I want to share my concerns about HB18, a bill that inserts the word “ethnicity” into the existing Hate Crimes bill. The bill purports to safeguard all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, a laudable intent with which I strongly agree. However, the placement of “ethnicity” into the Hate Crime law could have far-reaching and perhaps not immediately obvious consequences. The bill would prohibit unlawful discrimination because of, among other things, ethnic or national origin. Discrimination targeting people of Jewish ethnicity is commonly known as antisemitism. Antisemitism, as adopted in the Virginia code last year, has a very specific definition, one based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism (IHRA WDA). That definition gives examples of certain types of criticism of the state of Israel and labels them antisemitic. One of those examples includes: • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor, ie accusing it of being an apartheid state; This seems to mean, if this bill were to be adopted, that under certain circumstances, a person criticizing the state of Israel could be accused of a hate crime. What circumstances? Lines 27-30 of the bill state: “Conduct that violates any Virginia or federal statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of . . . ethnic or national origin is unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter.” Does that mean, if I were to carry a protest sign in a (Virginia) public place that says “End Israeli Apartheid” under this bill, in combination with the IHRA Definition, I could be charged with a hate crime? In the section entitled Liability for Defamatory Material on the Internet beginning at line 216 it says, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be liable for (i) Any action taken by it voluntarily in good faith to restrict access to, or availability of, material that the provider considers to be . . . harassing or intended to incite hatred . . . on the basis of race . . . ethnic or national origin, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or (ii) Any action taken to enable, or make available to information content providers or others, the technical means to restrict access to the information provided by another information content provider. What are the implications of this section? Could an internet provider, say a college, be asked to prohibit internet access to the apartheid findings of multiple human rights organizations, based on the example in the IHRA definition that deems referring to Israeli apartheid as antisemitic? Or could a high school teacher be prohibited from assigning digital material by Ta-Nehisi Coates and others because it discusses racism and a student finds it uncomfortable? This bill appears to be an insidious broadening of ways to accuse people of hate crimes and stifle important learning and expressions of criticism about difficult and uncomfortable topics. I ask that you look closely at this bill and consider all its implications. Sincerely, Kathy Drinkard Springfield, VA

Good afternoon! My name is Amy Melnick-Scharf, Chair of the Legislative Committee for the Jewish Community Relations Committee at the Jewish Federation of Richmond. I am here today on behalf of several Jewish Federations throughout the Commonwealth. I am here to thank the bi-partisan Patrons of HB18 A bill relating to hate crimes and discrimination adding ethnicity. This bill, when passed, will ensure and safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination in employment and in public because of one’s ethnic origin. For new members of the Committee and the House, this legislation passed the House last year, and in the Senate, similar legislation overwhelmingly passed the Senate. The session ended without achieving a compromise. The Jewish Community Federation strongly supports this legislation which will strengthen the Commonwealth’s hate crime laws. This legislation adds the word ethnic to the list of protected classes, which also includes race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, and national origin. Ethnicity a collective identity which often includes the belief in a common history and origin and may include shared traditions, language, and religion. An ethnic group consists of a shared common culture based on cultural, historical, linguistic, and unique historical and social experiences. Examples include Sikh’s, Han Chinese, Zulu, Kurds, Basques, and the Jewish people of which I am a part. It's essential to note that the perception and definition of ethnicity can vary widely among different societies and individuals-even among the ethnicity. As a Jewish person-this is my religion; but it is also my ethnicity. There are many Jews who are non-white, who speak a variety of languages and who do not practice the religion at all, or who practice it very differently; however we are all ethnically Jewish. While this legislation is not about any single community, nor does it name any specific community and nor should it – this bill will ensure that that Jewish individuals are included in Virginia’s laws against discrimination and assault regardless of whether they identify or are targeted based on Judaism’s religious or ethnic aspects. As we have seen in recent months with the increase in antisemitism, which according to the FBI has risen over 300% since October 7th, often Jewish people are targets of hatred because of their ethnic identity regardless of their level of religious observance. Thank you for your support of HB18.

Please vote NO on HB18. Adding the word “ethnicity” will not prevent antisemitism, nor strengthen the Hate Crimes bill. It could potentially infringe on the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the Commonwealth, and by allowing the prosecution of Jews who disavow Zionism. Again, please vote NO on HB18.

HB18 is literally selling the soul of our state to Israel

Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity". The definition of ethnicity is vague and can be confused, misused, and abused. VOTE NO on HB 18.

The addition of "ethnic animosity" is a very broad term and could easily be abused and actually used to stifle free speech and in this case expanded to charge someone with a hate crime. This is extremely problematic due to the current incorrect definition of antisemitism by the IHRA and the state of Virginia which unfortunately conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism which it is not. I would be concerned if you add "ethnic animosity" that criticizing the state of Israel could be found to be discriminatory against an ethnic group, given the way that Virginia and the IHRA has chosen to define antisemitism. For example: I would be concerned that if a person at a rally to ask the state of Israel to stop killing Palestinians, that if that if things became physical, and the person who was at the rally was charged with simple assault against someone there was Jewish that they would also be charged with a hate crime. Ethnicity is one aspect of someone who is Jewish. Adding these words to the bill could of course be used very confusing because "ethnicity" is too broad a term and also hard to determine what someone's ethnicity is. Please VOTE NO - do not approve adding "Ethnic Animosity".

HB18 is a bill that echoes multiple past Supreme Court cases in which overly ambiguous hate-speech aimed laws have been overturned for their unconstitutionality- not even touching on their ineffectiveness. I speak as a Jew who will not allow the beliefs of zionism to speak for me. Jews are protected in America, and have been for many decades. If the safety of a people depends on the existence of a foreign nature then that safety is a lie- bread and circuses. This bill goes against the right to free speech as strongly as any I have ever seen. History remembers the killers.

I would like to note that not only does HB18 attack free speech, it could potentially infringe the freedom of religion by policing the ways in which antisemitism is viewed by the commonwealth. The logical conclusion of this bill is that the commonwealth could persecute Jews for practicing Judaism in a way that challenges and discredits zionism and the israeli state.

Please vote no on HB18. HB 18 safeguards all Virginians from unlawful discrimination, including discrimination because of ethnicity. However, this language (ethnicity) directly ties the bill to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which was placed in the code last year and conflates discrimination against persons of Jewish heritage with criticism of Israel. This bill would in effect make it possible to charge someone who criticizes Israel's practices and policies with a hate crime, based on the IHRA's definition of antisemitism otherwise understood as discrimination of the Jewish ethnic group, thus silencing that criticism. There is plenty of evidence that the IHRA definition is being used in the US and in Europe to do just that. Please refer to the following reports that suggest how the IHRA definition is being used. https://imeu.org/article/imeu-policy-analysis-9-ihra-definition-silences-speech-for-palestinian-righ https://palestinelegal.org/distorted-definition https://elsc.support/news/breaking-new-report-reveals-human-rights-violations-resulting-from-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism Unless it can be guaranteed that this bill can't be used to charge Israel's critics with hate crimes and silence criticism, it should not be adopted.

Vote NO on HB18. It is a direct assault on the constitutional right of free speech. We need more, not less, protection for citizens to express their views openly and without fear of reprisal and discrimination. If passed, this bill would open the door to discrimination against persons who are critical of Israel’s policies, including, it should be added, Jews. It could, in other words, be invoked to discriminate against a religious minority. This is awful. We must hold fast to the separation of church and state. This bill does the opposite. Vote NO on HB18.

Please vote NO on HB18 - extremely misleading attempt at suppressing the rights of Palestinians and other suppressed peoples from defending their rights to exist and free speech in general. Also absolutely unconstitutional.

This is unconstitutional and if you vote for it you will very likely be held liable in the future. This is an attack on free speech and if you champion free speech/democracy your morally obligated to vote no on this otherwise you will be a hypocrite. Also Helmer if Israeli lobby is telling you what to do then you are a power hungry individual who needs to reevaluate and i hope you can never sleep at night again thanks for your time

HB18 attacks freedom of speech. Further, it allows for discrimination against religious practitioners. Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Israel is political, and Judaism is religious. But this bill could allow for the discrimination of Jewish people who do not align with Israel’s politics. What happened to the separation of church and state? I understand wanting to protect Jewish people, but this may actively target some Jewish people while it claims to protect a minority. Vote NO on HB18.

The Commonwealth does not have the right to interfere with Jewish people's criticisms of other Jewish people, or label intercommunity strife as discrimination. This law does not protect from religious discrimination, only punishes the wrong kinds of religious expressions.

Please vote NO on HB 18. This bill attacks free speech, and could potentially infringe the freedom of religion. VOTE NO! Thank you!!

I urge all the members of this committee to vote against HB 18 - “Hate crimes and discrimination; ethnic animosity, penalties.” Although at face value this bill seems fairly innocuous, the consequences of this bill are questionable and therefore the General Assembly should study it further before taking any further action on it. The problem is that the current language of the bill could be construed to include the weaponized "IHRA definition of antisemitism" which was adopted by the General Assembly in 2023, and includes criticism of a foreign government, which is constitutionally protected free speech. Therefore, unless the IHRA definition is removed from the code, HB 18 could impose unconstitutional restrictions on free speech in Virginia, if passed. For this reason, I urge this committee to reject HB 18 at this time, to protect free speech in Virgina.

I am deeply concerned about the contents of the proposed bill HB18 and its potential consequences for members and residents of the Commonwealth. This bill is a direct attempt to dismantle free speech within the Commonwealth, and should be voted down immediately and in perpetuity. Not only would this bill would allow the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to be used in prosecution, but the language is so ambiguous and vague that it could come to mean no Virginian is allowed to criticize any foreign state representing ethnic majorities. From a personal perspective, as a proud and active lifelong member of Congregation Beth Ahabah, the third oldest and and fourth largest congregation on the East Coast, I can say with confidence that this bill will NOT protect Jews in the commonwealth. All it will do is limit free speech and political dissident. In fact, setting such dangerous precedent would put more Jews in harms way and potentially add on to already real and present hurt and harm directed at our community. The continued conflation of all Jews to the modern state of Israel is both deeply disrespectful and incredibly dangerous. It teaches those who may be unfamiliar or unaware of Jewish practice that all Jews, regardless of nationality, have an allegiance to the foreign modern state of Israel thus perpetuating an age-old anti-Jewish trope that we cannot be trusted or seen as equal countrymen. Currently, the modern state of Israel that I, and most Jews, have been aligned with arguably without consent and, in some cases, against our collective will, is dominating the world stage because of the violence it is inflicting upon Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. They continue to do so despite the overwhelming calls for ceasefires being heard around the world and within this commonwealth. Such violence is being perpetuated by a regime that is intentionally parroting Jewish words, phrases, and stories in order to not only shield its true intent of white supremacy behind the traumatic lineage of world Jewry, but to send a message to all governments, who again may or may not be familiar with Judaism, that the current actions being taken by Israel are not only to protect itself but to protect the entirety of the Jewish Population. If protecting Jews in the commonwealth is a goal of this legislature, may I ask how this bill aids in that pursuit? From where I, and many other Jews like myself, stand taking a position in favor of HB18 sends a message that we are not acceptable as "Jew" in the eyes of this legislature seeing as we refuse to stand in support of a debatably genocidal, and certain apartheid state and its regime. This sets a precedent that quite frankly, none of us are capable of making as it changes the ways in which the Jews are permitted to practice our religion. As far as I am concerned, HB18 impacts the freedom of religion just as much as it does the freedom of speech. In looking to my so-called leaders in this legislature, I see such dissonance between you all and your constituents. There are genuine instances of hate in this commonwealth that have yet to be fully addressed and can be traced all the way back to our creation as a colony in 1607. You have the choice to be addressing those deep inequalities and inequities, and instead make the choice to police how residents of this commonwealth speak and practice our faiths. Vote NO to HB18 and all bills that aim to attack valid criticisms of foreign states.

Comments Document

ADL strongly supports HB18. We have provided a written statement as to the incredibly increase in antisemitic incidents impacting our community. HB18 is an important step to combat hate and bias.

So wonderful to see us finally cracking down on guardians and conservators. Well done! Also glad to see us crack down on hate crimes especially if we’re going to continue fueling the disastrous Applied Behavioral Analysis. There must be guard rails. So thank you Dan. And as for HB81, I wish that had become law years ago! I nearly took my life twice. Now you’re going to rub salt in the scar?

Guns are the number one killer of kids in this country. We support laws that keep our kids safe and away from guns.

My name is Jeanne Hanewich, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Virginia, we support the passage of HB36 Willett and HB318 Helmer. Thank you

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

This is such an important bill that will help off issues BEFORE they happen! I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns."

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns.

I am a member of Virginia Moms for Change. I support HB36. As guns are the #1 killer of children 1-19 in America, we support laws that keep kids away from guns. Gun owners must be responsible for their weapons and be held accountable if their firearms are accessed and used by minors.

Guns are the #1 killer of children in America. We support laws that keep kids away from guns.

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

Unlimited FREE Buyer Traffic On Autopilot Fully-automated software for SET & FORGET traffic 24/7 Ultra-fast SAME DAY results 100% free traffic and it always will be Click on link ----> https://instantrealtraffic.com/go

Hey there, Natalie from Social Buzzzy , your guide in the exciting world of Instagram growth. I've stumbled upon something extraordinary for skyrocketing your Instagram popularity and I'm thrilled to share it with you! Social Growth Engine unveils a revolutionary service that propels your Instagram engagement to new heights. It's a breeze: - Concentrate on crafting unforgettable content. - Extremely affordable at a mere $36/month. - Utterly reliable (no password needed), incredibly powerful, and the ideal Instagram companion. I've experienced outstanding results firsthand, and I'm sure you will too! Amplify your Instagram presence this instant: http://get.socialbuzzzy.com/instagram_booster To your success, Natalie

I'm Heath, Founder of CaseConnector.io. We're experiencing an overflow of cases from our Client Acquisition Program and see a potential fit with your firm's expertise. Let's discuss further? Reach out at https://caseconnectors.com or my personal email heathd@caseconnector.io Best, Heath Find me on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/heathdonald

I am in support of these three bills as the growing population of Virginia, specifically Northern Virginia, has caused problems with all animals (pets and wild). There are way too many cases of animal cruelty and neglect. Most go unnoticed as only the really horrible ones make the news. For HB206, I was actually surprised that pet stores DON'T provide information when animals die. This lack of accountability needs to be addressed since pet stores have the potential for abuse. This would align the accountability with other organizations that handle animals. For HB223, the recent cases of animal cruelty in Virginia have been disturbing to say the least. Hoarding and neglecting dogs and cats to the point of forcing them to live in their own feces, starve to the point of death, turn to cannibalism, and go without much needed medical treatment when they are sick and injured is beyond thoughts for any sane human. These people need to be identified, prosecuted to the fullest extent, and NEVER have access to pets or any animals. For HB62, I have experience in law enforcement and when a "potential" criminal is identified, a national database can be accessed to see the person's "record". A national database of individuals convicted of animal abuse and animal cruelty is needed so these "puppy mill" operators can't be closed down in one state only to reopen in another. This bill can address one aspect of this issue by establishing and maintaining a list of convicted individuals in Virginia so other states can research any potential convictions they may have. It also allows county humane enforcement / animal control officers to be better equipped with information when monitoring or prosecuting these horrible cases. Both of my recent dogs were rescue dogs. We had each of them for over 16 years. We gave them good lives. The Virginia Legislation needs to do their part and provide animals with the quality of life they deserve. Thank you.

Please support HB223 to help keep animals safe in the Commonwealth.

Good evening, my name is Jaimie Ashton and I would ask you to support HB223. This bill is needed unfortunately we have had several cases In the Commonwealth that this bill would have been a great help to protect animals. In Fredericksburg we had a case where a partner in a practice who is also a Vet Tech committed an awful crime against a dog and confessed to such crime. There was no option for the judge in that case to restrict her access to dogs, she is still a current owner and practing Vet Tech. In Spotsylvania County we had a lady who was charged with starving her horses but yet was able to continue to work for years as a dog trainer at a major retail chain. In Orange County we had a well known dog trainer who was charged with several charges of cruelty. We need to give the judges the tool to help protect animals from people like these. This is an optional tool not a requirement. Thank you in advance for your time and support.

The members of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance ask you to vote "no" on HB 223. Supporters of the lifetime ban don't realize that ANYONE with an animal can be charged with animal cruelty in the Commonwealth. We have an overzealous Animal Law Unit and the process of obtaining a search warrant, raiding the home, bringing criminal charges, pursuing prosecution, and securing a conviction is completely flawed. Changes must be made to the current process before ever considering anything as permanent as a lifetime ban. The perfect example of the current hostility towards owners is the case of the Natural Bridge Zoo. Karl and Debbie Mogensen are living proof of how the Animal Law Unit can put a target on your back and then "fish" for the crimes they believe were committed. It doesn't matter how many times you use your vet or how much documentation you have to back it up. Old animals are a liability, special needs animals garner you an investigation, and any animal that is buried or preserved on your property can be used against you. The Animal Law Unit is looking to make a name for themselves instead of focusing on ACTUAL animal abuse. Innocent owners shouldn't have to fight the State when they have done nothing wrong and yet this is happening in case after case. The lifetime ban is in regards to felonies, but who has been charged with a felony? Irina Barrett was charged for a dog that swallowed an object. A DOG THAT SHE TOOK TO THE VET FOR HELP. She was also charged for the torture and death of Deelah when in fact the dog was still alive! Irina went public with this information and Michelle Welch had the wording changed and the charge dismissed on the first day of Irina's trial. This charge alone reveals a lot about what is happening with these animal cases. Rhiannan Vitiello was charged with FOUR FELONIES for horse body parts that were found in a 30-year-old compost pile--even though this was "junk science." She was also charged with a felony for a horse that was experiencing colic. COLIC IS ONE OF THE LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN EQUINES. Why was Rhiannan criminally pursued for this? Rhiannan's mother, Robin Vince, was charged and CONVICTED for three felonies for three old, dead horses that had been euthanized and buried on her property. Amy Taylor (who is now part of the Animal Law Unit) was part of the raid and testified against Robin. Robin appealed the verdict, but did not win her appeal. If every farmer in Virginia was treated like this for animals buried on their farm, there would be public outrage. Debbie Coley is yet another example of how the code is being abused to harm good owners. She was charged with FELONY TORTURE for her special needs dog, Romeo. He had been hit by a car and was in a wheelchair. The Commonwealth later reduced the charge and Debbie won her case, but she should have never endured such treatment. A citizen's "guilt" or "innocence" is often based on their financial resources. Do they have money for a good legal team? Do they have money for the care bond? Can they afford to appeal? A lifetime ban is a permanent and serious thing. We need to fix the current problems with the process before ever considering methods to increase punishment. Instead of a lifetime ban, we need reform to the code and accountability for the Animal Law Unit. Please don't further empower Michelle Welch--vote "no" on HB 223. Sincerely, Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Good evening Committee I ask you to please vote in favor of all three of these bills. People should know how and why animals passed away in pet stores that is only fair to the consumers for transparency. HB 223 is long overdue in my opinion as it is now the judges do not have the tools they need to properly say bad actors can no longer work with animals and or own them like mini crimes offenders often happen. We need to protect the animals just as we do people we don't let people who've been charged with crimes against children work with children, so why would this be any differently? HB 62. I am so excited to see this Bill when you volunteer with rescues there's currently no database to see if somebody has been convicted of crimes against animals to know that an animal may not be safe with them. The Virginia Court System is a tool, but it is a tool that many many many people do not know how to navigate, you also have the problem of if somebody has changed their name you won't necessarily have that information. I think this bill along with HVB223 is a great opportunity for the companion animals and the Commonwealth of Virginia. It will also give people the peace of mind that when they're looking for a dog sitter or a new veterinarian or a dog trainer, they know they have a tool to go to to see if they're a good person. And also with HB 223 that is not mandatory situation. It is something that gives the judge the discretion, where if he, or she feel like the person has committed such heinous crimes that they should not be able to have animals that they have a legal way to forbid them from doing so.

Comments Document

Please see attached testimony.

I support this bill. Persons who are convicted of animal cruelty in Virginia often obtain other animals who are subject to similar acts of cruelty. This bill gives discretion to the court to protect animals from individuals with a record of animal cruelty, as necessary.

Support. Good change to the law.

I support this bill to allow for more freedom in the length of prohibition of owning animals if convicted of a misdemeanor or felony cruelty charge. Allowing additional time after incarceration provides the opportunity for additional rehabilitation and services to be provided.

I SUPPORT HB223, HB320, and HB47. (I declared support for HB221 to curb outdoor and feral cats in another comment.) I only wish HB47 could go farther and place an outright ban on the sale of invasive plants. I am appalled that it isn't already the law that someone convicted of animal cruelty is barred from ever owning a pet in the future. Let's fix that post haste! And HB320 is important to pass because we need to get rid of invasive species - they are causing tremendous damage to our native flora and fauna. (As are free-roaming cats, hence my support for HB221.)

Please support HB223! This bill hits home, as our neighbor's small dog was mauled and killed in May 2023 before her owner's eyes by a pitbull, as she waited to pick up her daughter at the bus stop after school. It was a terrible incident that opened my eyes to how little could be done to make sure the owner of the pitbull never let this happen again. (I'm a pitbull owner myself, so I realize it is not the dog's fault.) This owner did not take care of the dog, frequently left it outside in the rain and snow, locked it in the basement. The pitbull had apparently killed the owners' other dog at some point. The owner surrendered his dog and it was put down by Fairfax County, but he went out and got another one. Our neighborhood again lives in terror of this owner. Please support HB223!

HB206 I SUPPORT this bill. All pet shops should be accountable for the animals in their possession and transparent as to their health and welfare HB221 Vote NO on this bill. As written, this bill ignores the many Virginia communities that are successfully/humanely managing free-roaming cat populations. Its current language leaves the door open for inhumane policies like catch and kill. I do NOT SUPPORT this bill HB223 I SUPPORT this bill HB330 I SUPPORT this bill, but no pet shop should EVER offer consumer credit for an animal HB580 I SUPPORT this bill. Testing facilities should be totally transparent!! HB804 I do NOT Support this bill. The orginal language is the preferred language and there is no reason that the case cannot be heard within 30 days. You are allowing too much leeway to string out the case HB62 I SUPPORT this bill. Anumal Cruelty offenders should be known to the public just like sex offenders. There absolutely should be a list! HB9 I SUPPORT this bill

I would suggest amending HB267 to reflect the following proposed compromise solution: that a CSB Qualified Mental Health Profession (QMHP-A) be authorized to perform a TDO prescreening evaluation on site at the court service unit having jurisdiction upon the issuance by an LEO or mobile co-response team of a paperless ECO. The proposed amended code would direct the LEO officer or mobile crisis co-response team responding to a "psychiatric emergency" to transport an individual with a known history of SMI/ASD/I/DD to a suitable secure physical location for further evaluation. This would typically involve transport of the individual in custody to the local court service unit having jurisdiction physically located in close proximity to the magistrates office. At such secure location, the TDO prescreening evaluation and final decision to book or not book and to divert to the civil side would be made. Final booking status would be at the discretion of the LEO or co-response team retaining physical custody of such an individual facing criminal charges but with the benefit of the results of a completed TDO civil prescreening evaluation performed by a CSB QMHP-A in a controlled environment and with benefit of a brief criminogenic screening The decision to charge would be made in consideration of a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the immediate assessed mental capacity and stability of the individual in question, the known history of mental disability of the individual, prior history of offending, the recommendation of the CSB pre-screener, and the recommendations from the regional CITAC having jurisdiction. The pre-screener, in addition to a standard TDO prescreening, would normally perform a brief criminogenic RNR risk assessment using a standard evidence-based instrument . The assessment would take into further account evidence based on the preliminary police report, and available court and mental health records,, . The CSB evaluator would convey the results of a written prescreening evaluation with recommendations to the magistrate for disposition. Those having input into the final disposition of the case with respect to diversion or booking would include the regional CITAC with input from co-response crisis teams, EMS, fire, dispatchers, existing medical providers in the community, and family or adult peers when available, at varying stages of police intervention, according to the Sequential Intercept Model (Munetz and Griffin) at Levels 0 and 1 with the option not to prefer, or, that is, to forego charges, and "drop off" at a licensed CRC unit or other specialized mental health "drop-off" point for medical clearance. Individuals meeting criteria for civil diversion would be transported to a licensed CRC/CSU or mental health specialized ED at a hospital like the Carillion Roanoke System or Merrifield Fairfax for further evaluation and psychiatric stabilization.

This is another great bill which I support! It is far too easy for Law Enforcement to charge the mentally handicapped, particularly the autistic and Downs Syndrome, who do not know how to act or react in this situation. The intellectually disabled all ready do not know their rights, do not understand that the police are not always their friends, do not know how to self advocate, and are at the mercy of police who are allowed by law to lie to people to gain convictions. Time and again police criminalize mental health emergencies in the name of officer safety, though they show up in overwhelming force and often enough shoot first, ask questions later. Remember the case of Elijah McClain, Aurora, Co, who told police he had a mental health crisis. They and the first responders instead delivered a lethal dose of ketamine that killed him.

HB267 The Arlington County Police Department strongly opposes this legislation. First, it sets a dangerous precedent, signaling that it is okay for law enforcement officers to be assaulted, but not others. Given the current state of the mental health system, police officers are dealing with individuals in mental health crises more often now than ever. If this legislation passes, officers may be forced into encounters that have disproportionately heavy consequences for the officer but no consequences for the offender. Second, arresting an offender who is suffering from a mental health crisis does not preclude them from obtaining mental health services. In Arlington County, the detention facility provides acute mental health services and works closely with the Department of Human Services to provide the necessary services he/she needs to reduce recidivism. Additionally, the court system is set up to assist individuals who cannot stand trial due to their mental state. Third, this legislation would allow individuals to assault the police with no criminal recourse. Additionally, it would allow others to abuse the system and falsely claim they were having a mental health crisis in order to commit the serious crime of assault on law enforcement.

As the parent of a non-verbal young man I know firsthand the terror that some bystander will misunderstand my son and call the police. It happened once in the grocery store, where my son, who chatters wordlessly to himself, was overheard by someone who misinterpreted his chatter as "I have a gun". They called management, fortunately, not the police, but I still have flashbacks of the awfulness that could have happened if the police had been called. My son cannot understand commands from a police officer. Please do not allow disabled people to be subject to criminal penalties for behavior over which they have no control/no understanding of the consequences.

Please Vote YES on HB267. Because of the high probability of law enforcement charging someone with a felony assault when they are in a mental health crisis especially if they are someone who is autistic or has other disabilities, families are terrified of calling for HELP. When you dial 911 you think someone is coming to help you with a crisis but rather the police respond. If there is a medical crisis, then medical personnel respond. If there is a behavior crisis, the police respond. Why? The crisis is still medical. Please stop putting vulnerable people in jail. The best way to do this is to have behavioral health professionals respond and not charge the individual with felony assault. Sheriffs who see these people in jails know they do not belong there. The statute gives law enforcement extraordinary power to punish those who insult or defy them. Stop victimizing vulnerable people by charging them with a crime when they are in crisis. This is NOT an attempt to be "soft on crime" and that argument is a red herring for a situation everyone admits is unjust and unfair. Please vote yes on HB267.

Hb267 Vote yes. People do not have full control over themselves during mental health emergencies. Coming out of it to legal consequences is setting them up for failure

YES amend/add to the code these exceptions/definitions

YES this is a great addition to the code 18.2-57 on A&B. From social worker

YES from a social worker who advocated for the MARCUS alert. it is life changing to add this exception to VA code and add these definitions.

We support HB267 beccause it is important to help prevent individuals in a mental health crisis from getting a felony record and mandatory jail time for something they have no control over. It could also help prevent individuals in crisis from entering the criminal justice system and experience additional damage, for behavior that often does not result in bodily harm, when instead they should be taken for treatment to a mental health facility. There are protections in place for law enforcement officers, who if actually injured can still place other charges.

Comments Document

Hello, My name is Deirdre Speaks Johnson. Co-founder of Ending Criminalization of HIV and Overincarceration in Virginia (ECHO VA) Coalition. I am a Black woman living with HIV for 23 years and have assisted in changing Virginia’s HIV criminalization laws in 2021. Receiving my HIV diagnosis in 2000 versus a person receiving an HIV diagnosis in 2019 is drastically different. Care and treatment services are well advanced with appropriate options to get some people living with HIV to an undetectable viral load, meaning I cannot transmit HIV to any sexual partner. In addition, the CDC has recommended that there is zero risk for an individual to transmit HIV if protective barriers are utilized or if the person has an undetectable viral load. Thus, I ask that this committee vote against HB 435. This bill will: further perpetuates stigma towards people who live with HIV (PLHIV) or hepatitis by singling out diseases that have a no to low risk of transmission. work against public health efforts for prevention, testing, treatment, and care creates undue harm to Virginians. Especially to those who are newly diagnosed or new to treatment and care for HIV and hepatitis provide further fiscal impact to the state As a birthing parent, I was informed of this law when I received my diagnosis, but after researching and learning more about HIV criminalization laws, I saw that laws like the infected sexual battery law do not exist for other communicable diseases. This is why I have made it my passion, along with countless others to stand firm on HIV NOT BEING A CRIME. And neither is living with any communicable disease. Health conditions should not be criminalized in any way shape or form. Representative Arnold, I further ask that you meaningfully and intentionally engage with individuals who will be impacted by the enactment of this law. ECHO VA welcomes a meeting with you and your office to discuss how we can work together to create a viable solution for everyone.

Comments Document

Hello, my name is Dr. Cedric Pulliam and I am the co-founder of the Ending Criminalization of HIV and Overincarceration in Virginia (ECHO VA) Coalition. In the 2021 Session Senate Bill 1138 made several changes to VA’s HIV criminalization laws, including repealing the compulsory testing statute. The statute allowed for testing in two situations: (1) Charge: A Commonwealth attorney (CA) could request HIV testing of an individual charged with sexual assault once charged with the offense. Should the individual refuse, a court with jurisdiction over the case could require testing against the individual’s consent where the court finds probable cause the individual committed the sexual assault. (2) Conviction: A CA, with the victim’s consent, could request and a court would order the individual convicted of sexual assault to undergo testing for HIV. HB 435 Allows a local attorney for the Commonwealth in the county or city in which such exposure occurred to file a petition for an order requiring testing and disclosure of test results on behalf of a law enforcement officer when a law enforcement officer is directly exposed to the bodily fluid of a person. This does not align with or abide by current CDC guidelines as the CDC states, “HIV testing should always be voluntary and adhere to ethical and human rights principles. Every decision to seek HIV testing should be based on individual practice, rather than mandated by law. The CDC, World Health Organization, and UNAIDS are all clear on this issue: HIV testing, no matter how it is delivered, must always respect the right to decline. Requiring someone to take an HIV test in custody violates their fundamental right to privacy and runs contrary to the notion of informed consent and public health. Informed consent demands the right to refuse testing without consequences or coercion. Forced HIV testing is unethical and discriminatory, exacerbates HIV-related stigma, and harms our efforts to end the HIV epidemic. Furthermore, where is the legal or medical precedent to allow a city or council official to have such authority regardless of who it is for. This is dangerous territory and opens the door to allowing city and county attorneys power that is usually at the discretion of Commonwealth attorneys. Additionally, We must be especially clear when the criminal legal system is involved. Forced HIV testing in the context of an alleged criminal offense is not performed to protect health but rather to establish a basis for prosecution and incarceration or other coercive measures. These practices reach far beyond the courtroom and contribute to the marginalization of people living with and vulnerable to HIV. Forced HIV testing is also a bad fiscal policy! We can now take the money saved by eliminating compelled HIV testing/education and put it toward public health efforts, such as expanded voluntary testing. ECHO VA Coalition deplores the members of the House Health Subcommittee and sponsors Delegate Arnold to reconsider HB435 for this legislative session. This bill is not based on public health ethical practices as it encourages mandatory testing when the federal and many of the 50 states' statewide public health authorities do not align with mandatory testing for any personnel. We strongly oppose HB435 and recommend delegates to kill this bill and ECHO VA Coalition leadership is happy to meet with Delegate Arnold to discuss the origin and a better resolution for HB435. *See attachment from CDC*

Comments Document

Dear Chairperson Shin and Subcommittee Members: Thank you for hearing testimony on House Bill 581 relating to the plight of child sex trafficking victims within the state. Shared Hope International is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing, restoring, and bringing justice to survivors of child and youth sex trafficking. Shared Hope has been working in Virginia, across the country, and throughout the globe for over 20 years to guide and support appropriate responses to protect survivors, hold offenders to account, and ultimately prevent the crime entirely. Thirteen years ago, we launched the State Report Card project to assess the status of state’s laws and drive legislative progress. Despite its progress on addressing this issue, Virginia received an ‘F’ in 2023, scoring a 48 out of 100. House Bill 581 (“HB 581”), if passed, would require attorneys for the Commonwealth to establish multidisciplinary human trafficking response teams that would (i) discuss implementation of protocols and policies; (ii) establish and review guidelines for the community's response to various forms of human trafficking, including sex trafficking and labor trafficking; and (iii) review protocols for the trauma-informed, victim-centered collection, preservation, and secure storage of evidence from physical evidence recovery kit examinations, among other things. Collaborative, multidisciplinary groups (“MDTs”) addressing human trafficking have become essential in the national fight against human trafficking and the provision of necessary services and resources to survivors. This response model, which includes various disciplines working collaboratively, is encouraged by the U.S. Department of Justice and is recognized worldwide as a best practice in the anti-trafficking field. Through MDTs, law enforcement, child welfare, service providers, advocates, other professionals, as well as the child and their family can work collaboratively to prioritize the wellbeing of the survivor and provide trauma-informed support and services. Survivors of child sex trafficking often have complex needs that cannot be addressed by a single agency or service provider; instead, survivors need support from a number of service providers addressing various needs, including physical health, mental health, reproductive health, malnutrition, substance use, and self-destructive behaviors. While some of their needs are shared by other children who have experienced abuse or trauma, it is important that child sex trafficking victims not only receive a broad array of treatment but that treatment is specialized to the unique trauma associated with commercial sexual exploitation. An MDT response provides a comprehensive, coordinated effort that creates increased capacity to meet a myriad of needs through a specialized service response. Additionally, this increased capacity to meet survivor’s needs will support law enforcement and prosecutors’ ability to hold offenders accountable by increasing a survivor’s capacity and ability to participate in the criminal legal process. Therefore, state law should mandate a survivor-centered MDT response be utilized for child sex trafficking cases. We are grateful for the Committee’s dedication to this issue and respectfully ask for your support.

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

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

To allow the men an wemon to come home with their finds and fees paid. Will allow them to start fresh without that weight on them.

I am a member of Valley Justice Coalition and strongly support this bill. I have personally tried to help those incarcerated arrange to pay their fines and fees with their hard work within the facilities. Some localities accepted their proposal while other localities would not. There needs to be consistency in this honest attempt to pay their financial penalties. Please vote YES for HB614. Thank you.

Hb768 Vote yes. Children shouldn't be subjected to having to testify in front of an abuser

Comments Document

Attached is testimony in support of HB 768 on Behalf of Shared Hope International, a non-profit organization that brings justice for victims of child sex trafficking.

Comments Document

VCAHT supports HB768 as it will help reduce the retraumatization of children in confronting those who have exploited them. VCAHT would support the expansion of this relief to adult victims of sexual exploitation and human trafficking as well, as the protective benefits that CCTV testimony offers most certainly extend to trauma survivors of all ages. As a clinical psychologist that specializes in working with children and adolescents I completely support removing all barriers that would prevent any minor under the age of 18 from accessing the opportunity to testify without needing to be in the same room as their abuser. It is my professional opinion that there should be no threshold necessary for any child to pass in order to access this form or testimony if it is desired. The chances of a child or adolescent becoming destabilized and derailed in their recovery are significantly increased by the need to be in the presence of their abuser as well as a courtroom full of others. Despite our best intentions, the need for retelling the details of their abuse in such a setting often adds to the shame and embarrassment felt by the victim and can actually lead to developmental regression as a means of coping. This can delay the progress of therapeutic interventions as well as increasing the common yet excruciating symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder like panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, and increased dissociation. Another less obvious factor to consider is that victims of abuse often develop what is referred to as a Trauma Bond. Even in cases where the child did not previously have a relationship with their abuser, a common reaction to being abused is the development of a strong bond with the abuser, particularly when there is a well-established power differential in the relationship (like an adult has over a child.) Deconstructing this powerful bond during the process of therapy is a long-term process which can easily be interrupted by re-exposure to the abuser. Feelings of guilt regarding the harm the testimony may cause to the abuser are common as is the potential for rekindled feelings of closeness and affection towards their abuser. The potential for reintroducing these confusing but powerful feelings for a child who is working hard to break free from such a powerful Trauma Bond can be devastating, if they are even able to bring themselves to testify at all, which is another risk. The likelihood of this delaying or derailing their recovery process is high and such a consequence is unacceptable. Reducing the need for a child of any age to endure unnecessary re-exposure to their abuser is the most humane decision and I wholeheartedly support this bill as written.

In Favor of Delegate Delaney's HB 768: Comments of the Mother of the Child Victim My daughter, AZ, was a victim of sexual abuse from ages 7-10 years old. Her father, Jose Noe Quintanilla, was found guilty of 3 counts of object sexual penetration and one count of rape. I am writing this statement to express my gratefulness for my daughter’s ability to use closed-circuit television (CCTV) while testifying during the criminal trial, and to advocate in support of more children being able to testify via CCTV in Virginia. My daughter was traumatized from the abuse and had nightmares, flashbacks, and panic attacks and often thought about the abuse. She suffered from suicidal thoughts regularly. During the trial, and at the time she had to testify, she also lived in an intense fear her dad was going to attack her for telling the truth and did not feel safe about talking about the abuse or testifying in court. As her mother, it pained me and has caused me great stress to see my daughter suffering, and to know it will affect her the rest of her life. My greatest concerns were AZ’s future and getting her through the trial with the least amount of trauma. My daughter was told by the prosecutor’s office she needed to testify in open court. For my daughter, this meant she had to be able to be questioned like an adult about graphic and traumatizing sexual acts her father did to her in open court with her father only several yards away, and in front of others. This is a frightening situation for any child. My daughter was later approved to testify through CCTV. Being able to testify through CCTV helped AZ get through testifying, and has kept the traumatizing impacts of the trial from being too much for her. If she had to testify in front of her father, she may have been unable to speak about the abuse in the courtroom, and would be much more traumatized. Additionally, her father became emotional during her testimony, and if she had to testify only a few yards away from him, his emotional behavior would have affected her ability to testify. Using CCTV gave my daughter the ability to stand up for herself and tell her story in a way that empowers children who have been abused. The Virginia Victims Bill of Rights states “In recognition of the Commonwealth's concern for the victims and witnesses of crime, it is the purpose of [the Victims Bill of Rights] to ensure that the full impact of crime is brought to the attention of the courts of the Commonwealth; that crime victims and witnesses are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity...” (§19.2-11.01 (A)). Allowing children to use CCTV to testify helps to ensure the full impact of crimes are brought to the attention of courts. All children should have access to this victims’ right if it is needed to avoid their intimidation, and unnecessary mental injury and harm. Sexual abuse is traumatizing enough, and children who experience this type of abuse can already have a hard road to recovery. All children should have access to CCTV, especially if a mental health professional says it could cause injury, instead of children having to get to the point of a severe mental condition to qualify. Thank you for your time and consideration for amendments to the law that will allow more children to testify via CCTV in Virginia; to help children testify better to expose the full impact of crimes; and support the safety, protection, mental health, and wellbeing of all children.

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

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

Comments Document

We urge the Committee to support HB 824. Written testimony in support of the bill is attached.

I am in support of the second look bill, the people who have turned their lives around deserve an opportunity to show they are changed and be productive tax paying members of society. The money that is spent on housing those people could be spent on much better things than the DOc the money could go towards schools or other necessary programs. Some people have been in for 25 plus years, no infraction’s and have changed their lives, gone to school, got trades . Not everyone is eligible to get a second look and it is only for the ones who prove and show they would make good members of society. The bill allows a judge to determine if they deserve a second chance.

Please vote NO on this bill. Community bail funds are very important and instilling barriers to them is racist and classist and overall very wrong

Vote no on 846.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

As pre-filed, I urge that the bill not be passed. Although seemingly well intentioned by avoiding potential fraud and providing for regulation of a charitable organization structure of these not-for-profit community organizations, the details of the bill as pre-filed provide onerous burdens on such charitable organizations, limitations on cases not existing in the current realm of bond processes and allows for monetary retention beyond the scope of current provisions for bond organization's. Reasonable regulation can be a good thing - preventing fraudulent activities and the like. However, this is simply remedied by requiring registration with the IRS and some oversight provisions. A $900 application fee for a grass roots organization to then register bi-annually again and again is a high bar for such organizations and only serves the for profit bonding industry and the state. Similarly, limiting the type of cases these organizations can assist with is a short sighted grab at reducing their applicability and forcing the highest cost bonds to the for-profit bondsman to unduly profit or removing bond options entirely for some. I find it highly dubious that the members of such volunteer organizations cannot vet which cases to measure risk of flight and recidivist violence as a limitation on bonding. Essentially it sends the message that a violent wealthy person who can access and post bond through a for profit bond agent can do and isn't a risk, but the less wealthy and even indigent cannot and are therefore somehow a greater risk. This is not just and really makes no sense from a risk analysis standpoint. Limitations on the type bonds issuable based on the issuer type are not just nor do they protect the public - all can post a bond or none can post a bond should be the rule. Finally, including fees and other aspects involved in court administration as part of the costs to these organizations is a further onerous burden on these volunteer organizations structured on charitable giving and "paying it forward" as far as bonding. The court costs and fees being deductible is punitive again toward lower income plaintiffs again. Thus with the significant portions of this bill clearly being designed to disadvantage and discourage such grass roots bond organizations rather than properly and fairly regulating them as the charities that they are and clearly pushing the bond work to registered for profit bondsman benefitting donors/lobbyists, I urge the House to vote no on this bill in its current form.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.”

Please vote no on HB846. This country desperately needs significant bail reform, however, this bill in part is counterproductive, leaving the impoverished with less access to assistance.

vote no on hb846 It would make bail funds pay $900 to apply and registration every two years And would allow the bond to be used for court fees And stop bail funds from posting for certain people not cool

Please vote no on HB846. Pre-trial detention ruins lives, and is fundamentally classist. Thank you for standing by fairness and justice for all (not just the wealthy).

Say no to HB846!

Please vote no on HB846. It unfairly penalizes those who cannot independently bail themselves out even with the help of friends or family, creating a snowball effect that can cause them to lose their jobs, their cars, and even their housing. Even if found not guilty, their lives are turned on their head. It's a punishment even before trial. This bill is the tip of a larger iceberg to destroying charitable bail organizations as a whole because § 9.1-186.17.H(viii)(b) is subjective enough as is, but the section could just modified to keep adding reasons to suspend or revoke certifications until none remain.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Please vote on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can't afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, loses their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community's right to care for one another.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Bail funds are needed to help protect community members who can’t afford bail. No one should be stuck in jail because they can’t afford to get out. They’re missing work which is threatening job and housing safety (in addition to missing family and holidays), and these charities are helping to prevent this.

I oppose this bill and ask that my legislator votes no on it. This bill has the potential to cause serious harm to minority groups as it creates administrative barriers to the operation of community bail funds.

Please vote no. When people are kept in jail due to an inability to pay for bail, they are more likely to face devastating consequences on release. Key factors that lessen the chance of recidivism are community support and economic security--chartiable bail funds support both of these factors. When someone is bailed out, they are often able to keep their jobs, and keep their ties to their family (for example, continuing to see their children). Charitable bail funds hold the accused accountable to community pressure, while often giving them the tools to make good choices as well! At the same time, they relieve the pressure on our overcrowded and underresourced jails. As an attorney, I am greatful for the support charitable bail funds provide. They are invaluable and help me feel safer in my community. Please don't limit these important community resources.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Strong Consider Voting no on the community bail funds is crucial for protecting our rights and supporting marginalized voices. These funds are essential for ensuring equitable access to justice and upholding free speech.

I urge you to vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. These are people who have not been proved guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to funds. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

I live in Norfolk, VA. Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another. This is very important.

I want to express my total opposition to this bill. Bail funds save people’s lives and eliminating charitable bail organizations would indefinitely incarcerate people for even the most minor charges. The effects would disproportionately target and harm our communities of color. It is simply inhumane and a huge step backwards for human rights in Virginia.

Please vote no on HB846. Community bail funds are grassroots, voluntary efforts made possible by the hard work of people who care about the lives, safety, and stability of vulnerable people awaiting trial. Many people who can’t afford cash bail lose their jobs, miss holidays with their families, miss funerals of loved ones, lose their housing, suffer from lack of access to needed medication, or even die in jail before ever seeing a judge. To be very clear: these are people who have not been found guilty of any crime in a court of law, who are facing catastrophic loss and harm due to their lack of access to a few thousand or even a few hundred dispensable dollars. This bill would add prohibitive administrative barriers to those in our community who work hard to mitigate this pointless loss and violence. Please vote against it and protect our community’s right to care for one another.

I join the many dozens of constituents who STRONGLY oppose this bill - which places disproportionate, unwieldy, and ambiguously drafted restrictions and requirements on, e.g., nonprofit organizations that are otherwise compliant with and regulated by VA Code and that are providing a necessary service for disenfranchised community members and fellow constituents. This bill has no regard for the fact that - unlike paid bondsmen - nonproft bail funds are already licensed and regulated as 501(c)(3) organizations. The bill is also replete with amorphous requirements and parameters that are impossible to follow let alone enforce. See, e.g., Sec. H ("The Department may revoke...a charitable bail organization's certification for... incompetency or untrustworthiness."). Such parameters are completely subjective and inactionable. Beyond these stark procedural deficiencies, the bill is also transparently and directly intended to hamstring the charitable efforts of bail funds that are providing essential services to community members of this City. I strongly oppose.

I strongly oppose HB846. This bill will spend Virginia taxpayer dollars to increase detaining people pretrial and fund regulatory positions at DCJS. Charitable bail fund organizations should not face undue operating burdens-- they are essential to obtaining pretrial release for low and moderate income Virginians to avoid disruptions in health care, child care continuity, housing and employment/financial security.

This bill is a punitive action against community bail funds. Bail Funds in Virginia operate through a network of volunteers and using money fundraised by the community. Bail funds help the most marginalized, those who are often only sitting in jail because they do not have the money to pay. I strongly oppose all aspects of this legislation.

Dear Delegate, As your constituent and a member of the Richmond Community Bail Fund, I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB846, which has been referred to the Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee. This bill will prove extremely detrimental to the functioning of charitable bail funds; community-based organizations that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. The purpose of our community bail fund is to remove a financial barrier for people awaiting pretrial detention. One's ability to wait for their day in court at home with their loved ones should not hinge on the ability to pay their often hefty cash bond. With these new requirements for charitable bail funds, it will create further barriers for those in need of assistance. For our communities to grow and thrive, those awaiting sentencing should have equal access to services that allow them to remain employed, housed, free until proven guilty, and with their loved ones and families. I appreciate your time and consideration in reading my testimony. Thank you for voting against HB864 this legislative session. Sincerely, Ace Canessa Henrico VA 23229

I have been a volunteer with the Richmond Community Bail Fund for 4 years and am writing to express my strong opposition to HB846, which has been referred to the Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee. This bill will prove extremely detrimental to the functioning of our bail fund; a community-based organization that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. This bill creates administrative barriers to the operation of bail funds. We are already regulated as a non-profit and work with lawyers and accountants to ensure our activities are done with accordance of the law. Additional regulation would greatly impede our ability to do the charitable work we set out to do, as we are a volunteer-run operation and only have so much time and capacity to fulfill administrative duties. Additionally, we do not think it is right to question a judge's decision regarding the eligibility of posting a bond based on the type of crime a client is charged with. Restricting our bail fund from posting certain crimes would go against judges' decision-making and create unethical barriers to release. I implore you to vote against HB846. Caroline Bray 1214 Porter St Richmond VA, 23224

Good afternoon. I, as many other community members have previously expressed, strongly oppose this bill and what it represents. Before you make a decision please THINK. Is it TRUE, is it HELPFUL, is it INSPIRING, is it NECESSARY, is it KIND. No. I will not support this kind of action. Because of how Richmond City indiscriminately gassed entire blocks of homes and people with tear gas (outlawed in warfare by the Geneva conventions, and of which miscarriage is a side affect, and which personally affected my reproductive system’s functioning) throughout the 2020 protests, then to use the optics of removing statues right before Mayor Stoney’s re-election, I am skeptical about this desire to regulate bail funds, to say the least. This is a sinister, alienating bill. The timing reads as a protective measure as visibility of Pro-Palestine actions/protests are a staying optic in the city during a critical career transition for our Mayor. I believe community bail funds are a natural, necessary means of community support that should not be criminalized, fined, or overseen by a government agency at all really. I implore you to see that your city does not want this. Please vote NO, and whoever is responsible for this bill, THINK! Thank you truly for your time, if you’ve read this, I thank you. I am commenting because I love my community.

Vote NO on HB846! This bill only serves to make life more difficult for the most marginalized amongst us. Cash bail is already unfair and immoral, favoring the wealthy and forcing those who cannot pay to remain in cages. Bail funds exist because of this unfairness, and limiting how bail funds are able to operate is frankly sickening. We have a responsibility on this earth to care for one another. This bill seeks only to undermine community care.

HB846 would place an unreasonable barrier for bail funds to continue providing their invaluable community services. There is great need under the cash bail system for services such as these to address existing inequalities. Short of the abolition of cash bail, bail funds are a mechanism for racial and economic justice. To add an obstacle to their functioning would be a step backwards for the Commonwealth.

Please vote NO on HB846. This bill exacerbates wealth disparities and privileges wealthy people who have the means to post bail. This kind of inequality should not exist in our commonwealth and this bill will only do harm.

Vote NO on HB846!!! It is unfair and only serves the wealthy and privileged.

Please, for our commonwealth, vote no on HB846. I oppose this bill because it places unnecessary administrative barriers on community bail funds that only serve to further punish marginalized people already suffering in the cash bail system. Our commonwealth is stronger when we work to equalize the system, not when we make it harder for those marginalized. This bill centers bail bond companies over community; which is undemocratic. It does not address any root causes of incarceration..

Please vote no on HB846. I oppose this bill because placing such administrative barriers on community bail funds only serves to further punish poor and marginalized people already suffering in the cash bail system. This bill does not address any root causes of incarceration. This bill would hinder a community’s ability to take care of its members and support those already facing hardships in our criminal justice system and being held in detention before any trial.

Please vote no on HB846. I'm speaking to you as someone who currently bails people out using a community bail fund. This volunteer role has brought many issues to light for me. I never realized how hard it is for some to access certain services. Sometimes it just takes a "friend" to walk through it with you. We learn together. I not only bail ppl out but make sure they have a ride to court, to appointments and just someone to listen. I have provided info on jobs and rehabs. I have had long, comforting conversations with parents about their child going through the system. These are all acts of love that bondsmen would never do. Their goal is to make money and mine is to care about a member of our community. Bondsmen do not forfeit their money for fines, court cost or restitution and neither should I. I've had a bondsmen named Jimmy Love try to almost fight me once for bailing a woman out. Told me what I was doing was illegal and I was the downfall of society. I was doing the same action he was but not benefiting from it at all unlike him. Being able to get that woman out that day helped her keep her job and continue to provide for her family. Me placing $2000 to get her out vs losing $200 to him made sure her electric bill still got paid. Passing this would only hurt people that are already hurting. People that are trying hard to exists in a hard world. That only need a person to care. If even only for a brief time in their life. We all need that. I ask again to please reject this cruel and unnecessary bill. Thank you!

So, did a bail bond company write HB846, or was it just the brainchild of some weird little self-absorbed racist? The goal of the bill is clearly to harass and surveil ordinary people who are willing to choose trust and courage over alienation and fear. Or perhaps the author considers that a fun side benefit, and the real goal is to burden and delay communities willing to help neighbors of limited means secure the freedom they are entitled to, without demanding payment and without making them grovel. Although I suppose – in fairness – we have to ask ourselves if this bill is simply a bald assertion that the real purpose of cash bail is to give the Commonwealth a way to mistreat the poor and insult their communities in the most dishonest and petty way possible. No matter what lies in the secret heart of the troubled soul who authored this mess: at the end of the day, this is a bad bill that is bad for our communities. Vote it down.

I strongly oppose HB846. This further privileges wealthy people who have independent means to post bail. This kind of inequality should not exist in our commonwealth.

Please vote NO to HB846.

Good afternoon, I am writing to urge the community to VOTE NO on HB846. HB 846 would create burdensome administrative barriers to the operation of community bail funds including: - A $900 application fee and registration every two years. - Allowing the court to use a bond for court fees and expenses. - Stopping a bail fund from posting a bond for clients with certain charges. Our criminal justice system already disproportionately impacts poor, working-class, or marginalized communities who are forced to rely on community bail funds. This legislation is a step in the wrong direction. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I strongly urge the Delegates to vote no on this extraneous and politically targeted bill. Legally incorporated bail funds, such as the one I helped to create and continue to help run in Richmond, are already subject to the meticulous and through legal regulations pertaining to nonprofit organizations. There is no credible argument whatsoever that further regulations would serve public interest, but there is clear reason to believe that the opaque application process and attendant fees outlined in this bill would severely hamper and quite possibly shut down the crucial work of bail funds such as ours. Furthermore, the curtailment of charges for which organizations can post bail on is ludicrous and serves no purpose other than vindictive repression. Any individual for whom a judge has set bail, and for whom community members are willing and able to act as surety, should be able to return home and proceed through their case without the myriad life-altering consequences of incarceration dangling over their head.

Hb846 i forgot to put the bill number on my comment. Vote no

I am writing to express my strong opposition to Hb846. This bill will only further exacerbate the predatory nature of our current cash bail system. Community bail funds are an essential need in our community and play a crucial role in upholding democracy. No one should be stuck in jail simply because they can’t afford bail. I strongly urge you to think about how this bill will disproportionately impact low income communities and the implications this has on the so called “justice” system. Please stand in support of community organizers and vote no on HB846.

Please vote no on this bill.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB846, which has been referred to the Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee. This bill will prove extremely detrimental to the functioning of charitable bail funds; community-based organizations that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. While bondsmen are and should be regulated, bail funds are vastly different. The differences between these types of entities warrant unique treatment. Bondsmen are paid for their services, while bail funds consist of a network of volunteers, and operations are donation-based. Bondsmen can provide surety bonds, while bail funds operate solely in cash bonds, meaning that all of the money is provided to the courts up-front. This bill creates administrative barriers to the operation of bail funds. Bail Funds in Virginia operate through a network of volunteers and using money fundraised by the community. The bill would hinder the operation of bail funds by requiring a registration fee every two years, allowing courts to retain a bond for the fines, costs, fees, and restitution a defendant is ordered to pay once their case is decided, prohibiting bail funds from posting bonds for clients charged with certain crimes, and requiring bail funds to meet other administrative requirements as determined by the Criminal Justice Services Board. Charitable bail funds are a right all Virginians should have access to.

Vote No on HB846!

Vote no

I would urge the members do the committee to vote No on HB846. Creating barriers to community bail bondsman does not make our communities safer. Rather, limiting the work of community bail funds only increases the unnecessary impact of the legal system on the most vulnerable.

I do not support this bill. This attacks mutual aid efforts such as bail funds. Please vote NO! This bill would create barriers in an already unjust system which is already highly limited in any actual restorative practices.

Please vote no on this.

Vote no. This will only create barriers with no positive benefits for individuals or communities

Im writing regarding bill 846 with the recommendation that it not be passed. Bail funds provide a much needed service to people who would otherwise be unable to afford to post bond using traditional methods. Many bail funds are able to operated only because the money is recycled to help post additional bonds once cases are resolved and the court returns the funds. Allowing courts to use the bail money to pay court fees and fines would severely limit the ability of bail funds to operate. This type of restriction is not applied to bondsman who additionally make a profit off of the bonds that they post. Many bail funds are also very dependent on volunteers. Requiring registration would make the operation of bail funds extremely difficult. People should not be forced to wait in jail until their court date simply because they lack the funds to pay bail, particularly when they have not been found guilty of a crime. Inability to pay bail leads to less cases being taken to trial because people are willing to take undesirable plea deals in order to get out of jail. Allowing bail funds to operate without these proposed restrictions helps get people back to their jobs, families, and loved ones while they await their court dates. Bail should be used to determine whether its safe for an individual to be released into the community and should not depend on wealth. I strongly encourage you to reject this proposal.

Cash bail acts as an arbitrary punishment for those not yet convicted of a crime. Bail funds help mitigate damages from injustices in the justice system and should not have barriers from preforming their service.

I am asking our representatives NOT to support this bill. Community Bail Funds are critical to ensuring justice and equity in our communities. This is a bad bill. There is NO benefit to anyone of limiting community bail funds. The people have a right to support each other.

This is a terrible idea. Community bail funds are people driven organizations, volunteer organizations that do GOOD. Please protect bail funds from arduous red tape and suffocating beaurocratic parameters that would do nothing except make it harder for them to function.

I strongly oppose this bill, which would impede the very necessary work of these charitable organizations and which would put undue restrictions on what they can do with their funds. The provision requiring the bail fund to pay for outstanding court costs is an egregious overstep. Access to money should *never* be what determines a person's access to freedom and human rights

I am writing in opposition to HB846: Charitable bail organizations; certification and regulation by DCJS. HB846 would create administrative barriers to the operations of community bail funds that would prevent marginalized people from accessing the assistance of these community bail funds. Committee members should vote NO on HB846 to prevent undue burdens and harm to communities and people who are already marginalized and disadvantaged by the current bail bond system.

This is a bad bill and I am asking our representatives not to support it. Community bail funds are not the same as bail bondsmen and do not require similar regulations. These restrictions will put undue burden on charitable bail funds which are volunteer-run and community supported.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB846. This bill will prove extremely detrimental to the functioning of community-based organizations and the generous, caring people that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. The Department of Planning and Budget impact statement admits “that it is unknown how many organizations currently operate in the Commonwealth and would seek licensure as a charitable bail organization should this legislation pass.” This bill sets out to regulate, investigate and audit an essential community-based service the Commonwealth cannot currently quantify. HB846 does nothing to compare the benefits of community based bail support to the costs or effectiveness of the for-profit commercial bail bond industry. Community Bail Funds in Virginia operate through a network of volunteers and using money fundraised by and for the community. The bill would hinder the operation of bail funds by requiring a registration fee every two years, allowing courts to retain a bond for the fines, costs, fees, and restitution a defendant is ordered to pay once their case is decided, prohibiting bail funds from posting bonds for clients charged with certain crimes, and requiring bail funds to meet other administrative requirements as determined by the Criminal Justice Services Board. Requiring applicants for renewal of a charitable bail organization certification to “provide all other documentation as the Department deems appropriate” seems designed to intimidate, confuse and exhaust justice workers who serve from a place of kindness and compassion. Adding administrative hurdles places undue burden on volunteer organizers, faith leaders, mutual aid networks and family members whose support for defendants often goes well beyond merely paying for their release before trial. The Commonwealth should be encouraging restorative justice practices such as community bail funds, not crushing them under the weight of expensive and haphazardly drafted regulation. Please reject this bill in its entirety. Thank you.

I am writing to express concern about House Bill 846 and its potential implications for our community. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input on this matter as a local constituent living in Blacksburg, 24060. I am a social scientist PhD student researcher at Virginia Tech currently researching local incarceration issues. The proposed restrictions on community bail funds, including limitations on the number of bonds posted and the fixed rate for securitized bail raise concerns about the well-being of individuals in our community, particularly those who are already disadvantaged and may struggle to afford even a modest 10% rate. Research consistently indicates that individuals who have not been convicted of a crime tend to experience improved court outcomes when granted release on bail. This contributes to enhanced court results and lower recidivism rates after incarceration. Granting individuals the chance to address their financial and familial affairs fosters better outcomes for them, their families, and our community. Opposition to HB 846 presents an opportunity to support the dignity and respect of many Virginians charged with nonviolent crimes. Underscoring the vital role that charitable community bail funds play in our community, voting against this bill also ensures these organizations can continue essential work, ultimately contributing to cost savings for Virginia taxpayers. Given the average daily cost of roughly $100 per inmate in Virginia, rejecting HB 846 makes financial sense. Beyond these financial aspects, a vote against HB 846 would be a compassionate choice, promoting family values and the overall well-being of our community. I urge the House Committee to carefully consider these aspects and kindly request opposition to House Bill 846. Thank you for considering community feedback on this important issue.

I am writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE bill HB846. This bill would appear to be aimed to enable harassment or prohibition of bail funds. The reality is that wealthy, mostly white defendants have access to "bail funds" already: their families and social connections. Preventing collective campaigns to enable people to make bail only impacts indigent defendants including Black and minority defendants, who can lose their livelihoods while incarcerated pending trial for something they are innocent of, or that turns out to be much more trivial than the original stacked charges they may be faced with. In many jurisdictions around the state, prosecutors are already avoiding or minimizing the amount of cash bail in lieu of evaluations of public safety risk and pretrial services, without a significant increase in reoffending pending trial; bail funds help to assist indigent defendants in the remaining parts of the state in maintaining their lives and jobs while facing what may be one of the worst moments of their life. In addition, many cases where prosecutors demand high amounts of bail, going back to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and before, are directed at discouraging protest and civil disobedience, and have nothing to do with protecting public safety at all; in these cases, bail funds (which are not a new thing but have an equally long history) are necessary to enable citizens to use their constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

I am asking the committee to vote against the passage of this bill. This proposal would severely limit the ability of bail funds to operate within the state of Virginia. I was taught in school that, under the law, a person charged with a crime is considered innocent until they either admit guilt or are proven guilty in a fair trial. Under this interpretation, it is not just to imprison an individual charged with a crime that has not been convicted of one. I’m sure the members may have varied perspectives on when someone should be deemed a threat to society and be detained, but it certainly doesn’t feel fair for someone to be forced into jail time without a conviction simply because they lack the means to afford bail. Bail funds are a vital resource that low income families can turn to in order to avoid this experience, retain some dignity, and enjoy their full rights and freedom under the US justice system, rights that so many Americans have fought and died for. I also encourage members to remember the history of bail funds in the civil rights movement, in which they helped support thousands who were unfairly charged for exercising their rights to expression and protest. Bail funds in our state operate within the law and are in no way a threat to the operation of the criminal justice system. In fact, they enhance its effectiveness and protect those within from unnecessary detainment. The punishing fees and other restrictions on bail fund activities included in this bill are an attack on the civil liberties of Virginians. Do not pass this legislation.

I'm writing to express opposition to HB846. Charitable bail funds, like all charitable organizations, seek to help our community members and particularly to serve those who are the most in need. The regulations suggested in this bill are unnecessary hurdles for bail funds. A $900 application processing fee, the time required to correspond with the DCJS, and the retention of a portion of the bond to pay court fines would require bail funds to redirect money and time that could otherwise directly benefit community members. Additionally, charitable bail funds that operate as a nonprofit 501c3 are already regulated by the state nonprofit rules and by the IRS. The additional use of funds for the DCJS to regulate these organizations would be a waste of Virginia's budget funds. The section of the bill prohibiting bail funds from posting bonds for a defendant charged with a violent crime or a defendant charged with any felony that has a prior conviction for a violent crime also hinders the service of bail funds. If a court has already determined that a detained person can be released if a bond is posted, then there's no reason that that bond shouldn't be able to come from a charitable bail organization.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB846, which has been referred to the Courts of Justice Criminal Subcommittee. This bill will prove extremely detrimental to the functioning of charitable bail funds; community-based organizations that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. While bondsmen are and should be regulated, bail funds are vastly different. The differences between these types of entities warrant unique treatment. Bondsmen are paid for their services, while bail funds consist of a network of volunteers, and operations are donation-based. Bondsmen can provide surety bonds, while bail funds operate solely in cash bonds, meaning that all of the money is provided to the courts up-front. This bill creates administrative barriers to the operation of bail funds. Bail Funds in Virginia operate through a network of volunteers and using money fundraised by the community. The bill would hinder the operation of bail funds by requiring a registration fee every two years, allowing courts to retain a bond for the fines, costs, fees, and restitution a defendant is ordered to pay once their case is decided, prohibiting bail funds from posting bonds for clients charged with certain crimes, and requiring bail funds to meet other administrative requirements as determined by the Criminal Justice Services Board. Thank you for your consideration.

HB846 is extremely detrimental to the functioning of charitable bail funds, which are community-based organizations that seek to assist Virginians with pretrial release and support. While bondsmen are and should be regulated, bail funds are vastly different. The differences between these types of entities warrant unique treatment. Bondsmen are paid for their services, while bail funds consist of a network of volunteers, and operations are donation-based. Bondsmen can provide surety bonds, while bail funds operate solely in cash bonds, meaning that all of the money is provided to the courts up-front. Additionally, bail funds are already regulated as 501 C-3 organizations. This bill creates administrative barriers to the operation of bail funds. Bail Funds in Virginia operate through a network of volunteers and using money fundraised by the community. The bill would hinder the operation of bail funds by requiring volunteers who post bonds for community members to register and pay a $900 fine every two years, in addition to requiring bail funds to meet other expensive and impractical administrative requirements. This bill would hinder ALL community bail support of people who are incarcerated, including the actions of local groups like churches and community organizations who collect money to pay bail for a community member. We urge you to oppose this bill.

HB 846 directly attacks mutual aid efforts such as the Richmond Community Bail Fund and the Atlanta Solidarity Fund. These community volunteer-based efforts are an important lifeline for people held in pretrial detention. The bill places restrictions on charitable community bail funds while exempting the predatory for-profit bail bonds industry. Wealthier people are more likely to have people that can bail them out and do not have to rely on the broader community as a whole. This bill is just another mechanism to keep more poor people behind bars. Additionally, it is blatantly racist, as Black Americans are more likely to be given cash bail than other racial groups. If Virginia legislature is concerned about transparency in community bail funds, we should abolish the cash bail system entirely rather than punish mutual aid.

HB 846 It should be obvious to anyone that this bill is intended to penalize volunteer-led campaigns like the Richmond Community Bail Fund for their work to break the vicious cycle of mass incarceration and poverty in Virginia. Forcing community crowdfunding campaigns to register as nonprofits and subjecting them to exorbitant processing fees and bureaucratic hurdles is not going to improve transparency- it will simply force these campaigns to stop operating. If legislators really want to improve transparency and reduce crime, they should work to abolish cash bail. The cash bail system is inherently discriminatory against lower-income working class people, particularly young Black Americans who are more likely to be held in pretrial detention on cash bail than other racial groups. The cash bail system also exacerbates problems such as poverty, mental illness, and substance abuse, leading to more crime and repeated arrests. (Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html) I urge the committee to vote HB 846 down and allow community bail funds to continue their much-needed work.

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

Alexandria is a vibrant city based on history, culture, a waterfront and lots of tourism. If Virginia has money and space to build an arena then you have money and space to build new schools. Our school system is deplorable. It’s overcrowded. Think of your citizens before thinking about your quick money grab that eventually leads to an inevitable loss. We don’t want or need an arena. This is pure greed.

HB928 should not be considered as adequate laws are already in place and this would create a class division and open opportunities for misapplication. All user groups should enjoy the same access and protection levels whether recreational or commercial. discriminating against certain user groups is not ethical or part of the north American game management model. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, You should oppose HB928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for every Virginian.

Oppose HB928 Unessary legislation as adequate protections exist for all boaters currently. It is critical that commercial fishing not be granted these protections as it may lead to "overuse" of law enforcement resources by the commercial fishery. I am very concerned this bill may actually generate more conflict between watermen, recreational boaters, commercial vessels, and even waterfront homeowners if it is enacted.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I have written in to the past HBs this fall and I am writing in again to help protect our waters. I am in full opposition of this bill. It Our fisheries are depleted and waters are warming. I'm sorry for the impact that these regulations may have on Omega, and more specifically the actual workers who they employ. Sadly, we must oppose industry practices that are not supportive of both our ecology and community, even if it comes at the expense of some local economy. Humans are resilient, they will find a way. Fish are also resilient, but in the face of human greed and corner cutting, resilience isn't enough. We must take responsibility for our waters. I will keep writing in to these. Hopefully we can work through this period of conflict and move into a more ethical future with less presence of Omega and commercial overfishing in our waters. Again, I am in full oposition to this bill and exclusive fishing rights for commercial fishers.

I am opposed to this bill because I am concerned that this bill could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Omega Protein, not only does NOT require any specific additional legal protections from the Commonwealth, but as it is Virginia’s only industrial menhaden processor, it IS, in fact, a DETERMINANT to a MAJORITY of the citizens of the Commonwealth! The benefits of Omega Protein’s continued existence benefits very few people, while it does great harm to the environment of the Chesapeake Bay and the entire eastern coast of the United States in general. The indisputable fact is that Omega Protein removes almost all of the menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay and thus the entire region. The menhaden is a primary food source for the entire ecosystem of the Chesapeake Bay region, and therefore this is a major NEGATIVE IMPACT for the entire East Coast of the United States. There can be NO DOUBT that in the ABSENCE of the environmental damage caused by the continued operation of Omega Protein, the entire Chesapeake Bay ecosystem would be FAR HEALTHIER and all other marine species would be positively impacted by the protection of the menhaden fishery. Those Commonwealth politicians who are continuing to support Omega Protein will find themselves on the wrong side of this issue in the end. History repeatedly shows that overfishing of even a single species (crabs, strippers, redfish, etc.) is destructive to the entire marine ecosystem. Not only do I strongly oppose this particular bill, HB 928, but I strongly oppose the continued operation of Omega Protein, as it obviously has a very negative impact on the Commonwealth in general and the Chesapeake Bay in particular. Sincerely, Greg Hairston 131 Routten Rd Hampton, Va 23664

It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Support of foreign corporations over native Virginians will be the first factor I consider come election time and my vote will not go to any official that has a history of such action.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Totally oppose this bill as infringement on Virginia citizens and recreational fisherman’s rights

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill appears to grant preferential rights to commercial fishermen over all others on the water. While I am not in favor of permitting anybody to harass another, we already have laws that govern the rights and behavior of all people in the water and it seems unnecessary to introduce a new law that unfairly advantages one group over others. There is no need for a new law and this should be rejected.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I am writing you to share my thoughts and concerns regarding your proposed legislation, House Bill 1465. 1. State laws already exist (impeding, assault, battery and property damage) that protect the safety and property of commercial fishermen from abuse. 2. There is no evidence of an increase in these offenses directed towards the commercial fishing industry in Virginia. This law is unjustified. 3. The impeding law, (Code of Virginia 28.2-903.1.) has only been enforced once by the VMRC. It is a class 3 misdemeanor. 4. The proposed law is unequal in that commercial fishermen would receive greater protections than recreational fishers and boaters. 5. Words like “coerce, intimidate, harass or interfere” are overly broad and subjective. 6. The 50-foot distance is arbitrary and unenforceable on the water. 7. Requiring court venue to be in the home port of the vessel is equal to “forum shopping” and counter to existing law and practice. 8. The special license revocation provisions directed at recreational fishers and hunters is discriminatory. 9. If passed, this legislation could have a chilling effect on fundamental liberties, including the constitutional right to protest. 10. Commercial fishing vessels are either docked or underway and generally not easily approachable or interfered with. 11. Seizure and forfeiture of a vessel for a simple misdemeanor violation of this proposed law is excessive. 11. The tidal waters of Virginia are public space. The marine resources of this state are owned collectively by the public. Citizens should not fear imprisonment for monitoring the commercial fishing industry for abuses. 12. This proposed legislation contradicts the moral principles of equal and fair representation. The proposed legislation is unneeded and unjust. 13. I presume that Cooke, Inc. (a Canadian-based seafood company) has supported this legislation directly or through middlemen. Note: Impeding commercial fishing in Canada is equal to a class 1 misdemeanor (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 13.1). I urge you not to allow foreign owned companies to influence our elections, criminal code or civil liberties.

Bumping up this misdemeanor creates a “bullying “ situation that any commercial fish entity can use to make trouble for recreational fisherman who may already be in an area exercising their right to fish.

I strongly oppose HB928. Over the last 25+ years living in VA I have seen how reduction commercial fishing has destroyed the bay. No other state on the east coast allows this. Commercial fishermen should not be afforded special protections above others on the water. They are the culprits who threaten others on the water.

Please do not pass HB 928. Omega Protein already takes too many fish out of the bay, menhaden and everything else. I have been fishing after the Omega nets have been through the area and there are no fish to be caught, not even a nibble. I would be for a bill that permanently sends Omega and their boats out of the bay and into the ocean like other states have done. Please do not pass HB 928. Thank you

I cannot improve on the comments made by Cortez ( from Mechanicsville). Like our National Forest and Public Lands, we all own this resource, not the two hundred or so seasonal employees in Reedville. Stop or severely curtail the harvest inside the Bay until a thorough study has been completed.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Please do not support this bill . Omega is destroying the menhaden in the bay at a rate much faster than it can replenish itself. Recreational fishermen should have the same rights as commercial. Save the bay!

Don’t do this - omega is trashing our fisheries here in VA and the rest of the east coast, they routinely ignore quotas- this is absurd to put their interests over all the Virginian who enjoy our waters or depend on recreational fishing for a livelihood .

I hope you are not seriously siding with a foreign country's business, and giving them priority over a legal Virginan. Impending anyone from fishing is already a misdemeanor, what makes a commercial fishing vessel have priority over a Virginian resident fishing. I believe y'all should stop thinking about the money more than the duties and protection of Virginians that you swore to uphold.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I appose this and omega fisheries should not be allowed to harvest anything in the bay area. This is a resort city and people come from all over to fish these waters and the fishing is declining for the regular anglers. I am an avid fisherman and I fish fresh and salt water and for what you have to pay for licences and registration to have the rest of the places to fish taken away is ridiculous. There is hardly any place to fish here without being harassed by police or game wardens for trespassing or the place closing at a certain time. If this crap passes then more places should be accessible for regular fisherman and cost for the fishing license and boat registration should be cut in half . Make the big mighty omega fishery pay a lot more to harvest and kill the fish in the bay. This is the worst kind of thing that can happen. Always looking out for the rich man instead of the not so rich man and making it hard for the little guy that just wants to take his kids fishing and not have to drive miles away from home just to find a place to fish. Let the big fisheries go farther away...they can afford it.

There are already laws that prohibit harassing these Omega pirates. Just enforce those laws. This bill will give omega a pass to harass us recreational fishermen on the contrary. The bill should be voted down.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Omega needs to be banned from the bay. I am a recreational fisherman and i do not need omega bullying me out of the area because they want to drop nets. They should not be raping our bay to begin with. This is insane and completely asinine.

As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Strongly oppose. Recreational fishermen would be negatively affected.

As a fly fishing charter captain, business owner resident of Virginia, angler, and conservationist, I am completely opposed to HB 928. The idea that a Commercial Vessels have any more right over the water than recreational vessels creates restrictions for your constituents that are neither just or necessary. As it stands, a vessel involved in commercial fishing has the right of way under Coast Guard regulation making this bill unnecessary. There are a lot of charter guides with commercial licenses, what would happen if a recreational charter captain with a commercial license and one without one were to find themselves at odds over a spot - would the law automatically favor the one with a commercial license? The US holds water in a public trust, in a way, this is an attempt to privatize sections of the resource and completely against the entire conservation model. Please shut down this bill for my business, for your constituents, and for the resource that Omega seeks to destroy for their own profit. Thank you, Capt. Valencia

We oppose the bill.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a student currently engaged in graduate studies for environmental economics, I strongly oppose HB 928. I currently live on a tributary to Mobjack Bay and enjoy leisurely afternoons with my family on our boat. We have been closely monitoring the Osprey pair that nest in front of our home and sadly, have witnessed nest failure over the past three years, meaning they have produced no offspring. There is a significant decline and failure of Osprey viability in the Mobjack Bay area, directly tied to Omega Protein overfishing within the Chesapeake Bay. Their actions are basically starving the Osprey and negatively impacting other fish species who feed upon menhaden. Last year, we witnessed our male Osprey grab a rodent from our field, which upon speaking to a William and Mary wildlife biologist about this behavior, exclaimed the birds had to have been particularly starving for that to occur. To allow any commercial fishing vessel special protections on top of their ability to already overfish our delicate marine ecosystem is unconscionable.

Providing commercial fishing operations additional protections above that which is granted to recreational fishers is hypocritical relative to their respective impacts on the environment. Additionally this case appears to be precedented by acts of a non-fishing related boat operator and therefor including penalties for licensed fishers is irrelevant to the actual issue. As a dedicated conservationist and sportsman, and voter, I do not support this bill.

I vehemently oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Sincerely, Dr. Suzanne Seekins

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. -Charles Barefoot

OPTIONAL TEMPLATE COMMENTS: I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

AGAINST: HB928 does not give any parameters as to the distance before an interruption is valid. Furthermore, this bill criminalizes any recreational fisherman or boater within the vicinity of a commercial boat whether transitting or enjoying a beautiful day off the coast. Finally, the last action in this bill shows an agenda of protecting commercial fisherman over amateur fisherman. Instead of revoking the offenders boating license the penalty is to revoke a hunting and fishing license. This shows malice towards amateur, weekend, and family fisherman.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. Before voting on a Bill it is incumbent of every Member of government to at least ask one question about any bill before them. Is there a law in place already? If the answer is yes , the Bill should be voted down Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. Therefore HB 928 should be voted down. There is a law in place to protect all people from interference while fishing. There is no need, nor should there be any desire to place one segment of the fishing community above the other. Thank you for your service to all the people of Virginia.

I am strongly against HB 928 and have serious concerns that this bill is both unreasonable and unjustifiable because it assigns special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. Currently, under Virginia law, ANY PERSON who impedes ANY FISHING of any species of fish is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water already is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property.

As a charter captain in the Chesapeake Bay, I strongly encourage you to oppose this bill. This bill basically gives every commercial vessel in the bay, right way at all times while transiting the bay. The United States, Coast Guard has rules and regulations when it comes to how to navigate around vessels. This law is punitive to the recreational angler or pleasure motor as it gives commercial vessels complete control over the water. I can just imagine some recreational anglers fishing an area and an omega protein boat come in and set nets and then try to call the police to say the recreational anglers are harassing them . This is a terrible bill and should not make it out of committee. I encourage you to do research because there are already several statutes and laws regarding criminal offense toward commercial fisherman we don’t need anymore. Thank you for your consideration, Capt. Craig Freeman

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As an avid angler and kayaker in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

The Chesapeake bay does not belong to omga protein,It belongs to the people of Virginia. I strongly oppose HB928

I oppose this bill and any regulation that favors commercial fishermen over recreational fishermen. Recreational fishermen contribute much more to the Virginia economy than then commercial fishing. This Bill seems to be created to benefit one corporation which has headquarters out of this country. We ALL deserve the same protection under the law. I will support stronger penalties for those that harass all fisherman, not just commercial.

OPTIONAL TEMPLATE COMMENTS: I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian. I encourage you to support legislation that restricts the destruction of our bay and fisheries by the over harvesting of fish by commercial fisherman.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill only provides protection for commercial fishermen and seems tailored specifically towards Omega Protein. As a recreational fisherman I have been harassed on the water by both Omega protein and PETA. If you are going to pass this legislation it should at the minimum be modified to apply to all fishermen on the water. If the bill is not modified it should not be passed. Preferential treatment for one class of fishermen is discriminatory. We are all supposedly treated equally under the law.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I vehemently oppose any regulation that favors commercial fisherman over recreational fisherman. I have also been harassed by a jet ski while fishing from a kayak on the Chesapeake Bay. We ALL deserve the same protection under the law. Forget HB928! However, I will fully support stronger penalties for those that harass ANY fisherman, not just commercial. Thank you for your consideration. -Steven Fry

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

As a Virginia resident who represents a ordinary typical citizen who participates in recreational boating and fishing, I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is currently subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler which is both unfair and unjust. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian regardless of association with either the commercial or recreational fisheries or safe boating activities.

The minhaden boats are emptying the bay every night 7 days a week. Please stop this ecological nightmare, normal anglers cannot enjoy fishing when there are no fish, and I certainly don't think a commercial fishing operation like this should have control of our bay.

strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I oppose this bill. It provides special protections for commercial fisherman over all others. Recreational fishermen contribute at least 3 times more to the Virginia economy than then commercial fishing. This Bill seems to be created to benefit one corporation which has headquarters out of this country.

strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

This bill is both unreasonable and unjustifiable because it assigns special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. Currently, under Virginia law, ANY PERSON who impedes ANY FISHING of any species of fish is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water already is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. I am also concerned that this bill could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen. A law already exists which addresses the concern, if there is a violation then the law needs to be enforced. Don't waste time and taxpayer resources remaking laws that already exist.

This bill is totally unnecessary and ridiculous in its nature. Why would the government give unfettered acces to our fishable waters to any one group. In the case of Omega, they refuse to obey the quotes set , yet they want to own the water surrounding their vessel? I do not condon the whale wars type of harassment of any one group, but i also don't agree with giving them unfettered control of their fishing territory

Although I do not condone interference with commercial vessels, I believe the proposed bill will give commercial vessels, who already have too much of a presence in our protected waters, even more control. Time would be more wisely spent policing the fish kills and over fishing of our Bay. Why not do your job and protect the bay for future generations rather than line your pockets with donations form companies like Omega?

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928, recreational anglers should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishermen. Get the menhaden boats out of the bay and this bill would not be needed.

I am concerned the bill may be worded that a company like Omega uses it to their benefit beyond the safety matters as the purpose. Omega has shown their ability to imply certain issues are worse than or not as significant as reality.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

I strongly oppose the passage of HB 928. Under current Virginia law (29.1-554.1), any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish already is committing a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is now subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. While I in no way condone the dangerous actions observed in the video Omega Protein released in which its boats were harassed by a jet skier in the Chesapeake Bay (who was later convicted for his crime), HB 928 would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water. It would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler. Also of concern is the open-ended definition of what can be considered interference, and what that might mean to anglers trying to have as much access to fishing opportunities as commercial vessels. HB 928 would also discriminate against all Virginians except commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish, hunt, and/or trap for laws that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. Current Virginia law (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any hunting, trapping, or fishing-related offenses. Under HB 928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting, trapping, and/or fishing license would be much more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. As a member of the recreational and boating community in Virginia, I urge you to oppose HB 928 and to maintain equal protections to safety and property for each and every Virginian.

Comments Document

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership remains strongly opposed to HB928 in its substituted form. The House subcommittee substitutions adopted do not alleviate our concerns that the provisions of HB928 are unreasonable and unjustifiable, as they afford special protections for commercial fishermen and commercial fishing vessels over all other anglers and boaters in the Commonwealth. The substituted bill text could still, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational anglers and boaters who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial fishing operators. Virginia Code (29.1-554.1) states that any person who impedes any fishing of any species of fish is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. This means that everyone on the water is subject to the same rules of conduct and the same rights to safety and property. HB928, which would subject anyone interfering with commercial fishing activity to a Class 1 misdemeanor, would discriminate against recreational anglers and boaters by giving commercial fishermen extra protections under the law while on the water, and would subject anglers and boaters to more severe criminal punishments (including jail time) than if a commercial fisherman were to interfere with a recreational angler, for example. Virginia Code (29.1-338) subjects all citizens to the same licensing penalties for committing any related offenses. Under HB928, the penalties placed on the public’s ability to apply for and keep a hunting and/or fishing license would be more severe if they were to be found guilty of interfering with commercial fishing activities, than if a commercial fisherman were to be found guilty of the same offenses. Again, HB928 would discriminate against all Virginians but commercial fishermen by eliminating their ability to fish and/or hunt for charges that commercial fishermen would not be subject to. To make their case, supporters of this bill have been using a video of an incident from 2023, where a man on a jet ski interfered with menhaden reduction fishing operations. The man was declared guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, as current Virginia law requires. According to HB928, for the same incident, that man could be declared guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and face jail time. However, if a commercial fishing vessel were to approach a recreational angler fishing for striped bass amongst a school of menhaden, for example, and interfere with his recreational fishing activity, the commercial fishermen involved would not be subject to the same penalties. HB928 is discriminatory against not only recreational anglers and boaters, but anyone on Virginia waters who isn’t a commercial fisherman. This discrimination is also clear from public comments made by the coalition supporting this bill, who have stated, “Current law provides for minor penalties, like small fines, which are an insufficient deterrent to individuals with the financial means to own and operate recreational watercraft.” Just because a person is financially able to rent or buy a recreational watercraft, does not mean they should be subject to more severe criminal penalties for their personal conduct. This type of sentiment when creating the laws that all citizens of the Commonwealth must follow is highly discriminatory and unjust. Boating safety laws and wildlife and fishing laws must be applied equally under the law, regardless of the activity the public is engaged in, and regardless of financial means.

I am writing to express my support for HB928. As a Waterman, Vice-President of the VA Waterman’s Association that represents Commercial Fisherman; and as a Veteran and Founder for Knott Alone—Hold Fast, inc. Hold Fast is a therapy program to help prevent Veteran and first responder suicides that uses crabbing, oystering, aquaculture, and shoreline vegetation production as well as recreational fishing and hunting as part of our work/nature-based, peer-supported program. We are out on the Bay daily as part of our program and have personally witnessed reckless behavior by recreational boaters and fisherman in an apparent show of their disapproval for Commercial Fisherman. Boaters will run through crab pot lines, run wide-open directly beside a waterman hand-tonging oysters while standing on the side of the boat, cut in between boats dredging oysters. We recently had a commercial fisherman who had a striped bass recreational fisherman come along-side on the York River and cuss him out and then proceed to run across his gill-net tearing it up. This reckless and dangerous behavior is being enabled and empowered by groups like Menhaden Defenders and the VA Sport Fishing Association. You can scroll through their social media pages or listen on the maritime radio channels to witness this first-hand. Whether intentionally or not, the end result is that reckless individuals are using this “cause” to demonstrate their disapproval for Commercial Fishing and I have yet to see any public disapproval shown by these organizations to this sort of reckless behavior. They show the routes of the spotter planes and ask boaters to help “defend the bay”…recently when a jet ski harassed a commercial fishing boat they were applauded on several of these sites and one comment even said it was great that they Omega boats had to go back to “hell where they belong” because their gear was damaged. These actions against Omega Protein (the primary target of this type of harassment) has absolutely spread to other aspects of commercial fishing and must stop before someone is seriously hurt or these emboldened acts continue to target commercial fisherman and their gear. This bill is a great start to help give the VA Marine Police and the courts more avenues and flexibility to help mitigate this type of dangerous behavior. The current laws are basically a slap on the hand whereas this bill makes it a true consequence for an reckless action…a felony charge and a potential loss of a hunting/fishing privilege will hopefully make these individuals and groups that support and empower them think twice about endangering commercial fishermen! Thank you for considering this bill and thank you for the sponsors of this bill to help make a difference! Respectfully, Dan Knott

I am writing to show support of HB 928. Harassment toward working commercial fishermen has increased in aggression and become more frequent in recent years. Each incident has been documented and reported to the appropriate agency; unfortunately, the ramifications resulting from the incidents have not been a deterrent. While the menhaden fishing vessels may be large in size, the two smaller “purse boats” that are deployed to catch the fish are small 40ft boats with low sides and have 5 fishermen on each vessel. The attached video shows where a jet skier aggressively approaches these smaller vessels narrowly missing them on multiple occasions. The 10 fishermen onboard were put in great danger and could have been severely injured for absolutely no reason. These types of targeted incidents have become more frequent in the last few years and appear to directly coincide with the escalating aggressive comments and threats that have been documented on social media.

Good Afternoon! I am Lee Robbins, a Captain on the F/V Rappahannock for Ocean Harvesters out of Reedville Va. I and my entire crew are in favor of HB928. We thank the Patron Delegate Kent for drafting this Bill. I have been working on the Bay and Coastal waters since graduating from high school in 1982. I have Captained a vessel since 1997. Being responsible for 15 men on the open water night and day from May till January is a huge responsibility that I don't take lightly. In the last several seasons we have witnessed numerous acts of aggression against our fishery. We have been targeted on social media by individuals who report the locations of our vessels and planes daily. Boats have positioned themselves to keep us from catching the schools of fish that we seek. There have been verbal assaults by radio and close interaction. This past season we had the jet skier who not only scared our crew with his reckless operation and threats but also damaged our net. If we were to call the Hotline at VMRC and report every little incident, we wouldn't have had time to do our jobs and Law enforcement would have been stretched beyond their means. I hope this Bill can become law and help to curb the aggression so we can concentrate on our safety and livelihood. I have always welcomed boats to witness our process of fishing. We welcome boats to come alongside and get some of our catch for bait. Aggression and hate have no place in any work zone.

Good afternoon, I am writing today to show support for HB 928, the interference with commercial fisherman and penalties. We at UFCW 400 are the proud representatives of the Omega Protein fishermen. Fishermen have the second most dangerous in the nation. This bill would protect these workers from TARGETED threats to kill or do bodily harm, and other intended actions of harm. This bill protects workers from persons intending to do harm, threatening harm, and targeting fishermen while they are working. No worker should be targeted with death threats or threats of bodily harm while they are working. Fishermen already are working hard to keep themselves and others on the water safe; targeted attacks only heightens the dangerous nature of this job, and put lives at risk. We strongly urge support on this worker's safety bill.

Comments Document

Please see the attached letter of opposition to HB 928 from The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, a national conservation, hunting, and fishing advocacy organization dedicated to guaranteeing all Americans quality opportunities to hunt and fish. The TRCP has nearly 5,000 members who are Virginia residents, as well as partner organizations including the Virginia Saltwater Sportfishing Association and American Sportfishing Association, headquartered in the Commonwealth. The property rights protections in this bill are already written into the Code of Virginia, rendering such amendments unnecessary. Our members have serious concerns that the provisions of this bill are both unreasonable and unjustifiable, as they afford special protections for commercial fishermen and the owners and captains of commercial fishing vessels over all other citizens, boaters, and property owners in the Commonwealth. There is also concern a broad application of this law could be used to, in effect, eliminate access to fishing opportunities for recreational fishing activities for anglers who should be afforded the same access and protections as commercial operations. As representatives for the recreational angling and boating community in Virginia, and along the Atlantic coast, we urge you to oppose HB 928 and maintain the current legal statutes that afford equal protections to safety and property for all Virginians.

Please table this unnecessary publicity stunt by the reduction fishing industry. The thought that a couple fishermen on a 26 foot boat can threaten a 300 foot long purse seine ship where the deck is ten feet above them is ridiculous. If passed the industry could bring charges against any innocent fisherman that comes near them and ruin them financially with defense costs. Our boating citizens have the right to approach these ships to see if they are violating fishing or pollution laws in their toxic bilge discharges. The public needs to know if they are catching our gamefish as the are feeding in the schools caught and if the fish are being killed in the process as about 500 red drum spawning fish were recently. This bill if passed would allow the industry to Threaten anyone that comes near them with arrest, huge fines and worse. I urge you to kill this dangerous proposal .

HB 928 is completely unnecessary and is part of the intimidation tactics practiced by the reduction industry for years. These industrial ships are quite large and often intimidate fishermen by their sheer size. They often show up in number and our anglers often feel a need to vacate the area. Sure, there has been some yelling over the years but we hardly need a new law! The truth is these large industrial ships simply do not belong in the fragile waters of our Chesapeake Bay. They have been banned by every other state on the East Coast, because those states have seen the harm this can cause to the ecosystem. This bill appears to be an effort to counter The criticism of this Canadian owned fishery. It is true that no one trusts this industry to do the right thing and they have shown us over and over They are not good stewards of the bay. For example, the industry is currently lobbying against an important bill that would provide necessary Research on the state of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay. That tells you everything you need to know about this company and why this bill is nothing more than a smokescreen to detract from the real issue with this industry.

HB 928 is a naked attempt by the reduction fishing industry in the Northern Neck to put a cold chill on the grassroots effort of Virginia citizens to shed light on the practices of their industry. There has been no increase of incidents that would require additional penalties or measures. No one that I have heard of is out there attacking or even protesting commercial fishing vessels. How many incidents were reported in 2023? The clause pertaining to loss of fishing licenses to to scare honest boat captains away from hiring out or giving their services to those who may want to observe what is taking place, including the press. It also is trying scare recreational fisherman from even approaching areas where the industrial boats are fishing, for fear of having their vessels falsely accused of harassment. Allowing the charges to be brought by the jurisdiction in which the commercial vessel is ported instead of where the incident occurs, creates a situation where local prosecutors may be unduly influenced by the industry or community peer pressure to use their power to intimidate or falsely accuse. The further accusations and loose interpretations of conspiracy charges and electronic messaging leaves an exceptionally unfettered possibility for abuse. There are already multiple laws on the books that cover the criminality of anyone inferring or threating a commercial fishing boat, its captain, or crew. No one is out on the water protesting these boats. There has been a very, very limited number of filmed reports done to my knowledge. Here is an example of a typical encounter. The video is 3 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcUHly7zmeQ Virginia waters are a public space. Boat captains who are acting legally should not fear legal action for monitoring the practices of commercial fishing. This bill is poorly written and a lowly attempt at bullying. It should be tabled.

I am writing to share my thoughts and concerns regarding proposed legislation, House Bill 928: 1. Laws already exist (impeding, assault and battery) that protect the safety and property of commercial fishermen from abuse. 2. There is no evidence of an increase in these offenses directed towards the commercial fishing industry in Virginia. 3. The impeding law, (Code of Virginia 28.2-903.1.) has only been enforced once by the VMRC. 4. The felony enhancements in the proposed legislation, are usually reserved for crimes against first-responders. 5. The proposed threat provision penalties, are usually reserved for crimes against Governor and his immediate family; not businesses. 6. Words like “approach, coerce, intimidate or harass” are overly broad and subjective. 7. Requiring court venue to be in the home port of the vessel is equal to “forum shopping” and counter to existing law and practice. 8. The special revocation provisions directed at recreational fishers and hunters is superfluous and discriminatory. 9. If enacted, the legislation would have a chilling effect on the constitutional right to protest. 10. Commercial fishing vessels are either docked or underway and generally not easily approachable or interfered with. 11. The tidal waters of Virginia are public space. The marine resources of this state are owned collectively by the public. Citizens should not fear imprisonment for monitoring the commercial fishing industry for abuses. 12. This special-interest legislation contradicts the moral principles of equal and fair representation. I respectfully request that this legislation be tabled.

HB1187 Vote no

Please support HB1206. No parent wants obscene material as defined in the Code in VA public schools. Parents need this bill to remove the exception so they have a way to ensure school boards and superintendents remove the obscene materials and stop selecting more for the school libraries and often English class curricula. The exception should also be removed for public libraries, instead of just having such materials sectioned off in the public library. But you probably don't think the bill will have an hopes of passing if you didn't allow obscene materials in public libraries. That's a strange statement on the state of American society. Please pass HB1206 so obscene material will no longer be legally available in our public (and private) schools.

Protect our children from sexually explicit/obscene materials. Pass this bill, please!

Do you spell removes the exception for books in school Libraries that would otherwise be considered obscene for minors. This bill is necessary.

I would like to express my support for this bill, it is as others have stated, an “important step in updating and refining the regulations surrounding the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. It strikes a balance between protecting the welfare of our communities, particularly minors, and upholding the principles of freedom of expression” while it may not be the most ideal, it does seem to be moving us in the right direction in implementing safeguards for minors, in publicly funded learning institutions.

As a retired criminal investigator who conducted numerous criminal investigations into Child Sexual Exploitation cases, I fully support this bill. The debate in Virginia and nationwide should NOT be about censorship or allegations of banning books but rather about providing age appropriate materials to our students. Much of this debate centers around Child Erotica. Child Erotica, is used by child sexual predators to lower the sexual inhibitions of a child in order to seduce and silence them. We should not be putting in our school libraries the same and similar materials that our State and Federal Law Enforcement Officers are putting in their search warrants in criminal investigations of child molesters.

As a retired criminal investigator who conducted numerous criminal investigations into Child Sexual Exploitation cases, I fully support this bill. The debate in Virginia and nationwide should NOT be about censorship or allegations of banning books but rather about providing age appropriate materials to our students. Much of this debate centers around Child Erotica. Child Erotica, is used by child sexual predators to lower the sexual inhibitions of a child in order to seduce and silence them. We should not be putting in our school libraries the same and similar materials that our State and Federal Law Enforcement Officers are putting in their search warrants in criminal investigations of child molesters.

I fully support this bill. The debate in Virginia and nationwide should NOT be about banning books but rather about providing age appropriate materials to our students in order to provide them an education that teaches the vital skills and knowledge that prepares them for becoming a productive citizens as well as an understanding of civics and ethics and moral integrity to insure our future as a democratic republic and the freedoms guaranteed by our unique U.S. Constitution.

I support this bill. Public education should be teaching our children to excel in society. Many of the books this bill will help curtail to be not available to minor children in public education libraries are also books that cannot be read aloud or shown screen shots of passages on TV, due to violating FCC laws. These laws were put in place to protect children. Why do our public schools choose not to follow the minimum federal standards, under FCC, in also protecting our children?

I support this bill as I don’t want my tax dollars providing sexually explicit books to kids in schools. They have no learning value to them. If parents feel their child needs this kind of material then they should use their own money to provide it to them. The is illegal to provide this to underage kids

This is a sample of my comments Signed up to speak and also submitted comments, below is my comments Commentary in Support of HB 1206 HB 1206, introduced by Phillip A. Scott, aims to modify the restrictions on the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. This bill recognizes the importance of protecting the welfare of our communities and ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to regulate the access to such materials. One of the key provisions of this bill is the modification of exceptions for schools supported by public appropriation. Under the current law, schools are subject to exceptions that allow the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. However, HB 1206 seeks to eliminate these exceptions for schools, recognizing the need to provide a safe and appropriate learning environment for students. Furthermore, this bill also focuses on libraries supported by public appropriation. It limits the exception applicable to libraries only to obscene materials that are available exclusively in a section of the library where access is restricted by age. This ensures that libraries can still provide access to a wide range of materials while taking into consideration the age-appropriate content for different users. By modifying these exceptions, HB 1206 strikes a balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility of institutions to protect the well-being of the community, especially minors. It recognizes that while individuals have the right to access information and express their views, there is a need to regulate access to obscene materials in certain settings, such as schools and libraries. This bill aligns with the values of our society, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the innocence of our children and maintaining appropriate standards within educational and public institutions. It ensures that schools supported by public appropriation are held to a higher standard in terms of the materials they provide to their students, promoting a wholesome and conducive learning environment. Additionally, HB 1206 acknowledges the role of libraries as valuable resources for information and knowledge. By restricting access to obscene materials in a dedicated section of the library, it allows individuals who wish to access such materials to do so while also ensuring that age-appropriate materials are readily available to all library users. In conclusion, HB 1206 is a necessary and important step in updating and refining the regulations surrounding the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. It strikes a balance between protecting the welfare of our communities, particularly minors, and upholding the principles of freedom of expression. This bill serves to promote a safe and appropriate learning environment in schools and ensures that libraries continue to provide valuable resources to individuals while maintaining age-appropriate content.

I am a recently retired first grade in public school serving many families with children who were gifted. Although these students could read above grade level that did not mean the content was appropriate for their age and stage so I was careful and respectful. The collaborative effort I pursued with my students, parents and librarians was appreciated. Content matters as explicit sexual material at age six would be confusing. I think Delegate Scott's bill is needed to protect younger children from obscene materials.

Commentary in Support of HB 1206 HB 1206, introduced by Phillip A. Scott, aims to modify the restrictions on the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. This bill recognizes the importance of protecting the welfare of our communities and ensuring that appropriate measures are in place to regulate the access to such materials. One of the key provisions of this bill is the modification of exceptions for schools supported by public appropriation. Under the current law, schools are subject to exceptions that allow the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. However, HB 1206 seeks to eliminate these exceptions for schools, recognizing the need to provide a safe and appropriate learning environment for students. Furthermore, this bill also focuses on libraries supported by public appropriation. It limits the exception applicable to libraries only to obscene materials that are available exclusively in a section of the library where access is restricted by age. This ensures that libraries can still provide access to a wide range of materials while taking into consideration the age-appropriate content for different users. By modifying these exceptions, HB 1206 strikes a balance between freedom of expression and the responsibility of institutions to protect the well-being of the community, especially minors. It recognizes that while individuals have the right to access information and express their views, there is a need to regulate access to obscene materials in certain settings, such as schools and libraries. This bill aligns with the values of our society, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding the innocence of our children and maintaining appropriate standards within educational and public institutions. It ensures that schools supported by public appropriation are held to a higher standard in terms of the materials they provide to their students, promoting a wholesome and conducive learning environment. Additionally, HB 1206 acknowledges the role of libraries as valuable resources for information and knowledge. By restricting access to obscene materials in a dedicated section of the library, it allows individuals who wish to access such materials to do so while also ensuring that age-appropriate materials are readily available to all library users. In conclusion, HB 1206 is a necessary and important step in updating and refining the regulations surrounding the purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of obscene materials. It strikes a balance between protecting the welfare of our communities, particularly minors, and upholding the principles of freedom of expression. This bill serves to promote a safe and appropriate learning environment in schools and ensures that libraries continue to provide valuable resources to individuals while maintaining age-appropriate content.

I support this bill. It’s an easy common sense solution to secure appropriate educational material for the children of Virginia.

My name is Christiana Blake. I live in Fredericksburg Virginia, and I was deeply disturbed to find that pornographic material is being accessed by children in school and public libraries in my state. Pornography is immensely damaging to children’s minds and keeps them from mentally developing properly. According to Fox News, 52% of perpetrators of sexual attacks against minors, are other minors. How do children learn to emulate such horrific behavior? How would the mind of a child dream up such a thing? They see it. They see it in their school and library books, and children are paying the price. Enough is enough. This bill will protect minors from being exposed to harmful graphic sexual materials. It will also protect minors who never saw these images but are put at risk by their peers who have seen them. Please pass this bill to help end sexual attacks against children, body and mind.

I am with the bill and even though I don't have any children or grandchildren in the school system I think it is ridiculous that our children are being exposed to sex at an early age. I don't want my tax dollars being used in the school systems that is causing trauma to our children and creating a highly sexually charged environment, when they should be learning about history, math or science to advance in society.

anyone that wants to push underage children to read sexualized content in schools should be jailed for the longest possible time. anyone that wants to have children have access to obscene materials in schools should be jailed as well.

Support the Bill Teachers/Educators want to teacher and students want to learn in an orderly and respectful environment at school.

Our responsibility as educators is to prepare the students of today for the world of tomorrow. Not holding students accountable for disorderly conduct in school and holding them to a higher expectation outside of the school is a recipe for a confused generation in the future. Also, as we continue to hear how public schools are failing our children, any bill that limits our school administrators ability to maintain an orderly environment for the students who want to learn without disruption is disingenuous. Finally, disorderly conduct is usually a precursor to conduct that is viewed as far more serious. Lets address the disorderly conduct so that we may never approach more serious issues.

I am writing as the co-chair of the VACDL legislative committee to express our organizational support for this necessary change in the law. It is incongruent that under current law participants in these specialty courts and dockets can receive a restricted license during participation but it is yanked away from them upon graduation. The graduates of these programs are to be commended, and they are not risks to the public because they have received the necessary and deserved assistance that addresses the underlying issues they have dealt with. I am glad that this bill has support of many other stakeholders in criminal justice and want to make certain the honorable members of our legislatures are aware that the state’s organization of criminal defense lawyers also enthusiastically support this measure.

Comments Document

Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking and Freedom 4/24 support HB 1350 as it increases the efforts to prosecute those who have engaged in human trafficking and we are asking for your support of this legislation.