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

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

Dear Sir or Madame. Last year in Newport News I was assaulted by a 27 year old black man from Chesapeake because of his road rage.. This was at my local bank 11;30 in the morning. This young man almost lost his life at my hand because you cannot reel in your problem young men. His words feet from me were ' im going to kick your ass and then kill you'. My pistol changed his mind. I saw for myself the woke judges and a woke system that perpetuates the problem. The criminal justice system has been flung far far left which IS causing a public safety hazzard. No new gun control is needed. More jail time for the trash that i dealt with is. My Congressman Bobby Scott and Delegate Cia Price do not represent me.

This debate over guns was settled in 1791. We have all the laws we need to cover the action of a criminal. Murder is illegal no matter the tool used. Assualt is illegal no matter the tool used. Your ridiculous attack on the rights of all Virginians is just another chapter in the failure our our legislature to deal with the true issues that plague our state. Restore our rights and work to better the state and stop with the petty and vindictive law making that only hurts the innocent. Every day our governing bodies from congress to you become less relevant as a part of our lives, since all you ever manage to do is destroy and steal.

In Ohio one year after constitution carry passed gun crimes went down

I've commend prior on these issue but would like to reemphasize that more laws of these nature only impose on those of us that already obey the law and I think that you could explain this to your constituents demanding more gun control. I always find it ironic and dubious that those wanting more gun control either don't own a gun, have never fired a gun or don't want to purchase one but wish to infringe upon those of us who are responsible gun owners. Many of these bills on gun control shouldn't even be proposed and if you are supporting these bills you're being dishonest to your own base in tell them that this will reduce crime. It can't reduce crime and never has since other cities such as Chicago ,crime ALWAYS increases with more gun control and Always goes down with less in most situations. I have friend who lives in Chicago and had to sue because they outlawed all firearms several years back. The citizens won that case and were allowed to own AR-15's and all various forms of semi automatic fire arms pistol and rifle. According to him and the data CRIME WENT DOWN. The exception to gun laws which are already on the book as always is proper back ground checks so criminals cannot exploit the legal process by purchasing as a felon. As for removing someone's rights to own a gun under a DUI or DWI I fail to see any relevance or correlation and causation to the issue of guns in general. I am apposed to all these gun control bills and support the two pro guns bills being proposed.

I am Chief Maggie DeBoard from the Herndon Police Department, and I am providing comment on two bills on behalf of the VA Chiefs Association (VACP) as their legislative committee chair. In regard to HB 250, we are strongly opposed to any formal attempt to dictate how law enforcement officers operationally conduct interrogations. Detectives must have the ability to adjust their tactics to the individual being questioned, while ensuring they are doing so in a legal and lawful manner. How they conduct their interrogations are guided by Miranda and Supreme Court case law. Every case is different, every suspect is different, and model policies should not guide how these custodial interrogations are carried out. By creating model policies for an operational practice that varies greatly from suspect to suspect, you severely limit a detective's approach to how he or she needs to conduct an interrogation. The courts have the role in each criminal case to determine if such interrogation was legal/lawful. That decision should remain with the courts, who look at each one based on the facts of the case, and if the officer followed established case law on the matter. Detectives currently receive training from experienced subject matter experts in this area, and that training is modified as new case law develops. That training should not be dictated by DCJS, nor should they create model policies that will inevitably become out of date over time and create arguments for defense attorneys as to why one detective did not conduct an interrogation in the same manner as another. Ref HB 776, the VACP fully supports this legislation which simply removes the need for agencies to ask for a waiver from DCJS to hire an individual who is eligible for and applied for citizenship. We agree with the language in this bill; this will provide agencies with more flexibility to recruit and hire qualified individuals from our minority and/or migrant communities who meet the requirements. These individuals will be processed in the same manner as any other applicant and must still meet all other hiring standards before being employed. It also encourages lawful immigration and a path to citizenship for those who desire to work as a law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth. Thank you for allowing us to provide our input today.

The end of solitary confinement must be done My son was murdered in solitary confinement at Red Onion Prison in Pound Va on 1/3/22.