I am providing this testimony in support of House Bill 286, The Virginia National Guard Integrity and Democracy Protection Act. My testimony draws heavily upon experience gained as an officer of 30 years service in the active and reserve components of the United States Air Force, and as a retired professional civil servant of 21 years in the Intelligence Community. On that latter point, a preponderance of my support for HB 286 rests upon a deeply disturbing tendency on the part of our current federal government to embroil various states’ National Guard in highly controversial and morally and ethically dubious operations to apprehend “illegal” aliens. The manner in which the administration is justifying and applying National Guard elements in these operations bears an exact resemblance to the manner in which nondemocratic authoritarian regimes use their military forces to suppress their civilian populations. HB 286 affords critical protections to bolster maintenance of professionalism, nonpartisanship, and readiness of the Virginia National Guard. It establishes clear legal processes and preserves the correct chain of civilian command, ensuring Guard members are not ensnared political or legal disputes over designations of command authority, mission boundaries, or accountability. The Virginia National Guard Integrity and Democracy Protection Act protects the integrity and constitutional legitimacy by: strengthening legislative oversight of Guard deployments; improving governmental transparency and accountability in matters of policy and decision making affecting the Guard; protecting democratic processes across the spectrum of Constitutional issues pertaining to the use of our military within the boundaries of the United States; and, details and explicitly clarifies procedures for federal mobilization of the Guard. In so doing, HB 286 firmly codifies the relationship between the Commonwealth and the federal government in critical matters pertaining to command and control of the National Guard consistent with guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Paramount among them the assurance that the Guard cannot be employed in any manner inconsistent with the rights of residents of Virginia. Fifty six years ago I took a solemn oath to support and defend our Constitution against “…all enemies, foreign and domestic.” For the first time in my life I find my commitment to that oath standing on the precipice of a nation-spanning crisis. A crisis where the rights and privileges of American citizens, and alien individuals, whether or not they are properly documented under our immigration laws, are subjected to the capricious brutality of a federal government indiscriminately using force purely for the purpose of political theater. Twenty six centuries ago, the Prophet Zechariah admonished the leaders of Israel, saying “This is what the Lord Almighty said: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other'.” Zechariah’s admonition seems especially pertinent to America today. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to my written testimony. Respectfully, Calvin W. Hickey Colonel, United States Air Force (Ret.)

I write in strong support of HB 286 as a veteran who served 26 years in the United States Navy, on both active duty and in the Reserve. I am deeply concerned—frankly appalled—by the recent circumstances under which National Guard units have been mobilized. These deployments have been justified as law enforcement actions despite the absence of any legitimate “rebellion or danger of rebellion.” In several cases, mobilizations occurred over the objections of state governors, even as legal scholars publicly questioned whether the legal threshold had been met, calling such actions “questionable.” Worse, federal authorities have failed to clearly define the Guard’s role. Guardsmen themselves reported feeling “confused and disheartened,” particularly following aggressive tactics used around protests near the White House. That confusion understandably raised concerns that they might be violating the constitutional rights they swore to protect. Having served in uniform, I see this trend as placing the Guard in a coercive, partisan domestic role and undermining its core mission as a nonpartisan force that supports state authorities and national defense. HB 286 begins to address these dangers by placing modest, reasonable limits on state active-duty missions. It prohibits Guardsmen on state active duty from engaging in direct law enforcement, curbs the contrived use of rarely invoked authorities, and clearly reinforces the Guard’s apolitical, supporting role—not a policing role—in political conflict. Guard units are not trained or equipped for routine civilian law enforcement. HB 286 appropriately draws firm mission boundaries by prohibiting arrests, searches, detentions, and warrant service; requiring legislative reauthorization or gubernatorial approval for extended deployments; and explicitly banning the use of the Guard to intimidate or deter voters. These safeguards are necessary because sustained military force inside a state must remain accountable to the people’s representatives. Emergency powers must not become routine practice without public consent. Recent federal actions risk turning the Guard into a partisan instrument loyal to a political agenda. Presidential authority to call out the Guard is not a blank check. Repeated use in contested political situations erodes public trust, damages legitimacy, and compromises the Guard’s apolitical standing—once lost, that trust is hard to restore. State leaders must remain closely involved to ensure the Guard is used only as a last-resort stabilizing force, never as a participant in partisan conflict. For these reasons, I strongly urge the passage of HB 286.

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 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.