I am a constituent of Sr. Bagby and ask that the Senate Committee pass SB15, Prohibition on Extradition. We've seen other states intent on criminalizing abortion use this and other tactics to intimidate women and their health care providers. Do not let this happen in Virginia! Let's be clear that Virginia stands on the side of women. Thank you, Roxane Rucker 3333 W Franklin St Richmond, VA 23221

I support both of these bills: SB15: Many patients are traveling out of state to access abortion care and reproductive health services. It’s important to protect providers and patients from criminalization or punishment of critical health care. SB16: Personal, private menstrual data should not be used to incite fear or as a tool for criminalization. Protection of privacy of sensitive health information is critical in a time when reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is under attack.

SB15: Many patients are traveling out of state to access abortion care and reproductive health services. It’s important to protect providers and patients from criminalization or punishment of critical health care. SB16: Personal, private menstrual data should not be used to incite fear or as a tool for criminalization. Protection of privacy of sensitive health information is critical in a time when reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is under attack.

We owe it to our daughters, granddaughters, and their loved ones to protect them as best we can, from those that would would take their bodily autonomy and reduce them again to 2nd class citizens.

Progress VA strongly supports both SB 15 and SB 16. Passing SB15 will demonstrate that the General Assembly is not willing to play political games with the lives of pregnant people. When patients are forced to travel out of state to access reproductive health care services, we must commit to protecting them from criminalization and prosecution in their home state: this important bill will fulfill that goal. By passing SB 16, you will demonstrate that everyone in our community deserves the right to medical privacy. It is grossly intrusive for the state to go on a fishing expedition in people’s sensitive medical data, and we strongly support the patient protections guaranteed by this bill.

Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, I write to urge your support for SB 15 (Prohibiting Extradition for Reproductive Services, Sen. Favola) and SB 16 (Prohibiting Menstrual Search Warrants, Sen. Favola). The two bills, which are scheduled for discussion this afternoon, constitute two of the most important laws Virginia can pass this year. SB 15 and SB 16 are critical protection for Virginia's women, any and all women who come to Virginia seeking healthcare they are denied in their home states. Recently passed laws passed in other states are punitive, leading healthcare providers and women into documented situations where any pregnancy might endanger a woman's health and well-being. In Tennessee, Idaho, Mississippi, Texas, and others, Republican lawmakers are actively threatening jail time and travel restrictions for women who may or may not be pregnant based on location data, online searches, or other individual's testimony. Republicans in states that have drastically curtailed abortion access in the post-Roe world are, in effect, treating girls and women from the point at which a girl may become pregnant - the average age of menstruation for American girls is 12 years old - as a potential criminal and subject to the kind of state surveillance which is not visited on or applied to any other group. This not only denies agency to girls and women, but creates a social framework where women's lives are secondary to any potential fetus', that they are disposable, and that their potential, on penalty of criminal charges, is ultimately no more than their potential to birth a child. Being a girl who has her period is not a crime. Becoming a woman who reaches her potential with or without a child is not socially undesirable. Those within our society who seek to control women, to make women subordinate as a category, and to punish women for the audacity to believe in a potential beyond childbirth must be pushed back against with every available tool. SB 15 will help protect both Virginia's sovereign citizens and those who seek legal care in Virginia. SB 16 is an important step in constraining bad actors from using women's health information to target them for prosecution and provide the absolute minimum of protection from state surveillance of private data. Please pass SB 15 and SB 16 to protect Virginia's providers, patients, citizen, and women from the criminalization or punishment of critical health care. Sincerely, Ryland Potter HD-57 SD-16 CD-1

SB 15 and SB 16 deal with Women’s basic human rights. Nothing is more personal than one’s menstrual data and women’s health decisions . What a woman chooses to do with her body and how her body functions is intensely personal. Government does not have the human right to interfere with these decisions relating to a woman’s body.

Please protect our Virginia citizens from criminalization by other states. Vote Yes! on SB15!

It is important to protect providers and patients from criminal charges. Patience and doctor should be protected.

Hello, my name is Alexandra Fiul. I’m a student at Christopher Newport University but I’m from North Carolina, specifically the Outer Banks. Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. In my hometown, all healthcare, including reproductive healthcare and the ability to access abortion, is severely restricted due to geography, a lack of clinics, and a lack of transportation. In a state where difficulty attaining services like physicals is common, clinics providing abortions are few in the state of North Carolina. From my home in Kitty Hawk, the closest office offering abortions is over four hours away. The closest clinic to my home is Planned Parenthood in Virginia Beach, a little over an hour away. People in Eastern North Carolina frequently choose healthcare services in Virginia over North Carolina due to the proximity and high quality of these offices. Abortions are, of course, no exception. As a college student who spends most of my time here, I ask you to please protect members of my community, other college students who spend the bulk of the year in residence in Virginia, as well as anyone else traveling from out of state, access necessary healthcare. I urge you to please support this bill. Thank you.

Daphne Bernal, Student, George Mason University My name is Daphne Bernal, and I implore you to pass this Extradition Prohibition Bill. It is imperative to protect our Virginia healthcare workers and patients from being prosecuted in other states for performing procedures that are legal in Virginia within the state of Virginia. Our Commonwealth must remain vigilant in protecting citizens from malicious legislation that has no jurisdiction in our state. I have been a patient of the same OB/GYN for nearly a decade. She has always treated me effectively, efficiently, and amicably. I fear that if Virginia law will not protect her as she practices medicine, she will relocate to another state that affords her more rights and protection. The effect would be devastating, as she would leave me and hundreds of other patients without care. If there aren’t enough doctors, who will treat the citizens of Virginia and keep us healthy so that we can continue to contribute to the growth and prosperity of the Commonwealth? For the sake of Virginia, vote YES to the Extradition Prohibition Bill.

Lily Stevenson, Student, University of Richmond I strongly believe that this piece of legislation is crucial in the movement for reproductive justice, especially with Virginia’s unique position as the only state in the South without a post-Roe abortion ban. As a college student living in Virginia, I am grateful for the state’s current stance on abortion and care because I, nor my friends, should have to worry about accessing that care. This makes me more confident in my decision to go to school and live here. This bill is important for my friends who live in other Southern states where they cannot access abortion or reproductive health care. We should not worry about being charged for violating our home states’ laws after receiving care in Virginia. Reproductive health care and abortion workers must be protected because they are doing lifesaving work and should not have to fear being criminalized by other state laws for providing care to someone who does not live in Virginia.

Personal, private menstrual data should not be used to incite fear or as a tool for criminalization. Protection of privacy of sensitive health information is critical in a time when reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is under attack. I received an Apple Watch as a gift. It includes an app called "cycle tracking". We live in a world of all kinds of data collection. Just like we have HIPAA laws that require patients to give permission for family to access our health data, there should be no difference here.

I am a constituent of Sr. Bagby and ask that the Senate Committee pass SB16, Menstrual Data Privacy. We've seen other states intent on criminalizing abortion use this and other tactics to intimidate women and their health care providers. Do not let this happen in Virginia! Let's be clear that Virginia stands on the side of women. Thank you, Roxane Rucker 3333 W Franklin St Richmond, VA 23221

I support both of these bills: SB15: Many patients are traveling out of state to access abortion care and reproductive health services. It’s important to protect providers and patients from criminalization or punishment of critical health care. SB16: Personal, private menstrual data should not be used to incite fear or as a tool for criminalization. Protection of privacy of sensitive health information is critical in a time when reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is under attack.

SB15: Many patients are traveling out of state to access abortion care and reproductive health services. It’s important to protect providers and patients from criminalization or punishment of critical health care. SB16: Personal, private menstrual data should not be used to incite fear or as a tool for criminalization. Protection of privacy of sensitive health information is critical in a time when reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is under attack.

Re SB16 The right to privacy is a core constitutional right, and certainly a women’s menstrual date is a private matter. ALSO , sharing menstrual data without patient consent, is a gross violation of HIPPA, and subject to 10,000 $ per incident of information sharing. Medical professionals and menstrual app managers would find themselves in a legal and medical minefield, and unable to function if a law (SB16) was passed , which would be in direct conflict with Constitutional rights and HIPPA. The chaos in the health professions and providers that would ensue would seriously undermine patient care- Eileen Davis,RN

We owe it to our daughters, granddaughters, and their loved ones to protect them as best we can, from those that would would take their bodily autonomy and reduce them again to 2nd class citizens.

Progress VA strongly supports both SB 15 and SB 16. Passing SB15 will demonstrate that the General Assembly is not willing to play political games with the lives of pregnant people. When patients are forced to travel out of state to access reproductive health care services, we must commit to protecting them from criminalization and prosecution in their home state: this important bill will fulfill that goal. By passing SB 16, you will demonstrate that everyone in our community deserves the right to medical privacy. It is grossly intrusive for the state to go on a fishing expedition in people’s sensitive medical data, and we strongly support the patient protections guaranteed by this bill.

Members of the House Courts of Justice Committee, I write to urge your support for SB 15 (Prohibiting Extradition for Reproductive Services, Sen. Favola) and SB 16 (Prohibiting Menstrual Search Warrants, Sen. Favola). The two bills, which are scheduled for discussion this afternoon, constitute two of the most important laws Virginia can pass this year. SB 15 and SB 16 are critical protection for Virginia's women, any and all women who come to Virginia seeking healthcare they are denied in their home states. Recently passed laws passed in other states are punitive, leading healthcare providers and women into documented situations where any pregnancy might endanger a woman's health and well-being. In Tennessee, Idaho, Mississippi, Texas, and others, Republican lawmakers are actively threatening jail time and travel restrictions for women who may or may not be pregnant based on location data, online searches, or other individual's testimony. Republicans in states that have drastically curtailed abortion access in the post-Roe world are, in effect, treating girls and women from the point at which a girl may become pregnant - the average age of menstruation for American girls is 12 years old - as a potential criminal and subject to the kind of state surveillance which is not visited on or applied to any other group. This not only denies agency to girls and women, but creates a social framework where women's lives are secondary to any potential fetus', that they are disposable, and that their potential, on penalty of criminal charges, is ultimately no more than their potential to birth a child. Being a girl who has her period is not a crime. Becoming a woman who reaches her potential with or without a child is not socially undesirable. Those within our society who seek to control women, to make women subordinate as a category, and to punish women for the audacity to believe in a potential beyond childbirth must be pushed back against with every available tool. SB 15 will help protect both Virginia's sovereign citizens and those who seek legal care in Virginia. SB 16 is an important step in constraining bad actors from using women's health information to target them for prosecution and provide the absolute minimum of protection from state surveillance of private data. Please pass SB 15 and SB 16 to protect Virginia's providers, patients, citizen, and women from the criminalization or punishment of critical health care. Sincerely, Ryland Potter HD-57 SD-16 CD-1

SB 15 and SB 16 deal with Women’s basic human rights. Nothing is more personal than one’s menstrual data and women’s health decisions . What a woman chooses to do with her body and how her body functions is intensely personal. Government does not have the human right to interfere with these decisions relating to a woman’s body.

Private menstrual data should not be used by anyone! Protection of personal health information is primary.

Reproductive freedom is a Constitutional right. The Right to Privacy prohibits criminalizing personal medical information. Vote Yes on SB16!

Submitting comment in support of SB16 (Favola) on behalf of REPRO Rising Student Fellow: Lily Stevenson, College Student, University of Richmond The Menstrual Data Privacy Act would provide critical protection for people like me who use health apps to track various aspects of their reproductive health. We live in a world with increasing dependency on social media, health apps, communication technologies, etc. and we must not be criminalized for this. Reproductive health apps have been a huge help to me and my friends in tracking various aspects of our health. As a woman with polycystic ovarian syndrome, I use these apps to track various symptoms to be able to predict when they will come or decide on whether I need to speak to my doctor. Without these protections, I would fear how people could use this data against me. We should not have to worry about the potential for criminality when tracking our health. This bill is also a part of larger conversations about data privacy. Our increasing dependence on technology should not be a part of various forms of criminalization. Privacy is important, especially when health and lifesaving care are on the line. Period tracking apps have been a crucial method of reproductive health management, especially due to their low costs. We must protect the data stored in these apps; it should not be used against us. This bill is important because it would set a precedent that our private data should not be used as a tool to incite fear or as a tool of criminalization.

We strongly oppose SB23! As the Executive Director of the Hampton-Newport News CSB, which is the CSB that represents this district, we are strongly opposed to this bill. In addition to what has already been written repeatedly from CSBs across the Commonwealth, there has been some misunderstanding or misrepresentation as to why this change is needed. It has been stated that due to the backlog at our CSB the ECOs are running out. That is untrue and easily verifiable. It was also stated that CSBs conduct prescreening evaluations on computer screens. Well, that is called telemedicine and is an approved clinical practice. If telemedicine is a concern, we can address that. It was also stated during testimony that there are duplicate assessments. While an individual may undergo multiple assessments, there is only one prescreening assessment and that is completed by the CSB. It has also been stated that having a private entity conduct the prescreening assessment will get law enforcement back on the street faster. This is also untrue, law enforcement's obligation is under the TDO, regardless of who completes the prescreening assessment. Please question the information that is presented, and review the law and roles involved in the TDO process under the code of Virginia. It would be great to have the office of the Attorney General weigh in on the conflict of interest or legality of a process that allows for a provider who has a financial interest, conduct prescreening evaluations and bed search. Thank you for your consideration.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Final Thoughts heading to Appropriations. HOPEFULLY the various Committee and Subcommittee members have read and followed comments as concerns were registered statewide. Caution has been provided in how the BH System will be affected if moved forward. This would have been extremely important for Legislators patroning bills for SB34 and HB608 to have spoken to constituents expressing concern, their CSB who could have provided ACCURATE and INSIGHTFUL information that would have aided in understanding concern and the right thing. Contact your STAKEHOLDERS WHO WILL BE impacted by proposed bills and despite instead providing or supporting messages as if it is a relief for their benefit. They certainly know the landscape and who works for their interest. They would have appreciated being contacted about their TRUE pressure points with plenty of opportunity to do so. True partners work toward mutual interests and our community – not one system’s. Those not willing to have conversations or demonstrate transparency burden our law enforcement, emergency departments and citizens every day. Yet – messages are that it is for their benefit. Without the willingness to meet with stakeholders – or to demonstrate transparency – will not lead to the change needed. Misleading and inaccurate information to support an initiative – does not move toward meeting public interests. I trust that those governing and supporting our citizens have done their due diligence on the facts, issues and impacts. If so, moving forward with such a bill, a monumental shift in public policy would NOT HAVE weighed public interests --- but rather demonstrate favor = not for those systems, the behavioral health, public policy and not in alignment with other GA interests. Not in consideration of the liberties of your citizens. Moving forward ignores the caution identified in Financial Impact Statements and TDO Evaluator Workgroup report that was legislature directed. All expect burden to the system if such a bill were enacted. Certainly, that could not be ignored. Certainly – if so repercussions to citizens – to community. It would erode trust. The conflict of interest should worry those moving this forward, if the case. It impacts private providers who value transparency and partnerships will be impacted both initially and long term. Immediately it further undermines other hospital systems who are investing in the community. Also, with the budget request Item296#4h – further incentive while controlling a process for one provider. Any decision moving forward ignores important recommendations of JLARC – but remember – liberties are at stake. I’m hoping this is read and no decision to enact would move forward without having done so. Trust your gut. --- how would sacrificing all the principals make since here? It would not.

The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services. I am actively opposed to this as it does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital

This bill would drastically change the current structure of our mental health system and not in a positive way. CSBs work diligently to provide services that advert psychiatric hospitalizations by providing additional services that provide a least restrictive alternative. I believe this change would lead to an increase in unnecessary TDOs which is not in the best interest of the individual, but also puts an unnecessary strain on resources such as law enforcement and state facilities that are already operating at maximum capacity.

This does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets”, but instead, will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital. The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

This bill would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties. The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

We respectfully request that you do not enact SB34. This bill authorizes a single private behavioral health hospital to evaluate individuals in a behavioral health crisis to determine whether they meet the criteria for a Temporary Detention Order for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Community Services Boards are opposed to this bill, as are experts in the field who have studied this issue for decades. See expert letter and from Dr. Richard Bonnie, Dr. Heather Zelle, and Attorney John Oliver on this issue. They also strongly oppose SB34. Doesn’t anyone care that this bill have a conflict of interest? The inpatient provider would also determine where the patients would be hospitalized, which could be their own facility. As per the Code, the evaluator should be independent and have no financial interest. If the evaluator is employed by the hospital, that is a clear conflict of interest and we ask that you to not support this, or at least obtain a legal opinion before changing the code of Virginia for a single provider, even as a pilot! Allowing the provider to absorb the financial impact of this bill in order to move it forward seems like another conflict of interest. Allowing the provider to use their financial resources to pay for the cost of implementing the bill seems to be yet another conflict! Another fiscal impact noted in the proposed bill, is that this change to the code will increase the state hospital census. It has been suggested that in order to prevent this, the bill could be amended to require the CSB to complete a second prescreening evaluation whenever the Psych ED determines that someone needs to be hospitalized. This modification would require fragile individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis to undergo TWO evaluations, thereby increasing the time spent in the ED. This also places an additional burden on your CSB to carry out all of the required duties of the bed search and placement if the individual is indeed in need of hospitalization, while relieving the Psych ED of that responsibility. This does not help the patient nor the system. Ask yourself why this is necessary. Whom does it serve? It serves the private behavior health provider, not your public CSB and above all not the individual patient lingering in the ED. PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS BILL. PLEASE SEND IT TO THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH COMMISSION WHERE IT CAN BE FURTHER STUDIED.

Greetings members of the Health and Human Services Committee, Please oppose this bill as it does not address psychiatric bed availability or streamline care for those in need of acute behavioral health treatment. What has been working to streamline care and treatment is the CSB system operating as an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specializing in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives. Thus avoiding hospitalization whenever possible. This also serves to maximize linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA mandates and Crisis Now community-based services. Please see attached and thanks for your consideration.

As a certified prescreener I oppose SB34. Our issues with placement have nothing to do with the evaluation response times. It has everything to do with psychiatric hospital acceptance who ultimately are the ones who determine if they accept or do not accept our individual’s. We complete multiple bed searches per shift. Individuals who do not fit the “perfect” psychiatric criteria (meaning they are acute, have ID issues, or any physical limitations) may sit in the ED for days until state hospitals have an available bed. Again, this has nothing to do with assessment response times. Our agency responds within an average of minutes after an evaluation is requested. This bill will UNDERMINE everything that we have done to reduce TDO’s as we have so many less restrictive options that hospitals are unaware of. Our last resort is always a TDO. Private hospitals do not have the options that we have to ensure the best and least restrictive options. This bill Would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs; Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021; Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023 and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System; Ignores caution identified in the Financial Impact Statements for both SB34 and HB608 which anticipates enactment would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit; Does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital; Would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties; Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed; The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

The amount of opposition is a testament to the inappropriateness of measures proposed to be taken. First, it appears to disregard research designed to promote best practices regarding this area of concern. Second, it appears to be in direct opposition to the goals set forth by the Commonwealth to ensure concerns are addressed in a comprehensive manner. Third, it seems to provide a limited view of challenges it is designed to address. Thus, the bill does not accurately or adequately address its intended purpose, and does not need to be supported.

I strongly oppose SB 34 for the following reasons: This would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs. It ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021. Passing of SB 34 directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA, counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023, and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System. It would also cause delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit. Unfortunately, this will do nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital. Passing SB 34 would also require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties. This would also provide private hospitals, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed. As you are aware, CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

I am responding to voice strong opposition to SB34. Enabling this legislation to move forward would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs. This also provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed. It has been suggested that the magistrate is the one that determines whether or not a TDO is recommended and choice of placement; however, it is the CSBs responsibility as an unbiased party, to assess, make the recommendation, and determine placement location. SB34 ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021. It also directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023 and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System. It ignores caution identified in the Financial Impact Statements for both SB34 and HB608 which anticipates enactment would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. It is important to note that delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not difficulties obtaining an evaluation or waiting extensive times for those evals. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit and an individual to be placed on a waiting list. This does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital. This also would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ rights. In conclusion, the CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services. Part of the success of these programs that have been stood up to assist in decreasing hospitalization rates by DBHDS is that there are staff working in the CSB who are knowledgeable of the resources and who are committed to referring to those programs to avoid hospitalization.

***Please disregard the previously submitted version of this letter (dated 2/20/24) which was inadvertently sent on UVA letterhead. The signatories are submitting this letter in their personal capacities. It does not reflect the positions or policies of the University. The prior submission on UVA letterhead on February 20, 2024 was unintended. *

I am the Divisional Director of our CSB's Crisis Services. I STRONGLY OPPOSE this legislation (SB34). It is misguided in its efforts that it will reduce the wait time for evaluations and obtaining a hospital bed and will somehow quickly return officers back to their intended duties of law enforcement. Delays in the system are due almost exclusively to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals have the ultimate authority and maintain control whether they will admit or not admit the individual. This Bill will not change that process. The proposed legislation does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospitals. There should only be one access point to the state hospital system. This would override that process. This Bill will provide a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine choice of facility for the TDO, whether to their own - or by having direct access to State Hospital Bed. This flies in the face of the General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023.

The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services. This Bill, if approved, would undermine the intent of "objective 3rd party" weighing in on need for compulsory inpatient psychiatric treatment and provide a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed. Furthermore, does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital. Bad bill anyway you look at it.

•OPPOSE : Would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs; • Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021; • Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023 and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System; • Ignores caution identified in the Financial Impact Statements for both SB34 and HB608 which anticipates enactment would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. • Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit; • Does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital; • Would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties; • Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed; • The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

I strongly oppose SB34. I have outlined my opposition below. • Would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs; • Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021; • Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023 and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System; • Ignores caution identified in the Financial Impact Statements for both SB34 and HB608 which anticipates enactment would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. • Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit; • Does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital; • Would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties; • Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed; • The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

As you have seen in public comment for SB34 and previously HB608 - great concern is seen around the commonwealth. Please note the following. • Would be a monumental shift in public policy enacted decades ago to ensure that the least restrictive alternative is always considered and avoiding inappropriate TDOs; • Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup which just presented their findings on December 29, 2021; • Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; and counters recommendations in the JLARC Study issued in Dec. 2023 and is inconsistent with goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System; • Ignores caution identified in the Financial Impact Statements for both SB34 and HB608 which anticipates enactment would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. • Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Hospitals maintain control whether they will admit or not admit; • Does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital; • Would require significant adjustments or exceptions for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties; • Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether to their own facility or direct access to State Hospital Bed; A budget amendment is being introduced to provide private hospitals incentive to take more TDOs. To share the burden of state hospitals - not circumstances such as this. to • The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services.

This bill does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets” but instead will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources, including law enforcement and the state hospital.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. The issue of Behavioral Health is not a partisan issue. However, this bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. The General Assembly enacted the current legislation decades, A recent workgroup (December 2021) evaluating such matter, comment on the preadmission evaluation, also noted that: “It is a pivotal point within the larger civil commitment process because if involuntary treatment is recommended and a TDO is issued, the individual in crisis is deprived of his or her liberty” and did not recommend such exception

We strongly oppose SB34! As the Executive Director of the Hampton-Newport News CSB, which is the CSB that represents this district, we are strongly opposed to this bill. In addition to what has already been written repeatedly from CSBs across the Commonwealth, there has been some misunderstanding or misrepresentation as to why this change is needed. It has been stated that due to the backlog at our CSB the ECOs are running out. That is untrue and easily verifiable. It was also stated that CSBs conduct prescreening evaluations on computer screens. Well, that is called telemedicine and is an approved clinical practice. If telemedicine is a concern, we can address that. It was also stated during testimony that there are duplicate assessments. While an individual may undergo multiple assessments, there is only one prescreening assessment and that is completed by the CSB. It was also stated that having a private entity conduct the prescreening assessment will get law enforcement back on the street faster. This is also untrue, law enforcement's obligation is under the TDO, regardless of who completes the prescreening assessment. Please question the information that is presented, and review the law and roles involved in the TDO process under the code of Virginia. It would be great to have the office of the Attorney General weigh in on the conflict of interest or legality of a process that allows for a provider who has a financial interest, conduct prescreening evaluations and bed searches. Thank you for your consideration.

Strongly oppose.

I am strongly opposed to SB34 due to conflation of interest between public and private entities. Please consider that referring clients to your own practice/hospital system is both a legal and ethical dilemma. Ability to detain their own clients to their own hospital system is a conflict of interest. This also allows ability to not detain 'problem' clients and risks the objectivity inherent in maintaining prescreeners as part of a public entity (e.g. CSB) with oversight of DBHDS.

My name is Dean Barker and I have been a Preadmission Screener in Virginia for 32 continuous years now. In that time I have seen a number of legislative changes made. The value of a historical perspective is that changes are always made in reaction to circumstances or specific situations that may or may not be indicative of systemic changes. Often times, it's difficult to properly gauge what changes are necessary versus reactionary. I specifically recall a time in the early 1990s when entities other than the CSBs could request TDOs from magistrates. In those times, I recall multiple events of private hospitals asking for and being given TDOs on persons in their facilities when they were unable to verify insurance benefits. This specific circumstance occurred enough that it was the basis of the inclusion of language stating no person can request a TDO who has a financial interest in the case. I believe, the General Assembly at that time in its wisdom added that language to guard that the least restrictive alternative be utilized while diminishing the possibility of decisions being made out of convenience. I also recall, during this time Veterans at the VA Hospital being TDO'd by psychiatric residents when they were unsure of VA procedures to enroll someone in outpatient services. These cases were never handled this way out of malicious intent however, an involuntary detention for several days, a deprivation of liberty, a potential unwarranted restriction of gun rights are things to be taken into account with someone's choice and the assessment of their ability to make informed decisions. This bill opens the door for private entities to restrict rights with minimal oversight beforehand. The Magistrate's Office issues the TDOs and in testimony given the subcommittee, this was offered as a check-balance of the system. Part of the legislative changes of 2015 changed the Magistrate's portion from "MAY ISSUE" to "SHALL ISSUE". While this change addressed some of the issues from the Deed's tragedy it in the context of this bill opens the door to dangerous control being transferred from the State to Private individuals in direct and immediate response to a deprivation of liberty. Ideas are consistent, not convenient. I am strongly opposed to this bill.

Good morning. I am writing in opposition to SB 34 (Locke) which proposes to open TDO assessments to practitioners employed by Riverside Health System in Newport News and Hampton, Va. I am the retired Executive Director of the HNNCSB where my career began in 1979 and ended with my retirement in 2016. The conflict of interest by having a private practitioner, despite the role of a Magistrate, deciding on the competence of and possible commitment to their own facility is not acceptable. Please see my recent letter to Senator Deeds (attached) which identifies my other concerns about this bill.

I, as many others with whom I work in mental health STRONGLY OPPOSE this bill. It will not do the things it purports to do. Further, It directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA It counters recommendations included in the last 2 JLARC studies It is inconsistent with the goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System & Gov. Youngkin’s Right Help Right Now legislation, the Prompt Placement Task Force & other investments in crisis services; Significant adjustments or exceptions would be required for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties. It ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup just providing findings on December 29, 2021. It ignores caution included in Financial Impact Statement of both SB34 and HB608 It provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether their facility or direct access to State Hospital Beds And enables a private hospital to direct and further tax local publicly funded resources Again, strongly opposed to this Bill. Gregory G Braund, LCSW

• I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. The issue of Behavioral Health is not a partisan issue. However, this bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. The General Assembly enacted the current legislation decades, A recent workgroup (December 2021) evaluating such matter, comment on the preadmission evaluation, also noted that: “It is a pivotal point within the larger civil commitment process because if involuntary treatment is recommended and a TDO is issued, the individual in crisis is deprived of his or her liberty” and did not recommend such exception • SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup studying this very matter had just issued their findings, Dec. 29, 2021. The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s community services boards (CSB), community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders”[3], like those previous workgroups evaluating this matter, did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation, which has been referred to as the “bedrock of the public behavioral health system”, including areas needing consideration when evaluating any code changes which would expand who could conduct preadmission evaluations to include: Conflict of interest – including “any potential for real or perceived bias” Connection to community resources, noting “the critical role of the CSB connecting individuals to alternatives to inpatient hospitalization”. “Potential increase in TDO admissions. Evaluators who work in private hospital settings may not be fully aware of all the community alternatives to the state psychiatric hospitals, and the workgroup expressed that this could inadvertently lead to an increase in TDO disposition. This would put additional strain on the state mental health hospital system, which is already suffering significant census pressures and staffing shortages” • The Report, like SB34 and HB608 Financial Impact Statements,, anticipates that enactment of either Bill would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. Despite CSBs playing such a critical role at all aspects of the Behavioral Health system, at no time were we consulted on the needs, of any concerns nor was the potential impact on stakeholders considered.

I am greatly concerned that SB34 and HB608 Financial Impact Statements anticipates that enactment of either Bill would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. In my Region, forensic evaluations take up most of my state hospital admissions, causing individuals to be further displaced from their homes. Isn't the goal of hospitalization to return individuals to the community in the most person centered way where they can connect with local services to reduce the need for restrictive services? It also seems that there has not been much consideration for another major player in the current TDO process, the CSBs. Despite CSBs playing such a critical role at all aspects of the Behavioral Health system, to my understanding they have had limited consultation on any of their concerns nor the potential impact on stakeholders considered. I strong opposition to Senate Bill 34.

On behalf of Portsmouth Behavioral Healthcare Services, we strongly oppose SB34.

I strongly opposed SB34. John Konkel, LPC Emergency Services Coordinator CIT Coordinator Marcus Alert Coordinator Eastern Shore CSB Cell: 757-693-3653 Office: 757-442-3636 ext 330

Strongly oppose on behalf of Harrisonburg-Rockingham Community Services Emergency Services Department

Good morning, I have worked in Emergency Services for over 30 years and have seen many changes in code relating to the Emergency Custody and Temporary Detention processes. I am also aware that the mental health "system" has current challenges, none of which will be resolved by this bill. This bill, if passed, would change decades-worth of improvements to the "system". Allowing a private facility to detain to their own facility is a blatant conflict, does not adhere to current code, and will not resolve any of the challenges that currently exist. I want to add that I work with many wonderful staff at Riverside Mental Health and Recovery Center and some I consider friends. My position is not against them in any way, but against this bill, that will not help the challenged mental health system in ANY way, and only hinder it.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. The issue of Behavioral Health is not a partisan issue. However, this bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. The General Assembly enacted the current legislation decades, A recent workgroup (December 2021) evaluating such matter, comment on the preadmission evaluation, also noted that: “It is a pivotal point within the larger civil commitment process because if involuntary treatment is recommended and a TDO is issued, the individual in crisis is deprived of his or her liberty” and did not recommend such exception

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. The General Assembly enacted the current legislation decades ago to protect individuals and their liberties. SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup studying this very matter had just issued their findings, Dec. 29, 2021. The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s community services boards (CSB), community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders”, like those previous workgroups evaluating this matter, did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation, which has been referred to as the “bedrock of the public behavioral health system”, including areas needing consideration when evaluating any code changes which would expand who could conduct preadmission evaluations to include: Conflict of interest – including “any potential for real or perceived bias” Connection to community resources, noting “the critical role of the CSB connecting individuals to alternatives to inpatient hospitalization”. In addition to changes in the codes and other regulatory, local, state, and regional protocols this action directly contradicts Other Critical Investments in VA's Behavioral Health System: Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA; Counters recommendations included in the last 2 JLARC studies; Inconsistent with the goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System & Gov. Youngkin’s Right Help Right Now legislation, the Prompt Placement Task Force & other investments in crisis services; Significant adjustments or exceptions required for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties; Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup just providing findings on December 29, 2021; Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO; Enables a private hospital to direct and further tax local publicly funded resources. Do not allow the role of the preadmission evaluation to be minimized, devalued or to be regarded as “duplicative”. It is not a duplicative assessment, but rather a determination if an individual may lose their liberties, and as the legislation enacted must ensure that least restrictive alternatives must always be considered for the Commonwealth's most vulnerable citizens. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. CSBs responsiveness is not an issue and we strictly adhere to performance contract standards.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34.  This bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital, ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup issued in their findings, Dec. 29, 2021.    The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s community services boards (CSB), community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders”[3],  did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation. Evaluators who work in private hospital settings may not be fully aware of all the community alternatives to the state psychiatric hospitals, and the workgroup expressed that this could inadvertently lead to an increase in TDO disposition.  This would put additional strain on the state mental health hospital system, which is already suffering significant census pressures and staffing shortages. Despite CSBs playing such a critical role at all aspects of the Behavioral Health system, at no time were we consulted on the needs or any concerns, nor was the potential impact on stakeholders considered. SB34, like HB608, would authorize newly designated “certified evaluators”, employed by a private facility, to recommend issuance to the magistrate for a TDO.  It enables the private hospital to identify the TDO facility, whether their own facility or now with direct access to state hospital beds.  Fundamentally, this poses the position of a private entity’s financial interests being a consideration, real or perceived, in the outcome of this determination, while simultaneously dismissing the importance of an individual’s civil liberties.  The Financial Impact Statements for both Bills and the Dec. 2021 TDO Evaluator Workgroup Study (pg. 16), all anticipate that if enacted, would increase the number of individuals evaluated and TDO’d. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation.  The provider and VHHA’s testimony were misleading and did not demonstrate an appreciation for civil liberties being discussed.  Testimony indicating that such an allowance would lead to more timely access to an evaluation is inaccurate and characterized patients as waiting for CSB to evaluate, delaying care, which is also inaccurate.  Current waits are  related to securing an accepting bed, which this bill does nothing to address.  CSBs strictly adhere to performance contract standards with regard to evaluation times. This allowance does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets”.  Instead, it will enable the provider  to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources and the state hospital. The Code is also very clear on matters related to financial consideration, noting in §37.2-817.01, regards to the evaluator,  - (g) have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; (h) have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person under this article;[9].

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. This bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital, ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup issued in their findings, Dec. 29, 2021. The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s community services boards (CSB), community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders”[3], did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation. Evaluators who work in private hospital settings may not be fully aware of all the community alternatives to the state psychiatric hospitals, and the workgroup expressed that this could inadvertently lead to an increase in TDO disposition. This would put additional strain on the state mental health hospital system, which is already suffering significant census pressures and staffing shortages. Despite CSBs playing such a critical role at all aspects of the Behavioral Health system, at no time were we consulted on the needs or any concerns, nor was the potential impact on stakeholders considered. SB34, like HB608, would authorize newly designated “certified evaluators”, employed by a private facility, to recommend issuance to the magistrate for a TDO. It enables the private hospital to identify the TDO facility, whether their own facility or now with direct access to state hospital beds. Fundamentally, this poses the position of a private entity’s financial interests being a consideration, real or perceived, in the outcome of this determination, while simultaneously dismissing the importance of an individual’s civil liberties. The Financial Impact Statements for both Bills and the Dec. 2021 TDO Evaluator Workgroup Study (pg. 16), all anticipate that if enacted, would increase the number of individuals evaluated and TDO’d. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. The provider and VHHA’s testimony were misleading and did not demonstrate an appreciation for civil liberties being discussed. Testimony indicating that such an allowance would lead to more timely access to an evaluation is inaccurate and characterized patients as waiting for CSB to evaluate, delaying care, which is also inaccurate. Current waits are related to securing an accepting bed, which this bill does nothing to address. CSBs strictly adhere to performance contract standards with regard to evaluation times. This allowance does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets”. Instead, it will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources and the state hospital. The Code is also very clear on matters related to financial consideration, noting in §37.2-817.01, regards to the evaluator, - (g) have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; (h) have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person under this article;[9].

I wanted to voice my strong opposition to SB 34. I am the emergency services director for one Virginia's 40 CSBs. While I understand this bill is intended to be very limited in scope, I wanted to give an example of just how many citizen's rights are likely to be infringed upon by this bill. In FY 2023, my team released 176 people that we were asked to evaluate by local psychiatrists in hospitals. These are 176 people that would, under SB 34, be placed into involuntary hospitalization unnecessarily, and this total represents just 1 of the 40 CSBs in the state. More alarmingly, our team found 75 people actually were voluntary for treatment after having the involuntary hospitalization system explained and hearing our recommendation. This is another 75 people who would have unnecessarily been TDO'd and had their rights removed, due largely to a lack of understanding of process, under SB 34. Again, this is 1 of 40 CSBs in the state, and this is just in the last fiscal year. The unnecessary infringement of rights this bill would cause for people seeking mental health help in the Commonwealth is an ethical nightmare. The hospital bed space situation in the state is already disastrous, consider what that would look like when you add these 251 people x40 CSBs across the state to the pool each year. The Right Help Right Now model that the commonwealth is pursuing is meant to increase community based services and lessen the need for emergency and psychiatric hospital treatment, it'sunclear to me why we are perusing a bill that is the antithesis of this goal.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. In addition to code changes and other regulatory, local, state, and regional protocols, this action directly contradicts Other Critical Investments in Virginia’s Behavioral Health System as outlined below: o Directly contradicts efforts and General Assembly’s investments in STEP-VA o Counters recommendations included in the last 2 JLARC studies o Inconsistent with the goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System & Gov. Youngkin’s Right Help Right Now legislation, the Prompt Placement Task Force & other investments in crisis services; o Significant adjustments or exceptions would be required for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties. o Ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations of the legislature-directed TDO Evaluator Workgroup just providing findings on December 29, 2021. o Ignores caution included in Financial Impact Statement of both SB34 and HB608 o Provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether their facility or direct access to State Hospital Beds o The Code is also very clear on matters related to financial consideration, noting in §37.2-817.01, regards to the evaluator, - (g) have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; (h) have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person under this article;[9]. Similar concerns were addressed in the TDO Workgroup’s Report issued on Dec. 29, 2021. The fact is, Magistrates must have reliable, unbiased recommendation that evaluates least restrictive alternative.

I am strongly opposed to Senate Bill 34. This bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. It would reverse strides made in the past by removing the previous protections enacted by the General Assembly and actually counters recommendations included in the last 2 JLARC studies. It would also circumvent the concerns and recommendations outlined in the findings of a legislature-directed Workgroup that studied these matters and subsequently did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. There are extremely clear conflict of interest concerns which should not be dismissed when making decisions regarding a process that impacts the civil liberties of individuals in crisis. As history has demonstrated and recent reports have indicated, enactment of this Bill would open the door to increasing TDO admissions to an already overburdened state hospital system. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting hospital bed, not due to the timeliness of an evaluation. In fact, this legislation would most certainly make the situation worse by increasing bed utilization and thereby the number of available beds. The CSBs are an objective party with extensive knowledge of community resources and specialize in strategies to link individuals in crisis to the least-restrictive alternatives; thereby maximizing linkage to the General Assembly funded STEP-VA and Crisis Now community-based services. Any deviation from this centralized and specialized role will create system vulnerabilities and set a precedent for private access to precious public resources that will worsen citizen access to beds, not help it. In addition, the Code is very clear on matters related to financial consideration, noting in §37.2-817.01, in regards to the evaluator: (g) have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; (h) have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person under this article;[9]. Similar concerns were addressed in the TDO Workgroup’s Report issued on Dec. 29, 2021. It is my sincere hope that you will take note of the lessons history has taught us, the undeniable conflict of interest issues, the advisory groups who advise against this change, and vote against this bill to avoid damaging repercussions with a long-lasting impact. Thank you for your service and commitment to the safety and liberties of Virginia citizens.

Senate Bill 34 allows a pathway for private hospitals to utilize the pre-screening process to select which people to accept and which ones will ultimately, most likely, end up in State hospitals. Although the private provider requesting this permission reduces this dialogue to "which organization is completing the pre-screening," the greater concern is the fact that the pre-screener also searches for the hospital bed for those who need one; having that pre-screener employed by the hospital who can decide whether or not to admit an individual is in fact a conflict of interest for multiple reasons. This is not just a concern about one specific provider, but rather about the system of protection that has existed for 30 years to ensure that when someone is at possibly the lowest point in their life, they receive equal access to the care and resources that they need, by having trained CSB pre-screeners to complete the pre-screening and conduct the bed search. Previous legislation was put in place to provide this protection. Of the flaws in our system, the pre-screening process is not one of them. This bill does not help CSB workforce or get law enforcement personnel back on the streets more quickly. These are buzz words and phrases that are not based on facts or studies. The term "pilot" is used to soften what is actually an "experiment" as this is not based on any facts that indicate a need to change how pre-screening is already occurring. Two years to pilot this might not seem like a long time to some, but it is too long to experiment with people's access to care. Had there been an interest in having a pre-screener onsite in the hospital, this could have been approached by having a conversation with the CSBs about how we could work together to accomplish this. This requires conversation, not legislation. A review of facts and studies will show that private hospitals have other ways to support the system; giving them access to the public system is not one of them. This is, in fact, at odds with all of the other positive things that are being done to support the behavioral healthcare system. We ask that you not take this step back when so much has been done to move us forward. Thank you.

Do not allow the role of the preadmission evaluation to be minimized, devalued or to be regarded as “duplicative”. That will not serve the individuals, families and public and private providers well in our collective efforts addressing the needs of some of Commonwealth’s most vulnerable citizens. It is not a duplicative assessment, but rather a determination if an individual may lose their liberties, and as the legislation enacted must ensure that least restrictive alternatives must always be considered. SB34, like HB608, would authorize newly designated “certified evaluators”, employed by a private facility to recommend issuance to the magistrate for a TDO. It enables the private hospital to identify the TDO facility, whether their own facility or now with direct access to state hospital beds. The Financial Impact Statements for both Bills (page #s) and the Dec. 2021 TDO Evaluator Workgroup Study (pg. 16), all anticipate that if enacted, would increase the number of individuals evaluated and TDO’d including the impact to the already overburdened state hospital system. Financial Impact Statements - Please note the concerns, cost, and anticipated fall-out identified in both the SB34 Financial Impact Statement and the HB608 Financial Impact Statement, which included some of those identified by the TDOO Workgroup Study in just Dec. 2021. This pilot is not only at a cost to the Commonwealth for this one provider’s benefit, a benefit clearly contrary to the text of CODE. It is notable that the HB608 provided more information about financial impact that SB34, however, clear that the substance of both bills has the same devastating effects and costs, those immediately estimated, but also others that will be costly for the Commonwealth which are indeterminate, but also recognize that increased state hospital admissions and pressure throughout the behavioral health system is anticipated. No doubt costly due to policy shift, a stark contrast to other current DBHDS and General Assembly directed efforts. Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. The provider and VHHA’s testimony were misleading and did not demonstrate an appreciation for civil liberties being discussed. Testimony indicating that such an allowance would lead to more timely access to evaluation inaccurate, characterized patients as waiting for CSB to evaluate delaying care is inaccurate and misleading. CSBs responsiveness is not an issue, and we strictly adhere to performance contract standards.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34 which would be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. The GA enacted the current legislation decades ago for reason. SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup studying this very matter had just issued their findings, Dec. 29, 2021. The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s CSBs community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders, like those previous workgroups evaluating this matter, did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation, including areas needing consideration: Conflict of interest; CSB's critical role of the CSB connecting individuals to alternatives to inpatient hospitalization and the “Potential increase in TDO admissions which would put additional strain on the state mental health hospital system. The Report, like SB34 and HB608 Financial Impact Statements, anticipates that enactment of either Bill would increase the number to TDO admissions to the state hospital. Despite CSBs playing such a critical role at all aspects of the Behavioral Health system, at no time were we consulted on the needs, of any concerns nor was the potential impact on stakeholders considered. Financial Considerations - The Code is also very clear on matters related to financial consideration, noting in §37.2-817.01, regards to the evaluator, - (g) have no financial interest in the admission, treatment, or denial of admission of the person being evaluated; (h) have no investment interest in the facility detaining or admitting the person under this article;[9]. Similar concerns were addressed in the TDO Workgroup’s Report issued on Dec. 29, 2021.The fact is, Magistrates must have reliable, unbiased recommendation that evaluates least restrictive alternative. I ask you to consider that members of the General Assembly will likely have a future budget request before you which will provide additional financial incentives to private hospitals accepting more TDOs to relieve burdens of state hospitals, operating in crisis years following the well-intended “bed of last resort legislation”. In addition to changes in the codes and other regulatory, local, state, and regional protocols this action directly contradicts Other Critical Investments in Virginia’s Behavioral Health System: including efforts and GA investments in STEP-VA; Counters recommendations included in the recent 2 JLARC study; is Inconsistent with the goals of moving Virginia toward a Crisis Now System & Right Help Right. It requires significant adjustments or exceptions would be required for the orientation, training, oversight, & supervision of Certified Pre-screeners, initiated by the Deeds Commission in 2016, intended to safeguard an individuals’ liberties. It also provides a private hospital, with financial interest in the outcome, authority to determine facility of TDO, whether their facility or direct access to State Hospital Beds and enables a private hospital to direct and further tax local publicly funded resources.

I voice my strong opposition to Senate Bill 34. The issue of Behavioral Health is not a partisan issue. However, this bill would prove to be a monumental shift in public policy with significant immediate and future implications. The General Assembly enacted the current legislation decades, A recent workgroup (December 2021) evaluating such matter, comment on the preadmission evaluation, also noted that: “It is a pivotal point within the larger civil commitment process because if involuntary treatment is recommended and a TDO is issued, the individual in crisis is deprived of his or her liberty” and did not recommend such exception SB34, submitted at the request of a private hospital ignores and circumvents the concerns and recommendations that a legislature-directed Workgroup studying this very matter had just issued their findings, Dec. 29, 2021. The Workgroup studying, “Who Should Conduct TDO Evaluations in Virginia”, consisting of “representatives from Virginia’s community services boards (CSB), community hospitals, law enforcement, mental health advocates, and other stakeholders”[3], like those previous workgroups evaluating this matter, did not make recommendations to allow a non-CSB clinician to conduct a preadmission evaluation. Instead, the Workgroup identified a number of the concerns, as previous studies had, including how such allowances would not account for complexities of the system and may unwind decades old legislation, which has been referred to as the “bedrock of the public behavioral health system”, including areas needing consideration when evaluating any code changes which would expand who could conduct preadmission evaluations to include: Conflict of interest – including “any potential for real or perceived bias” Connection to community resources, noting “the critical role of the CSB connecting individuals to alternatives to inpatient hospitalization”. “Potential increase in TDO admissions. Evaluators who work in private hospital settings may not be fully aware of all the community alternatives to the state psychiatric hospitals, and the workgroup expressed that this could inadvertently lead to an increase in TDO disposition. This would put additional strain on the state mental health hospital system, which is already suffering significant census pressures and staffing shortages” Delays in the system are due to individuals being unable to access an accepting bed, not for an evaluation. Current waits are related to securing an ACCEPTING BED, which this bill does nothing to address. CSBs responsiveness is not an issue and we strictly adhere to performance contract standards. This in no way assists Law Enforcement in “getting back on the street” as suggested by provider in previous subcommittees. The allowance for a private hospital to conduct a preadmission evaluation has no relevance of waits. Will they admit, which this provider currently maintains control of whether they will admit or not admit, their timeframe to review, and regards to their efforts or lack of to provide the CSB clinical or medical documentation that would enable a search for an alternative bed. This allowance does nothing to speed up the process or get law enforcement “back out on the streets”. Instead, it will enable the provider to assert additional control over the local publicly funded resources and the state hospital.

I am one of the constituents most affected by this legislation. In January, I had the opportunity to address the Civil Subcommittee re: Del. Reid's HB140. As you can see, Senator Perry's SB209 is very similar. What follows is an explanation of three court cases (criminal; custody/abuse & neglect; wrongful death) and how the competing circumstances, and current Virginia law, have prevented an adoption. Criminal case: On March 20, 2014, Michelle Castillo was found dead in her home. Her husband, Braulio Castillo, was arrested in April and charged with first degree murder, B&E with the intent to commit murder, and violating a protective order (which had been granted in April, 2013, and upheld on appeal in Sept. 2013). At the time, the Castillo's were in divorce proceedings. In June, 2016, Mr. Castillo was convicted on all three charges, and sentenced to life in prison. A final sentencing order was entered in December, 2016. In January, 2017, an appeal was filed at the Court of Appeals of Virginia. CAV disposed of the case in June, 2019, affirming all Circuit Court decisions. In August, 2019, an appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia. This was initially refused in Feb., 2020, and a petition for rehearing was refused in August, 2020. In January, 2021, Mr. Castillo filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the US Supreme Court, which was denied in February, 2021. Lastly, in August, 2021, Mr. Castillo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in Loudoun County Circuit Court. That case remains active, with little happening between August, 2022, and now. The Custody Case: In June, 2016, a separate trial was held in JDR Court regarding an abuse & neglect case between Mr. Castillo and Loudoun County Dept. of Family Services. (The case began in 2014, but was stayed until the criminal trial concluded.) This case involved the DFS decision (after Mrs. Castillo was killed) to remove the four minor children, led to the initial termination of Mr. Castillo's parental rights, and also allowed a goal of adoption in the foster care matter. In July, 2016, an appeal was filed in Loudoun Circuit Court. That de novo appeal did not conclude until September, 2017, and the Court found there was abuse & neglect and termination of parental rights was warranted. Mr. Castillo then appealed to CAV in September, 2017, which was disposed of in April, 2018, with all Circuit Court decisions affirmed. Another appeal was filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia, which was refused in August, 2018. In October, 2018, Loudoun DFS tried to initiate adoption proceedings for the four minor children, but the Guardian ad-Litem, and County Attorney for Loudoun, both objected (correctly) due to existing Virginia Law (would sever the children's rights as beneficiaries). The Wrongful Death Case: In March, 2016, a wrongful death action was filed by the oldest of the five children. Aside from changes in Counsel and a few motions, that case has largely sat dormant. The real reasons as to why vary depending on the legal source, but it seems there was an agreement between the Court and the attorneys to not bring the WD case to trial until "all criminal appeals have been completed." I believe the Habeas case factors in to the "all criminal appeals" thought process, leaving the WD suit, and the children, in limbo. In closing, for the record, we are simply trying to achieve permanency as a family through adoption. SB209 helps make that possible.

There is a significant gap in understanding eviction and housing instability in Virginia due to the limited court data made available for research purposes. Currently, the most detailed case information that can be collected from Virginia courts is at the jurisdiction level and in some cases at the ZIP code level. This bill would allow for a more detailed and localized examination of where eviction filings occur within Virginia jurisdictions. The additional court data that this bill makes available to researchers would further provide insight into which populations are most impacted by eviction and housing instability at a local level. Therefore, this bill would facilitate research that can directly assist policymakers at the state and local levels in designing effective policy as well as efficiently targeting service provision to the areas and populations most affected by housing instability. Thank you.

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

I'm a mom, gun owner and volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and I support this bill to provide tools to keep our community and loved ones safe.

I oppose all of these blatantly unconstitutional bills and wish our elected officials would actually get to work on fixing things that matter to Virginians.

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

Time and time again it has been proven that criminals do not care about or follow restrictive firearm laws. Virginia already has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country ("B+" rating from Giffords), more unconstitutional infringements upon law abiding citizens is not the answer. We need to address the root causes (access to mental health resources for example) and not throw bandaids at it by punishing responsible, law abiding, gun owners. I oppose these bills and urge you to do the same.

I am writing to voice my opposition to the multiple house and senate bills that do nothing to penalize violent criminals and arbitrarily turn law abiding gun owning citizens into criminals or strip these citizens of their rights and valuable property without due process. I am also opposed to further limitations being placed on citizens who have fulfilled the requirements to obtain a VA Concealed Handgun Permit. Again, the very people who have invested time and money in their committment to adhere to the law are being penalized.

Gun laws do not prevent firearm homicides, based upon gun control organization's own data (Giffords) •No correlation between strict gun laws and firearm homicide incidents •.07 coefficient of determination (AKA R2) where .90 is a strong association •There likely would be a weak association showing gun laws driving the firearm homicide rate higher if Washington, DC was given a score and ranked by Giffords.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support SB258 as it defines factors to consider for implementing an emergency risk protective order.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change and we support SB258 as it defines factors to consider for implementing an emergency risk protective order. Individuals that have committed acts of violence or have used threatening language against family members, neighbors, coworkers, or toward schools or students or government buildings or employees don't need to be in possession of firearms. No right provided in the Constitution is unlimited; owning a gun is a privilege and those that have been proven to be a danger to others should not be in possession of such dangerous weapons.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. We support SB258 as it defines factors to consider for implementing an emergency risk protective order.

I support this bill and think it is important to clarify the risk factors to consider and I support that this bill includes relinquishing access to firearms.

ERPOs are an important tool for gun violence prevention. Clarifying how they can be used is essential. I support this bill.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

Oppose bill: The parents or guardians should Not be doing drugs in the first place. This is harm to the child’s mental and physical well being. Selfishness from the parents

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

As a former high school mate of Irvo, his death was really devastating, and hearing that something could have been done to prevent his death just makes his loss even worse to bear. With this Bill it will help many people to have loved ones when they need it most. Let’s learn from the past mistakes and make the future better.

Writing in support of SB546. Having this law in place will bring hope and peace of mind not only to the individual experiencing a moment of crisis but for all involved stakeholders. In the moment of chaos and confusion, a familiar family member or loved one will serve to bring a calming presence, and advocacy for the individual while also contributing in ways of de-escalation rather than escalating the matter. This law will bring about better outcomes in the care of the individual.

In support of Irvo's law

In support of SB 546.

As a long time family friend to the family of the Ms. Caroline Ouko, Leon Ochieng and the late Ivor Otieno, I am hereby submitting my support for this bill. As a parent of a young man of almost a similar age with Ivor, I know what the young men are going through growing up and I would want to be there for them no matter the circumstances. If this law was in place, Ms. Caroline Ouko would have had a big role to play when Ivor needed help the most.

My name is David Barksdale family friend to Ivo Otieno. I am encouraging the committee to vote to forward bill SB546. Family members should have the opportunity to intervene when a loved one is experiencing a mental health crisis. As a result of this bills passage, I believe there will be better Clinical practice and treatment of a patent in Mental Health Crisis.

My name is Jennifer Scott. I am the sister in law of Irvo Otieno. I am writing in support of this bill because family members should have an opportunity to assist and intervene in a positive manner when they have a family member in crisis. If that opportunity had been afforded to us, my brother in law would still be here with us. As we grieve, we continue to fight in hopes that other families stories do not end tragically like ours has. Please vote yes to this bill to provide critical family support to those in mental health crisis.

As a public health professional, who has studied extensively about social determinants of health, I hearby submit my petition in support of Irvo's bill. Mental health patients, especially of minority races are treated as criminals when they seek help. We need to change laws which discriminate about Mental health patients by involving family members in their de-escalation and treatment. This way, first responders and police officers don't have to use unnecessary force on someone in distress. Please pass Irvo's bill. Give Mental Health a chance, not a jail term or death sentence.

My name is Leon Ochieng and oldest brother to the late but great Irvo Otieno. Senate Bill 546 is here today because of you the Committee and Patrons. This tragedy will turn into a legacy that we all will never forget. Gov. Youngkin gave us - the family his word, that he would sign it into law if the bill makes its way to his desk. Vote Yes today to power forward SB546 knowing that it will result in better Clinical practice and treatment of a patent in Mental Health Crisis. Irvo's Law is a Law for All.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

On behalf of Africans for Mental Health, we support the passage of Virginia Senate Bill 546: Emergency custody and temporary detention orders; evaluations, presence of others. Every day we advocate for Caregiver [family, friends, coworkers, legal guardians, etc] engagement in the process, not as forced, silenced and/or excluded observers but as recognized participants and partners in the mental health treatment plan of their loved ones whether they are in the hospital or in out-patient care. In some cases, the exclusion of caregivers during the medical evaluation process and the lack of available beds relegates patients to cycle out. Sometimes, individuals seeking mental health treatment come voluntarily but when they are denied care because they did not meet criteria, their health deteriorates and hence the need for an ECO. The interaction cannot only be when caregivers share collateral information with [988/911 responders, emergency room physician, nurses, law enforcement, community services board representative, EMT, social worker et al] and when they pick up their loved ones from discharge. Caregiver presence affirms their lived experience and reinforces their voice as members of the care team. Once the patient is discharged, it is the caregivers who are front and center in making sure their loved ones health is improving. Caregiver engagement has to be collaborative throughout the entire process. Furthermore, caregivers should be able to speak directly to the physician without barriers when their loved ones are admitted in the hospital. The mode and method of transportation should recognize that individuals experiencing mental health crisis are patients not criminals. The mode of transportation should be humane as not to injure the patient and cause additional stigma and trauma when seeking mental health treatment. Whether you seeking for help as an individual or those around you are seeking for help on your behalf, individuals living with and experiencing a mental health crisis deserve to be treated with the utmost dignity and compassion. Anything short of this will makes it so challenging for anyone to seek for help. Founded in 2017, our mission at Africans for Mental Health (AFMH) is to break the stigma of mental illness in the African global community. We do this work because no one should be criminalized for or denied access to life saving mental health treatment. We do this work because Irvo Otieno’s lived experience deserved compassion and because so many silently go through barriers to quality and dignified mental health treatment. We do this work because Mama Leon and Irvo fought so hard for her son. We get calls about how to navigate the mental health system in the US from individuals with lived experiences and their caregivers. Thank you to Carolyn Ouko and Leon (Leo) Ochieng, Allan Chipman for the turning your pain to agency, the Justice for Irvo Committee for staying committed, for Senator Bagby, Delegate Willett and the entire legislature working together to normalize the importance of individuals and caregivers with lived experience asking for help, seeking help and receiving help. This legislature speaks to the communities we serve at Africans for Mental Health. We look forward to the passage, implementation and practice as we normalize mental illness in our communities. Thank you

I am opposed to all of these unconstitutional and anit-american gun laws and regulations. There is no room for more gun laws and regulations in this state.

I oppose these bills that are attacking the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Please stop trying to make criminals of law abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves. Me and my partner have recently become firearm owners because of situations that have arisen in our day to day lives, such as harassment of my wife almost to the point of altercation, sketchy characters waiting in front of our door/ducking in and out of our bushes at all times of the night, people breaking into cars in the neighborhood etc (many times the police/security were called only to arrive 45mins to an hour later). with many of these nonsensical bills you condemn us to allowing any possible violence to happen to us without a chance of defending our selves. Instead of helping fix the problem, you seek to make criminals out of any Virginian who has followed the law and legal purchased a firearm. Shame on you. I am Virginian native and since I was 18 I voted leaning blue in local and state elections you all are making me think this was a mistake. I am not proud of Virginia “progressives” who would rather strip my wife of her chance and right to defend her self rather than try to address the root of crime. Don’t make law abiding people criminals. Do some actual work and address the criminals! 2 of the proposed bills would make in illegal to bring your concealed firearm into a restaurant and another makes it a crime to have the firearm in your vehicle…. Like really? This is literally just to fill jails and strip people of their rights.

These bills infringe on the rights of the United States citizens given to us by the second amendment. The only thing these bills will accomplish will take the firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens, while criminals will still have access.

I do not support any bill that removes any right from law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those who WILL NOT abide by these laws. These laws ONLY give CRIMINALS the upper hand.

There are approximately 47 bills regarding gun control between the House and Senate. Rather than fix issues that actually protect and enhance the lives of Virginians, many of these bills seek to disenfranchise and reduce the safety of the citizens in this great Commonwealth. Firearms are so fundamental to the founding and continued existence of our free society that they are listed just second to the freedom of speech in amendments to the constitution. It is plainly clear to all that countries and states who have banned or severely restricted firearms that violence does not end with their banning. Unjust deaths are not prevented. It simply ensures that law abiding citizens are left defenseless from those that wish to harm them, whether that be individuals or an organization. I write this knowing that it will be completely disregarded by the bills authors, but in hopes that others feel galvanized to speak up against unjust actions made in the name of progress. To those who wish to protect themselves with firearms while simultaneously stripping them from the common man, may you take heed of the Virginia state motto.

A lot of these laws contradict one another. I can’t support them. Both of our parties have failed us.

Stop trying to strip 2nd Amendment rights from law abiding citizens with a constitutional right to own and carry firearms. Not a single one of these laws/bills you’re trying to enact would have stopped any of the mass shootings we’ve seen.

I oppose all of these blatantly unconstitutional bills and wish our elected officials would actually get to work on fixing things that matter to Virginians.

There is no acceptable reason to infringe upon the Constitutionally-protected (both US and Virginia's Constitutions) rights of Americans and Virginians. None of these bills purported to reduce gun-related violence actually seem to prioritize the reduction of causal effects of overall violence. Many of these are merely attempts to curb the rights of the People to keep and bear arms, because our legislative bodies are full of corrupt, weak, and contemptible individuals. Show us the bills for addressing the root causes of violence: mental health, income inequality, social instability, lack of education and educational opportunities, drug & human trafficking, or employment & wages (this list is not all-inclusive).

Time and time again it has been proven that criminals do not care about or follow restrictive firearm laws. Virginia already has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country ("B+" rating from Giffords), more unconstitutional infringements upon law abiding citizens is not the answer. We need to address the root causes (access to mental health resources for example) and not throw bandaids at it by punishing responsible, law abiding, gun owners. I oppose these bills and urge you to do the same.

As a fellow Democrat, it’s important to acknowledge the complexities surrounding gun ownership and the Second Amendment. 1. Self-Defense: Firearms can be a crucial tool for individuals to protect themselves, especially in high-crime areas or situations where law enforcement response times are slow. 2. Sport and Recreation: Many Americans enjoy shooting sports like hunting, skeet shooting, and target practice as a recreational activity, fostering a sense of community and skill-building. 3. Cultural Tradition: Gun ownership is deeply ingrained in American culture, with a rich history of hunting and marksmanship passed down through generations. 4. Economic Impact: The firearms industry contributes significantly to the economy, generating jobs and revenue through manufacturing, sales, and related services. 5. Civil Liberties: Upholding the right to bear arms is fundamental to preserving individual freedoms and safeguarding against government overreach. 6. Empowerment of Marginalized Communities: For historically marginalized groups, owning firearms can serve as a means of empowerment and protection against hate crimes or discriminatory violence. 7. Emergency Preparedness: In times of natural disasters or civil unrest, responsible gun owners can help maintain order and protect their families and communities. 8. Deterrence of Crime: Research suggests that the presence of armed civilians can deter potential criminals and reduce overall crime rates in certain contexts. 9. Veterans and Law Enforcement: Many veterans and law enforcement officers transition to civilian life with a continued appreciation for firearms, utilizing their expertise for civilian defense and security. 10. Balanced Approach: Instead of blanket gun control measures, we can advocate for comprehensive solutions that address root causes of violence, such as mental health support, poverty reduction, and community intervention programs.

I oppose the proposed firearms legislation put forward by this legislature and any legislation that violates the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, amendment rights of any Virginian. The desire for safer communities, a more united nation, and healing for our public health is something that we all can share in but these bills do not achieve that. Rather, they regulate and penalize. They unconstitutionally restrict the rights of the many in the name of safety and serve only to harm our rights. I would be doing a disservice to our state and my fellow citizens if I did not also provide potential solutions or remedies to the violence we face. First, we as communities need to promote voluntary storage facilities for those who are experiencing hardship and are concerned about suicide. Ideally making it easier to put firearms safely out of reach when suicide risks are greater. To do this it would need to be a system at the lowest level with minimum government involvement besides funding and partnership with local ranges. We would also need to reach out to those in our lives who are in a bad place and encourage the use of these facilities. Second, we should promote a culture of safe handling and respect for firearms through school courses and community organizations because assault weapons or not suicide, or accidents only take one bullet from a single action firearm. Lastly and more broadly we should focus on the issues surrounding the violence. Whether it is drugs and organized criminal activity or the mental health crisis as it has become known we should be working to fix these issues first. I.e. legalize weed, adapt police training, and push to root out organized crime, promote common social values and family cohesion, increase freedom, physical activity, and discipline in the school system.

These firearms bill are either redundant or unless in any meaningful way. If you care about reducing violence, please focus on criminals. Please stop trying to disarm families and law abiding citizen from protecting themselves.

I am a liberal through and through, I believe in individual rights and the opportunity for prosperity for all. I vote democrat because I care about my community, the rights of minorities, and women’s rights. The proposed legislation limiting the ability of free, law abiding citizens to purchase firearms, carry, and general use should not be limited further. I have witnessed violence at the hands of criminals, some later caught and it was shown that they did not legally acquire these firearms. The proposed legislation will effectively stop those who abide by the laws of Virginia from being able to properly protect themselves. It is known that police will not protect you, and they have no legal obligation to do so. This puts us at a dilemma, it’s either blindly trust the police to protect us and our families or have the ability to protect ourselves. I am not advocated for looser gun laws by any means, but I am advocating for more common sense gun laws. What do I mean by this you may ask? Well I mean background checks are a must and proper certification to conceal carry. I am a former Marine, I was a firefighter, and am a current student at a great university in our nations capital. I like to think I am reasonable in my thinking, but after looking and reading the propositions I checked above, I can’t help but feel betrayed by my own party. There is more than 5 guns for every American in this country. Gun control must target the people who do not follow the law and try to prevent violence from occurring, and the proposed legislation above does not help in that manner. I am hopeful that you will read this and reconsider the language in the legislation and I am even more hopeful that I can protect my family as necessary. I will always vote for progress but that’s not to say that I will always vote against my interests. Locally, crime has been on the rise and I have had to deal with it directly with little to no help from the police. I will (to the fullest extent of the law) protect myself as necessary from anyone who wishes to inflict harm on myself or family, and I hope you see that the average citizen in Virginia can not afford a security detail or rely on our police for protection. Thank you and have a great day.

Please stop infringing on our god given right, protected by the constitution of the United States (which you all have sworn to uphold and protect), to keep and bear arms. Responsible gun owners are not the problem in America’s gun violence epidemic. We follow the law. Criminals don’t. We use our firearms to protect ourselves, loved ones, and community. Chipping away at this right we have makes us more vulnerable to becoming victims of gun violence, not protect us from it. These laws only serve to empower those with evil intentions. Rather, might I suggest harsher penalties for those who commit senseless acts of violence with firearms instead of going after the good men and women of the commonwealth who wish only to use their firearms for lawful purposes.

Dear House of Delegates, I'm writing to you today as a concerned citizen. The introduction of bills aimed at heavily regulating firearms, is not warranted or wanted by the people of Virginia. Our nation stands at a crossroads, where the desire to address gun violence intersects with the constitutional rights affirmed by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms is not just a legal directive but a reflection of our commitment to individual freedom. In this context, the proposed regulations, while motivated by a commendable desire to reduce violence, raise significant concerns about their effectiveness and the potential consequences for law-abiding citizens. Research, including findings published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, suggests that the relationship between strict gun laws and the reduction of gun violence is not as straightforward as one might hope. Cities with stringent gun regulations continue to face challenges with gun-related crimes, indicating that those intent on violence often find ways to circumvent the law. This reality prompts us to question whether new restrictions will achieve their intended goal or merely place additional burdens on those who seek firearms for legitimate purposes, including self-defense. Moreover, the abundance of firearms in the United States presents a logistical challenge to the enforcement of such regulations. With more guns than people in the country, the task of significantly reducing the availability of firearms to criminals, without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens, is daunting. It is within this complex landscape that I urge you to consider the broader implications of the proposed gun control measures. The parallels drawn with other contentious issues, such as the regulation of women's healthcare, highlight the potential for policy decisions to inadvertently infringe upon individual freedoms and deepen societal divisions. Such outcomes not only detract from the intended goals of enhancing public safety but also risk alienating segments of the population whose support is essential for the advancement of our collective well-being. I respectfully ask that you consider the potential consequences of the proposed gun control measures, not just for the immediate future but for the legacy we leave for generations to come. It is my hope that, together, we can find a way to address the challenges of gun violence in a manner that honors our values, respects our freedoms, and genuinely enhances the safety and well-being of our communities.

STOP INFRINGING OUR RIGHTS. Get rid of every single gun control bill that is here and START ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE. Stop trying to turn law abiding citizens into criminals. I am disgusted that all of these nonsense bills have even made it this far. You can have these laws in Northern Virginia where everyone hates guns but don’t force this garbage into the rest of the state. GET RID OF ALL OF THIS GARBAGE and keep your noses out of everyone’s business. More government is not the answer.

Virginia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. We can all agree violence is an issue but making more unconstitutional, on a national and state level, gun laws will not help with the rates of violent crimes and property crimes as we see from states with stricter gun laws. We need to increase access to mental health and community resources to address the root causes of issues rather than criminalizing responsible gun owners. I am opposed to this attack on the second amendment which is the fundamental backbone that protects the other freedoms guranteed in the constitution.

You guys need to stop attacking our 2nd amendment and get help for these kids growing up with identity crisis’s . You coming after law abiding citizens is appalling and the fact that your leaning towards becoming the despicable state of California is saddening. If the president can have security which uses firearms that even the normal civilian can’t have this raises the issue of how can a civilian defend against a tyrannical government with a featureless 10 round ar-15 ? Keep this up and we know exactly what your end goal is.

As a left leaning voter and citizen of Virginia, these new restrictions on our right to bear arms are sickening. Stop proposing so many bans and limits, and maybe a realistic bill, like the safe credit, won’t be universally protested. If you actually want to quell gun violence, keep focused on affordable mental and physical healthcare, improving the education system, and reducing income inequality. While the right may not support these real improvements, I cannot in good faith support or vote for any politician who supports banning or restricting the rights of law abiding citizens in our beautiful commonwealth. Thank you.

The 2nd amendment states "shall not be infringed". All of these bills are infringement and are therefore unconstitutional. Should we pass laws that people must pass a test before they can have freedom of speech? What about pass a test before you can vote? What about if someone does not have training they will be slaves again? Name one other right outlined in the constitution where a citizen has to jump through hoops before they can use that right? I oppose all of these bills as they will do more harm than good. I can understand wanting to keep people safe but gun control does the opposite. These bills will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to exercise their rights while criminals will still ignore the law. Criminals will still get illegal guns or weapons and will commit more crimes since they know the public is unable to defend themselves. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." You writing bills saying "give up your rights and guns and we will protect you". Well ask the Native Americans how that worked out for them. Ask a Jewish person who was under Nazi control how that worked out for them. Well Hitler's first step was to take away the guns from the public so they could not protect themselves and over 6 million people lost their lives. Since you do not know history you are writing bills which will doom us to repeat it. You know 75 years ago when you could just buy a gun in a catalog and it was shipped to your house we did not have this issue. In the 60s and 70s when people would have a gun in their truck at school or take one in for show and tell we did not have a gun issue. This is a mental health issue. Deal with mental health and you will fix the public safety issue. Zero of my guns have killed people because guns do not kill people. People kill people. Look at Ukraine and Israel for just one form of example why we need LESS gun control. All of these gun laws are unconstitutional and should be thrown out. Do the right thing and let us law abiding citizens have their rights as outlined in the constitution. Do not pass laws which infringe on our rights. If the 2nd amendment falls, the 1st will follow . When the 1st and 2nd fall the 13th will fall and our country will be lost and we will be back in chains.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Whether or not a person chooses to exercise this right is up to them. Otherwise, it shall not be infringed.

I can not, and nobody should, support these unconstitutional laws. THROW THEM ALL OUT.

You guys make it harder and harder to vote Democrat every single cycle. Complete ban on Semi Automatics more or less making the state even stricter towards guns then states like Maryland? I oppose all these even the "herp common sense derp" ones because the states party has made it clear they don't give a crap about anything but putting hollow wins for politicians because hhheeeyyy punishing law abiding gun owners is a whole lot easier then creating jobs or reducing crime. If these bills die before getting to the governors desk, especially the bans, then I will gladly continue to vote DNC. But if Youngkin has to veto these and you make me say something I never thought I would "Thank god Youngkin won" then I look forward to blindly going down the ticket in 2024 and checking "R" on everyone. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

I do not support more legislation infringing on my 2nd Ammendment rights. Please fund more enforcement for the proactive enforcement of existing laws and regulations pertaining to firearms.

I oppose this legislation.

First off, knives are a basic tool with myriad uses and have been around since ancient history. Any limitation on them is so insulting, and insane. We are not children. It is infuriating that money was spent to even write that down. The fact that I would need a right to carry a knife spelled out is not something our forefathers could have possibly anticipated, since it’s a simple tool. A screwdriver is exactly as deadly as any knife. I would know, I’ve been an ICU nurse for nearly a decade and I have seen people stabbed with both. Matter of fact, a hammer would be a superior concealed weapon with more lethality than either. Second, many of these new gun laws make sense. Many of them do not. I do not want stalkers, domestic abusers, or drug dealers buying guns. A waiting period and proficiency training is fine, although I believe it to be unconstitutional I would comply. However it appears we are going to make it illegal to purchase specific parts for guns, to build your own serialized and registered firearm, and to concealed carry in many public spaces. I also see a poorly defined and overly restrictive “assault weapons” ban. The most insane is the ban on parents having firearms in the home at all. That is unacceptable. The latter group of laws are an infringement based on the opinions of the woefully uninformed. I should not lose my right to responsible ownership, maintenance and concealed carry with a permit due to the lobbying of a group that has failed to due the due diligence to learn about the rights they wish to throw away for all of us. I have a concealed carry permit. It has saved my life of nearly saved my life multiple times. The police can be great, but they are minutes away when seconds count. For instance, as I was leaving a restaurant in the city I was targeted by 2 men with illegal guns. I did not know them, we had never interacted, but suddenly there was a gun pointing at me from a car circling around me in the parking lot. Without escape available, I drew my pistol in response. The car stopped circling and left, giving me time to alert law enforcement before there were any holes in me. If I come face to face with a mass shooter, as so many do, I prefer to be armed. The organization of mothers pushing for these laws can define the law of their household. But not mine. Learn from the past for gods sake. We do not need and will eventually not accept increasing restrictions and price hikes allowing only the wealthy and connected to be armed. Governor, I ask that you veto these laws which only restrict law abiding citizens. You are the person elected in part because you are the option on the ballot who would not let this stand. So don’t. To those in support of these laws: every right you surrender is one you can never recover without 10 times the struggle it took to get to the place where you were able to throw it away. Learning from your mistakes is not viable when you codify them into law. You are making several mistakes. You can’t restrict and underfund the police department and make personal defense harder at the same time. That is advantageous to no one. It is not how things work in this world where evil people exist, no matter how deep in the sand your head is. And the next time you’re grunting and sweating, tearing a box open like a fucking caveman you might want to try a knife before adding more legislation An armed society is a polite society, let’s keep it that way.

The litany of gun control measures under consideration will do nothing to effectively reduce crime and violence, and will only further restrict the rights of law abiding firearms owners. Not to mention the countless examples from other locales across the country where these same measure have been put into place and the result is more violent crime as criminals can now feel safe that the general population is not armed. Strongly oppose all proposed bills.

The ridiculous litany of gun control measures under consideration will do nothing to effectively reduce crime and violence, and will only further restrict the rights of law abiding firearms owners.

We dont need MORE laws regarding firearms, we need to enforce the laws that are already on the books. If enforcement is done then these laws are redundant and not necessary. Don't pass more laws just for the sake of passing laws. They do nothing but make law abiding citizens confused and they dont do anything to stop problems.

I am writing to express my great concern, to the legislatures that continue to ignore their oath of swearing to protect and uphold the rights of the citizens as protected by the United States Constitution and the Virginian Constitution. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". You beaurcrats do not grant that right to he people, it is God given. While you grandstand and ateemlt to make laws to hurt the everydayaw abiding American citizen, you turn a way and do nothing in these bills to punish criminals committing crimes. It is already illegal to murder people. To grandstand and think that any of these bills would stop someone from murdering or harming another person is laughable. Quite literally. You pander screaming about these firearm safety bills while you walk around with security and people with "guns" to keep you safe. Start enforcing the existing laws against criminals who commit crimes vs trying to turn law abiding people, who take training, are serious about protection of family, themselves and others, and trying to disarm them and make them criminals. Or we will vote you out! Uphold your Oath or be prepared for the consequences your actions lead to by the American people. Regards Mr. Harris

I know most modern politicians aren’t historians but the Bill of Rights is really simple. If you read that, you’ll also read the 2nd Amendment which is really simple as well. In the same docket you’re trying to give more benefits to police and take away more rights from citizens. You ought to be ashamed. What a farce freedom is anymore.

These anti gun laws are an infringement on all Virginian's 2A rights.

I am against all of these blatantly unconstitutional firearms restrictions. I'm strongly against: SB2| Deeds | Assault firearms certain ammunition, etc.; purchase, possession, sale, transfer, etc., prohibited. This tries to ban things that are in common use, which has never worked well for the government, remember Prohibition? Remember the war on drugs? Just like the last assault weapons ban, this will literally just make AR-15s more popular and easier to get illegally. And I am against: HB585 | Mundon King | Home-based firearms dealers; prohibited near schools, penalties. That specifically targets home-based FFLs whose house is somewhere near a school. This would put hundreds of Virginia residents out of business just because of where they live.

All infringements on the second amendment are acts of treason and should be treated as such. Acting in favor of such infringements makes you a traitor to this nation and th commonwealth.

All Virginians want our families to be safe from gun violence. However, passing such broad restrictions on firearms commonly used for self defense is not the answer. The updated definition of assault weapons and the associated prohibitions do little to nothing to stop criminals who are willing to illegally buy or steal firearms. There are plenty of firearms out there for criminals to access, with well over 400 million guns in civilian ownership in the United States. It is too late to round them all up. These bills will disproportionately affect those citizens who go out of their way to follow our commonwealth's laws; the people who are unlikely to commit a violent crime in the first place. The solutions to gun violence that stand a chance at working are community-oriented interventions that decrease poverty, drug use, gang activity, combat mental illness, and advocate for the safe storage of firearms. Sociologists know these factors correlate strongly with ALL types of violence. On average, two-thirds of firearms deaths are suicides, an assault weapons ban won't do a thing about those. Of the remaining 1/3 of firearms homicides, more than half are drug, gang, or domestic violence related. Let's pass bipartisan legislation that addresses these underlying problems, instead of preventing average Virginians from protecting themselves with firearms that are already ubiquitous.

I am Opposed to any limitations on the Second Amendment and any restrictive firearm laws. We have adequate, if not already overbearing, laws on the books now and should not be creating more laws restricting all the aspects of firearm use, sales, and any other aspects of the right to bear arms.

These firearm laws are mostly reactionary to the media response on firearms. This is a major infringement on the 2nd amendment and needs to be stopped.

An inordinate focus on the control of firearms only serves to infringe the rights of the law-abiding citizen in defense of his life and property. The State should instead focus on the apprehension and incarceration of individuals engaging in criminal behavior and associated misuse of firearms.

Any law that infringes on my Gods-given right to own and bear arms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Any law passed that infringes this right will be answered with a lawsuit.

Hello. There are a plethora of bills that were proposed, which would clearly violate the second amendment rights of many law abiding citizens. First of all, considering concealed carry should be permit-less carry, it is counterproductive to increase the requirements for concealed carry. Restrictions on where law abiding citizens can lawfully carry their now “permitted” firearms is asinine, as well as the proposition of a bill that would make it a penalty to leave a firearm in your car. You would essentially be disarming a large number of people who wish to follow these unlawful order in a day and age where the democratic agenda is to act like there are mass shootings on a daily basis. Effectively disarming the majority and increasing the requirements and legal loopholes to carry is such a vulnerable state to be in and I hope we’re smart enough to avoid that. Restrictions on “Plastic firearms and unfinished frames etc” is not only terrible literature that does nothing to explain, but it is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment considering you have a federal right to make firearms for personal use, which would include additively manufactured parts. Wait periods are also a horrifying thing to think of, considering how many times it has been proven to be a terrible idea, keeping guns out of the hands that need them most to protect themselves and their families. “Assault firearms” and anything to do with them is nonsense considering the blatant inability to define said “assault weapon”. People who don’t understand guns, shouldn’t be making laws on guns. A shorter barrel does not make it more lethal, in fact it lowers the muzzle velocity, causing less force on impact and penetration, in turn causing less collateral damage. Any sort of “assault weapons” bills are targeting law abiding citizens who have every right to use the modern advances in firearm technology just as police officers and military. The only people these bills are effecting are the already law abiding citizens. The criminals who got their hands on said weapons illegally aren’t going to be making sure that their ALREADY ILLEGAL WEAPONS are fully compliant with state laws and regulations before they go commit another crime. In no way shape or form should someone need to disadvantage themselves in a life or death situation because political members with an armed security detail don’t feel the need for a gun. Why would I want to limit myself to a firearm that is going to be inadequate in home defense, or one that does not have a high enough capacity to protect myself from the ever growing threat of home invasion and the increased trend of multiple home invaders breaking in armed. If it was you alone in your house with 6 armed intruders who most definitely must have checked their local laws and firearm regulations and made sure their firearms aren’t violating any rules before they break into your house, would you want to limit yourself to a low capacity firearm that is going to be extremely difficult to use effectively in a high stress situation, or are you taking a rifle which for reasons that don’t make sense, must have a 16 inch barrel, with a larger capacity magazine, and a stock that you can use to safely brace the firearm to prevent stray shots and provide more accurate fire. Personally I’m going to take anything and everything I can get in a situation that means life or death for me and my loved ones EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK. Focus on the mental health crisis.

Gun laws do not prevent firearm homicides, based upon gun control organization's own data (Giffords) •No correlation between strict gun laws and firearm homicide incidents •.07 coefficient of determination (AKA R2) where .90 is a strong association •There likely would be a weak association showing gun laws driving the firearm homicide rate higher if Washington, DC was given a score and ranked by Giffords.

I strongly, along with many fellow Virginians oppose any villainous disarmament bills disguised as "public safety". The second amendment clearly states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and out of touch elitist politicians who enjoy the luxury of armed security are choosing to ignore the constitution and force us to rely on sub-par police protection. The same people who want to defund the police want to disarm us. Embracing the second amendment is what is keeping our crime rates low compared to New York and California. We have seen the blatant disregard that criminals have for these so-called laws; emboldened criminals who are not afraid of the consequences and innocent law-abiding people who are forced to live in fear because a bunch of tyrants are letting power corrupt them. I do not want to live in fear and neither do the rest of us. In addition; a lot of counties and cities have declared themselves as second amendment sanctuaries to protect the rights of free individuals from the overreach of tyrannical politicians. These bills are a Trojan horse that will lead to more crime. You anti-gun politicians should be ashamed of yourselves; give up your private security and train yourselves. Then you will change your minds; because in the end, nobody is coming to save you. I would rather have a fighting chance against armed assailants than die waiting for help to arrive. These bills are pure evil

I'm against any unconstitutional law, and any law that strips Americans of their rights. These laws are an attack on the 2nd ammendment and hold NO facts in stopping crime. They are a punishment on law abiding people and in no way will make virginia a safer place.

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

SB273 | Subramanyam | Firearms; waiting period for purchases, penalty. SB327 | Salim | Firearms, certain; age requirement to purchase, def. of "assault firearm" & "handgun," penalty. SB363 | Ebbin | Firearm; removing, altering, selling, etc., or possessing w/removed, etc., serial number, penalty. SB368 | Boysko | Firearms; storage in residence where minor or person prohibited from possessing is present, penalty. SB383 | Deeds | Firearm/explosive material; carrying w/in Capitol Square or bldg. owned or leased by Commonwealth. SB447 | Marsden | Firearm in unattended motor vehicle; civil penalty. SB47 | Favola | Firearm; transfers to another person from a prohibited person. SB515 | Williams Graves | Weapons; carrying into hospital that provides mental health services. SB522 | Williams Graves | Purchase of firearms; demonstrated competence with a firearm or completion of training course. SB57 | Salim | Concealed handgun; carrying onto the premises of any restaurant, penalty. SB642 | Perry | Firearms; purchase, etc., following an assault and battery of a family or household member, etc. SB99 | Ebbin | Assault firearms; carrying in public areas prohibited, penalty. I oppose all these bills.

I oppose this bill as it seeks to infringe on the Consitutionally proctected rights of lawabiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals, criminals who do not follow the law. This bill makes it harder for someone to keep themselves safe and is primarily a solution in search of problems to fix. Virginia has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and even less gun related crimes being committed year over year. This is not due to gun control laws, in fact as gun control laws increase, s o does the rate of violent crimes. Criminals are not afraid of police, they are afraid of armed citizens. The subject of this bill has already been defeated in courts, passing this into law will only subject the Commonwealth to more lawsuits to have it repealed costing us more in taxes. Enough of our taxpayers money has been wasted in politicians attempting to pass "feel good" bills to try and prove they are doing their job. I urge the legistature to focus on enforcing and imposing stricter penalties for those that break our exsiting laws over creating new laws that only serve to pe nalize the law abiding citizens.

As a member of Virginia Moms for Change, a gun violence prevention group, I support bills SB327, SB383, SB 44, SB491, SB515, & SB642. State GVP law have been shown to lower gun violence within that state. These laws can be part of that for Virginians.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant

OPPOSE IT: There should be a firm sentence for drug offenders if it has been more than once. The Left needs to stop cuddling criminals and punishing victims. Why are being disrespectful to law abiding Virginians who do not want to have drugs around our neighborhoods, communities, parks, grocery stores, shops, schools, and institutions. It will create problems because you just need to look at Illinois, Cali, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New York, and others. Many people do not want to have a toxic and drug induce society where crime and gangs can occur. Would you like this next door to your home? I bet not. I truly believe you do not care about our young children and mental health. You want to make money.

Hi there, I'm Natalie from Social Busy Bee, your partner in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've discovered something phenomenal for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine introduces a groundbreaking service that takes your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's effortless: - Zero in on producing unforgettable content. - Extremely budget-friendly at a mere $36/month. - Completely safe (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and Instagram's best friend. I've experienced remarkable results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence right now: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster Best wishes, Natalie at Social Busy Bee"

Hi I am writing to you on behalf of The Well Connection UK, a media and publishing company. We could easily get virginia.gov featured in various publications such as magazines, online blogs and news sites. This would undoubtedly help virginia.gov with publicity, reputation, domain authority and organic search engine rankings. We have a wide range of options including completely free collaborations, sponsored posts, guest posts and banner ads. If this sounds of interest, please reach out to the senior business development manager, Anita at info@thewellconnection.co.uk and whatsapp +447395206515 (GMT) Kind regards Clifton Junior Outreach Assistant