involve unlawful actors, not law-abiding owners of constitutionally protected firearms. The bill’s breadth is not matched to demonstrated risk. HB217 is overinclusive and redundant. Virginia law already criminalizes violent misuse, unlawful possession, and trafficking of firearms. This bill instead regulates based on cosmetic features and magazine capacity, not function or misuse, and creates new Class 1 misdemeanor offenses with automatic firearm disabilities. Such provisions expand punishment without improving enforcement of existing law and raise serious concerns of selective enforcement due to subjective feature determinations. Criminal penalties, forfeiture risks, and collateral firearm disabilities disproportionately burden lower-income Virginians and young adults, including those aged 18 to 20 who are otherwise treated as adults under Virginia law. Litigation costs incurred by the Commonwealth defending an unconstitutional statute would further divert public resources from effective public safety measures. HB217 attempts to ban arms that are clearly protected by the Second Amendment and Article I, §13 of the Virginia Constitution. It lacks historical support, is unsupported by strong empirical evidence, risks selective enforcement, and will likely result in costly litigation only to be struck down. I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB217.

To the Members of the House Committee on Public Safety: I am writing as a private citizen to express my strong opposition to HB 217. This legislation, which seeks to criminalize the importation, sale, and manufacture of so-called “assault firearms” and standard-capacity magazines, represents a departure from both constitutional requirements and common sense. Under the framework established in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the government must demonstrate that a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. HB 217 fails this test. The semi-automatic firearms targeted by this bill, such as the AR-15, are in “common use” for lawful purposes today, meeting the threshold protected in Heller and McDonald. The Virginia Constitution (Art. I, § 13) recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a safeguard of liberty. Prohibiting the sale of modern firearms used by millions of law-abiding Virginians for self-defense and sport lacks a relevant historical analogue from the founding era. History shows that while "dangerous and unusual" weapons could be regulated, the firearms restricted by HB 217 are neither; they are the standard contemporary tools of American marksmanship and personal protection. The claim that such bans reduce violent crime is not supported by high-quality evidence. According to the RAND Corporation’s comprehensive review of gun policy, the evidence for the effect of "assault weapon" bans on mass shootings and overall homicides is "inconclusive." Furthermore, DOJ and FBI UCR data consistently show that rifles of all types—of which "assault firearms" are a small subset—are used in only a tiny fraction of homicides annually, often less than 3%. In states like New York and New Jersey, where similar restrictions have been implemented, there is no longitudinal evidence of a unique reduction in violent crime attributable to these specific bans compared to neighboring states. Focusing on cosmetic features does not address the behavioral root causes of violence. HB 217 is overbroad and redundant. Federal law already strictly regulates fully automatic weapons and short-barreled rifles via the NFA. This bill’s inclusion of common features—such as adjustable stocks or threaded barrels—criminalizes ergonomic and safety components that have no bearing on a firearm’s lethality. Additionally, the bill creates significant equity concerns. By restricting the market and increasing costs through limited supply, it disproportionately burdens lower-income Virginians seeking affordable means of self-defense. The risk of selective enforcement also threatens marginalized communities, as seen with similar regulatory schemes in other jurisdictions. HB 217 burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to address the complexities of criminal violence with evidence-based solutions. I respectfully request that the Committee oppose this measure.

To the Members of the House Public Safety Committee: My name is Brian Keaton. I am a Virginia resident, a retired U.S. Army ​Combat Instructor, and a lifelong advocate for veterans, first responders, and community service. Over the years, I have worked to support fellow veterans, helped rebuild local veteran organizations, and assisted emergency services through rapid-response volunteer efforts. My service​, both overseas and at home​, has been guided by a commitment to the Constitution of the United States and the freedoms it protects. I share the Committee’s concern for public safety and the desire to reduce violence in our communities. Where I respectfully disagree with HB 217 is in its approach. The bill does not clearly identify a violent criminal behavior that current Virginia or federal law does not already prohibit. Instead, it focuses on restricting categories of firearms and magazines that are commonly owned and lawfully used by responsible citizens for self-defense, sporting purposes, and other lawful activities. From my experience, both in uniform and working with communities affected by violence, harm is driven by intent and conduct​, not by the mere existence of an object. If an individual is determined to commit violence, the critical questions are whether we identify warning signs early, intervene appropriately, and prosecute violent offenses consistently and effectively. Policies that primarily regulate lawful ownership risk diverting attention from those objectives. Current Supreme Court precedent is also relevant. In District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right applicable to the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court made clear that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, rather than justified by generalized public-safety balancing. Broad bans on firearms and accessories that are in common lawful use, without clear historical analogues, face significant constitutional risk. ​As mentioned below, I am also concerned that measures like HB 217 may impose substantial litigation costs on the Commonwealth without delivering measurable public-safety benefits​, diverting limited resources away from enforcement, prosecution, victim services, and prevention efforts that directly address violent behavior. I respectfully urge the Committee to consider whether this legislation meaningfully improves public safety beyond existing law, or whether a more enforcement-focused approach​, prioritizing the identification and incapacitation of violent offenders​, would better serve both our communities and the constitutional principles many of us have sworn to defend. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I respectfully urge you to vote NO on House Bill 217 (HB 217) — Assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices; importation, sale, etc., prohibited — during the 2026 session of the Virginia General Assembly. HB 217 would broadly ban the importation, sale, transfer, manufacture, and purchase of “assault firearms” as defined in the bill and impose criminal penalties, including a Class 1 misdemeanor for violations. It also prohibits individuals under age 21 from possessing these firearms and restricts large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. While proponents frame this as a public safety measure, the bill has serious constitutional and practical problems: 1. Redefines and Targets Commonly Owned Firearms The bill’s definition of “assault firearm” is based on features that many modern semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns include, meaning that law-abiding Virginians could be criminalized for owning weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. 2. Criminalizes Young Adults Who Are Otherwise Lawful Persons aged 18–20 — who can vote, serve in the military, sign contracts, and be tried as adults — would be barred from possessing “assault firearms,” even if they legally acquired and responsibly owned them prior to this legislation. 3. Creates New Misdemeanors With Lasting Consequences HB 217 would make numerous new firearm offenses into Class 1 misdemeanors and strip individuals convicted under the bill of firearm rights for years afterward. Historically, misdemeanors do not carry such severe collateral consequences on constitutionally protected rights. 4. Does Little to Address Violent Crime Evidence shows that most gun crimes are committed by individuals already prohibited from owning firearms, not by lawful owners. HB 217 does not focus on enforcing laws against criminal activity or improving public safety where the data indicates results. 5. Risks Economic and Legal Backlash Broad bans based on cosmetic features rather than function are vulnerable to legal challenges under the U.S. Constitution and Bruen standards. Unclear or overbroad firearm regulation can lead to costly litigation and further uncertainty for residents. For these reasons — constitutional concerns, overly broad definitions, criminalization of lawful conduct, and ineffective focus — I urge you to vote NO on HB 217 and instead support legislation that targets violent criminals while protecting the rights of law-abiding Virginians.

HB217 is a bill that will hurt hunters and recreational shooters in Virginia. Semi automatic rifles are almost never used to commit crimes. This is easily verified by looking at FBI crime statistics. So that would mean this bill isn't about trying to take away tools commonly used by criminals. However, semi automatic rifles are extremely popular among hunters and target/competition shooters. In fact, many competitions are centered around semi automatic rifles. So why does this bill seek to ban them? Why punish hunters and recreational shooters? My 10 year old daughter hunts with a semi automatic rifle. So does my 8 year old son. This bill seeks to ban my child children from buying their own hunting rifles as they become adults, and the wording of the bill makes it seem like I can't even pass down my semi automatic rifles to them when I die, even though they currently use these rifles to hunt. So I ask, what is the point of this bill? It's obviously not to reduce crime since these rifles are almost never used in crimes. Is it to punish a constituency that generally votes Republican? Sadly, this seems more likely. Vote this bill down and do not let Richmond pass vindictive legislation meant solely to punish Virginians who didn't vote for Democrats. That's not how government is supposed to work.

These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. Whether it is Republicans or Democrats it seems our rights are being pinched away, piece by piece. I ask our representatives and Governor to use "common sense" and not pass these blatant violations to our guaranteed constitutional right. You representatives cannot simply pick and choose which constitutional amendments apply to citizens or we may as well not have a constitution at all.

I am writing as a Virginia resident to express serious concerns about House Bill 217, specifically its reliance on feature-based firearm restrictions. My objection is not to public safety goals, which I share, but to the mechanism chosen to pursue them. The features targeted by this bill, such as adjustable stocks, certain grips, and similar ergonomic components, do not inherently make firearms more dangerous, nor is there credible evidence that banning them meaningfully reduces violent crime. These features primarily serve ergonomic and safety functions. Adjustable stocks allow firearms to fit users of different sizes, accommodate protective equipment, and promote proper handling and recoil control. Grips and similar accessories improve stability and accuracy. Removing or restricting these features does not make a firearm less lethal; it makes it harder to use safely and predictably, particularly for smaller shooters, older individuals, or those with physical limitations. At the same time, these restrictions disproportionately burden lawful, trained, and compliant gun owners—the very people already following the law. Individuals intent on committing crimes have historically ignored weapons regulations of this kind, and there is little reason to believe they will suddenly comply with feature bans while engaging in violent or illegal acts. As a result, the practical effect of HB217 is to increase legal risk and uncertainty for law-abiding citizens, not to meaningfully deter criminal misuse. I am also concerned that the bill’s broad and ambiguous definitions create unnecessary legal gray areas. When compliance depends on subjective interpretation of terms rather than clear, objective standards, ordinary citizens are placed at risk of unintentional violations, selective enforcement, and costly legal exposure without any corresponding public safety benefit. If the General Assembly’s goal is to reduce violence and enhance safety, I respectfully urge you to focus on measures that directly address criminal behavior and risk factors, rather than cosmetic or ergonomic firearm features that have little relationship to misuse. Thank you for your time and for considering the perspective of constituents who want effective, evidence-based public safety policy that respects lawful ownership and responsible use.

I am a concerned Virginia resident and strongly opposed to this bill, which does nothing but restrict access to firearms in common use from law-abiding and responsible citizens.

I oppose HB217. The bill broadly criminalizes lawful firearm and accessory ownership and commerce by banning commonly owned firearms based on definitions. These provisions will primarily impact compliant, law-abiding Virginians, create confusion and uneven enforcement, and divert resources from strategies that directly address violent offenders. Virginia should focus on targeted violence reduction—enforcing existing laws against prohibited possessors, addressing repeat violent crime, and improving mental-health/crisis interventions—rather than sweeping bans that punish responsible citizens. Please vote NO on HB217.

I oppose HB217 and frankly view it as a product of decades of lobbying by billionaires that have led to misguided views of how to make our streets safer. The guns being banned by this law are already among the most common purchased today while being used in the fewest murders. This is banning technological progress without valid reason. These are the most popular guns because they are the most customizable to a user's needs while still being affordable. In the same way, many car guys buy Honda Civics so they can modify the car to their needs. But we don't ban cars from having too much horsepower just because no one needs it. Passing this law will not make us safer. It will only penalize the law abiding.

I share the concern about violent crime and public safety. Where I struggle with HB 217 is the mechanism. The bill does not clearly identify a category of violent criminal behavior that current law does not already prohibit. Instead, it primarily restricts the lawful possession, transfer, and sale of firearms and accessories that are in common lawful use by responsible citizens. Violence is driven by intent and conduct, not by the mere existence of an inanimate object. If an individual is determined to commit violence, the public-safety question is whether we are identifying that individual early, intervening when warning signs appear, and prosecuting violent offenses effectively. Policies that focus primarily on regulating lawful ownership of specific items risk missing the actual drivers of harm while imposing broad restrictions on compliant citizens. Under current Supreme Court precedent, this concern is not merely policy-based. Since District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment has been recognized as protecting an individual right applicable to the states. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and that generalized public-safety balancing is no longer sufficient. Regulations that broadly restrict firearms or magazines in common lawful use, without clear historical analogues, face heightened constitutional risk. Experience in other states demonstrates that similar measures have generated immediate injunction litigation, prolonged appeals, and significant taxpayer expense. Defending constitutionally vulnerable statutes diverts public resources from core public-safety priorities, including the investigation and prosecution of violent crime. I respectfully encourage the Committee to consider whether HB 217 materially improves public safety beyond existing law, or whether a more enforcement-focused approach, prioritizing clearance rates, prosecutorial capacity, and incapacitation of violent offenders, would yield clearer, measurable benefits while reducing constitutional and fiscal risk to the Commonwealth.

Deapite qhat another xomment may have said, myself and the majority of reddit users on r/vaguns, as well as the additional boards of r/liberalguns and r/armedsocialists are opposed to the unreasonable restrictions set forth here. Gun control is a bandaid solution at best for what is a social problem problem. Taking away tools does nothing to fix the motivations behind violent crime stemming from lack of access to mental health care, social and financial inequality, depressed wages leading to less financial stability for families, ect. Violent crime is a reflection of an unhappy and unwell society, and bans are a never ending cycle of chasing a symptom instead of addressing the cause. Look at places like the uk and australia, where things like knife bans and machete bans and wven a pepperspray ban in the uk have come to pass. Because those motivated to violence just find the next easiest tool. This kind of restriction is a never ending chase that accomplishes nothing except punishing those who havent done anything while failing to remotely solve the issue.

I oppose HB217. This bill is primarily a cosmetic “assault weapon” ban that targets superficial features and configurations rather than criminal behavior or measurable public safety outcomes. It is also easily circumvented through so-called “compliant” alternatives that function the same, meaning it will burden lawful Virginians while offering little real impact on violent crime. HB217 contains serious oversights. For example, by using “the shortest ammunition” as a standard, the bill could effectively ban many ordinary hunting and home-defense shotguns simply because mini-shells exist. In addition, the bill’s “assault pistol” criteria create arbitrary and inconsistent outcomes that could sweep in common self-defense firearms and even historical-style designs that have no demonstrated connection to criminal misuse. The bill also treats suppressors as if they make gunfire silent, which is a Hollywood misconception. Suppressed gunfire remains dangerously loud and highly conspicuous. Likewise, magazine limits are unlikely to meaningfully reduce criminal capability given the enormous number of existing magazines already in circulation and the practical limits on enforceability. These restrictions would instead fall disproportionately on lawful citizens seeking effective self-defense. HB217 will likely trigger panic buying, increase enforcement and incarceration costs the Commonwealth cannot accurately quantify, and invite years of litigation. Virginia should instead prioritize targeted, evidence-driven strategies focused on where violence is actually concentrated, and invest in proven security measures and enforcement approaches rather than broad bans based on appearance.

I do NOT support this bill. It infringes on our Constitutional Second Amendments rights, which are really God given to all law abiding systems in the United States. There is no such thing as an assault weapon. It is broadly used term by liberals which usually ignorant of firearms and correct terms. For example the term threaded barrel affects 90% percent of all rifles being produced today. Most hunting rifles come with a muzzle brake that requires a threaded barrel. As for magazine capacity. I lived through this nonsense during the Clinton administration. Most of the modern pistols, especially strike fire pistols design is a double stack magazine that allows 9mm to have 15 - 19 round capacity. For AR-15 were designed for standard 30 rounds 5.56mm. These are STANDARD capacity magazines. For competitive shooters all of the above apply. In a fantasy world where all standard capacity magazines disappeared, criminals would just carry more magazines. Any competent shooter, especially a competitive shooter can reload in 1.5 seconds or less. Liberals should not write gun laws. Everyone knows the real objective is to disarm the public which the founding fathers of our county never want. If Virginia Liberal Legislators keep attacking the Second Amendment, Virginia will join California with the highest level of U-Hall trailers/trucks leaving the state. Anyone that votes for this or similar bills will not get my vote and likely half the voting population.

I do not support this bill. Semi-automatic rifles have been in Virginia since the invention of the semi automatic rifle. This bill fixes a problem that doesn’t exist in the Commonwealth.

As a representative of r/VAGuns, a popular online community of Virginia gun owners on the social media platform Reddit, we fully and unanimously DO NOT support this bill and others like it that blatantly violate Second Amendment rights with disregard for tradition or case law. These bills DO NOT represent practical, balanced measures that help safeguard our community, and r/VAGuns does NOT back these efforts to infringe on the rights of Virginians.

Executive Summary HB217, introduced by Delegate Helmer, seeks to ban the importation, sale, and manufacture of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. Beyond the clear Second Amendment infringements, this bill represents a profound logical paradox: it seeks to disarm Virginians at the exact moment proponents of the bill claim that our democratic institutions are under "fascist" and "authoritarian" threat at the federal level. The Constitutional and Logical Contradiction For the past several years, the patrons of this bill and their national counterparts have consistently characterized the current political climate—specifically the federal executive branch—as "authoritarian," "fascist," and "dictatorial." They have warned the public that democracy is "on the brink." If one truly believes that the government has been seized by a "dictator" or a "fascist regime," then HB217 is not just poor policy—it is a betrayal of the citizenry. History and political science provide no examples where a "fascist" regime was countered by a disarmed populace. The Question for the Committee: In what world does it make sense to scream "fire" regarding authoritarianism while simultaneously demanding that law-abiding citizens surrender the primary tools they have for their own defense? Redefining "Common Use" as "Criminal" HB217 attempts to criminalize the ownership of firearms that are in "common use" for lawful purposes across the United States. By banning features like pistol grips and adjustable stocks—features that improve ergonomics and safety—this bill targets the law-abiding while ignoring the criminal element. Disarming the Vulnerable: If the proponents of HB217 truly believe we are entering a period of state-sponsored "fascism," they are choosing this exact moment to ensure that minority communities, single parents, and vulnerable Virginians have no means to defend themselves against the very "regime" these politicians claim to fear. Arbitrary Standards: The bill bans standard 10-plus round magazines that have been industry standard for decades. This doesn't stop crime; it only ensures that a victim of a home invasion is at a tactical disadvantage against multiple intruders. Conclusion You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the Republic is falling to a "dictator" and then demand that the people give up their rifles. If the threat is as dire as Delegate Helmer and his colleagues suggest, then the right of the people to keep and bear arms has never been more vital. We urge the committee to Report HB217 PBI (Passed By Indefinitely).

I am a gun owner and a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. This is because I believe that the ability to protect one's self and loved ones is foundational to living free. Not everyone can rely on police responding in a timely manner. Not everyone can rely on the police treating them fairly. And increasingly today, less and less people can even rely on the very government that is supposed to protect us from harm. The 2nd Amendment empowers all Americans, equally, to provide for their own safety should they feel the need to do so. I want you to know that gun rights are womens rights, LGBTQ rights, and minority rights. Gun rights are rights for all Americans. If you support gun control like Gun Bans and Mandatory Buybacks, you are supporting taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans who simply want to provide for their own safety and security. I understand the desire to curb gun violence, and I do believe there are some gun control solutions that would respect the 2nd Amendment - for example universal background checks and safety training requirements. However, any kind of gun ban, like this bill, is an infringement on our Constitutional rights, and is something I would never support. Especially right now, at a time when our leadership openly undermines constitutional principles, it is hypocritical to oppose government overreach while also advocating to disarm law-abiding citizens who need protection from that very overreach. Thank you.

Dear Members of the House Public Safety Committee: I am submitting this comment opposing HB 217 as a Democratic voter, and someone who voted for Governor Abigail Spanberger. I believe it's necessary to highlight my voter affiliation to make it clear that this is a bipartisan issue. In October 2025, NPR reported that the Liberal Gun Club, which has chapters in more than 30 states, including Virginia, has grown by two-thirds since November 2024. Similarly, LA Progressive Shooters, a liberal gun club in California, has seen memberships surge by 40% since last year. Again, I highlight this to illustrate that gun rights are a bipartisan issue. The passing of gun control bills such as this one does nothing but alienate many left-wing gun owners and independent voters who will be crucial in future elections. Regarding the assault weapon ban: In 1999, a study by the DOJ's National Institute of Justice examining the impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban found that, "the ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims." Banning commonly owned firearms that Virginians have owned for decades is not the solution to reducing gun violence, rather it punishes law abiding citizens who choose to own these weapons for defense or sport. Regarding the magazine capacity restriction: this prohibition would unfairly target Virginians who possess commonplace pistols for self-defense or home defense. An overwhelming majority of modern handguns on the commercial market today are designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but less than 20. These are standard capacity magazines that have been owned for decades by law abiding Virginians. VA § 18.2-287.4 already prohibits the public carrying of semi-automatic rifles or pistols with magazines that hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition. Laws targeting these magazines have consistently failed to reduce crime or produce any benefit whatsoever in other states, resulting in undue burdens for law abiding citizens. Furthermore, there is no study supporting the claim that prohibiting standard capacity magazines makes people safer. In closing, I ask you to consider what is the purpose of these bills? You are contemplating imposing these bills at a time when Virginia is the safest it has ever been and continues to experience significant drops in violent crime. This bill will target law abiding Virginians, while doing nothing to stop or deter criminals who cross into our Commonwealth.

I voted for Abigail Spanberger, she told us she would institute common sense gun reforms and she lied. HB217 is not common sense, it is a sweeping semi automatic rifle ban. I thought common sense gun reform meant cool down periods, universal background checks, things like that. I didn’t realize I was voting for the entire selection of modern rifles to be wiped out. This is pure betrayal. I voted blue because of fear of fascism, and now you serve us blue flavored fascism. I have voted democrat in every election since 2016, state and federal. I, and many other young leftists will be voting red or staying home from now on. You will cause a red sweep in Virginia if this bill becomes law. Kill it now while you have the chance. Additionally, this law only punishes poor and young people, wealthy Virginians can happily purchase all the rifles they want before July 7th and people like me on disability can’t afford that. This is utterly heartbreaking. The Republicans were right, you are coming for our guns. They were right and I mocked them. I’ll never wear a MAGA hat, but I will certainly be voting down ballot red from now on if this becomes law.

If you believe that your constituency supports this bill, I implore you to refer to Reddit - specifically the subreddit r/Virginia. The comments on this subreddit are typically lock-step with left leaning ideology. If you peruse the comments, you'll find that Virginian's unanimously oppose this bill - even on R/Virginia. If Reddit (an extremely left leaning website) is against it, I believe you missed the mark. Not only will the submittal of this bill cause panic purchasing, increasing the amount of these firearms in the state, but you're likely losing potential voters. I would also refer to r/VAGuns. I'm not sure who Curtis is - but his comment on this website as "a representative of r/VAGuns" portrayed the exact opposite opinion of the subreddit itself. Thank you for your dedication to increase the safety of law-abiding citizens in the state, but I personally don't believe that gun control is the correct avenue to obtain that. This bill only applies to law abiding citizens and puts them at a disadvantage when protecting life and liberty from criminals who, by definition, don't follow the law.

To the Members of the House Public Safety Committee: I submit this comment in opposition to HB 217 as a citizen engaging a matter of serious constitutional and community importance. While reducing violent crime is a legitimate legislative objective, HB 217 is legally indefensible under current Second Amendment doctrine, unsupported by evidence, and internally inconsistent in ways that negate any credible public safety benefit. The Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes. In District of Columbia v. Heller (1), the Court rejected categorical bans on such arms. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2), the Court further clarified that modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. HB 217’s sweeping prohibition on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms and magazines is not supported by any historical analogue. Feature based bans of this nature therefore fail the constitutional test now required. The bill’s definition of “assault firearm” is based on cosmetic and ergonomic features that bear no demonstrated relationship to criminal misuse. Firearms possessing these features are widely owned by law-abiding Virginians for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Under Heller, arms cannot be excluded from constitutional protection merely because they are modern or share superficial similarities with military equipment. Most critically, HB 217 creates only the appearance of regulation. By exempting all firearms manufactured prior to July 1, 2026, the bill leaves lawful access to every firearm currently in existence that would otherwise fall within its prohibitions. This includes tens of millions of firearms already in circulation. Rather than reducing availability, the bill establishes a permanent pre-ban marketplace that inflates prices and rewards early or wealthier purchasers while leaving the overall supply untouched. A statute that preserves universal access to the very items it deems too dangerous for future sale cannot logically be justified as a crime reduction measure. Empirical evidence further undermines the bill’s rationale. Official evaluations of the 1994 to 2004 federal assault weapons ban by the Department of Justice found no conclusive reduction in overall violent crime attributable to the ban (3). Firearms classified as assault weapons account for a small fraction of gun crime, while the vast majority of violent offenses involve handguns already subject to extensive regulation (4&5). There is no evidence that banning future manufacture or sale, while grandfathering existing firearms, produces measurable public safety benefits. Finally, existing Virginia and federal law already criminalize violent misuse of firearms, unlawful possession by prohibited persons, and illegal trafficking. More consistent enforcement of these statutes addresses criminal conduct directly without burdening constitutionally protected activity. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB 217. Respectfully submitted. Citations: 1. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). 2. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). 3. NIJ, Impact Evaluation of the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (2004). 4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Firearms and Violence Statistics. 5. CDC, WISQARS Fatal and Nonfatal Injury Reports.

A ban on semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition would be disastrous for Virginians’ safety. Others have correctly identified constitutional protections for semiautomatic weapons. I will provide some practical reasons for “assault weapon” ownership. Semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15 pattern firearms, are lawfully used for self-defense and sporting purposes by millions of Americans. The AR-15 is affordable, has intuitive controls, and minimally recoils. The AR-15’s ease of use enables many law abiding citizens—including senior or physically disabled Virginians—to reliably defend themselves with appropriate force in grave situations. Banning the AR-15, and other similar rifles, punishes Virginia’s most vulnerable citizens. Low income households in high crime areas will be particularly affected. Banning magazines capable of accepting more than ten rounds of ammunition is equally problematic. Sometimes, multiple assailants may attempt to inflict death or serious bodily harm on a single person. Ten rounds of ammunition may not be sufficient to stop the threat. Reloading may not be an option in such a scenario. Motor functions deteriorate under life-and-death pressure. A ban on standard capacity magazines robs the public of maximal safety. I understand the purpose of this legislation is to reduce deaths in mass shootings. We agree that we should strive for a world in which these tragedies do not occur. But banning semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines is a superficial fix for a nuanced issue with life-and-death consequences for Virginia’s citizens. I urge you to reject this legislation and consider some difficult questions. How can the Commonwealth identify, prevent, stop, and mitigate violent crime? Are criminals deterred and stopped from inflicting harm on the innocent by laws or a credible presence of armed police, security, and civilians? Do laws prevent a determined individual with malicious intent from acquiring weapons and inflicting harm? There needs to be a more serious conversation around violent crime that does not include political posturing.

I am writing as a resident of Glen Allen to strongly oppose both HB217 and HB40. Together, these bills represent a direct attack on the rights, property, and traditions of law-abiding Virginians, while doing nothing to deter actual violent crime. Regarding HB217, the proposed "assault firearm" ban is fundamentally flawed. It categorizes firearms based on cosmetic features and ergonomic accessories—such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, and threaded barrels—rather than their mechanical function. As a firearm owner, I rely on these standard features for safety, control, and hearing protection (via suppressors). Criminalizing these common mechanical characteristics turns thousands of peaceful citizens into felons overnight for possessing property that is in common use for lawful purposes. Furthermore, the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds puts law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage against criminals who will inevitably ignore such restrictions. Regarding HB40, I find the prohibition on home-built and 3D-printed firearms to be equally egregious. This legislation targets the "maker" community and hobbyists who enjoy the engineering challenge of building their own firearms—a tradition that predates the founding of this country. The broad definition of "unfinished frames" threatens to criminalize harmless manufacturing projects and stifles technological innovation. Criminals, by definition, will not obey a mandate to serialize their illicit weapons. This bill only punishes enthusiasts by creating a legal minefield for those who build their own tools, effectively destroying a legitimate hobby. These bills ignore the reality that criminals do not follow the law. Instead of targeting violent offenders, this legislation focuses on harassing responsible gun owners, taxing our time and resources, and confiscating our legally acquired property. I urge you to vote NO on both HB217 and HB40.

I am writing to oppose this legislation as a proud Virginia resident. This legislation will have no effect on public safety and will only provide an undue burden on the law abiding residents of Virginia. Other states have tried these methods and have shown no drastic reduction in gun violence. Instead, this merely prevents law abiding Virginians from fully exercising their constitutional rights. And it is clearly a constitutional right of both our nation and the state. It is the only amendment where “shall not be infringed” is expressly stated. Under the recent New York vs Bruen decision, there must be historical precedent for it to be constitutional of which there is none especially none that are not based in racist ideologies. I urge my delegates to vote no on this legislation and will be allocating my vote accordingly.

I strongly urge a vote against this bill. It is blatantly unconstitutional at both a state and federal level. It will do nothing but hurt law abiding citizens and continue to divide and alienate one half of this country from the other. Have a shred of decency and vote against this wildly partisan and harmful bill.

Semi automatic rifles are rarely used in violent crime and very rarely in mass shootings. This bill seems to be intended only to demonize gun owners. As worded this bill does very little to improve actual public safety but “feels” good for people who are afraid of scary looking firearms. It is my belief this bill is inconsistent with the VA and US constitutions and it should not be moved forward.

This bill will have a disproportionate impact on individuals with disabilities and those with reduced strength. Firearms with the features vilified in the bill are often simply easier to use for those with joint issues (as with vertical fore grips, adjustable stocks, and short barrels) or limited strength (short barrels, muzzle brakes to reduce recoil, barrel porting to reduce recoil). Reducing magazine capacity will impact law abiding citizens (who often only have a single magazine available when defending themselves) without impacting criminals (who can plan ahead regarding a violent encounter as they set the date and time of their criminal activity). This bill will not make Virginia safer, it will only reduce the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves and use arms for lawful purposes.

Folks, this is VA. These firearms are in common use and have been for decades. Additionally, you’ll probably notice, under the current political climate, that disarmament of law abiding gun owners isn’t exactly as popular as it was even one year ago.

I respectfully oppose HB21, HB 217, and HB 207. These proposals would directly harm my livelihood and our ability to serve our community responsibly. They would expose small businesses to massive legal risk for lawful activity, increase costs, and force many stores to reduce services or close entirely. That doesn’t improve public safety — it just pushes responsible dealers out while doing nothing to stop criminals. These policies also restrict access to firearms that millions of ordinary, law-abiding Americans own for self-defense, sport, and training. The Second Amendment exists to protect all citizens, especially in uncertain times, and these bills move Virginia away from individual rights and toward government control. I ask you to protect both public safety and constitutional freedoms by rejecting these measures.

This bill expands regulation of lawful firearm ownership in ways that are unlikely to improve public safety while imposing new legal risks on responsible Virginians. In particular, HB 217 relies on expanded mandates and liability provisions that primarily affect people who already comply with the law, rather than those who commit violent crimes. Measures such as broad storage requirements and increased civil liability do not address criminal misuse of firearms. Instead, they create legal exposure for ordinary citizens based on outcomes rather than intent or negligence. This approach risks punishing responsible ownership after the fact, without clear evidence that it prevents violence beforehand. Virginia already prohibits firearm possession by dangerous individuals and imposes penalties for criminal misuse. HB 217 does not meaningfully strengthen enforcement of those laws. Instead, it adds complexity and ambiguity, increasing the likelihood of inconsistent enforcement and unintended consequences, including discouraging lawful ownership or self-defense. Public safety is better served by focusing on violent offenders, improving enforcement of existing laws, expanding access to mental health services, and supporting proven community-based violence prevention efforts. These strategies reduce harm without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 217 and pursue evidence-based policies that target violence directly rather than expanding restrictions on responsible Virginians. Thank you for your consideration.

As a representative of r/VAGuns, a popular online community of Virginia gun owners on the social media platform Reddit, we fully and unanimously endorse this bill and others like it that promote common-sense gun laws. Our community stands united in support of the recent legislation being passed in the General Assembly, which aims to protect and strengthen our neighborhoods while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. These bills represent practical, balanced measures that help safeguard our community, and r/VAGuns proudly backs these efforts to promote safety and responsibility across Virginia.

Simply unconstitutional. Only a tyrant would agree with this. A waste of time and money for no benefit.

This bill does more harm to law abiding citizens. This bill does nothing to curb crime or be harsher on criminals. This bill will not help secure the safety of law abiding citizens.

I oppose this bill. This will be very unfair to legal gun owners and law abiding citizens. The proposed version of this bill is unconstitutional. I urge both party delegates and senators to read this with an open mind, and vote against this bill. (The DOJ is suing the District of Columbia for AWB - similar to the one proposed here). Let's look at the actual data - from sources like Virginia Department of Health, CDC, Virginia State Police reports, and national safety data for 2023-2025. These are actual death stat numbers in Virginia. (Annual Risk per 100,000 people in VA). Heart disease (example of major illness): ~195 per 100,000 (1 in ~512 chance) Drug overdose (mostly opioids/fentanyl): ~20-25 per 100,000 (1 in 4,000-5,000) Suicide (all methods): ~14-15 per 100,000 (1 in 6,700-7,100) Motor vehicle crash: ~10-12 per 100,000 (1 in 8,300-10,000) Accidental fall: ~9-11 per 100,000 (1 in 9,100-11,100) Murdered by handgun: ~3.4-3.9 per 100,000 (1 in 26,000-29,000) Accidental poisoning (non-drug, e.g., CO or chemicals): ~2-3 per 100,000 Choking on food/objects: ~1.5-1.7 per 100,000 Drowning: ~1-1.5 per 100,000 House fire/smoke exposure: ~0.8-1 per 100,000 Pedestrian struck by vehicle: ~0.5-0.7 per 100,000 Falling out of bed: ~0.14 per 100,000 Autoerotic asphyxiation: ~0.1-0.3 per 100,000 Murdered by AR-15: Under 0.1 per 100,000 Simply put, AR-15 (or assault weapons) risk is less than 1 in 1,000,000. The bottom of this list! Someone falling out of bed and dying is more likely!! The focus should be on other sensible gun laws that can actually prevent crime and death, as opposed to something that takes away the constitutional rights from law abiding citizens. Maybe time and energy should be spent on mandating safe storage of guns, making parents accountable for their teen's actions, restricting gun ownership to people over 21, etc. You cannot legally drink until 21, so you can make a case for restricting gun ownership citing maturity, etc. Please use common sense and develop other bills that can protect lives and keep people safe. Please vote against this bill. Please say NO to something that you know is unconstitutional. Thank you.

I am a Virginia resident writing to oppose HB217. I understand that the General Assembly has the authority to pass legislation it believes serves public safety. However, HB217 raises serious constitutional concerns under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which now governs Second Amendment analysis. HB217 bans or restricts firearms and magazines that are in common, lawful use by ordinary Virginians for self-defense, based on modern feature classifications that have no clear historical analogue at the Founding or Reconstruction eras. Under Bruen, policy goals and interest-balancing are no longer sufficient justifications for such restrictions. I would also urge the legislature to consider timing and consequence. Similar laws in California and New York were enacted decades ago, before Bruen, and are now entangled in prolonged litigation precisely because they were allowed to take root without early judicial review. Passing broad restrictions now, in a post-Bruen legal environment, invites immediate federal challenges and creates uncertainty for law-abiding citizens who are attempting to remain compliant. If the goal is public safety, legislation should focus on criminal misuse and violent conduct, not on prohibitions that turn ordinary ownership and carry into criminal liability overnight. Laws that are likely to be enjoined or overturned do not provide clarity or stability for the Commonwealth. I respectfully ask the General Assembly to reconsider HB217 in light of the current constitutional framework and the legal and practical consequences that will follow its enactment.

Governor Spanberger promised her constituents she would avoid divisive issues and focus on unity. As a registered Dem, Voter for Spanberger, and resident of both NOVA/VB, I am vehemently against this bill which seeks dangerous infringements of Virginians rights under the long dispelled guise of “Public Safety.” Less than 1 in 1,000,000 Americans will lose their life to an “assault weapon” a term so vague that it takes pages of subjective categorization to attempt a definition. You have an enormous number of democrats, liberals, and centrists in this purple state who are champions of 2a rights - rights essential to the preservation of our Republic and Commonwealth. This bill would effectively freeze the current state of gun ownership, leaving a heavily armed “Right” and prevent any other Virginians from exercising their 2nd amendment constitutional rights as written. Jan 6th was a reminder of how close this nation can come to tipping the first domino of collapse and it would be a dangerous path to codify a law that leaves the leftists and centrists unable to guarantee their rights to defense of themselves, their families and our nation from all enemies foreign and Domestic. This law seeks to ban the only firearm created to defend all of the above through loophole infested, recycled verbiage that will cost us millions of dollars over the next 4 years in litigation alone. This bill is the opposite of “unifying” and lacks all common sense. Bans do not work. They never have. This is an embarrassment and disservice to your own democratic supporters if passed. Imagine if Jan 6th happened in our own capital, without the federal resources of DC - this bill eliminates the only method we have to prevent such horrifying future events, and all but guarantees a push towards those realities through its divisive nature. I’m tired of both sides poking the bear. I’m tired of useless legislation that only infuriates our citizens. I’m tired of promises to focus on unity while instead running full steam towards worsening violent division. Eliminating this bill would preserve your constituents rights on both sides, would not infuriate all current gun owners, and at worst, would simply make anti-2a folks frustrated they did not get to infringe on our rights. Just as when Youngkin was unable to pass abortion bans, the right was simply frustrated, and the left was relieved their rights weren’t ripped from their lives. This is the exact same situation. To pass this bill would infuriate all gun owners, and simply make anti-2a voters frustrated they didn’t get to infringe on others rights. There is no real harm to our state in eliminating this bill, but there is all but a guarantee of exceptional harm to our state of affairs in passing this tyrannical infringement. Us democrats stand for Unity, not division. We stand for the Preservation of rights, not infringement. We stand for calming the temperature of political extremism, not for the exacerbation of it. The ideology wars must stop here in our state - let’s focus our time and money on issues that heal, not on issues that will rip the scabs off issues that a tiny number of extremists in both sides obsess over. 2a supporters are currently panic buying more firearms en masse - just check r/VAguns. Respectfully and with the upmost Urgency. Godspeed Governor Spanberger. Let us all act as an example of unity and moderation to our nation in crisis.

HB217 is a sweeping, cosmetic “assault weapon” ban that targets common ergonomic and safety features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, foregrips, muzzle devices, and threaded barrels, while leaving criminal capability unchanged because “compliant” versions use the same ammunition, operate the same way, and accept the same magazines. It also contains glaring oversights, like banning ordinary hunting and home-defense shotguns based on “the shortest ammunition” (for example, mini-shells), and its “assault pistol” checklist misclassifies common self-defense and historical-style designs while allowing other large, powerful handguns, showing how arbitrary the feature test is. The bill’s suppressor restrictions are based on Hollywood myths since suppressed gunfire remains dangerously loud and conspicuous, while suppressors primarily reduce harmful impulse noise and neighbor nuisance, not enable “stealth.” Magazine limits likewise will not meaningfully deprive criminals given the vast existing stock and lack of practical markings, while they reduce defensive margin for lawful citizens who must be accountable for every round. HB217 will likely trigger panic buying and proliferation before any effective date, adds enforcement and incarceration costs the state cannot quantify (the fiscal note assigns only a minimum placeholder), and is headed into continuing constitutional uncertainty after Bruen, so resources would be better spent on targeted, evidence-driven strategies where violence is concentrated and on real security measures rather than broad bans on appearances.

HB110 | Laufer CRIMINALISES the victim and incentivizes these types of crime to go UNREPORTED. It allows guns to fall into the hands of CRIMINALS and then you penalize person who the crime was committed against. HB21 | Helmer HB217 | Helmer HB24 | Helmer These LIMIT the gun RIGHTS of Virginians. The 2nd amendment does not grant rights to it's people, it prevents governments from taking the INALIENABLE RIGHTS away from it's people. This goes against the 2nd amendment, the Virginia Bill of rights Art I Section 13 and your oath of office. Sic Semper Tyrannis. Remember that Helmer

I am in opposition to HB217 and HB21. I believe self defense and self governance to inalienable human rights to be cherished and defended, and, frankly, these bills infringe upon both of these rights. These bills target the law abiding citizenry of Virginia, while disregarding the criminals entirely. These bills place blame on the lawful owners and manufacturers of common firearms and firearm accessories, rather than establishing any serious effort to curtail those who actively commit or plan to commit crime. Excusing the actions of those who will still commit crime despite any sort of ban or regulation on any type of firearm while disarming those who rely on such implements to defend them. I urge you to oppose these bills.

I oppose the following bills. HB110 | Laufer | Firearm in unattended motor vehicle; civil penalty. This is an attempt to criminalize the victim. Where else can I person store a firearm to go into a non permissible location. This is especially important on an unexpected visit to such a location HB21 | Helmer | Firearm industry members; creates standards of responsible conduct, civil liability. This is an obvious attempt to sue businesses out of business. HB217 | Helmer | Assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices; importation, sale, etc., prohibited. Millions of these are already in VA and the rest of the country. According to the Bruin decision, these are already in common use. HB24 | Helmer | Concealed handgun permits; reciprocity with other states. VA enjoys one of the broadest reciprocity agreements in the country. Is this based on any evidence or just feel good measure. HB40 | Simon | Plastic firearms or receivers, unserialized firearms, etc.; transfer, etc., prohibited, penalties. Since before the creation of this country the people have had the right to produce their own firearms.

Gun bans are the mirror to abortion bans: culture war back-patting by policy heads allergic to winning at the national level. Either party could sweep on a simple platform of housing and healthcare (see Mamdani) instead of generating free press for the opposition, wasting goodwill on losing wedge issues while real wages and quality of life decline year over year.

The rhetoric of claiming the current federal administration is fascistic and tyrannical (which I don’t argue), while also supporting disarming the general populace of this state, is downright laughable. Why keep exemptions for law enforcement officers? Is your security detail also going to go without? Democrats got elected in this state because of affordability, and in retaliation for the current federal administration. This is how you not only ruin your mandate but ensure that you lose the next election in Virginia. I strongly advise voting against this bill, and bills like this one.

This bill discriminates against lesser able citizens who can't defend themselves without firearms and furthermore is an unconstitutional attack on everyone else. Please reconsider this bill.

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and advocate for evidence-based public policy to strongly urge you not to pass House Bill 217 (HB217), the prefiled legislation that seeks to prohibit the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called "assault firearms" and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. While I appreciate the intent to reduce gun violence in our Commonwealth, this bill misdirects resources and attention away from the actual drivers of such violence, as evidenced by data from reliable sources like the Virginia State Police, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC). Moreover, HB217 represents a clear infringement on the rights protected by both the United States Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, potentially exposing the state to costly legal challenges. Instead of advancing this measure, I encourage the committee to prioritize targeted interventions that address the root causes of gun violence without undermining constitutional protections. First, let's examine the data on gun violence in Virginia to understand why HB217 fails to target the problem effectively. According to the Virginia State Police's 2024 Crime in Virginia report and JLARC's 2025 analysis, gun-related homicides and assaults—the core of intentional gun violence—are disproportionately committed by young Black males aged 15-34, who represent only about 3% of the state's population but are involved in a significant share of these incidents. Firearms are used in approximately 80-87% of homicides statewide, but these crimes are not spread evenly; they are highly concentrated in just nine urban localities that account for over 60% of gun-related homicides from 2020-2024. These include Petersburg (with a rate of 53.8 per 100,000), Portsmouth (34.6), Richmond (30.5), Hopewell (27.9), Norfolk (~19.6), Roanoke, Hampton, Newport News, and Danville. In these areas, violence often stems from community disputes, socioeconomic challenges, and cycles of retaliation among known individuals, predominantly in specific neighborhoods. HB217 is a direct violation of constitutional rights and is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as affirmed in landmark Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), protects the individual right to keep and bear arms commonly used for lawful purposes. HB217's expansive definition of "assault firearms" sweeps in everyday semi-automatic weapons that are in common use nationwide, failing the Bruen test that requires restrictions to be consistent with historical firearm regulation traditions. Similarly, Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution explicitly states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," echoing the federal protection and emphasizing the militia's role in a free state. Virginia courts have historically upheld these rights, and passing HB217 would invite lawsuits that could burden taxpayers while achieving little in terms of public safety. We should not repeat the mistakes of other states where similar bans have been struck down, wasting time and money in the process.

HB217 is an overstep and I’m against this being passed. I voted Democrat in the most recent election cycle and I’m thrilled with the results but passing HB217 will undo this progress in Virginia in the next election cycle. Many Democrats such as myself are pro-gun and the state will swing back if HB217 is passed!

I STRONGLY OPPOSE HELMER'S FASCIST HB214. Virginia has a long and distinct history when it comes to individual liberty and the right to keep and bear arms. This Commonwealth is the birthplace of foundational principles of American freedom, including protections against excessive government power and the idea that citizens retain rights independent of the state. Firearm ownership has long been part of Virginia’s culture—not as a symbol of violence, but as a responsibility tied to self-defense, community protection, and individual independence. HB217 breaks from that tradition by criminalizing the future sale and transfer of firearms and magazines that are commonly owned and lawfully used by Virginians today. These are not exotic or unusual weapons. They are standard arms relied upon by ordinary people for lawful purposes, including home defense, training, and sport. As someone from a minority and immigrant background, I want to be clear: constitutional rights matter most to those who cannot rely on privilege, wealth, or political power for protection. Historically, communities like mine have depended on clear, evenly applied rights—not discretionary systems or shifting political standards—to ensure fairness and safety. Laws that restrict access to commonly owned arms, or turn normal conduct into a criminal offense, often fall hardest on minorities and working-class Virginians who are simply trying to comply with the law. This bill does not target violent criminals. It targets law-abiding citizens, lawful commerce, and future generations of Virginians. Even the Commonwealth acknowledges it cannot reliably estimate how many people will be jailed as a result. Expanding criminal penalties without knowing the scope of incarceration is not responsible governance. Under Supreme Court precedent, firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment. Banning them outright is not regulation—it is prohibition. That approach is inconsistent with both constitutional law and Virginia’s historical respect for individual rights. Virginia should lead by enforcing laws against violent offenders, not by abandoning its own traditions and criminalizing peaceful citizens based on the features of their lawfully owned property. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB217.

"Assault" firearms are NOT the problem. The problem is gang violence committed with stolen handguns within 9 localities in the Commonwealth. You are purposely misleading the public with incorrect statistics to further the Michael Bloomberg nationwide anti-gun agenda and you know it. Dan Helmer along with many other Democratic Delegates have been bought and paid for by Everytown for Gun Safety to push their pre-written bills nationwide. Here are are few of the top donations for this election cycle. $994,735 Spanberger for Governor - Abigail $201,199 Jones for Attorney General - Jay $104,000 Virginia Future Generations PAC $53,357 Downey for Delegate - Mark $53,353 Dougherty for Delegate - Lindsey $53,255 Guzman for Delegate - Elizabeth $51,125 Hashmi for Lt Governor - Ghazala

I am writing to express my strong and unwavering opposition to House Bill 217. This legislation represents a significant overreach by the Commonwealth and a direct infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. HB 217 seeks to ban commonly owned semi-automatic firearms based on arbitrary features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and threaded barrels. It is important to recognize that these features are ergonomic and safety-related; they are designed to provide a comfortable, personalized, and stable platform for the shooter. They do not make a firearm inherently "more dangerous" or "more lethal." By targeting these characteristics, the bill effectively bans a vast array of firearms that are currently in "common use" for lawful purposes, including self-defense, competition, and hunting. This approach contradicts the constitutional standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller and Bruen, which protect arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Furthermore, the proposed ban on standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds is deeply flawed. These magazines have been the industry standard for decades and are essential components of modern firearms platforms. Arbitrarily limiting capacity does nothing to deter criminal behavior, as those intent on breaking the law will simply ignore these restrictions or utilize the millions of magazines already in circulation. Instead, this provision places an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, forcing them to modify their legally acquired property or face criminal penalties for possessing tools that are standard for personal protection. History and data from other jurisdictions show that "assault weapon" and magazine bans have consistently failed to produce measurable reductions in violent crime. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. Consequently, HB 217 will only serve to disarm and disadvantage law-abiding Virginians while doing nothing to address the root causes of gun violence or prevent actual criminal activity. The role of the state should not be to centralize power by restricting the fundamental rights of its citizens based on cosmetic features and arbitrary definitions. This bill penalizes responsible gun owners for the actions of criminals and creates a complex web of regulations that will be difficult for well-meaning citizens to navigate, leading to accidental criminalization. I urge the members of this committee to uphold the constitutional rights of your constituents and focus on policies that target violent offenders rather than the tools used by law-abiding citizens for protection and sport. I respectfully ask that you vote NO on HB 217. Sincerely, Nick Granda-Stone, House District #58 (Henrico County)

horrible idea, will do nothing to address gun violence in the state and only serves to punish legal gun owners and give Democrats the illusion of doing something productive. This makes me seriously regret voting Democrat I wanted lower housing cost and to stand up to the Trump administration not turn the state into California. If this goes through I do not think I'll EVER be able to support Democrats again regardless of what lunatic Republicans put in the White House.

I write in opposition of Delegate Helmer's HB 217. This bill is a solution in search of a problem--a problem that is constitutionally protected. The bill will not reduce mass shootings as it does nothing to address the mental health issues that lie under each mass shooting incident that occurs. Instead, this bill criminalizes and renders impossible a hobby that millions of Americans enjoy. From the constitutional right to home defense to the weekend at the range with friends and family, this bill will scuttle the rights of Virginians statewide. Additionally, in light of SCOTUS' Bruen decision, this bill is likely unconstitutional. On the 250th anniversary of Virginia's founding, only now does the General Assembly determine that targeting the most commonly used firearms in the nation is a ripe issue to take up. There is no historical analogy for this law, and thus it is not constitutional. Despite this, if this bill passes, the Attorney General's office will be forced to defend it in Court, draining resources from the office that can be used to better serve Virginians. The writing on the wall for Assault Weapons Bans is clear--as stated by Justice Kavanaugh last year, "this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two." Virginia should not be involved in the pending legal battle. When Democrats took the House, Senate, and Governor's mansion, they did so with the intention to make life in Virginia better and more affordable. This bill, along with other gun legislation proposed, does neither. Additionally, even amongst Democrats, there is no appetite for this bill at this time, as the right to defend oneself is, and always will remain, and important part of American life, liberty, and culture. I urge the House to reject this bill.

HB 217 is a blatant overreach by the state of Virginia meant to penalize law abiding gun owners. I strongly oppose and disagree with this bill and hope the committee will reconsider. This, along with several other proposed bills, will prevent legal firearms owners from exercising their 2nd amendment rights if passed and will continue to marginalize communities, while criminals will continue to disregard laws and commit crimes.

The statistics from the FBI Crime report show deaths caused by assault weapons are dwarfed by the deaths caused by hammers, swimming pools, or limbs. This proof demonstrates the justification used to push these bills are disingenuous, which begs the question: Why is Congress pushing this bill? May we remind the people, the elected officials who are pushing this bill have taken substantial donor money from a billionaire that only has one string attached, which is to push every gun control bill that Congress can get away with. That is the real justification why this bill was created, and codifying this into law will prove only money matters to our elected officials, not the will of the people. Lastly, I would like to end on Virginia’s slogan, displayed proudly on our flag. Sic Semper Tyrannis

These proposed laws are onerous and unconstitutional. No person who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution should be able to support this in good conscience. This is a disgrace to the legislature, the people, and this State.

This is an infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens and will disproportionately affect those of lower means.

This proposal is unconstitutional under State and Federal constitution. The consequences of this will disproportionately impact women and minority communities within the state. There is no higher form of tyranny than disarming the public, and especially during these trying times. "Shall not be infringed" is very clear, and any argument that restricting access to common use firearms and standard capacity magazines is not a form of infringement is not genuinely good-faith and logical argument. This is a disgusting proposal and the history of gun control is elites oppressing demographics they deem undesired. This is shameful.

Dear representatives considering HB217, I understand and agree with the need for common sense firearm regulation, but enacting a ban on magazines and assault weapons will not stop 90% of gun deaths since most occur with a pistol and not an Ar style rifle, instead focus on allowing law enforcement to act on the warning signs that someone is planning on using a firearm in a violent crime. Under Bruen the court ruled any bans must comply with historic firearm regulation, and even if you disagree with that ruling you have to contend with the fact that Virginia has a long history of allowing its citizens the right to own any firearms no matter if they are considered military or not. Of course that was pre-NFA which was enacted by the federal government. No matter how Representative Helmer feels, these weapons are not found in war and his bill excludes the M1 Garand and M1 carbine which where used in war with the Garand causing catastrophic damage and being phased out due to being overkill. Concerning the Ar15 they’re cheap reproductions of Colts original m4 and m16 with semi auto only with by all definitions does not make it a military rifle, which Representative Helmer knows yet is lying to his constituents about it. Most people use for target practice since it has 10-30 round capacity, and is customizable to the user, making it easier to shoot for longer periods of time given the Low recoil of the intermediate cartridge. Intermediate cartridges and customizable platforms give disabled shooters a platform to hunt deer with, given the modern cartridges such as .300 blackout and 6.5 Grendel complying with DWR cartridge regulations. If you’re so worried about weapons of war ban forced reset triggers due to the bill being about trigger pulls not about resetting the trigger position to allow for multiple pulls uninterrupted which this bill doesn’t even address. This bill also creates a lucrative used market where people can price gouge a beat up 300$ rifle due to limited supply and criminals will just illegally import firearms from other states, since they aren’t following the law anyway. Given our proximity to the coast it is plausible that people could run guns from overseas to our great state. I think intent was great but it’s not going to stop Virginia gun violence. Please enact red flag laws instead where a court decides wether a person is a threat or not with that person being appointed a lawyer and given the chance to defend themselves. It’s against the principles of equality Virginia has stood by for 250 years that law abiding citizens who use .223/5.56 as target rifles are penalized for 7% of the gun crimes committed. Instead we should focus on training LEO for mass shootings and having crisis and emergency response plans in place. Thank you for your time and I hope you will rework this bill to allow, We the people the inalienable right to keep and bear arms that our own James Madison wrote 239 years ago shall not be infringed.

I oppose this unconstitutional bill. This is not about public safety, it is about punishing gun owners and doing the bidding of anti-gun billionaires. Get bloomberg out of Virginia!

HB217: This is an attempt at limiting the rights of Virginians in the face of our national and state constitutions. Further, it is out of line with current constitutional legal scholarship as established by the Bruen ruling in 2022. As a responsible gun owner I believe we should hold ourselves to high standards and that training, safe storage, and mental health care should be among our priorities. However, this law does not reflect that the majority of firearm deaths occur via suicide or accident with handguns. This applies to violent crimes as well, handguns, not so called assault weapons are used in the outstanding majority of instances. HB24: concealed handgun reciprocity should not end at state lines, carry is part of our constitutional right and the state of Virginia should do everything in its power to ensure reciprocity from as many states as possible and offer reciprocity in return so that 2nd amendment rights are not infringed. HB40: Manufacture of arms is in line with the 2nd amendment tradition of our country. Requiring arbitrarily assigned serial numbers and limiting means of manufacture serves no purpose other than to infringe on the rights of the people. Further, what many fail to understand is that the production of arms, especially those made by means of 3d printing is not as simple as pressing a button. Time, design work, and other accessory parts are necessary. The danger is not that criminals can buy a 3d printer and print as many guns as they’d like at the press of the button. The issue is that we have representatives who do not understand or are too intellectually dishonest to admit that manufacture of arms to include those 3d printed is not simple, straightforward, or causing any major spike in crime.

These weapons are not used in the bulk of shootings, and feature based bans have been proven to be ineffective. The fact that this bill was also submitted the day after the federal government murdered Renee Good in Minnesota is an absolute disgrace. Oh, and what's this? An exemption for Law Enforcement, a group that is statistically more likely to engage in domestic violence? Laughable. If you really want to save lives, maybe focus on why people might be shooting each other instead of what they do it with. Lemme guess, you'll ignore the issue if they move onto knives? Get real. Here's a big hint: people who carry out mass shootings clearly have nothing to live for. And frankly, I can't say I blame them. If they get sick, how much debt will they be in? How likely is it going to be that they're barely scraping by, even without a medical emergency? What future can you honestly say they have? And whose fault is that, exactly? Yours. It's your fault. Our elected representatives on both the state level and the federal level have absolutely failed the American people. If you actually put half as much energy into giving people workplace protections, universal healthcare, and doing something about the stagnation of wages and income inequality as you do pursuing feel-good gun bans that won't actually do anything, we probably wouldn't have the mass shootings we have today. But hey, Bloomberg's money fits nice in your pocket, right?

After reading through this bill I’m both shocked and disappointed. Virginia has had such a large history of being free. This bill would limit freedoms of every Virginian. As an avid firearms enthusiast this would severely limit my hobby and thus limit me exercising my freedoms. If you don’t agree with firearms ownership or just don’t like guns that’s fine, but I’m appalled that you would tell someone else that they can’t have basic accessory’s like a standard capacity mag. The AR 15 platform is the most common in America and for this state to ban them would be a step in the wrong direction. Any “gun control” bills should be omitted from this session as they are all unconstitutional. I would like for you all to look at the turn out of the last lobby day and how many of us both Republicans and Democrats disagree with this bill. I’ve always tried to live a life of “I may not agree with your lifestyle or your choices but I respect your freedom to make them and in return I’d like to have the freedom to make mine”.

I do not support this bill, as it can surely and overtime disarm the low abidenign and responsible ciitizen, yet leaving both criminals who do not respect the authoritries and citizenry regardless armed, as well leaving authoritarians and their securit armed as well a really easy slippery slop to tyranny. Instead to combat "gun violence". It should not be under a single umbrella but be divided between suicide, intentional homicide, negligent discharges, gang/crime violence, and similar. As This bill and others like it much too broad and is about control, with a excuse of safety that does not hold up. Again, focusing on combating crime and restoring areas most effected by it, and provide further mental health support and hold people repsonsible if they leave weapons or anything of such in easy access of their children i think is the better call. This holds the state responsible for public safety, provides support for those who need it mentally, and holds parents and adults in general responsible to not leave kids unsupervised with weapons or dangerous tools. And changing the narrative of a "Assault firearm" is poor propaghanda. True "assault firearms" are already regulated by the NFA. Such as true select fire firearms and destructive devices such as explosives. The weapons in the ban are in exceedily common use throughout the state and the United States in use for hunting, competition, self defense, as well as second amendment to bear arms if tyanny is afoot whether foreign or domestic. As far as socially, since 2020 many Democrats just as republicans have got their first firearms due to the unstable political climate and slow but sure end a high trust society. This potentially betrays the demogrpahic that the ones who made this bill supposedly represents. We do not have a weapon, or tool issue, we have a human or people problem that we must tend to and fix our communties and offer support. Banning the stones which humans have forever used against eachother won't change our nature. Each right is not greater than the other for conveniance of the state, they all are required for our state and country. I maybe one in many but I will not support any representives that are behind this kind of legislature and similar to restrict rights for a free and responsible society.

I find it difficult to frame the current bill proposed by the new administration of Virginia is a safety measure for our community, when in 2024 the CDC published statistics that show smoking kills 500,000 directly and 50,000 due to secondhand smoke exposure. This contrasts to the recent values of roughly 40,000 deaths due to guns in all forms, more than half of which are suicides. The numbers show that if saving lives was really the first priority, we would heavily regulate public smoking as even nonsmokers are impacted. This isn’t the case though, as smoking is seen as a private choice and other than an age restriction there are no limits on it. Smoking, unlike the right to bear arms, has no innate protections ascribed by the Founding Fathers that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the precedent was established that the prefatory clause of “a well regulated militia” does NOT limit or override the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” I urge members of the Virginia House and Senate to explore this dissonance when making their decisions to vote on HB217, and uphold our Nation’s constitution.

To state frankly, I do not support this bill. The founding fathers envisioned our right to own firearms to protect against enemies both foreign and domestic. To protect our sovereignty against oppression no matter the source. The Supreme Court has held that individual citizens are granted these rights. In 2025, we have seen the rise of a federal government run by the opposing party that has routinely trampled the rights of the people within this country, who has operated outside the bounds of the executive office and a federal government who is actively silencing those who oppose their views. Given this assault on the rights of the people by the opposing party, how is it even remotely logical, let alone acceptable, for the democratic party, that is supposedly opposed to this injustice and abuse of power, to bring forth a bill that will strip those they represent of the rights to defend themselves against tyranny. I implore our representatives to reconsider this bill in the face of current events, and not become a tool that the opposing party can use against us.

This bill would be pointless and unpopular on both sides of the aisle. If this were to pass it would almost guarantee Republicans winning large parts of the state government for the coming decades and would drive away independents. It has also been shown that many liberals and minorities have been purchasing firearms in the past years making your stance more and more unpopular everyday. Furthermore the proposition barely makes any sense as the firearms specifically targeted make up a small percentage of guns used to commit crimes and violence. In addition the term “assault weapons” has no real meaning outside of fear mongering. If any Democrats continue to support and pass this bill they can be sure to lose voters within their own party, independents and never be able to court Republican votes again.

Democrats have been given the opportunity to pass legislation that will help Virginians, not only financially but socially as well. This bill is unpopular amongst both parties, and diminishes any trust bestowed upon lawmakers by their constituents to pass reasonable legislation. The people of Virginia did not vote to have more rights taken away, rather they voted to have the current rights we have protected and even broadened. Democrats would do well to focus on affordability and other social issues, rather than restricting the rights that even the people who voted for them cherish. Rather than bowing to your donors, who are likely the ones forcing you to propose these types of bills. I ask that you vote no.

I do not support this bill. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Since the beginning of the regulation of firearms, criminals have been able to manufacture, illegally purchase, steal, or convert legal weapons to obtain so called dangerous assault weapons. It is already illegal to use these weapons in the commission of a crime. It is further already illegal to create a machine gun. Why do you feel the need to impose a restriction on law abiding gun owners? These restrictions will not affect criminals, who will simply ignore the law. Furthermore, these firearms are not overly dangerous, they are already in common use across the Commonwealth and the nation. The AR 15 platform is the most commonly purchased rifle. And yet, most mass shootings are not committed by lone wolves with assault weapons, but by gangs, and with illegally obtained weapons, many of which are also illegally modified. Mr. Helmer, law abiding citizens of Virginia do not need nor want these restrictions. You are taking our rights away to make yourself feel better about gun violence while refusing to combat the actual issues like systemic poverty, gang crimes, and mental health crises. The so called assault weapons are not the central issue. Taking them away punishes only the citizen, who may keep “assault weapons” for legal purposes such as defense and hunting. This ban is pointless, and a step backwards for Virginia. Congressmen, please reject this bill.

This commonwealth has a rich history of being a shining example of freedom. The home of “Give me liberty, or give me death” is now the home of purposed bills that disgrace the very fabric of this state. I urge you, especially in these unprecedented times, to not support any infringement of the constitution. Democrats have been given such a great opportunity to lead this state, but unconstitutional bills that take away 2nd amendment rights, that will get turned over in Supreme Court, and waste time and energy of this state, need to be shut down. Please take the temperature of your constituents, no one wants this. No one voted for this. This reeks of Bloomberg’s agenda, and not of the people who entrusted you to lead us in these troubling times.