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.

Comments Document

LAJC supports this bill. Young people learn and grow through positive relationships, education, and structured activities. In contrast, isolation can negatively impacts mental health, stall rehabilitation, and brew resentment that can lead to conflict. Ensuring that youth spend most of their time engaged with others outside of their room helps maintain mental well-being, strengthens social skills, and promotes safer facilities. Please see the attached Op-Ed published last week regarding the changes needed for youth at Bon Air JCC and in DJJ.

My name is Jeffrey Coupe. I am a resident of Richmond and a former long-term substitute teacher at Bon Air Correctional Facility (2024-25). I voice my support for HB91 which proposes standards for hours that residents spend in their cells or rooms, and alludes to other standards for time spent in productive activities (counseling, education / training, treatment) During my tenure as DJJ contractor, residents were often placed on lockdown, due to disturbances, staff shortages, inspections, facility damage (e.g. flooding, fire), to such an extent that their educational time was greatly reduced. My suggestion for amendment is that standards more clearly delineate time and conditions conveying a policy of "least restrictive environment": (a) time in cell/room is reduced, (b) time on unit / pod is reduced, (c) time in productive counseling, training, employment is increased, (d) non-pod, pro-social time is increased (sports, recreation, crafts, hobbies), (e) non-pod, pro-employability time is created for (1) exercise of creating/making/entrepreneurship, (3) exercise of certified vocation in residence (e.g. students of HVAC work in HVAC at the facility, as is now for barbering, but not yet practiced in other trades and fields (e.g. Art - Art Exhibitions, Culinary Arts - Meal Preparation, etc., Entrepreneurship - Business Creation). Without turning learning environments into real opportunities to "learn-by-doing" then time-out-of-cell becomes a bare security-oriented standard of care. The legislation is well-meaning yet deficit-oriented in framing the issue as "confinement" standards rather than as "affordance" and "least restrictive environment" standards. Further, amendments might tackle non-physical aspects of restriction, including (a) access to technologies for learning (Internet) and personal connection (e.g. FaceTime). An affordance standards orientation might provide alternatives to cell confinement as punishment - e.g. in-school suspension placement, restorative pull-outs, secondary intervention protocols. My suggestion is simply that authorities should be directed to develop an affordance-oriented standards plan with social/emotional supports and safety provisions for an enlarged outer circle of opportunities on a "least-restrictive, most-afforded" basis. Bon Air touts Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports system, and yet the universal environment is is overly restrictive. Intervention is largely intensive (SPED, counseling). In between, many residents receive very little targeted middle-tier services for a range of protective and promotive factor development in education. So, I am strongly in favor of HB91, and its financing. My final comment as former Social Science teacher at Bon Air. I had suggested that future units of learning introduce students to advocacy using LIS to exercise their civic voices on bills such as this. If you haven't heard from residents directly about this bill and others, then perhaps this is evidence that out-of-cell may be out-of-mind.

Children are uniquely vulnerable to the devastating effects of isolation, which can lead to lifelong cognitive impairment and increased suicide risk. By mandating standards that maximize time out of cells and prioritize trauma-informed care, HB91 chooses the health of our youth over punitive convenience. S4JR stands for this bill because protecting the development of our children is a fundamental humanitarian obligation that strengthens the future of our entire Commonwealth. Please support this bill.