Hello, I am a 28 year old Virginia resident, born and raised in Alexandria VA. I have supported the Democrat party in every single state and federal ballot since I became eligible in 2015. I have never owned any firearm before. I feel the need to speak up about the proposed legislation in HB217, HB1524, SB727, and SB749 only after meticulous research and consideration. I very strongly oppose these bills, primarily SB749, and urge my representatives to reconsider their support and wording in this bill. Many of us in NoVA carry out jobs and responsibilities that require us to follow every single rule to a T, because even the risk of accidental arrest can lead to us losing our jobs and our entire livelihoods. Because of the way this bill will effectively ‘grandfather’ 90% of all weapons and magazines in our state, I see no way this can be enforced without many accidental arrests. This will disproportionately affect communities where the risk of breaking the law will destroy citizen’s lives. I have read these bills over and over again, and even asked experts for help, but the fact of the matter is that many definitions are so poor or broad that it is unclear what will be allowed after this passes. Am I allowed to purchase a lower receiver of a weapon that *could* meet these definitions of an ‘assault weapon’? For weapons that are owned before July 1st, are they allowed to swap ‘assault’ parts? What if a part or magazine purchased before July 1st breaks and needs to be fixed? What about magazines that can accept different amounts of different sizes of ammunition, as many commonly do? Again, I have never owned a gun, but it seems like these were written and are being amended by people who have never even inspected one. Why are the definitions of ‘assault firearm’ different across all these bills? Are law abiding citizens supposed to remember all of these different definitions when one plastic piece in the wrong spot could make us go from perfectly legal to in jail for a year? “...that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned” What am I reading here? If someone burns their hand on the gun then it’s okay? Why do we want guns to need to be held awkwardly? Is this supposed to make people safer somehow? Could anyone tell me what is dangerous about the ‘threaded barrel’ that almost every single modern firearm would have? Are you perhaps under the false impression that a ‘sound suppressor’ makes a gunshot difficult to hear? Do you want my eardrums to be permanently damaged at a range? They don’t make the weapon any more or less lethal, or even affect the rate at which you can fire… so why exactly are they being made illegal? Shouldn’t there be some kind of legal avenue for law abiding citizens in good standing to be able to purchase one of these 'assault' weapons, provided they store it safely? Bans with a grandfathering clause just encourage everyone to panic buy and stockpile. I guess only rich people who can buy everything they could ever need before July 1st are allowed to have good guns, right? The bottom line is that there is no such thing as an ‘assault firearm’, and that attempting any sort of ‘feature’ ban is ridiculous. I am so disappointed with myself for voting for the people responsible for this bill. If this passes, I will not make the same mistake again. Not for your redistricting effort, or anything after that either.

I am submitting the attached PDF as a public letter opposing SB749. This bill is not a serious answer to violence in Virginia. It is a broad ban that reaches into the lives of otherwise lawful gun owners and treats them as a public safety concern. The attached letter explains why that claim fails. It addresses the actual text of the bill, the penalties it creates, the data it does not address, and the historical context lawmakers should not ignore. Virginia has a long history of lawful gun ownership, shooting sports, self-defence, and personal responsibility. It also has a history of disarmament laws that were used against minorities and enforced selectively. That history matters here. The attached letter quotes one of those laws directly and asks a simple question. Is this really the side of history you want to return our Commonwealth to? The PDF also explains why prohibition is such a dangerous and dishonest policy model. We have seen this before. Prohibition does not erase demand. It creates selective enforcement, criminalises ordinary people, expands state power, and fails to solve the underlying problem. That pattern showed up with alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition, and other broad bans. There is no reason to pretend this time will be different because the politics are convenient. If supporters of SB749 want to call this bill data-driven, they should be able to explain exactly how it addresses the violence Virginians are actually facing. The attached letter argues that they cannot. It includes statistics, examples, and references showing why a broad ban on commonly owned semiautomatics and standard-capacity magazines is not an honest response to the real drivers of violence. This is not a narrow bill aimed at violent offenders. It is a sweeping bill that creates new criminal liability for citizens who are currently acting lawfully. That is not justice. That is not serious governance. That is not respect for the people of Virginia. Please read the attached letter in full and ask yourselves whether this bill protects Virginians, or whether it simply punishes the people you were elected to represent.

Hello, lifelong Virginian, father, veteran, and law abiding citizen who will face jailtime over these items despite hopefully not being the target (yet). SB496 - I oppose this. this item will result in victims of theft electing to let a crime against their property to go unreported, which in turn will result in more unknown weapons on the streets, as well as reducing the chance that the actual criminal is apprehended. SB727/SB749 - I oppose these items. These items target the most commonly used firearms for sporting and security purposes by Virginians. In particular, Virginia has suffered close to NO criminal homicides with standard capacity centerfire rifles in 2025. The features listed also provided no advantage to these few offenders. This is a fairly transparent attempt by its supporters to reduce the access to Virginian's 2nd amendment rights by way of creating new criminal charges via a convoluted system based upon what it's writers find the most cosmetically offensive.

I oppose SB496, SB727 and SB749

I'm a registered Democratic voter and even I oppose SB496, SB727, SB749. If these pass I will be switching my party affiliation and voting against redistricting. The AWB, SB749, is clearly a violation of the 2nd amendment. Standard capacity for regular full size pistols is 17, this would criminalize or make it impossible to access basic home defense weapons like Glock 17s, Springfield Eschelons, M&Ps, etc. And, this is going to trigger lawsuit after lawsuit until every state level AWB is overturned across the nation. Now isn't the time to poke that bear. Speaking of bears, I am worried that SB727 would prevent co-owners of our tree farm from carrying their rifles or pistols for bear and coyote defense, and possibly affect currently legal rifles used for deer population control efforts - these are typically semi auto as quick follow up shots are useful in all these scenarios. This directly affects Farmers and could lead to more motor vehicle accidents with deer due to unchecked deer population in some areas. And SB496 would catch many farmers unaware - becoming criminals overnight due to their "truck gun" or tractor gun getting them in trouble. Tools like a handy AR Pistol with a barrel length between 10.5" and 14.5" are preferred for protecting livestock from predators as they are compact and reliable. And, we're not really seeing much out-of-vehicle theft happening in these rural areas. Again, these bills are overreach, don't do it guys. Virginia is different from California or New Jersey, just look at our flag. You will make a lot of new, motivated Republicans if these pass, including me.

As a resident of Lake Monticello, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bills 496, 727, and 749. My primary responsibility in life is the safety and well-being of my family, especially with my newborn daughter, Sophia, at home. These bills collectively undermine my ability to protect my loved ones while placing unnecessary, unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding Virginians. Senate Bill 496's vehicle storage mandates are entirely impractical for everyday life. Forcing gun owners to use specialized, hard-sided containers that must be bolted or cabled to a vehicle's frame makes it nearly impossible to quickly access a firearm in a self-defense emergency. Furthermore, threatening a victim of a vehicle break-in with a misdemeanor simply because a criminal managed to bypass a lock is a deeply misguided approach to public safety. Similarly, Senate Bill 727 effectively creates sprawling gun-free zones out of our public streets, sidewalks, and parks. By restricting the lawful public carry of firearms in these shared spaces, the state is leaving responsible citizens defenseless against violent offenders who will simply ignore the law. Finally, I strongly oppose Senate Bill 749's ban on commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines. Prohibiting the future sale of these items and arbitrarily restricting magazine capacities amounts to a direct infringement on our Second Amendment rights and ignores the fact that these items are in common use for lawful self-defense. Rather than stripping away the rights and property of responsible citizens who are just trying to keep their families safe, I ask that you focus on measures that hold actual criminals accountable.

I oppose SB496, SB727 and SB749. They are contrary to our constitution as well as our 2nd amendment. SB496 requiring securing a hand gun in a vehicle would not be necessary if there were so many limitations as to where even with the proper permit you are not allowed to carry. If the vehicle is locked then the hand gun is secure. SB727 is unconstitutional. Finally SB749 is unconstitutional as expressed by the Supreme Court

I strongly oppose HB40, HB217, HB1524, SB323, SB496, SB727, SB749. History shows the enforcement of gun control disproportionately targets minorities and marginalized populations, and adding these additional restrictions to our constitutional right will do nothing to address the socioeconomic conditions that contribute to the antisocial and violent behavior. Instead of further criminalizing the means of accessible and modern/innovative forms of self-defense, gun violence should be addressed by focusing on the root of the socioeconomic issues such as funding universal healthcare and mental healthcare access, funding accessible education for all Virginians, and focusing on rehabilitation for offenders rather than only punishment.

I am fully opposed to this bill. I and many other virginians view this as very obviously unconstitutional on both a state and federal level. An "assault weapon" could be anything. A car for example could be classified as an "assault weapon". It seems that what some legislators view as "assault weapons" is based off of fear and ignorance of firearms. Humans naturally fear what they don't understand and that's understandable, however when those with the power to affect those around them on a large scale like this have a moral responsibility to looks pas their own personal fears and biases. And if that's not something you as legislators can do, I believe you are not fit to be in the position you are now. I once again argue that this bill is obviously unconstitutional on both a state and federal level.

I oppose SB496. SB727, and SB749.

I oppose SB496, SB727, and SB749. These laws will not make our Commonwealth of Virginia safer. They will impose more restrictions that will turn citizens into criminals while doing nothing to address gun violence.

I oppose SB496, SB727 and SB749.

I oppose SB727 and SB749. These bills are a broad feature-based ban that will be easy for criminals to get around with “compliant” alternatives and common parts. It makes many ordinary rifles, pistols, shotguns, and standard magazines that lawful Virginians are choosing for self defense illegal. This issue is also up at the Supreme Court of the United States right now so it will be unwise and legally costly to pass now. All this bill is going to do is lead to panic buying and when the bill is ultimately ruled unconstitutional the only lasting legacy of this policy will be the panic proliferation. I will preemptively congratulate you on winning employee of the year at every gun store in Virginia based on the deluge of sales you will create by rubberstamping this dead law walking. I attached a PDF that shows how criminals can just get around these laws by buying a rifle that looks like its from Dr. Seuss but has the same capabilities.

This bill is unconstitutional and has been addressed as such in the supreme court. Ex. "In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, the Court determined that the U.S. Constitution protects ownership of arms in “in common use” for lawful purposes. In 2015, Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated that the Second Amendment and Heller preclude so-called “assault weapons” bans when he signed onto a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park. In the dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas explained, Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons." It is also comically contradictory that this bill includes mandatory sentences for some violations while at the same time mandatory sentences for violent crimes involving firearms is being removed in HB863 §18.2-53.1. I urge you to reject SB749 as it is unconstitutional and to rethink HB863 as it proposes a contradictory stance on reducing gun violence in Virginia. I am a lawful gun owner and an advocate for gun reform, but SB749 as proposed is far from reform and closer to punishment for owning firearms. (A constitutionally protected right, if you've forgotten.)

These "weapons of war" are covered by the 2nd Amendment and thier restriction is unconstitutional. If this bill passes it will inevitably be struck down by the courts and waste millions in taxpayer money on litigation for a law that was never popular in the first place. Oppose this bill!

These bills are blatantly unconstitutional.

I am a progressive voter writing to strongly oppose SB749. 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 am writing to you as a concerned constituent of Senate District 13 to express my firm opposition to the package of firearm-related legislation currently moving through the General Assembly. These proposed laws represent a significant departure from our constitutional traditions and, in my view, constitute an impermissible infringement upon the fundamental rights of Virginians. As you cast your votes on these bills, I would like to respectfully remind you of the oath you took upon assuming your office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as a Senator... according to the best of my ability, so help me God." This oath is not a mere formality; it is a binding promise to protect the framework of liberty that governs our society. Central to that framework is Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia, which explicitly 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; 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." Furthermore, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that "shall not be infringed." Through the Fourteenth Amendment, this protection is applied to the states, ensuring that: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The legal landscape regarding these rights has been further clarified by the United States Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The Court’s decision established that the government must demonstrate that any firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Crucially, the Court has long held that firearms "in common use" for lawful purposes are protected. The AR-15, as the most popular rifle in America, is undeniably in "common use" by millions of law-abiding citizens for self-defense, competition, and hunting. To vote for a ban on such a platform would be a direct violation of the standard set by the highest court in the land. Beyond these legal mandates, I urge you to consider the practical impact on your constituents in Petersburg. These measures do not target criminal intent; instead, they criminalize peaceable citizens for possessing hardware legally acquired and used safely every day. If the goal is to address gun-related violence, I recommend a return to the proven success of Project Exile. In the first year of its implementation in Richmond, homicides dropped by 33% and armed robberies dropped by 30%, according to the Department of Justice. As a legislator, you have the power to prioritize the certainty of prosecution over the administrative restriction of hardware. I urge you to honor your oath and the constitutional protections of all Virginians by voting against these overreaching measures and focusing instead on holding criminals accountable. Sincerely, John G Chaney

I write in stark opposition to the misguided and naive attempts at gun control Virginia legislators have advanced in this term. I’m deeply concerned with Virginia Democrats’ eagerness to immediately pass these sweeping gun bans, such as (but not limited to) HB217 and SB749. These bills, as written, are deeply flawed for many reasons, ranging from the ideological to the practical. First, the practical. The way these bills define “assault weapons” is certainly unconstitutional. They would ban virtually every firearm from private ownership. This will make its way quickly to the Supreme Court, and we all know how that will end. There is precious little evidence supporting the idea that bans like these reduce crime. They are based more on banning what looks scary, rather than what is actually dangerous. It is plain to see that you are passing these laws to score points with your base. Well, I am your base, and I am here to tell you that the opposite is happening. I also want to speak to the ideological side of this. In my time as a community organizer, working with grassroots organizations to do things like defend drag story hours and organize community meals, I have met a broad spectrum of left-wing activists in the DMV community, most of them from marginalized populations. What you may not see or hear is that these people want to learn how to defend themselves. The Liberal Gun Club is overwhelmed with requests for training. Several organizations have been organizing queer-friendly range days, which are also totally overwhelmed with interest. Mainstream firearms training is often unwelcoming and unsafe for these populations, so they rely on the meager capacity of progressive people like me to learn safe and responsible gun ownership. It’s in this environment that we witnessed the cold-blooded murder of Alex Pretti, a man who wanted to protect his community and was summarily executed for exercising his constitutional rights. Interest from marginalized folks in learning to defend themselves has spiked even higher than it already was. A recent free range day offered to members of the queer community filled up signups in 3 minutes. In this time, we cannot be passing laws to deprive our most oppressed populations of the means to defend themselves. Even if you believe that law enforcement is not a threat to us - an idea many I know would firmly reject - it is well known that groups like Patriot Front and the Proud Boys count a large number of NoVa residents amongst their ranks. Beyond HB217/SB749, the other gun control bills that have been advanced (except the one that removes mandatory minimum sentences, which I wholeheartedly support) would increase the rate at which people of color would have to interact with law enforcement, which WILL lead to more incidents like Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and Philando Castile before them. What we need from our legislators in this moment is steadfast PROTECTION of our constitutional rights and of our right to defend ourselves, after four long years of constant bigoted assaults by the Youngkin regime. I urge you to stand up for marginalized communities and what we actually want, which is the protection and preservation of our civil and constitutional rights. Focus your efforts on stopping ICE in our streets, protecting free & fair elections in 2026, and dismantling right wing extremism, not on stripping us of the means to protect ourselves, in a time when we need it most.

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

Every one of you have taken an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America. You also took an oath to uphold the constitution of Virginia. By passing these bills, you have broken your oath. The people of the great state of Virginia will remember this.

Good Morning, I am writing to you in opposition to HB217 and SB749. These bills are restrictions on law abiding citizens who purchase firearms in the correct manner; doing nothing to keep illegal purchases or out of state acquisitions of so-called "assault weapons" by those circumventing lawful purchases. While I can understand the desire to reduce firearm related deaths in the state, rifles of any used only in an extreme minority of cases. I know many pro-gun ownership people would be opposed to any regulations, but most countries around the world, it is the owner and not the firearm that is evaluated. If any regulation on firearms ownership should be passed, it is a thorough background check, training requirements for safe usage of the firearm, and potentially a waiting period. These laws, as written, are creating a rash of purchases across the state and people who are not trained in their usage are purchases every gun they can in preparation of these bans. Please oppose the passage of these bills and work on creating laws that would actually decrease gun deaths in the state like training requirements, waiting periods, and a better background check system.

Opposition to SB749 I am writing to express my strong opposition to this bill, specifically regarding the restrictions on magazine capacity. As a resident of Virginia, I am deeply concerned that this legislation ignores the shifting safety realities for LGBTQ+, immigrant, and minority populations. Vulnerable communities are currently facing an unprecedented rise in targeted rhetoric and organized extremist activity. This includes the moral panic directed at the transgender community, which the Lemkin Institute has flagged for its genocidal potential. It also includes the visible presence of groups like Patriot Front. The reality is that violent extremist groups are already heavily armed. This bill does not disarm the aggressors. It only creates barriers for their intended victims to access modern means of self-defense. Furthermore, the language regarding magazine limits is technically flawed and out of step with modern manufacturing. A 15-round limit arbitrarily classifies standard, off-the-shelf handguns and rifles as "assault" weapons. These are not specialty items. They are the modern industry standard for personal protection. By criminalizing these common items, the state is effectively forcing law-abiding citizens to choose between being under-equipped or becoming accidental felons. Finally, there is a significant political miscalculation at play. In the 2025 elections, many voters crossed party lines specifically to prioritize broader democratic stability over single-issue gun rights. However, passing a bill that retroactively denies access to items previously legally owned will alienate this fragile coalition. At a time when we need all hands on deck to defend our institutions against radical populist nationalism, this bill creates a rift that could drive voters back to the opposition. Requested Action: At a minimum, I urge the committee to strike all language regarding magazine capacity and reconsider the impact this bill will have on the marginalized Virginians who now feel the need to defend their own communities. Respectfully, Maya Karabinos (She/They) MayaK@Tricityqueer.org

In other states where this type of legislation has passed, there has been no measurable reduction in gun violence, but the laws themselves have caused an undue burden on communities of color. https://wethesecondcolorado.com/colorados-firearm-barrel-bill-sacrifices-minority-families-for-gun-control-lobby/ "From Fiscal Year 2021 through 2024, a total of 203 individuals in Colorado, a state with a population exceeding 6 million, were convicted and sentenced for possessing a “high capacity magazine”. ... Black defendants were 42.4% of convictions for possession of “high capacity magazines” in that time period, when we would expect them to be proportional to the population and track national trends (about 5 to 5.5%). ... we cannot determine from such a low sample size of 203, or even the 423 POWPO data, that there is any large-scale beneficial effect since compliance bills such as these are enhancements, meaning the crime that is theoretically prevented by the proposed legislation has already been committed. Data suggests that none of these crimes were actual mass shootings." Handguns are overwhelmingly more likely to be used in mass shootings than assault weapons and equally deadly (see attachment). Even the much-celebrated Australian gun ban, which went much father than this bill, has not actually resulted in a decrease in mass *killing* events in Australia, instead it has shifted those events to the types of guns that remain legal (such as last year's Bondi Beach shooting) or other types of weapons. This bill is presupposed on the fiction that changing a gun's ergonomics, or perhaps its visual appeal to gun enthusiasts, can enhance its deadliness in a non-military scenario. The sober reality is that all firearms are deadly, and this sort of window dressing ban of certain firearms accessories holds no promise of changing that fact.

I support this bill because although Virginia is No. 15 nationally in gun violence prevention laws, the commonwealth could do more to restrict dangerous weapons and regulate public carry.

Hello, my name is Caitlin Knight and I am urging you to oppose or strike the restrictive provisions in SB749. Particularly language that aims to ban certain firearms and limit magazine capacities. This bill, in its current form, violates the Second Amendment by banning common firearms and standard-capacity magazines that are in widespread civilian use by Virginians on both sides of the aisle. The Second Amendment protects an armed citizenry capable of forming militias to secure liberty and deter tyranny; not just self-defense, as some courts have narrowly misinterpreted. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court (Scalia) clarified that ‘well-regulated’ means proper training and discipline, not government bans on common arms. This is the dominant judicial interpretation. A basic understanding of how the US gained its independence provides the necessary context as to the intent of the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, within the limited scope of Bruen, “text, history, and tradition” confirm that outright bans on these firearms and magazines violate our rights, as they are ‘in common use’ under this framework, if you prefer to apply this standard in lieu of the above. Self-defense is certainly within the scope of the Second Amendment. As a woman, my everyday carry firearm with a standard 15-round magazine would be the equalizer should I ever encounter a predatory man looking to harm me. Statistically, the likelihood of me physically overpowering a man is unlikely. This is why I carry. Many women in Virginia feel the same. I remain vigilant and aware of my surroundings, but I don’t feel as vulnerable while unloading groceries in my van, or walking my dog at night. 15-17 rounds is a reasonable capacity, and has been the de facto national standard for decades. Moreover, such bans lack efficacy. RAND Corporation’s comprehensive reviews find inconclusive evidence that assault weapons bans reduce violent crime, mass shootings, homicides, or most gun outcomes. Everyday gun violence primarily involves handguns, not the firearms described in this bill. Such weapons play a minor role in crimes in Virginia, and nationwide. Research shows the most effective legislation addresses high-risk individuals gaining access to firearms, and proper firearm storage. Legislation should rely on evidence and constitutional limits - not emotion, or perhaps wanting to rebuke the Trump administration and its atrocities. Our laws should be effective, not oppressive or punitive. Groups like Everytown/Moms Demand Action are advocacy organizations with a mission to promote these exact restrictions. They are not impartial sources. As such, they should not be relied upon to justify this legislation. Please protect Virginians’ constitutional rights. Work to do right by your constituents when it comes to reducing gun violence in Virginia. Be the beacon of reason amidst the fog. Thank you for your consideration Caitlin Knight Chesapeake/South Norfolk, Virginia

At one time minorities could not acquire firearms.. for self defense..Now working class citizens of all races are losing rights ..Discrimination in years past and discrimination now are the same.. The legislation created by the authors causes financial hardship,harm to the citizens .This is affecting your constituents who placed you into office..Do any of you have the fortitude to vote for pro gun bills and against anti gun bills..? That is your challenge..