I support HB1615

We respectfully ask you vote no on HB1922, HB1973 & HB2294 HB1973 & HB2294: No one in the hemp industry is opposed labeling, testing or packaging of products. We have met every new regulation in labeling and packaging as they have been introduced. In fact we welcome stricter regulations on labeling, testing & packaging as we believe it helps weed out bad actors. But both of these bills have a 2mg per package limit for ANY THC (even naturally occurring D9). The current limit of quantitation (LOQ) for modern testing is 0.01% or 0.1mg/g. That means that in a 20g or smaller package, detecting ANY THC would make the product marijuana. The purpose of these limits is to only allow hemp products that contain zero naturally occurring THC (even non-intoxicating levels). These mg caps will absolutely end every hemp retailer, processor, and farmer in Virginia. 1000s of living wage jobs will be lost. Millions of dollars in infrastructure will be auctioned off to neighboring states. Most Va hemp processors and retailers are not selling intoxicating products, even though their products contain low levels of THC (0.3%). NON-intoxicating hemp products with low levels of THC will still be widely available from out of state via the internet, but Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. The requirement of bittering agents in topicals is yet another blow to small hemp businesses. No one is going to buy topicals with unnecessary additives that are specifically made to be unpalatable. This will spell the literal end to all hemp topical manufacturing in Virginia. But, consumers will still be able to buy non-bittered topicals from out of state via the internet. Again, Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. On HB1922: Delta 8 THC is found naturally in Hemp biomass in small concentrations. This bill would make all Hemp and hemp products with small concentrations of naturally occurring Delta 8 THC illegal. Would the Hemp industry be forced to find cultivars that have non-detect concentrations of Delta 8 THC? This bill creates a number of legal question and problems for VCDACS and other stake holders. For this bill to not have unintended consequences it must call out an allowable percentage to include what's found naturally in hemp plants and products (<0.3%).
 There are a number of hemp derived, (federally legal) psychoactive chemicals that are not Delta 8 THC. This bill would have zero effect on the proliferation of these widely available chemicals. This bill would not have the intended effect of reducing psychoactive access or harm.

Delta-8 and other synthetic cannabinoids are not tested for potency, strength, or contamination. They are not safe for anyone, much less kids. Retailers are not being careful to sell only to ages over 21. High school kids easily obtain edibles and vapes. Small children can mistake the gummies for candy. The developing brains of our kids should be protected from these products. The availability of these products is a threat to safety in our families and our schools.

I support HB 1922. Delta-8 THC is much more dangerous than Delta-9 TCH due to its increased potency. Delta-8 and other synthetically produced cannabinoids are responsible for most of the accidental poisonings and emergency room visits attributable to vaping and edible cannabis. I do hope that HB 1922 can be amended to change Delta-8 to include synthetic intoxicating cannabinoids, as there are many synthetics that are as or more dangerous than delta-8, and new ones are also being developed. The needs of patients seeking medical cannabis can be met using the naturally occurring delta-9 form.

Comments Document

I echo Griffith: Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922

Greetings Delegates, The selected biils are Detrimental to the small farmers and retailers in the state of Virginia. As a member of the Virginia Hemp Coalition I ask that you vote no on these bills. Also add the Social Equity back to all of the cannabis legislation. Thanks for keeping Virginia first!!!! Sincerely, William Hill New Century Farmers Group

Delta 8 is a federally protected product as part of the 2018 Farm Bill per both a 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling (A. K. FUTURES LLC v. BOYD STREET DISTRO, LLC) and per a Kentucky court via (Kentucky Hemp Association, et al vs. Ryan Quarles, Kentucky Department of Agriculture). Virginia adults have the right to buy, sell, purchase, or possess Delta 8 products for themselves or their adult friends and to give the same to their adult friends. The politicization of this issue and product by people running for higher political office has been disgusting and unethical. The simple fact is that adults shouldnt give or allow children to have access to adult products. Don't let your children have access to alcohol or guns. And if they are little, don't leave them unattended in the bathtub or near a 5 gallon bucket with water in it. We don't ban cars simply because children die in car accidents every year. What we do instead is force parents and guardians to take sufficient measures to protect children from the dangers of vehicles, including penalties for not using car seats or seatbelts. We do not ban people from buying or possessing cars. This bill needs to die.

I oppose bills that restrict the re-emerging hemp wellness industry in favor of state-controlled medical / recreational cannabis industry. Bill's before this committee will allow the the government to choose out of state corporations as winners, at the expense of registered and federally compliant small hemp businesses. There is space in Virginia for industrial hemp, hemp extracts for wellness, and cannabis for medicine and recreation to coexist in Virginia. That space should allow small, medium, and large growers, producers, testers, and manufacturers to enter, without exorbitant entry and maintenance fees. Bad actors should be held accountable for irresponsibility marketed products, however, a whole legal hemp industry should not be criminalized and punished. There should not be new criminal penalties for hemp or cannabis products. There are current laws in place to deal with unscrupulous products. We should be researching and studying hemp and cannabis as alternatives to pharmaceuticals, educating, marketing and building safe access to hemp and cannabis products. We should include many Virginian workers and small businesses and create tax revenue for our Commonwealth.

Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922. Sincerely, Savana Griffith

Our kids are being harmed by delta-8 and other synthetic cannabinoids. They harm their brains and mental health. Young children are accidentally ingesting them as they look like candy and the kids are becoming very sick. They are available in edibles and vape cartridges that high school kids can easily obtain (and use undetected in school and at home). I am a former high school teacher and college instructor. These products are keeping us from developing the potential in our young people. I support HB 1922!

I am writing in support of HB 1922, but I do believe that it needs an amendment. I hope that the reference to delta-8 THC can be changed to include all synthetic intoxicating cannabinoids. I am a scientist and am aware that the potential for developing new types of synthetic cannabinoids is almost limitless. While delta-8 THC is clearly a more dangerous drug than the delta-9 THC found in the marijuana plant, there are other potentially more dangerous, high potency cannabinoids that manufacturers can substitute if delta-8 becomes illegal. A friend who is a therapist specializing in adolescence told me that he has worked with several teens who suffered brain damage from using K2, one of the most potent and potentially deadly cannabinoids. In the wake of the pandemic, the stress on our health care system has never been higher. We are in the midst of a mental and physical health crisis. Our health care system cannot support the additional stress from the huge surge in emergency room visits from synthetic cannabinoid poisoning. Furthermore, the lack of quality control in these products has allowed for other types of chemicals to poison consumers. Recently, a bad batch of THC that contained the rat poison, brodifacoum, resulted in the hospitalization of 52 people in Florida, 4 of whom died. This wasn't the first time brodifacoum had shown up in vaping and edible products containing THC. This problem has been ongoing in many states, including Virginia, over the last few years. I am appalled by how Virginia has been handling the sale of cannabis products. Synthetics are widely available, and most stores that sell them willingly sell to those under age 21. Even though this is illegal, the age restrictions are not being enforced. Cannabinoid use (synthetic and marijuana based) is a huge problem at my son's high school. Furthermore the products that look like foods have led to a huge number of accidental poisonings in people of all ages, including infants and toddlers. I am also concerned that we are not currently doing a good job at addressing driving under the influence of cannabinoids. There are some bills up for consideration to address this, but I strongly feel that these need to be implemented first, and that their effectiveness assessed for several years before cannabinoids of any kind should be legalized. I don't have much faith in the state's ability to regulate these products. I'm not sure why they were allowed on the shelves in the first place, but the safest thing we can do to protect our kids is to ban the sale of all synthetic intoxicating cannabinoids. Thank you for considering my concerns.

We respectfully ask you vote no on HB1922, HB1973 & HB2294 HB1973 & HB2294: No one in the hemp industry is opposed labeling, testing or packaging of products. We have met every new regulation in labeling and packaging as they have been introduced. In fact we welcome stricter regulations on labeling, testing & packaging as we believe it helps weed out bad actors. But both of these bills have a 2mg per package limit for ANY THC (even naturally occurring D9). The current limit of quantitation (LOQ) for modern testing is 0.01% or 0.1mg/g. That means that in a 20g or smaller package, detecting ANY THC would make the product marijuana. The purpose of these limits is to only allow hemp products that contain zero naturally occurring THC (even non-intoxicating levels). These mg caps will absolutely end every hemp retailer, processor, and farmer in Virginia. 1000s of living wage jobs will be lost. Millions of dollars in infrastructure will be auctioned off to neighboring states. Most Va hemp processors and retailers are not selling intoxicating products, even though their products contain low levels of THC (0.3%). NON-intoxicating hemp products with low levels of THC will still be widely available from out of state via the internet, but Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. The requirement of bittering agents in topicals is yet another blow to small hemp businesses. No one is going to buy topicals with unnecessary additives that are specifically made to be unpalatable. This will spell the literal end to all hemp topical manufacturing in Virginia. But, consumers will still be able to buy non-bittered topicals from out of state via the internet. Again, Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. On HB1922: Delta 8 THC is found naturally in Hemp biomass in small concentrations. This bill would make all Hemp and hemp products with small concentrations of naturally occurring Delta 8 THC illegal. Would the Hemp industry be forced to find cultivars that have non-detect concentrations of Delta 8 THC? This bill creates a number of legal question and problems for VCDACS and other stake holders. For this bill to not have unintended consequences it must call out an allowable percentage to include what's found naturally in hemp plants and products (<0.3%).
 There are a number of hemp derived, (federally legal) psychoactive chemicals that are not Delta 8 THC. This bill would have zero effect on the proliferation of these widely available chemicals. This bill would not have the intended effect of reducing psychoactive access or harm.

Comments Document

I echo Griffith: Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922

This is an outrageously egregious bill that would attempt to put the entire hemp industry in Virginia out of business for the benefit of the medical cannabis monopolies. A $1000 annual retail sales license PER LOCATION for products whose competitors are bought on Amazon does nothing but punish Virginia farmers for attempting to do business in Virginia. There are hundreds of small businesses in Virginia who do less than $2000 in gross annual sales of hemp and cbd products, but make up large portions of small Virginia hemp farmers' businesses. These people would immediately be forced to stop selling locally produced and VDACS regulated cbd products. Perhaps that is what the medical cannabis monopolies wanted when they donated $3500 to Del. Leftwich last year, per VPAP.org. A $10,000/day civil fine for not having said sales licese is a violation of the 8th Amendment, and a Class 1 Misdemeanor/day for not having said sales license is an outrageous money grab and extortion attempt against Virginia business owners. VDACS and Virginia have an agreement with USDA regarding the Farm Bill & Industrial Hemp and federally protected hemp products like CBD, and this bill would absolutely violate that agreement. Forcing product manufacturers to put ALL cannabinoids on the label is a scientific impossibility as more are discovered every day. Additionally, the testing costs once protocols were discovered for the new cannabinoids would be entirely cost prohibitive. Product labels would be out of date the moment they were printed. VDACS ALREADY has testing standards in place for the cannabinoids that are advertised on a product. Those are working just fine. If a product doesnt have those, then go after them. All this bill will do is destroy small businesses, push millions of dollars in business out of the state, and force people to get the same cbd products online, out of state, that they were getting from their trusted local farmers at their trusted local store, manufactured under VDACS quite capable current standards. This bill is an unethical power and money grab by deep pocketed out of state interests and needs to die.

Greetings Delegates, The selected biils are Detrimental to the small farmers and retailers in the state of Virginia. As a member of the Virginia Hemp Coalition I ask that you vote no on these bills. Also add the Social Equity back to all of the cannabis legislation. Thanks for keeping Virginia first!!!! Sincerely, William Hill New Century Farmers Group

I sent the committee an email about this early this morning.

I oppose bills that restrict the re-emerging hemp wellness industry in favor of state-controlled medical / recreational cannabis industry. Bill's before this committee will allow the the government to choose out of state corporations as winners, at the expense of registered and federally compliant small hemp businesses. There is space in Virginia for industrial hemp, hemp extracts for wellness, and cannabis for medicine and recreation to coexist in Virginia. That space should allow small, medium, and large growers, producers, testers, and manufacturers to enter, without exorbitant entry and maintenance fees. Bad actors should be held accountable for irresponsibility marketed products, however, a whole legal hemp industry should not be criminalized and punished. There should not be new criminal penalties for hemp or cannabis products. There are current laws in place to deal with unscrupulous products. We should be researching and studying hemp and cannabis as alternatives to pharmaceuticals, educating, marketing and building safe access to hemp and cannabis products. We should include many Virginian workers and small businesses and create tax revenue for our Commonwealth.

Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922. Sincerely, Savana Griffith

I'm a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill.

I'm a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill.

Full support. It’s beyond time this bill was passed.

Regarding. HB-2141: Accountability, or lack there of, has the greatest impact on our society and individual ability to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you want the freedom to drive, get married, own a business, have children, get medical care, etc there are reasonable expectations for accountability, both societal and legal. How have guns become the thing that absolves accountability just by waving a copy of the 2nd amendment around? It’s time for Virginia and Henrico county to take a stand and say we care about our citizens more than our guns. We care about teachers not being shot by a 6 year old student during class. We care about girls walking home from school not being shot by a 14 year old. When will the adults do the right thing? When the lawmakers do the right thing and pass legislation that holds adults accountable when these tragedies happen. Thank you for your time.

This is a commonsense law that would encourage best practices by gun owners. Our community was rocked by the tragic death of Lucia Bremer. As we recover from this horror, we are looking for positive steps that might prevent another horrible act of violence. I urge Virginia legislators to pass this law.

Honorable Delegates. I strongly support HB2141. As a parent and grandparent living in a household that owns guns it is the responsibility of the owners to guarantee that all firearms are securely stored without access to a minor. Therefore, the owner of the firearm should be held liable in the event that the weapon is used by a minor in committing a crime or act of violence.

I wholeheartedly support the bill that would bring criminal charges to adults who refuse to safely secure firearms in their homes. When children have access to guns, the adults in their lives need to be held accountable. Enacting this legislation would set an important tone for our Commonwealth and our country. Virginia should lead the way by passing this bill.

Please PLEASE put this bill in force ASAP.. HB 2141 Our sweet neighbor Lucia Bremer and former classmate of my daughter , was murdered walking back on a path by Godwin High School in the Gayton Forest neighborhood .. A quiet friendly neighborhood located in the west end of Richmond. This beautiful young lady was killed by a young man who lived in the neighborhood. Her murderer had many issues with the law ,and had been in and out of hospitals . To have a firearm accessible to a minor especially when when the minor had so many issues with the law and mental issues, it is beyond comprehensible .. To not have this firearm locked up from the minor or any youngster is a CRIME!! The adult was negligent . If you can possess a firearm and cannot control it or keep away from a minor , you should not own one.. If the minor takes possession of this weapon and hurts or kills someone, the adult is just as responsible for the incident and or murder as the murderer himself. It is mind boggling that this is just coming up.. This should be an agreement when an adult takes possession of the firearm. Please PLEASE approve this bill.. Thank you !!

T

I strongly support holding gun owners responsible for the misuse of their weapons by a minor. My future vote for my legislator will depend on whether they support this bill.

I wish to express my wholehearted support for holding gun owners legally responsible for the secure storage of their fire arms. Please save lives by passing this reasonable gun law. You'd like to think it would never happen but the next victim could be someone you love.

As we are seeing more and more gun violence in our schools, in our neighborhoods, and in other public spaces, Virginia needs to do more to keep our citizens safe. One key way is to make sure that children do not have access to firearms without the competent supervision of an adult in a controlled environment (hunting, target shooting). To date, Virginia's efforts in this area have been woefully inadequate, resulting in too many deaths and injuries affecting too many families. It is incumbent upon adults to take responsibility to secure weapons. And, if they do not, there must be real consequences. The infliction of injury by a child with a firearm is evidence, in and of itself, that a weapon was not stored safely. I hope that this committee, and the General Assembly as a whole, will look at the families who have been tragically affected by gun violence inflicted by a child with a gun and decide that enough is enough. The time for inaction has long since passed.

I completely support strengthening the penalty for gun owners who fail to secure their legally purchased firearms which are then used in a crime. I also believe it should be a prima facie case that defendant must overcome if the gun was not secured properly if it is proven that the gun was used by a minor, or another household resident, during the commission of a crime. We have too many school shootings, incidents where minors bring guns to schools and other public places, and other shootings committed by minors using guns they "find" in their homes that are not secured. This is not a 2nd amendment restriction, this is responsible citizenship. We dont leave other dangerous objects around for our children to have unfettered access and neither should we tolerate irresponsible gun ownership. Lucia Bremer's death was preventable, but even if that tragedy had not occurred, we only need to look at the teacher shooting in Newport News at Richland Elementary, or the gun seized at Henrico's Holman middle school in January of 2023, or the incident regarding a gun and ammo seized from a student at Henrico's Mills Godwin High in February 2022 to know we have to do more to convince people to be responsible gun owners.

Concerning HB2141 the first of many steps toward improvement in our gun laws is the accountability that must initiate with gun sellers and owners. Had the owner of the gun used to murder Lucia W. Bremer secured their weapon, this young girl Lucia Bremer would still be alive today, thriving, having the chance to go to high school and to grow up and be the incredible adult she was meant to become. There has to be a line drawn definitively on gun ownership, responsibility and accountability; without clear consequences for negligence of gun safety, we are only putting more people at risk each day as we allow this horrific trend to continue in our hometowns and states throughout the country. As a 1st world country whith the potential to do what is right and set a positive example for the world, it is clear and indisputable that the USA needs to step up to being true leaders, who are humane, who show respect for its citizens by showing our intollerance for any lack of adherence to strict gun control laws and accountability. We cannot continue to be known as the massacre- ridden country that we have become known for due to rampant gun violence on innocent civilians. Our communities remain at high risk each moment we allow this destructive behavior to continue. We have already lost too many lives to not make radical changes across our country, starting with our own state here in Virginia.

We have ample, undeniable evidence that children and teens are safer when guns are stored securely, yet irresponsible gun owners are not always held accountable when a minor access their guns. Expecting children to face the consequences of adults not securing their weapons properly is a policy failure. Research shows that child access prevention laws are more effective when they cover all minors up to age 18, and strengthening this law will reduce unintentional shootings and firearm deaths.

March 26, 2021 was a beautiful day. There were many families at Godwin exercising and riding bikes. Parents helping kids to learn how to ride a bike. And then 2 girls were followed home from Godwin by Dylan Williams, a middle school student. He just wanted to kill someone that day. What happened to Lucia Bremer and her friend could have happened to any of us. I am writing in support of the safe storage gun bill. Lucia was shot 9 times by someone she didn’t know. Her killer also attempted to kill her friend after they played soccer on Godwin’s field. If the gun that the minor had access to that day had been properly and securley stored, Lucia would be with us today. She’d be a sophomore in high school starting to think about where she might want to apply for college. Lucia would be a soccer player. She would be learning to drive and going to watch high school games with her friends. Lucia’s death was horrific and unimaginable. There is no impingement on a constitutional right to require safe storage of guns so that children don’t harm innocent people. Yet what happened to Lucia wasn’t an isolated incident. A student brought a gun to Holman Middle School several weeks ago. In Newport News, a six year old brought a gun to school, told other students about it, and then shot his teacher. This gun and its ammunition were not secured. We know that gun was not properly secured because that child brought it to school on a school bus. There are no reported calls to the school to tell the school that a gun was missing. We cannot count on parents or guardians to make the right decisions and secure their weapons. It’s far past the time to make irresponsible parents and guardians responsible for their poor decisions.

If you take on the responsibility of owning a deadly weapon, you should also take on the responsibility of storing that deadly weapon properly. Children should absolutely, under no circumstances, be able to access a firearm. Yet, we have seen in our state of Virginia that children do have this access in some circumstances. This is reprehensible. And unacceptable. This is a common sense measure that should be passed without question. Thank you.

Honorable Delegates: I write to support HB 2141. The thrust of this bill requires gun owners ( of which i am one) to do nothing more than exercise reasonable care regarding their weapons. The greater the danger, the higher the duty of care that should be required regarding ownership or possession of such instrumentalities. John Eppler 5220 Studeley Ave. Norfolk, VA 23508

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. In all instances, parents or guardians of minors should be held responsible for their behavior. We have a societal problem when it comes to accountability and this is leading to increased crime and violence in our communities. Children do not have the judgement that it requires to operate weapons safely, and therefore if weapons get into the hands of minors the adult responsible for not securing that device should be held responsible. This is the only way that our communities can be kept safe from the recent acts of violence we are plagued with nationwide.

I strongly support this bill to hold gun owners responsible for keep their guns out of the hands of minors.

Parents can’t be held responsible in all of the behaviors of their children. However, if there’s a gun in the house, that ends. If the parents aren’t responsible enough to keep that gun LOCKED AT ALL TIMES, it is their fault if something happens. 100%. They are completely to blame. It’s THEIR fault more than the child’s.

I strongly support holding gun owners accountable for keeping their firearms out of the hands of minors. This is just plain common sense. If a gun that was supposed to be inaccessible to a minor is then used by a minor to commit a crime, then by definition it was accessible. That gun owner failed, and that gun owner should be held accountable for the crime committed. I am a lifelong mostly conservative voter (until recent years), and there is no issue more important to me right now than gun safety. The gun violence has got to stop. From the teacher in Newport News to my neighbors the Bremers who will always grieve the loss of their precious daughter Lucia, we have to do better as a society. I grieve with them. Passing this bill is a good step and the right thing to do. It has my unqualified support.

My name is Jonathan Bremer. I am a farmer and I grow produce in Louisa County. My wife, my children, and I live in a comfortable and safe neighborhood in Henrico County in the west end of Richmond. Like most parents, we have taught our children to love their country, to believe in their community, and to strive to do the right thing. If you would’ve told me two years ago that I would be speaking in front of elected officials about gun legislation, I wouldn’t have been able to fathom that. But, I find myself here because I love my daughter Lucia. On March 26, 2021, thirteen year old Lucia was murdered in our neighborhood. In our quiet, comfortable, and safe neighborhood. She was followed off school property and was shot & killed while walking home on a Friday afternoon just after having played soccer with her friends. At the time, the idea that Lucia, our Lucia, had been murdered in our neighborhood was simply incomprehensible. The day after her murder, we learned that her killer had been arrested, that he was 14 years old, that the murder weapon was a handgun that had been stored in his home, and that he had shot her at close range at least 9 times. Upon hearing this information, our hearts sank further. Our minds went immediately to the idea that the adults in this boy’s life had made a serious miscalculation. And we were proven right: we later learned that her killer had displayed dangerous and escalating behavior for years, that he had been charged with felonies and hospitalized multiple times after violent and disturbing episodes, and that he had been the subject of a school-initiated threat assessment. And yet, his guardian had made a choice to keep a weapon, under-secured, in their home. Since Lucia’s murder, our community has supported us in incredible ways. They share their memories of our special daughter, they show up on hard days, and some of them even have the strength to ask me about the criminal aspect of her death. The comment I hear over and over is “So, what’s happening with the gun owner? Is he going to jail too?” And I share with them that the gun owner does not seem to have broken any laws. Each time I share that piece of information, it is just as shocking to them as it was to me and my wife the first time we heard it. And that is why I am speaking in support of HB 2141 today. Simply put, this bill puts into law what most citizens of Virginia assume the law already says-- that there are criminal consequences should a minor gain access to your firearm and commit a crime or cause harm. Responsible gun owners already take steps to ensure that their firearms will not be used inappropriately. This legislation would compel gun owners whose firearms are under secured to reevaluate how their firearms are used and stored and make appropriate changes. HB 2141 would make Virginians safer. This bill deserves further consideration. I ask that you vote to move it forward so that it can be considered by the full House of Delegates. Our children are watching.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. It is important that firearms are not accessible to minors and should be properly and safely secured. When gun owners do not take the necessary steps to secure their firearms, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. The consequence should be even greater if the owner of the firearm knows that the minor has a history of violence, trauma, or concerns of safety are noted either by school, medical team, or community supports. There needs to be accountability by the gun owners. We support Virginia HB 2141.

My family supports this bill to prevent more deaths from irresponsible people. I lost a friend in 5th grade, our 13 yr old neighbor, a 17yr old employee, and now the Newport News teacher. People need to be held responsible for their weapons. If I can easily lock mine up then they can to. Pass this bill to help protect the future of my 5 & 7 yr old and everyone else.

Owners of firearms are responsible for the safe handling and storage of their firearm. If their firearm is used by a minor in the commission of a crime, the owner of the firearm must bear some degree of responsibility.

I fully support this bill. It is common sense to keep guns out of the hands of minors in the same way we keep medicines and poisons out of the reach of children. Adults who choose to own a lethal weapon must be held accountable and accept the responsibility of protecting children. It is the right thing to do.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. I support HB 2141.

The senseless murder of my cousin Lucia Bremer could have been prevented if the gun was not in reach of a minor. My family is forever broken because a gun owner did not take the proper steps of locking up his firearm. Then was let off with a mear slap on the wrist. Because of him the world lost a beautiful person. Please make our community a safer place for our children.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. I support HB 2141.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. I support HB 2141.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. I support HB 2141.

We need to take action to reduce the ability for our minors to get access to firearms. Holding gun owners accountable to keep firearms out of the hands of minors is a no regrets, logical first step. It is our job as parents, legislators and community members to stop the senseless loss of life of our children because a gun owner didn’t take the proper steps to prevent a minor from taking the firearm into their possession. The law is needed so that no parent or family has to experience the unfathomable— losing their child to gun violence, or losing their child who made the choice to pick up and use the firearm. We need legislation like this to enable a safer environment where our children can go to school, participate in their community and walk their neighborhood without fear or anxiety that they could be harmed by a peer. Please vote to pass this legislation because our children matter and we are responsible to do everything we can to keep them safe.

Responsible gun owners know they need to take steps to keep their firearms out of the hands of minors. When gun owners do not take those steps, and if a crime is committed, they should be held accountable. I support HB 2141.

I am writing to show support for HB 2141: relating to the use of a firearm by a minor in the commission of a crime. I am particularly in support of holding adults (whether a parent or guardian) accountable when a minor has access to the adult's weapon that is then used in commission of a crime. The mental health issues are youth are experiencing are unprecendented and often these issues are left untreated. This is particularly concerning when children have involvement with mental health providers/law enforcement and the adult continues to have weapons in the home that could potentially be accessible (having the weapon "secured" has proven to not be enough).

As an educator and a citizen who knew a minor that died by suicide using the gun bought legally in the household, I support Bill 2141. If we are going to continue to allow a free for all on guns in this state, we should hold gun owners to the highest of expectations, especially when considering the safety of our children., whose brains are not fully formed to know the full repercussions of their actions. No child should have access to a gun in the home, even those used for hunting. (Children should only have access when they are hunting and directly supervised by the adult. ) In addition to the bill as it stands, I support revising the wording to include raising the penalty to a class 5 felony when the adult in the household has been given any warning (not just those through a threat assessment) that the minor in question is a danger to themself or others.

I support VanValkenburg's bill. Gun owners should be responsible for ensuring that the firearms they purchase are safely stored when not in use.

Gun owners have a responsibility to maintain safety. They should be held accountable if their weapon is not secured and used inappropriately. Lucia Bremer’s life was ended with the use of a weapon in home of a minor. While the gun was locked, the key was accessible. The adult was not charged. This measure is part of needed change in our society.

I am writing in support of HB 2141 and it’s attempt to make adult gun owners accountable for their weapons. As a close family friend of Lucia Bremer, a 13 year girl who was killed by gun violence, it is my duty to honor her memory and support and advocate for smarter and safer gun laws. It has become far too common for guns to end up on the hands of minors and it continues to have devastating consequences. This proposal is a small step forward to make gun owners more aware and responsible. Any rational gun owner should be more than willing to agree to make their weapons safer and remain out of reach of children. If they fail to do so, there most certainly should be consequences. Perhaps this will prevent a gun from getting in to there wrong hands and prevent another family and community from mourning the loss of a beautiful young soul. Please support this bill.

Responsibility and gun ownership go hand in hand. Please support this bill and help end innocent lives being taken too soon. Lucia paid the cost of pure negligence. We can do better , so let’s do it!!

I am in full support of this bill, as a mom of two there is literally nothing more important than my children. If you choose to utilize your right to own a gun, then you MUST take the steps necessary to keep others safe. It’s simple, and should seem reasonable to anyone that is a responsible gun owner. Do your part, keep others safe. That’s the purpose of owning the gun in the first place, right???

I support gun storage legislation that will encourage gun owners to store their weapons and ammunition safely and punish gun owners who do not follow guidelines for safe storage. We owe it to all families and especially families who have lost loved ones to preventable gun violence and suicide to take any step we can to help gun owners store their guns safely and separate from ammunition. Please support HB2141

Gun owners who do not take appropriate measures to secure firearms and a crime is committed by a minor with that firearm should be held accountable for those crimes.

As a mother of two who has children in school and worries daily about their safety and has a daughter who’s friend was murdered after being shot 9 times with a gun that was not properly stored, I whole heartedly support this bill.

I am in full support of this bill I feel parents or guardians should be held responsible should these actions occur.

I wholeheartedly support bill 2141. Owners of guns need to be held responsible and be held accountable for actions with their guns. Gun owners need to secure their guns and make certain minors are not able to get access to their gun!

In the absence of common sense gun ownership, there must be common sense gun laws placed upon those who decide to become gun owners. When a person legally and lawfully owns a firearm, they should be held adequately responsible for the harm that is caused when a minor gets access to that firearm and commits a crime. This is common sense. It’s not taking away anyone’s right to possess their guns. But it does place responsibility where it needs to be placed. Gun owners should be securing their weapons so that minors or those untrained in the use of the firearm cannot access it. In the case of my niece, the gun used to kill her was not locked up in the appropriate manner. The gun owner suffered few consequences. The fact that his ward easily gained access to the weapon and killed an innocent young woman is one thing. One terrible thing. But the second fact that the gun owner is not found guilty of a felony and enjoys his freedom and his guns to this day is reprehensible. I urge you to accept this bill. I plead with you to pass this measure and place responsibility where it needs to placed.

I think it’s incredibly important to keep everyone safe. I’f we require guns to be locked up then everyone that doesn’t know how to use them responsibly can not have access to them. It’s a simple and necessary concept. This is why I support this bill. Only licensed gun owners should have access to their guns and should be required to lock them up.

I stand in solidarity with the Bremer Family and all victims of gun violence who wish to see an eradication of senseless gun deaths via legislation which holds gun owners accountable should their negligence lead to tragic ends. What happened to Lucia, and what happens almost daily all over this country, can be stopped. Will you be on the right side of this fight?

I strongly urge our legislators to make this law. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for our children and teens. Inaction is not an option, we must place accountability at the feet of the adult gun owners who do not prevent children from accessing weapons.

Gun ownership means being responsible, and if you cannot take the responsibility for keeping your firearm out of the hands of a minor you should be held criminally responsible for any outcome.

At the end of the day if we do not find common ground and reasonable measures to ensure the safety of our citizens we risk loosing our right to bear arms. Please be a part of the solution to provide adequate responsibility to gun ownership and keep your guns using every precaution that they cannot fall into others hands. Why would anyone not want to promote gun safety and the responsibility that comes with ownership. Our granddaughter was killed due to the lack of responsibility of a gun owner So we have lost a precious life and the killer has been lost to incarceration. The owner continues to enjoy his freedom and right to bear arms. He does not have to apply any responsibility to his ownership and is allowed to continue to abuse his freedom and the right to bear arms.

Too many children have access to unsecured guns and it is detrimental to our society. My children (aged 10- 17) go to school daily with anxiety wondering if today will be the day that another student at their school will have a gun and which of their friends (or them) will be the victim this time. Citizens are held accountable for infractions that do not result in harm or death, and it is sickening that there is no accountability for responsible gun ownership. Gun ownership is not in question, but owning a gun comes with responsibility, just as obtaining a driver’s license comes with responsibility and accountability. It is time for common sense to prevail with regards to guns ownership. I fully support HB2141.

It is critical to prevent access of firearms by minors. It is the responsibility of adults to make sure access is prevented, and stronger consequences for violations of proper storage is necessary in our state. Please support this bill.

I'm a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill.

Please Vote YES on HB2252. This makes the Magistrate system more responsive for training and accountability. Having had a few encounters with Magistrates on behalf of accused individuals with special needs, the system lacks any sort of document tracking system (they do not keep records). this will allow for the legal oversight of a key entry piece into the justice system.

Please vote "YES" on HB2259. This bill is reasonable, rational, and necessary legislation to help put a stop to the prevalence of paternity fraud cases in Virginia. The issue of paternity fraud is not new, and not difficult to detect and prevent, yet legislation has failed to help put an end to the injustice. This bill is the legislation needed to deter persons from making knowingly false statements. And with DNA tests available for less than $100, an alleged father of a child should, at minimum, be given the opportunity to request the administering of this inexpensive, conclusive test. Historically, injustices occurred because there simply wasn’t the science to support or deny the claim of paternity, but in the year 2023 there is no longer an excuse for paternity injustice. Family Reunion is a national, non-profit organization that works with lawmakers, existing organizations, and experts dedicated to making much-needed changes to the family court system so the best interests of children can be supported. We focus on positively influencing family laws and policies that often discount one parent and ultimately harm the children.

I am Lawrence Diehl, attorney who has practiced family law for 48 years and for around 20 years served on the Child Support Quadrennial Review Committee, serving for some years with Del. Leftwich. I oppose hb2290 for the following reasons: 1. We already passed last year Code sec. 20-108.2(D1) which sufficiently protects a birth mother for the recovery of pregnancy expenses. We don’t need this bill 2. Child support by statute and years of case law cannot be ordered retroactively prior to the “filing” of a petition for child support. See 20-108.1(B) This bill is inconsistent with our decades of law and attempts to permit support PRIOR to the date of filing- back to the date of conception. 20-108.1(B) prohibits this- it just can’t be done by law. 3. Paying bereavement costs and wage reimbursements to a mother based on % of TOTAL wages based on guideline %s as now amended - still is a de facto spousal support payment - payments not limited to just a child support computation but based on GROSS wages. These payments between unmarried parties for the benefit of the mother since this is for her above child support- is in substance in the form of spousal support. This has never been permitted in the history of Virginia law unless parties are married. By allowing such support this will be, for the first time in Virginia history - support for an adult by unmarried parties- again, clearly in the nature of spousal support. This could reverse decades of Virginia law on this issue contradicting our public policy of only permitting such support between married parties. 4. The implementation of the bill will be inconsistent between court ordered support and the voluminous administrative orders issued by the DCSE. I have spoken with Craig Burshem of DSS and he indicates DCSE workers, many of whom are not attorneys, would not be considering the expenses provided by this bill/ they will only be doing the basic guideline calculation That is not fair. There should not be two separate standards used- one by a judge in court and one by the DCSE. The inconsistency of results in child support orders this bill would create is unfair. 5. This bill is actually a back door effort by the administration to declare a fetus as a person or child. The award of support to a fetus from date of conception raises serious constitutional issues of when life begins. And if pregnancy expenses can already be awarded now per our statute passed last year, what extra expenses are needed by a fetus? Why is “child” support even needed for fetus when a fetus does not need clothes, food, educational costs- none of the elements for which child support is based. Clearly this bill is a very veiled attempt to provide precedence to declare a fetus as an actual person being a “child”. Virginia should categorically reject such an attempt. I ask that hb2290 be defeated. Thank you and if anyone needs to call me on this - my cell phone is 804-763-9631.

HB 2290 contains some very weird provisions. For example, some parents would have to pay more than their entire income in child support. If the father is making the minimum wage and the mother is unemployed, he would have to pay her for "paid maternity leave" at "the minimum wage if the mother is unemployed." So he would be paying her for family leave at the same wage he himself is getting. He would have to do that while also paying other forms of child support as well: He would also have to pay her nine months retroactive child support based on his monthly income, back to the "date of conception," in addition to "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and pay current child support based on his monthly income, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-108.2(B), and also for various other expenses, see, e.g., Va. Code § 20-108.2(E). (The original version of the bill required the "legal father" to pay "least 50 percent" of all these expenses, but the revised bill apparently mandates payment "in proportion to the parents' gross incomes," which would mean the father would bear 100% of the expenses in this example). Such a requirement will backfire and harm custodial parents. When fathers are ordered to pay obviously unpayable amounts, they give up, and pay less, resulting in custodial parents getting less, according to child support officials. See Office of Child Support Enforcement, Family and State Benefits of Debt Compromise, August 18, 2022 (available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/family-and-state-benefits-debt-compromise) ("Parents who owe large child support debts are more likely to become discouraged and leave formal employment, further compromising their ability to support their children. This is partly because up to 65 percent of disposable income can be withheld from the paychecks of nonresident parents owing arrears...This high withholding rate can have the unintended effect of pushing low-wage parents out of a job, because the remaining paycheck is often too little to survive on. Child support debt can lead to increased job-hopping, participation in the underground economy, and generation of illegal income as parents try to support themselves and their children and avoid the child support program."); Yvonne Wenger, Maryland Should Overhaul Child Support System and How Payments Are Set, Abell Foundation Says, Baltimore Sun, June 18, 2019 (citing a study, and quoting a former federal child-support chief and a women's advocate) . The bill would also require many fathers to bear more than the actual costs of the child, further increasing the risk that they will be unable to pay. The father would have to pay both "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and 9 months retroactive monthly child support based on his income back to the "date of conception." But the only actual child-related expenses during pregnancy are for "pregnancy" and "delivery," so for the bill to also require monthly child support under Va. Code § 20-108.2(B) back to the "date of conception" results in the father having to pay twice for the same expenses, once as "pregnancy" and "delivery" expenses, and then again as retroactive monthly child support.

Please vote NO on HB2290, which contains extreme provisions.

We completely favor a robust child support program, but we fear that HB 2290 will harm rather than help children. In Virginia, as in most other states, massive uncollectible arrearages have accumulated because a “more is better” impulse has imposed unsustainably high burdens on child support obligors. See, e.g., the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) guidance at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/family-and-state-benefits-debt-compromise and the report by Vicky Turetsky, former head of OCSE at https://abell.org/publication/reforming-child-support/. Excessive child support obligations lead to defaults which lead to sanctions like loss of driver’s licenses which lead to loss of employment which leads to even less ability to pay and destroys the relationship between parent and child. HB 2290, we are sure, is offered with good intentions, but it is solely a “more is better” proposal with absolutely no analysis of its impact on ability to pay. Payment of pregnancy expenses is mandated without reference to availability of medical insurance. HB 2290 even demands reimbursement to the government if government funds helped pay for the pregnancy. HB 2290 also mandates payment of maternity leave. HB 2290 also mandates payment of child support from the date of conception before there is a born child in need of support which is a pure “double-dipping” on top of the payment of pregnancy expenses. HB 2290 also mandates payment of bereavement leave. All of these are on top of the existing child support obligations in Virginia which already cause the massive accumulation of uncollectible arrearages as described above and at the links provided. HB 2290 will cause severe disruption to thousands of families by imposing impossible burdens and magnifying the negative consequences of a system that already generates uncollectible arrearages by imposing unsustainably high burdens on obligors. Respectfully submitted, S. Horning For The Boys Initiative

*Please ignore my initial comment and instead refer to this corrected version This bill is discriminatory, unfair, biased, and should go no further than this subcommittee. This bill is badly drafted and not written in a gender-neutral fashion. The existing child support guidelines are gender-neutral, and don't single out "the legal father.” But this bill allows a second parent to avoid responsibility, unless the second parent is a man. Sometimes a child has two mothers, yet this bill does not take that into consideration. The bill states “in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father.” This means “the legal father” is required to pay support for prenatal periods, and at least 50 percent of paid leave, but a second mother never does, even if that mother was directly involved in the conception of the child. The bill makes "the legal father" pay for "at least 50 percent" of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law. The mother is already getting paid maternity leave. That is unfair. Why should an unmarried father have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing? A married father has no such responsibility. Whether married or unmarried, a father is a father and should have equal rights. There should not be discrimination against an unmarried father, which this bill allows for.

HB 2290 appears to result in double-dipping of expenses, resulting in an unfair windfall to the mother at the expense of the father. The mother could get paid twice for the same pregnancy-related expenses, or get paid for both daycare and family leave at the very same time. It also contains gender-based double standards. Va. Code 20-108.2(D)(1) already awards child support for "unpaid expenses of the mother's pregnancy and the delivery of such child." But the bill uses the existence of those same pregnancy expenses to make "the legal father" pay monthly child support for all 9 months of pregnancy, all the way back to the "date of conception," on top of any expenses awarded under Va. Code 20-108.2(D)(1) or elsewhere. Existing law already awards child support for daycare expenses (Va. Code 20-108.2(F)). But the bill would let mothers collect child support for a monetary value "equivalent" to 60 business days of family leave, even if they aren't taking leave, but are working, and as a result, the father has been ordered to pay daycare expenses. So a mother could collect both daycare expenses for the infant, and the value of the family leave she isn't even taking. It could also result in fathers being ordered to pay for the value of family leave the mother will never take and doesn't need, such as where the father or others are caring for the child. The comment by Family Reunion is right to say that "The bill makes 'the legal father' pay for 'at least 50 percent' of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law." (Family Reunion might be mistaken, though, to say mother can collect both from the "employer and...from the legal father," because the bill has language later on about things "already .... reimbursed by an employer." But it's not clear, because that language follows the requirement to pay monthly child support from "the date of conception" under Va. Code 20-108.2, rather than the earlier requirement to award family leave expenses. As Family Reunion points out, this is a "badly-drafted bill"). As another comment rightly points out, this bill "would also create a family leave obligation for only fathers, not mothers. It would create big uncollectible child-support arrearages, and also be unfair to fathers by making them pay for the value of family leave the mother isn't even taking, and pay for the value of family leave even when the mother isn't losing a dime of income, and pay for the value of family leave even when the father is raising the kid. It would lead to huge retroactive child support arrearages by ordering child support back to 'the date of conception.' Fathers would suddenly become liable for 9 months extra child support during pregnancy. Not even states that are pro-life or restrict abortion do this, because [monthly] child support isn't designed for prenatal expenses," but rather is "based on the estimated cost of raising kids who are already born."

This bill is discriminatory, unfair, biased, and should go no further than this subcommittee. This bill is badly drafted and not written in a gender-neutral fashion. The existing child support guidelines are gender-neutral, and don't single out "the legal father.” But this bill allows a second parent to avoid responsibility, unless the second parent is a man. Sometimes a child has two mothers, yet this bill does not take that into consideration. The bill states “in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father.” This means “the legal father” is required to pay support for prenatal periods, and at least 50 percent of paid leave, but a second mother never does, even if that mother was directly involved in the conception of the child. The bill makes "the legal father" pay for "at least 50 percent" of the equivalent of 60 business days paid leave to the mother even when (1) the mother isn't taking any leave from her job, and/or (2) the father plays an equal or greater role in raising the child (such as if father is on leave or can work from home), and/or (3) the mother was unemployed, and thus is not on leave from any job, and thus isn't losing any income, or (4) the father makes far less than the mother. And this is on top of any child support the father would owe under existing law. The mother is already getting paid maternity leave. This is like double-dipping--first from her employer and second from the legal father. That is unfair. Why should an unmarried father have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing? A married father has no such responsibility. Whether married or unmarried, a father is a father and should have equal rights. There should not be discrimination against an unmarried father, which this bill allows for.

Please vote NO on HB 2290, a badly-worded bill that imposes child support from "the date of conception" and would also create a family leave obligation for only fathers, not mothers. It would create big uncollectible child-support arrearages, and also be unfair to fathers by making them pay for the value of family leave the mother isn't even taking, and pay for the value of family leave even when the mother isn't losing a dime of income, and pay for the value of family leave even when the father is raising the kid. It would lead to huge retroactive child support arrearages by ordering child support back to "the date of conception." Fathers would suddenly become liable for 9 months extra child support during pregnancy. Not even states that are pro-life or restrict abortion do this, because child support isn't designed for prenatal expenses. State child-support guidelines are based on the estimated cost of raising kids who are already born. Many parents simply could not afford to pay nine additional months of retroactive child support, which would be thousands of dollars they would suddenly owe on top of, and in addition to, the thousands of dollars they already need to pay in child support under existing law. The bill is also unfair, because it orders fathers to pay the mother the value of 60 business days of family leave even if the father is taking care of the kid, or the mother isn't on family leave, or won't use the money for family leave, or the father is poorer than the mother. HB 2290 requires "the legal father" to pay "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave," but that is not the actual cost of leave to the mother, or the amount of leave she is actually using. Instead, "'Paid maternity leave' means the equivalent of 60 business days at the mother's hourly wage if the mother is employed, or the minimum wage if the mother is unemployed, for eight hours per day for a total of 480 hours." So even if the father is taking care of the kid, he can be ordered to pay the mother the value of maternity leave, even if she is not paying any costs, and maybe even if she wouldn't take maternity leave even given the opportunity. For example, the mother gets to collect the value of paid maternity leave, even if she isn't taking leave, because she was unemployed and thus isn't losing income. Sometimes, it is the dad who is responsible for much of the child care of an infant, like when he can work from home or has access to family leave from his employer. When that's true, it's wrong to order him to pay the mother for paid maternity leave. That's especially true when the mother isn't on leave from a job, such as if she is unemployed for reasons unrelated to childbirth, and is being supported by well-to-do family members. Or if she wouldn't take leave anyway, such as for reasons of career advancement. If a new mother has daycare expenses from working after giving birth, the father can already be ordered to pay those daycare expenses as child support under existing law, and the current child-support guidelines, without any need for this bill. But the mother shouldn't be able to collect BOTH daycare expenses AND the value of family leave she isn't even using from the father -- that would be like having your cake and eating it, too. The father shouldn't be ordered to pay both real AND imaginary expenses.

This bill creates gender-based obligations, which seems unconstitutional. Doesn't that violate the Supreme Court's decision in Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268 (1979), which ruled that support obligations can't be based on gender? The bill is also unfair, because it orders fathers to pay money for family leave even when the mother isn't actually on leave, and orders fathers to pay money for periods when the mother doesn't actually have any child-rearing costs, such as early in her pregnancy. The bill creates gender-based obligations. Under the bill, "the legal father" is ordered to pay "child support" "beginning at the date of conception" and including "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave." But a mother has no such obligation, ever, under the bill, even if the child has two mothers, and regardless of whether the second mother is a transgender mother who provided the sperm for the conception, or a cisgender mother who didn't give birth, but who agreed to the pregnancy via assisted conception. The bill states, "For the purposes of this section, in the case of assisted conception, the donor shall not be considered the legal father. " So a father who didn't give birth to the child has the obligation to pay support, but a mother who didn't give birth to the child doesn't (even if the legal mother is a transgender mother who was involved in conception, either through intercourse prior to her "sex change" or through use of sperm collected and stored prior to the gender transition). This qualifies as sex discrimination for purposes of the Constitution and federal law. (See the Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020)). The bill makes fathers pay for family leave even when the mother isn't on family leave, such as if she was not employed, and thus didn't lose any income from the birth of the child. It requires the father to pay "at least 50 percent of the equivalent of the mother's paid maternity leave," even if the mother isn't taking any leave, or even "if the mother is unemployed" and thus is not sacrificing income to take care of the child. That seems unfair. The bill makes fathers pay for "child support ... beginning at the date of conception of the infant." But while life may begin at conception, child-rearing costs don't. Most expenses related to children begin near the time of birth, not conception. During the earliest stages of pregnancy, women often don't know they are pregnant, much less incur costs from being pregnant. One in three women only learn they are pregnant after six weeks. Unborn children don't incur daycare expenses or use up diapers. The bill makes fathers pay for child support under the Virginia child-support guidelines, Va. Code Section "20-108.2," but that guideline was developed based on the major cost of raising children who are already born, not the minor cost of nurturing a growing fetus or accommodating a body changing due to pregnancy -- like a mother eating a bit more as the unborn child grows, or buying maternity clothing. The total cost of my unborn daughter prior to her birth, for all 9 months, was less than $200 (prenatal vitamins + 3 pairs of cheap pants + 1 body pillow + maternity pantyhose + a few boxes of Eggo waffles due to increased appetite at breakfast time). By contrast, child support for a household with our income would be well over $1000 per month under Virginia's child support schedule, just for one child.

This bill unjustly discriminates based on sex and marital status. It would order the father to pay for the value of paid maternity leave that the mother is already getting at no cost from her employer, when the father is already paying child support to support the child. The bill would order the father to pay at least 50% of the value of paid maternity leave -- even though that leave costs the mother nothing because it is paid leave, so she doesn't need to be reimbursed for it. This could result in fathers being ordered to pay thousands of dollars beyond what they can afford. For example, I had months of paid maternity leave after I gave birth to our daughter. That was worth many thousands of dollars. I didn't expect my husband to pay me for that leave, which cost me nothing. So I don't see why an unmarried father should have to pay for such leave that costs the mother nothing to use. A married father has no such responsibility, and doesn't have to pay the mother for paid leave that she is getting at no cost. Why should an unmarried father have greater obligations than a married father? All parents have an equal duty to take care of their kids, regardless of marital status. The bill also allows men, but not women, to be ordered to pay more than half of childbirth and family leave expenses. The "father," because of his gender, has to pay "at least" 50 percent of these expenses under the bill -- potentially more than 50%, but never less. That's unfair and discriminatory, especially when the father has a lower income than the mother.

We respectfully ask you vote no on HB1922, HB1973 & HB2294 HB1973 & HB2294: No one in the hemp industry is opposed labeling, testing or packaging of products. We have met every new regulation in labeling and packaging as they have been introduced. In fact we welcome stricter regulations on labeling, testing & packaging as we believe it helps weed out bad actors. But both of these bills have a 2mg per package limit for ANY THC (even naturally occurring D9). The current limit of quantitation (LOQ) for modern testing is 0.01% or 0.1mg/g. That means that in a 20g or smaller package, detecting ANY THC would make the product marijuana. The purpose of these limits is to only allow hemp products that contain zero naturally occurring THC (even non-intoxicating levels). These mg caps will absolutely end every hemp retailer, processor, and farmer in Virginia. 1000s of living wage jobs will be lost. Millions of dollars in infrastructure will be auctioned off to neighboring states. Most Va hemp processors and retailers are not selling intoxicating products, even though their products contain low levels of THC (0.3%). NON-intoxicating hemp products with low levels of THC will still be widely available from out of state via the internet, but Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. The requirement of bittering agents in topicals is yet another blow to small hemp businesses. No one is going to buy topicals with unnecessary additives that are specifically made to be unpalatable. This will spell the literal end to all hemp topical manufacturing in Virginia. But, consumers will still be able to buy non-bittered topicals from out of state via the internet. Again, Virginia small business will not be able to participate in the federally legal marketplace. On HB1922: Delta 8 THC is found naturally in Hemp biomass in small concentrations. This bill would make all Hemp and hemp products with small concentrations of naturally occurring Delta 8 THC illegal. Would the Hemp industry be forced to find cultivars that have non-detect concentrations of Delta 8 THC? This bill creates a number of legal question and problems for VCDACS and other stake holders. For this bill to not have unintended consequences it must call out an allowable percentage to include what's found naturally in hemp plants and products (<0.3%).
 There are a number of hemp derived, (federally legal) psychoactive chemicals that are not Delta 8 THC. This bill would have zero effect on the proliferation of these widely available chemicals. This bill would not have the intended effect of reducing psychoactive access or harm.

As a scientist concerned about quality assurance testing for products in the Commonwealth, I have reviewed HB2294. It is my opinion, from an informed position regarding quality testing and in having spoken with other stakeholders in patient and consumer safety, HB2294 has the strong language to protect consumers from poorly made, contaminated, and adulterated products.

Comments Document

I echo Griffith: Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922

This is a ridiculous bill that both violates federal standards for federally protect CBD products via the 2018 Farm Bill, and violates the basic tenants of math and science. I'm certain that the $26,500 that Delegate Kilgore took in last year per VPAP.org from the medical cannabis monopolies had nothing to do with the fact that these medical cannabis monopolies stand to become the only places in the state where people could buy products in person that are federally legal in every other state. For starters, the federal threshold for CBD products is 0.3% THC. It is not 1mg per 100 grams of of product weight. That is 0.0001% THC. The 2 cannot coexist in the same bill because math exists and 0.0001% is not equal to 0.3%. This bill outlaw the most basic of cbd products - cbd oil. Any full spectrum extract cbd oil will contain trace amounts of THC. For example, a 500mg bottle of cbd oil that contains 0.05% THC is 6x below the federal limit, but at 15.9mg in total thc in the bottle, is still 16x over the entirely ridiculous limit in this bill. The portion of the bill requiring bittering agents in non-edible cbd products is both scientifically ridiculous and practically absurd. No one is eating cbd soap, lotion, salve, or bathbombs. However, given that most cbd products are formulated to be as natural as possible, forcing manufacturers and farmers to add additional chemical compounds to these products both ruins these products, and potentially harms the consumer. What happens if an alcoholic buys a non-edible product that has ethanol in it as a bittering agent? What happens if a bittering agent triggers a skin reaction on someone with sensitive skin or a skin condition (which is a sizeable portion of people buying cbd products)? The end result of this is that even more businesses in Delegate Kilgore's district will slide across the border to North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky - just like many already have. In short, this bill - while violating federal law and the 2018 Farm Bill provisions - will simply cement that far from helping Delegate Kilgores region regain an economic footing so desperately needed, he has instead presided over their long, slow, altogether avoidable, slide towards economic destruction and abject poverty. This bill needs to die.

Greetings Delegates, The selected biils are Detrimental to the small farmers and retailers in the state of Virginia. As a member of the Virginia Hemp Coalition I ask that you vote no on these bills. Also add the Social Equity back to all of the cannabis legislation. Thanks for keeping Virginia first!!!! Sincerely, William Hill New Century Farmers Group

With reading this proposed bill, I am confused about the inclusion of a bittering agent in non-consumable hemp products. I have created and am pushing to market hemp fire starter, fire logs, etc, which utilized all parts of the left over materials from the plant, leaving zero waste. All parts are used. You can view this product on my website www.crystalhillcannabis.com But in this proposed bill, it states that a bittering agent will need to be added to any non-consumable hemp product. Does this include my product? Does this include the exploding building industry that is utilizing parts of the plant. Does this include pet bedding made from the plant. I find the inclusion of a bittering agent in any non-consumable hemp product to be overboard and lubricous.

I oppose bills that restrict the re-emerging hemp wellness industry in favor of state-controlled medical / recreational cannabis industry. Bill's before this committee will allow the the government to choose out of state corporations as winners, at the expense of registered and federally compliant small hemp businesses. There is space in Virginia for industrial hemp, hemp extracts for wellness, and cannabis for medicine and recreation to coexist in Virginia. That space should allow small, medium, and large growers, producers, testers, and manufacturers to enter, without exorbitant entry and maintenance fees. Bad actors should be held accountable for irresponsibility marketed products, however, a whole legal hemp industry should not be criminalized and punished. There should not be new criminal penalties for hemp or cannabis products. There are current laws in place to deal with unscrupulous products. We should be researching and studying hemp and cannabis as alternatives to pharmaceuticals, educating, marketing and building safe access to hemp and cannabis products. We should include many Virginian workers and small businesses and create tax revenue for our Commonwealth.

Please vote NO to the following bills: HB 1973, HB 2294, and HB 1922. These bills would put thousands of Virginia hemp businesses out of business overnight when we have been operating by the law for the last 5 years. If the objective is truly consumer safety, then establish moderate regulations that legitimate Virginia owned companies can comply with. Consumers are already used to buying these products on retail shelves in Virginia, and by criminalizing the sale of these products in the state will only force consumers to the black market or the unregulated online market. The best way to control the market is to moderately regulate it in a way that does not exacerbate black market sales, and also does not put thousands of Virginia owned businesses out of business. We all want consumer & child safety, and the only way to do that is by regulating the recreational market. Prohibition is never the answer, and by voting yes to any of these bills, you will be a direct contributor to the issue you are trying to resolve. Please consider this as well as the thousands of families whose sources of income and their life’s work will be ruined by passing these destructive bills. We are real people and we are asking you respectfully to vote no on HB1973, HB2294 & HB1922. Sincerely, Savana Griffith

I'm a volunteer with the Virginia chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill.