My fiancé came home in 2024 after doing over a decade incarcerated. The last several months of his incarceration he had been kept in segregation, which for someone who has severe mental health issues already that’s not a good combination and only makes your mental health worse. For a year and a half I watched him have PTSD and night terrors often from trauma he had endured most of his life between foster care and incarceration. Sadly, during a mental health episode he was killed while threatening self harm. I watched the love of my life slowly spiral out of control with his mental health because not only prison but solitary confinement. I know some really good people who since being incarcerated have been diagnosed with multiple personalities. Why? Because in a setting like that, all you have is yourself to talk to so eventually, you come up with other personalities to communicate with to distract you from the hell that you’re in. For some of those who already suffer from mental health, some of those personalities aren’t so nice and constantly remind them how they’d be better off gone. And then when you have guards mentally breaking you down more and more each day some tend to eventually break. VADOC already doesn’t take mental health seriously so the facilities get pleasure in sending men and women to solitary confinement and keeping them back there for extended periods of time. We need to start taking mental health more seriously and ending solitary confinement is a great start because how long do you think you would last living in your bathroom 23 hrs a day with no TV, 2 calls a month and one visit a week, if that?

I, Willie X Brown, RIHD Mobile Justice Tour Ambassador, support the passage of HB35 to end long term isolation and the psychological harms and damages it causes to the safety of the incarcerated individuals and families. Please pass this HB35. Thank you. With Best Regards for Humanity, Willie X Brown

Dear Committee Members, I am incarcerated in the model facility in VADOC. I am writing in support of HB35 to end prolonged solitary confinement. I can tell you first hand from what I have witnessed about the horrors of the effects of solitary confinement. It warps the minds of the men in the facility and causes more harm than good. It restricts them from any positive influences that may help them better themselves such as regular phone access and contact visits with family. If the purpose of DOC is to help rehabilitate individuals and long term segregation is counterproductive to that agenda. Individuals do not even have access to the commissary in solitary confinement and often are starved. They are verbally and physically abused and often lack medical attention. Their mail is confiscated and not distributed to them and their complaints are discarded and not taken seriously. This horrendous treatment is not only stressful for the individual incarcerated but also for his or her family that hears about the abuses of their loved ones but are helpless in assisting them. This also proves dangerous to others on the compound because of the mind state that the individual is in once he returns to population. He may be aggressive and introverted and socially awkward. If you can imagine an individual being kidnapped and tortured in an undisclosed location where no help can reach them and then after years of this torture they are released back amongst society. PTSD sets in along with many other psychological issues they may have. There has to be more therapeutic options in order to correct disruptive behavior if the agenda is safety and rehabilitation. I understand that this may be different for more serious cases of individuals that are a major threat to others and themselves, but many of the individuals in solitary do not fit this description. I implore you to end solitary confinement an come with alternatives for corrective behavior.

I created a Community Advocacy Organization called CCCAN Virginia. For the past year and a half, I have been receiving severe abuse complaints, many of which originate in solitary at Red Onion, Wallens Ridge, and River North. Even when people tell me they have been physically abused; which many of them have, they nearly always tell me that the worst part was solitary. Solitary is known to worsen psychological symptoms - in a person with previous psychological symptoms, their symptoms will worsen. In a person with NO psychological symptoms, when they endure solitary, they will often develop severe anxiety and depression. Nearly everything VADOC does is the opposite of evidence based - to include solitary. We have know since the 70s that solitary does not bring us the results we want, since it is BAD for people, even bad for the COs watching the people in solitary. Please let's become a HUMANE, evidence based state, and get rid of long-term solitary once and for all. If someone is displaying extremely aggressive behaviors, we Still need to figure out how to incarcerate them withOUT the intentional deprivation of human contact that is solitary. Solitary is bad for everyone. Thank you.

I am a survivor of solitary confinement and it is the most inhumane experience I have ever had. The irreversible effects are well known. Prison should be rehabilitating not torturous. Studies show that isolation does nothing for public safety. There is no programming or therapeutic benefit from it. Passing HB 35 is the right thing to do.

Restorative housing is not rehabilitation for the inmates. This type of treatment causes depression, anxiety, PTSD and can also cause suicide. Imaging already being tried by a jury and given the time by a judge and then you go to prison to be judged again by the staff who is there to oversee you. Day by day these men are haunted by their past mistakes that caused them to be incarcerated. Nobody should have to stay put in a small room for weeks , months and years at a time. A damn dog doesn’t want to be locked in a cage all day, so how can you lock a human being in a cage all day. This is modern day bull crap and it should be against the law. Mentally and physically it’s disturbing and it only makes matters worse for the inmate. My son was incarcerated in Red Onion state prison. It’s like the officers get a kick out of putting those men in the restorative housing. Chadwick Dotson , last year said that they have to “BEHAVE” are you kidding me. He said that as if they are kids getting in trouble. The trouble comes from the staff in most cases provoking situations to keep the inmates going at it with each other. This goes on and it keeps facilities like Red Onion in business because the inmates can’t behave themselves so they get into fights, get points, get charges, go to restorative housing and then their time gets jacked up. That is not fair and it is a complete set up system for failure. Something needs to change and the staff needs more training, better approach systems, no retaliation and just do the damn job. Respect is the key factor of it all.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I support the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement for several reasons: 1. It is NOT always used for the most violent offenders as the public might assume. 2. Prolonged confinement is regularly being used for non-violent people. Some convicted of selling marijuana Some with minor prison violations smoking or not following a direction 2. Studies show that there are people locked in cells so small they cannot stretch out their arms. THIS TORTURE RESULTS IN HIGH SUICIDE RATES for people who could have been rehabilitated! 3. Many violent criminals who have committed murder, violent rape and/or conspired to coordinate the death of other people in prison remain in their regular cells , while many non-violent inmates are forced into punitive solitary confinement for months and YEARS!!! STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY AND USE THE PROVEN METHODS SHOWN TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN OTHER PRISON SYSTEMS!!!

Solitary confinement has deeply harmed my mental health and significantly worsened my CPTSD. Being locked down 24 hours a day, seven days a week—allowed out for just one hour on only three days to shower and make a call—stripped away any sense of normalcy or human connection. There was no interaction with anyone, except through a slot in the door. That level of isolation breaks something inside you. While confined, I witnessed a man in the cell next to me being beaten and sprayed with OC.R. The chemical came into my cell through the vents, leaving me trapped with the fear, the pain, and the panic, with no escape. Experiences like this don’t end when the door opens—they replay endlessly in the mind, fueling hypervigilance, nightmares, and emotional shutdown. This kind of isolation is not confinement. It is psychological harm. Depriving a person of human contact, safety, and dignity is detrimental to mental health and exacerbates trauma. Solitary confinement, as it is practiced, is cruel—and the damage it causes can last long after the confinement ends. I support hb35

Solitary confinement has deeply harmed my mental health and significantly worsened my CPTSD. Being locked down 24 hours a day, seven days a week—allowed out for just one hour on only three days to shower and make a call—stripped away any sense of normalcy or human connection. There was no interaction with anyone, except through a slot in the door. That level of isolation breaks something inside you. While confined, I witnessed a man in the cell next to me being beaten and sprayed with OC.R. The chemical came into my cell through the vents, leaving me trapped with the fear, the pain, and the panic, with no escape. Experiences like this don’t end when the door opens—they replay endlessly in the mind, fueling hypervigilance, nightmares, and emotional shutdown. This kind of isolation is not confinement. It is psychological harm. Depriving a person of human contact, safety, and dignity is detrimental to mental health and exacerbates trauma. Solitary confinement, as it is practiced, is cruel—and the damage it causes can last long after the confinement ends.

I support HB 35.

Bending the Bars Foundation proudly supports HB35, patroned by Delegate Joshua G. Cole, which places critical restrictions on the use of isolated confinement in Virginia’s state correctional facilities and advances a more humane, accountable, and evidence-based approach to incarceration. For decades, isolated confinement has been overused as a default management tool rather than a last resort, despite overwhelming evidence of its devastating physical, psychological, and rehabilitative consequences. Prolonged isolation exacerbates mental illness, increases self-harm and suicide risk, undermines rehabilitation, and ultimately makes both correctional facilities and communities less safe. HB35 represents a necessary and responsible shift. By prohibiting isolated confinement except under limited, clearly defined circumstances, requiring less-restrictive alternatives first, and mandating frequent reviews, medical and mental health evaluations, and transparent oversight, this bill prioritizes human dignity, safety, and accountability while preserving the ability of facilities to respond to legitimate security concerns. We strongly support the bill’s requirements that: • Placement decisions be reviewed every 48 hours; • Medical and mental health evaluations occur promptly; • Individuals be informed, present, and given an opportunity to respond during formal reviews; and • Senior administrative oversight be notified within 24 hours of any placement. These safeguards ensure that isolation is not hidden, indefinite, or unexamined, and that incarcerated individuals are treated as human beings, not management problems. Restorative housing, when properly implemented, offers a path forward that aligns with modern correctional best practices, trauma-informed care, and constitutional standards. HB35 moves Virginia closer to a correctional system focused on rehabilitation, stability, and long-term public safety rather than punishment alone. Bending the Bars Foundation urges members of the General Assembly to advance and pass HB35. This legislation is not only sound policy, it is a moral imperative that reflects our shared responsibility to uphold human rights, protect mental health, and build safer institutions and communities. Respectfully, Bending the Bars Foundation

I support HB35!!!!!!

Comment in support of HB 35, which has passed the past 2 legislative sessions, as written, only to be vetoed. HB35 sets clear limits and basic safeguards so that prolonged isolation isn’t used as a default tool, and so Virginia’s approach reflects dignity, accountability, and prevention of harm. Research clearly shows that prolonged solitary confinement destabilizes people, increases their risk of violence (against self and others), and separates families by restricting their contacts, all with lasting damage. 95% of people incarcerated will return to our communities -- we must not allow discredited practices like prolonged isolation to damage their psyches, their ability to live in community, and their contacts with their families and communities. Prolonged isolation, which typically reduces an incarcerated person's opportunity for contact with family and community supports weakens the precise supports necessary for individuals re-entering society to succeed. Please take this common sense step to limit this harmful and counter-productive practice by supporting HB 35. Sincerely, Mary Bohan, Arlington VA 22205

i supposed HB35 as my loved ones are directly impacted

I fully support HB35 and recognize that solitary confinement and isolation have profound and well-documented negative effects on mental health. I urge your support for HB35. Incarcerated individuals and their families deserve conditions that promote safety and healing, not practices that exacerbate trauma and crisis. Prolonged isolation causes lasting harm and severs critical connections to the supports that help prevent future harm. HB35 establishes clear limits and meaningful oversight to address these concerns.

I support HB35

I support the HB35 bill.

The Justice & Witness Action Network – VA of the United Church of Christ supports the passage of HB35. Our denomination recognizes prolonged solitary confinement, as defined by ‘The Mandela Rules,’ as a form of torture and condemns its use. Calling it "restrictive housing" or "restorative housing" does not change the fact that it is de facto solitary confinement. No one, no matter what they’ve done, deserves to be subjected to such degrading treatment. It is a violation of the inherent dignity and humanity endowed upon all of us by our Creator. While we recognize that there may be circumstances in which an individual needs to be isolated for their own safety or that of others, there needs to be strict regulation and oversight as well as humane, rehabilitative alternatives to solitary confinement. This legislation provides reasonable restrictions and safeguards, and we urge you to vote yes.

I am in full support of HB 35 which seeks to end prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia’s Correctional Facilities! It causes more harm than good when used for extended periods of time!

Statement in Support of HB35 Thursday, January 22, 2026 Testimony of Reverend Dr. Chris Zacharias, Executive Director of Interfaith Action for Human Rights Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rev. Dr. Christopher Zacharias, and I offer this testimony on behalf of Interfaith Action for Human Rights, a coalition of people of faith committed to dignity, justice, and the restoration of all who bear the image of God. Our support for HB35 is rooted first in Scripture. The biblical witness is unmistakable: God hears the cries of the oppressed, commands us to “proclaim liberty to the captives,” and calls us to treat every person—incarcerated or free—as one made in God’s likeness. In Matthew 25, Jesus identifies himself with those in prison, reminding us that how we treat the most marginalized is how we treat Him. Prolonged isolation, deprivation of human contact, and the absence of meaningful programming are not simply policy failures; they are moral failures that contradict the sacred worth God places on every life. Let me be clear: solitary confinement is not a tool for rehabilitation. It is torture. Studies have shown that prolonged isolation inflicts severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm, often leaving individuals permanently scarred. For many, it exacerbates pre-existing mental health conditions and fosters despair, not transformation. HB35 moves us toward a more just and humane system. It establishes clear limits on isolated confinement, ensures regular medical and mental health evaluations, mandates documented reviews, and requires access to out of cell programming that supports rehabilitation rather than deterioration. These are not abstract ideals—they are evidence based standards aligned with human rights norms and the best practices of modern corrections. This bill does not compromise safety. In fact, it strengthens it. By requiring that isolation be used only when absolutely necessary, by ensuring oversight and documentation, and by mandating pathways back to the general population, HB35 promotes stability, reduces violence, and supports the well being of both incarcerated people and staff. As a person of faith, I believe that punishment must never eclipse the possibility of redemption. As advocates for human rights, I believe that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to uphold dignity, transparency, and accountability in every correctional facility. HB35 honors both commitments. For these reasons, Interfaith Action for Human Rights urges you to pass this legislation. It is morally right, operationally sound, and essential for building a corrections system that restores rather than destroys. Thank you for your consideration.

I truly believe that the prison need to do away with solitary confinement. Isolating the inmates even if in their cells, mentally affects them and us. To punish inmates for one persons actions, is wrong. The dangers it can put the inmates mentally in, will either cause them lash out of frustration on each other, staff or harm themselves. My fiance and others are already on medication for mental health, and not being to live in humane conditions set them up for failure. My fiance is Muslim and Red Onion does not accommodate them properly. They serve food with mold on it. Shooting them in the face just because. I have heard they way talk to the inmates while I’m on a call with my fiance. Or he has to tell me hold on why he tries to de-escalate a CO about to shoot an inmate. So the family of the inmates all experience the treatment all well. I also feel that more thorough investigations in the hiring process of the COs need to be done. They are definitely killing the inmates and getting away with it. Why would my fiance and all the other inmates all report the same story back to us? While they are trying to survive the day to day, never knowing they next time they will see us, going long periods of time without eating, hear our voice, while possibly be assaulted then killed by it. A lot of family members of the inmates still live off on hope and faith, that we will see our loved ones again at home. But when they are stuck in a place that have staff that doesn’t want the best for them. They are setting them up for failure intentionally. So please pass these bills. Can a change be made for the better for human lives at stake. Thank you

I am writing in full support of House Bill 35, which seeks to end the use of prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia’s correctional facilities. My husband, Lamont Woods, was transferred to Wallens Ridge Correctional Center on October 20, 2025. Upon arrival, he was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU), reportedly for his own safety. My husband is not a threat to anyone. Rather, there are individuals housed at this facility who pose a threat to him. Both the facility and the Department of Corrections in Richmond approved my husband for a transfer out of Wallens Ridge. However, more than three months later, he remains in solitary confinement, with no clear timeline for transfer. During this period, my husband—who was already struggling with his mental health prior to this placement—has continued to deteriorate. I have sent numerous emails to DOC staff at both the facility and in Richmond and have requested internal investigations, yet I have received no responses or meaningful updates. Each time I inquire about his status, I am told only that he will be transferred “when a bed becomes available.” Meanwhile, he remains isolated indefinitely. Extended placement in solitary confinement is widely recognized as harmful to mental health. This raises a serious question: how is it fair or humane to subject someone to prolonged isolation solely for their own protection? In practice, my husband is being punished for being at risk, with no end in sight. HB35 is critically important because it would establish clear limits, accountability, and oversight in situations like this. It recognizes that solitary confinement—even when labeled as protective—can cause profound harm when used for extended periods and without adequate review. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of HB35. This bill impacts not only individuals who are considered dangerous, but also those who are vulnerable and placed in isolation under the guise of safety. Families like mine are living with the consequences of a system that lacks meaningful limits and transparency. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brianna Woods

On behalf of our nonprofit organization Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised (RIHD) we support HB35 Restorative housing and isolated confinement; restrictions on use bill. We respectfully request the committee cite I’m favor of this important and necessary legislation. Thank you Lillie Branch-Kennedy Founder

I support HB35 because prolonged solitary confinement is a family crisis and a public safety issue. When the Commonwealth isolates a human being for months or years, it doesn’t just punish one person, it destabilizes entire families. As a mother, I have watched solitary confinement change my son's mind, body, and ability to stay connected to the people who love them. It erodes hope, worsens mental health, and creates a constant state of fear for families on the outside, especially children, who are forced to live with long silences, missed milestones, and uncertainty that no child is prepared for. Solitary confinement does not rehabilitate. It breaks people down and increases the likelihood of psychological harm. And when someone eventually returns to the community after prolonged isolation, they return with deeper trauma and fewer supports, which makes reentry harder and communities less safe. HB35 matters because it draws a humane line and recognizes what research and families have been saying for years: prolonged solitary confinement causes lasting harm. I urge you to support HB35 and move Virginia away from practices that isolate, destabilize, and traumatize people instead of preparing them to come home healthier.

Commenting on HB296 visitation, Dress Code First time visitors at a new facility always ask the FB groups what they can wear at the new facility because they really don't know. It can be very different from one facility to another.. Im sure many have had the frightening and frustraating experience ofrefusal and was sent out in search of the local Dollar General. I have worn the same pants to visitation for years afraid to try other pants because I might be refused. No wonder visitation has dropped by 92%. Valley Justice Coalition Supports this bill. Please vote Yes!

I am writing to express my unequivocal support for House Bill 35, a critical piece of legislation that reflects our society's commitment to justice, rehabilitation, and fundamental human dignity. The manner in which we administer justice and manage individuals within our correctional facilities is a profound indicator of our collective values and ethical standards. The practice of prolonged solitary confinement, often presented as a mere administrative tool, carries devastating and well-documented psychological consequences. Extensive research demonstrates that isolating individuals for 22 to 23 hours daily constitutes a form of severe psychological deprivation. This extreme lack of external stimulation and social interaction profoundly alters brain function, leading to a cascade of debilitating effects. Individuals subjected to such conditions frequently exhibit impaired emotional regulation, diminished cognitive clarity, a pervasive inability to trust, and significant challenges in maintaining healthy interpersonal communication. The commonly observed outcomes, far from being exceptional, include heightened anxiety, clinical depression, paranoia, hallucinatory experiences, and severe memory impairment. Human beings are inherently social creatures; our cognitive and emotional well being is intrinsically linked to regular interaction and engagement with others. When this fundamental need for social contact is systematically denied, the punitive environment does not foster corrective behavior. Instead, it actively erodes the very capacities essential for successful reintegration into society, such as patience, problem-solving skills, empathy, and self-control. Moreover, prolonged isolation has been shown to compromise impulse control and exacerbate aggression, thereby inadvertently undermining the safety and stability of both incarcerated individuals and correctional staff within the facility environment. It is particularly concerning that a significant proportion of those placed in isolated confinement are not necessarily the most dangerous offenders, but rather individuals with pre existing histories of trauma, serious mental illnesses, or other profound vulnerabilities. For these individuals, solitary confinement does not provide stability; instead, it often serves to deepen psychological wounds and impede any prospect of recovery or rehabilitation.House Bill 35 is not an endeavor to undermine accountability or discipline within our correctional system. Rather, it represents a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to introduce essential humanity, robust oversight, and fundamental common sense into our practices. By mandating regular reviews of confinement placements, comprehensive medical and mental health evaluations, and prioritizing less-restrictive housing alternatives, this bill offers critical protections for the lives and well being of all involved. This proactive approach not only enhances the safety of staff and incarcerated individuals but also contributes significantly to the long term public safety of our communities. House Bill 35 represents a pivotal step forward for Virginia, guiding us toward a correctional system that is demonstrably smarter, inherently safer, and unequivocally more humane. For the sake of mental health, institutional integrity, and the preservation of basic human dignity, I urge you to support the passage of this vital legislation.

I am writing in support of HB35, legislation to end prolonged solitary confinement in the state of Virginia. I am the mother of an man who has been in solitary confinement. Below is his story: "My name is V.K, This was my first time ever facing a felony charge in my 42 years, and I was terrified and completely lost. From the start, jail shattered me. I suffer from major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and insomnia, and the conditions here have made everything so much worse. They placed me in a padded green velcro suit—uncomfortable, sleeveless, with nothing underneath—and gave me only a small padded blanket for warmth and sleep on a bare floor. No bed, no pillow, just a toilet and sink in a freezing cell. For months, I was kept in 23-and-1 lockdown: 23 hours alone in my cell, one hour out. Noise from others screaming, banging, and hurting themselves made sleep impossible. I was moved between medical observation, mental health units, protective custody, and crisis cells—often without explanation. In one crisis cell, the air reeked, over 50 flies buzzed around a grated hole in the floor instead of a toilet, and I had no window to the outside, no rec time, no calls, no tablet, not even a book. I begged not to be sent there, knowing it would deepen my despair, but I was denied contact with my mom or any comfort. The hardest moment came on July 3, 2025, when I learned my beloved Dean had to be put down while I was locked away. Grieving alone in that cell, unable to hold him or say goodbye, broke my heart in ways I can't describe. Winter brought constant freezing temperatures on top of the isolation—90% of my time here has been 23-and-1, even on units meant for more rec. These harsh conditions don't rehabilitate; they crush the human spirit, worsening mental health for people like me who are quiet, compliant, and just trying to hold on. Despite it all, this experience has given me a deep resolve: when I'm released, I want to become an advocate for prison policy reform, sharing my story to help create a more humane system.

I am writing in strong support of HB35, legislation to end prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia. I am the partner of a man currently held in long-term solitary confinement at Red Onion State Prison. What I have witnessed is not rehabilitation, it is prolonged isolation that destabilizes the human mind, fractures families, and undermines public safety. In solitary confinement, my partner spends nearly all day alone in a cell, with limited human interaction, inconsistent access to recreation, restricted phone calls, delayed mail, and minimal opportunities for meaningful programming. Basic needs, food, showers, and out-of-cell time, are controlled entirely by floor officers. Progress out of isolation includes subjective measures, creating a system where people can remain trapped for years with no clear path forward. This environment does not just harm the incarcerated person. It places families in a constant state of crisis. As a survivor and directly impacted loved one, I live with ongoing fear, anxiety, and helplessness. He is a father and I watch his 12 year old son lose consistent access to his father. No family is prepared for the psychological toll of long-term solitary confinement. Research consistently shows that prolonged isolation increases mental illness, self-harm, suicide risk, and long-term trauma, outcomes that affect not only incarcerated people, but also correctional staff and communities when individuals eventually return home. Solitary confinement does not make prisons safer. It makes people sicker. HB35 is a necessary step toward a corrections system rooted in safety, accountability, and rehabilitation rather than isolation and harm. I urge you to support this bill and help end a practice that has caused profound damage to individuals, families, and the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Alison Chaffin Survivors 4 Justice Reform - VA State Co-Rep & Family Member

Prolonged isolation is a violation of basic human dignity that causes irreversible neurological damage and mental health crises. S4JR advocates for this bill to end state-sponsored torture, recognizing that the "unraveling" caused by solitary confinement ripples out to traumatize families and destabilize communities. We believe in a system that maintains safety through trauma-informed care rather than the psychological destruction of human beings.

I agree with this bill in part. Solitary confinement is a necessary part of prisons and sometimes longer confinement is warranted. However, during these times of confinement, there needs to be a better standard of care. Putting someone in solitary and nothing else doesn’t really help to promote change. There needs to be more frequent reviews, mental health checks, reintegration planning and written justification. Why put someone in solitary with no plans of helping them change the actions that DOC say are wrong?

I support this bill because throughout my 20 years of incarceration, I have had my fair share of conversations with men who have spent years in solitary confinement and the toll that it itakes on a human mind is inhumane. It takes a very strong person to come out exactly how they went in, because listening to other men lose themselves while you’re present can mess with you, even years after. I have been in solitary confinement and I have seen men lose themselves in a short period of time and just the thought of speaking to yourself for weeks on is unbearable. Solitary confinement is not something to use as a form of punishment, rather as stated to do mental health checks - to allow a man or woman to know they are still human. Yes they have made choices to put themselves in this situation, but still giving a chance to help and make better.

Let's talk about this RHU is a cat in a dog suit but it's still a cat . Solitary confinement is 23 and 1 which right now my son is going on three months without 1 out can they explain that RaHU is 20 and 4 my son is in river north he is Ada solitary is completely against Ada rights but there is no accountability no one is answering for what is being done . My son's mental health has gone downhill drastically and I am afraid that I will lose him before he can come home in 2 years and not one person in them prisons care . Our law states it is illegal so why are people not being held accountable and why aren't programs being done this is the wardens job and Chadwick who quickly resigned to not feel the heat . Studies prove that this deteriorates the mental state of a normal human and is illegal so we need to be holding these wardens accountable file charges the proof every camera in the facilities are the proof.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I fully support hb80 bill to withhold funding. There needs to be a reportable time frame for reporting after time of death for adults in custody, to who, where, then publicly available information, with cause of deaths for each facility.

I truly believe that the prison need to do away with solitary confinement. Isolating the inmates even if in their cells, mentally affects them and us. To punish inmates for one persons actions, is wrong. The dangers it can put the inmates mentally in, will either cause them lash out of frustration on each other, staff or harm themselves. My fiance and others are already on medication for mental health, and not being to live in humane conditions set them up for failure. My fiance is Muslim and Red Onion does not accommodate them properly. They serve food with mold on it. Shooting them in the face just because. I have heard they way talk to the inmates while I’m on a call with my fiance. Or he has to tell me hold on why he tries to de-escalate a CO about to shoot an inmate. So the family of the inmates all experience the treatment all well. I also feel that more thorough investigations in the hiring process of the COs need to be done. They are definitely killing the inmates and getting away with it. Why would my fiance and all the other inmates all report the same story back to us? While they are trying to survive the day to day, never knowing they next time they will see us, going long periods of time without eating, hear our voice, while possibly be assaulted then killed by it. A lot of family members of the inmates still live off on hope and faith, that we will see our loved ones again at home. But when they are stuck in a place that have staff that doesn’t want the best for them. They are setting them up for failure intentionally. So please pass these bills. Can a change be made for the better for human lives at stake. Thank you

Bill HB80- Deaths in prison Recently, William McLean "I'll Will" died at the infamous Red Onion state prison with little to no media coverage. The community will like to have light shed on William McLeans death prohibit covers ups and form a gateway to correct all sudden mysterious deaths in prison. As this tragedy raises concerns for others who's incarcerated or currently have family & friends that are incarcerated. This tragedy could have been anyones loved one. Being jailed should not be a death sentence which is now someones, son, brother, uncle, fathers reality. I keep the families in prayer.

Accountability andTransparency are prerequisites for justice, especially when the state is responsible for the lives of those behind bars. HB80 ensures that families are no longer kept in the dark regarding the circumstances of a loved one's death and holds facilities accountable through standardized reporting and funding consequences. S4JR believes that every life has value and that a lack of oversight in our prisons and jails only deepens the cycle of harm and distrust. Please vote in favor of HB80.

I support this bill, as an inmate I have seen CO’s perpetrate violence on inmates. I have been witness to denial or lack of health services that have caused death. These incidents are swept under the rug, blamed on overdoses - not knowing or some such unaccountable reason. People’s families deserve to know the truth of how they lose a loved one because no matter if you’re in prison, you’re a person and somebody cares. This will hold the dOC to a higher standard of taking possible death situations more seriously.

There is a law in place in which these doc officials feel as if they don't have to follow the law accountability is the problem they think they are above the law start filing the paperwork thats said to place on them when they disregard the law this is why men are in prison.failing to report is because they are all related nepotism and cartel actions needs to be addressed they need Rico charges brought on them any civilian would be sent to prison but they continue to do what they want and no accountability.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Comments Document

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

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

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

I am against these proposed bills to impededany sort of restriction on the carry of firearms, banning any sort of accessory, type or feature of a firearm, or any law that adds additional penalties, burdens, fees, or taxes on firearms. The punishment the law abiding citizen with burdensome laws and infringe upon their constitutional rights. The 2nd ammendment is very clear in "shall not be infringed," yet these bills infringe on the freedom of people to bear arms. The propososers of these bills know they're illegal bills and are not constitutional. Virginia has long been a beacon of freedom, and was instrumental in in the American Revolution to secure that freedom. It is disguisting seeing its politicians try to forcibly take that freedom away from its people. I am opposed to these bills and urge the legislature to throw them out, with prejudice.

Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. When someone takes office, they take an oath to follow the constitution. But it seems that are now newly elected officials are refusing to honor the US Constitution.

The rights of the citizens to bear arms are without clause in our constitution. As Delegate Ballard is from our great state, he knows the true meaning of Sic semper tyrannis. I agree with the VCDL and urge you to advocate for our rights as citizens.

When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.

I as a resident of The State of Virginia agree and stand with the positions of the VCDL, GOA, and every other gun rights organization in opposition to all of the firearm restriction bills that you have proposed ,as each are unconstitutional and violate our God given rights.

I am a resident of Ashburn in Loudoun County. I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to HB101 and HB1015. I oppose HB101 because changes to concealed handgun permit application submission methods risk introducing inconsistent standards, administrative delays, or discretionary barriers for otherwise qualified applicants. Virginia’s existing permitting framework has functioned effectively by maintaining clear, uniform procedures that balance public safety with due process. Altering submission methods without clear safeguards may disproportionately burden law-abiding citizens without addressing criminal misuse of firearms. I also oppose HB1015 due to concerns regarding proportionality, due process, and the broad scope of misdemeanor hate crime classifications. Extending long-term firearm prohibitions based on misdemeanor convictions risks imposing lasting consequences without sufficient consideration of context, rehabilitation, or individualized assessment. Policies based on offense categorization rather than demonstrated ongoing risk may result in unintended or unequal impacts on individuals who have completed their sentence and are otherwise law-abiding. In both cases, I am concerned that these bills emphasize procedural or categorical restrictions rather than focusing on enforcement of existing laws, accountability for violent conduct, and protection of due process. I respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB101 and HB1015. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record and for your consideration.

I stand strongly with the VCDL on these proposed laws. VA has always been a bipartisan state on gun issues, and although the second amendment has may purposes- it must be preserved to protect the citizens of this state. Overreaching federal law enforcement, and all threats domestic and foreign are kept in line by responsible firearm ownership. Gun control also impacts lower income groups, impoverished populations, and people of color disproportionately. We must preserve the 2nd amendment.

I support this bill.

Oppose every and all bills.

I stand with the VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". End of story. Let me point you back to the part that states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on all firearms bills

I stand with the VCDL concerning these bills

Why is it when the world turns to shit all the elected representatives in the Democratic Party wants to pass nonsense firearm legislation Lets go after the actual criminals once Use the firearm laws already in the books and hold criminals accountable instead of creating criminals from law abiding firearm owners unless it’s part of the agenda to disarm the citizens Which is what it’s looking like. I am an independent voter just for reasons such as this

I stand with VCDL on these bills!

Gun control will not be tolerated. I have a ton of money and will see you in court.

I stand with VCDL on all the above bills

I stand with the VCDL on these bills.

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

This bill is just common sense in today's technologically advanced society.

In 2021, my elderly stepmother shot through a closed door during an argument with my elderly father, striking him in the back and paralyzing him. My father has spent the past five years in extreme physical agony, unable to walk, paying caretakers out of pocket to hoist him in and out of bed, unable to care for himself. The lack of movement in his life has led to horrific bed sores, which become bone infections, which lead to extended hospital stays and a horrible quality of life. All this because my stepmother was allowed to have a gun. There are countless stories like this of the bullet's aftermath: of the lifelong physical and mental damage that comes from guns. It has been a horrific five years, full of physical pain and mental anguish for our entire family. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The bills before you now will not only save lives, they will spare whole swaths of our neighborhoods from needing to deal with these horrors. One bullet, lodged in my father's spine, didn't kill him. Instead, it has shattered the life he had, his ability to work and care for himself, and his family. Each bullet we allow in our communities has the ability to do the same. His care has bankrupted him personally, and now he relies on state care and Medicaid, an avoidable burden on taxpayers. There are numerous reasons guns have no place in our society, and I hope my father's story is just one that helps make change. Please support all bills that make guns harder to access, harder to keep. Please do everything you can to keep guns out of the hands of our society. Thank you for the great work you are doing to keep Virginians safe.

I am not going to sugar coat this.. the anti gun bills need to stop. As a Former Virginia Police Officer I urge you to support the 2nd amendment just as I did for many years serving Arlington, Virginia. Leave the guns alone, go after the criminals and let people carry their firearms. We as Cops can use the good guys.

I stand in full support of the VCDL against these unconstitutional bills! You folks were elected to serve the Virginia citizen, not turn them into you serfs!

I stand with the VCDL on all issues

HB101 – Support I support HB101 because it modernizes the concealed handgun permit process by allowing digital and online submissions. This bill improves access for law-abiding citizens, reduces administrative burden on local offices, and increases efficiency without compromising public safety or the integrity of background checks. Modern government services should reflect current technology, and HB101 moves Virginia in that direction. HB106 – Support I support HB106 because it reduces the maximum concealed handgun permit fee from $50 to $25 by lowering law enforcement background check costs. This bill promotes fairness by ensuring that permitting fees reflect actual administrative expenses rather than acting as a financial barrier to the exercise of a constitutional right. Responsible citizens should not be priced out of lawful compliance. HB540 – Support I support HB540 because it allows women with active protective orders against a family or household member to carry a firearm in locations that are otherwise restricted. This bill recognizes the heightened and immediate safety risks faced by victims of domestic violence and provides them with a lawful means of self-defense during a vulnerable period. It balances public safety with personal security and individual rights. HB623 – Support I support HB623 because it establishes a clear legal process to petition for the return of confiscated firearms. This bill strengthens due process protections by ensuring that law-abiding citizens have a fair and timely pathway to reclaim property once legal grounds for confiscation no longer exist. Transparency and accountability in this process benefit both the public and the justice system. HB691 – Support I support HB691 because it removes the option for localities to prohibit firearms in parks and at permitted events. This bill promotes uniformity in state law, ensuring that citizens are not subject to a patchwork of local rules that can create confusion and unintended violations. Consistent statewide standards improve clarity, compliance, and respect for lawful carry. HB692 – Support I support HB692 for the same reasons as HB106: it lowers the maximum concealed handgun permit fee to better reflect actual background check and administrative costs. This bill helps ensure that the permitting process remains accessible, equitable, and focused on public safety rather than revenue generation. HB696 – Support I support HB696 because it removes the prohibition on carrying a firearm in highway rest areas, stops, and government-run retail locations such as ABC stores. This bill acknowledges that these locations are often transit points where individuals may be traveling long distances and should be able to maintain lawful self-defense. It aligns carry laws with practical, real-world safety considerations.

I stand with VCDL

I support the VCDL's stance on these bills.

I side with the VCDL on these bills.

I agree with the VCDL

I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Thank you.

I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) on the bills selected. For further clarification: The stance that the VCDL takes on these bills, I also take the same stance.

I want to speak about the gun control bills that are up for a vote.

I strongly support HB101. This bill modernizes the concealed handgun permit process by allowing more efficient application methods while preserving appropriate safeguards. It reduces unnecessary friction for law-abiding citizens and improves the way government delivers core services.

Dear Committee Members, I urge you to appose all further restrictions on the right of law abiding Virginians to aquire, keep, and lawfully carry firearms. While this will likely fall on deaf ears, it is obvious that such unconstitutional bills do nothing to curb violence and are entirely intended to penalize law abiding citizens of apposing political persuasion. Even the most modest estimates of defensive gun use annually shows that citizens defend themselves with firearms far more often than do criminals commit murder with them. Only law abiding citizens are impeded by such overreach.

Members of the General Assembly, I submit this letter in response to several firearms-related bills currently under consideration, including HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696, and HB702. While these proposals differ in scope, they collectively expand government control over the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected right. That cumulative effect warrants careful scrutiny. The Second Amendment was not adopted as a policy preference or regulatory convenience. It was written as a structural safeguard, grounded in the Founders’ experience with centralized authority and their understanding of history and human nature. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to solve a problem the Founders knew well from history: free republics collapse when the government holds a monopoly on force. This concern was not abstract. British gun control policies played a direct role in sparking the American Revolution, including the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder, the 1774–1775 confiscations of privately owned arms and powder, and the use of violence to enforce those confiscations. On the morning of April 19, 1775, British forces marched to Lexington and Concord for the explicit purpose of seizing firearms, ammunition, and powder from the colonists. The first shots of the Revolution were fired not over abstract theory, but over disarmament. The Founders carried these lessons forward. They distrusted standing armies and concentrated power, understanding that liberty survives only when authority remains restrained and answerable to the people. To them, the militia was not a narrow, state-controlled force, but the people themselves. George Mason stated plainly, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” James Madison explained that an armed populace serves as a safeguard against abuse of power, writing that “the advantage of being armed… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” This applied not only to foreign threats, but to domestic overreach. The goal was deterrence and prevention, not reaction after liberty has been lost. Alexander Hamilton likewise observed that a standing army could never threaten liberty so long as the people retained comparable access to arms and training. The Founders relied on balance and structure, not perpetual trust in future leaders. Samuel Adams made this understanding explicit during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, stating, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” This reflects the Founders’ clear intent that lawful citizens retain arms independent of government discretion. The Bill of Rights restrains government power. The Second Amendment enforces those restraints. Rights that exist only at the discretion of the state are not rights at all. The Amendment’s language is declarative, recognizing a pre-existing right because a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to evaluate these bills not only individually, but for their combined impact on the constitutional balance between the citizen and the government. Legislation affecting a fundamental right should meet the highest standard of necessity and restraint. The preservation of liberty demands nothing less. Respectfully, Brad Rector, MSgt, USAF Ret Williamsburg, VA

I would urge the committee to support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696. These bills will make it easier for citizens of the commonwealth to comply with firearms regulation by reducing costs and friction. Making compliance easier can only increase both the rate of compliance and the legitimacy of the law itself by ensuring that the citizens needn't jump through arbitrary hoops or bear unnecessary burdens. I hope the committee members will make it easier for the public to be active participants in their own safety. Thank you.

As a lifelong Virginia resident, landowner, taxpayer, and active voter in Fauquier County, I strongly urge this committee to support legislation that strengthens and preserves the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth. The right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes—including self-defense, recreation, and sporting use—is explicitly protected by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. As duly elected representatives of the Commonwealth, you have sworn an oath to uphold and defend these rights. I expect that oath to be honored. This body should be working to make it easier, simpler, and more affordable for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights—not placing additional financial, legal, or bureaucratic barriers in their way. The focus of public policy must be on addressing the real drivers of violence in our communities: untreated mental illness, repeat violent offenders, and a failure to enforce existing laws. This is a crisis of violence—not of lawful firearm ownership. Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law or human life. Punishing responsible citizens with higher taxes, increased restrictions, and diminished freedoms does nothing to deter those who already operate outside the law. The solution I expect from my elected officials is firm enforcement of existing statutes, tougher sentencing for violent offenders, and the removal of hate-filled, violent criminals from our communities—not the erosion of fundamental liberties. I strongly support the bills currently before this committee that advance these principles. I expect you to support them in committee and, should they reach the floor, to vote in their favor. As a voter, I am paying close attention.

I stand with the VCDL regarding our inherent Second Amendment rights. You took an oath to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Law abiding citizens should NOT have to have our rights stolen based on others unconstitutional views.

I agree with VCDL's position on all bills.

I fully support this bill. Please respect our 2nd amendment rights.

I am in strong support for House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696. Not only do they ensure that our access to carry remain affordable to the average person, they expand options for women who have more of a need to conceal carry.

These anti -gun bills are unconstitutional. Under no circumstances should they be passed into law. “Shall not be infringed!”

I support VCDL’s position on the following bills. As one of the founding colonies, Virginia has a long history of firearms being kept, stored, and used by the average citizen and not relegated to an elite class. Virginias founders understood the importance of an armed population to protect against the dangers of tyranny and external maligned forces

I write today in support of sensible, practical reforms before the Virginia General Assembly that enhance public safety, uphold constitutional rights, and improve fairness and efficiency in the Commonwealth’s approach to firearms law. Specifically, I support HB 101, HB 106, HB 692, HB 691, and HB 696, each of which advances responsible firearm policy rooted in clarity, consistency, and respect for law-abiding citizens. HB 101 modernizes the concealed handgun permit (CHP) system by providing alternate methods for submitting applications. By expanding how eligible Virginians can apply for their permit, this bill promotes accessibility and administrative efficiency without altering substantive eligibility requirements. This change helps ensure that the CHP process is not unduly burdensome or outdated, particularly for individuals with limited mobility, transportation challenges, or work-related constraints.  HB 106 reduces the maximum fee that local law enforcement agencies may charge to process a concealed handgun permit, aligning the cost more closely with the actual costs of background checks and administrative work. This common-sense reform ensures that permit fees do not become a financial barrier for citizens exercising their lawful rights, particularly for lower-income Virginians seeking to responsibly obtain a permit. Delinking the fee from outdated cost structures helps simplify and standardize the system across jurisdictions. Complementing HB 106, HB 692 also revises concealed handgun permit fee structures, reinforcing the effort to streamline and reduce costs associated with lawful carry. Consistency in fee reform across related bills sends a clear message that Virginia prioritizes eliminating unnecessary financial obstacles while maintaining essential background checks and procedural safeguards.  HB 691 addresses disparities in local firearm regulations by removing the option for localities to impose broad bans on the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms and ammunition in public parks, streets, sidewalks, or areas adjacent to permitted events. Uniform statewide standards respect both public safety and the rights of Virginians to engage in lawful self-defense and outdoor recreation without facing a patchwork of varying local ordinances. Far from “one-size-fits-all,” this reform reinforces predictability and fairness in the law.  HB 696 provides clarifications and exceptions for carrying firearms or explosive material into buildings owned or leased by the Commonwealth, particularly for highway rest areas and government stores. By refining such exceptions, this bill ensures that lawful firearm possession is not unduly penalized in low-risk environments where individuals have legitimate reasons for carry while traveling or conducting routine errands. Clarity in these exceptions enhances both public safety and respect for individual rights.  Together, these bills strengthen the balance between public safety and personal liberty by removing unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, standardizing regulatory environments, and ensuring that law-abiding Virginians can understand and comply with state law. They focus government action on meaningful public-safety outcomes rather than on administrative complexity or inconsistent local regulations.

I stand with VCDL.

There shouldn’t be any fees associated with the right to carry a firearm. Permits are nothing but the state taking a right and selling you it back to you. There should be no restricted locations in which a firearm can’t be carried.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill. The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed.

I support the bills sponsored by Delegates Ballard, Hamilton, Cherry, and Zehr. I recommend they all be reported out of the Firearms subcommittee. I believe the bill sponsored by Delegate Cole is a waste of my tax dollars and would recommend that it is not reported out of the subcommittee. Thank you.

I stand with VCDL.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

No new firearms laws will lower gun violence rates. Begin enforcing the existing laws and stop letting violent offenders off the hook. All of the firearms related bills being presented fly directly in the face of the 2nd amendment. Making guns harder to come by for law abiding citizens does not stop criminals from getting them. They don’t obey the law anyway! If you pass these bills it will be a direct statement that you do not care about the rights of Virginia residents and only seek to disarm all citizens. The second amendment is quite clear, “shall not be infringed”, stop infringing on our rights given to us by our creator God almighty. Please, truly think about what you are voting for. I think you will realize that the majority of Virginians do not want these new gun laws and that they will be ineffective at achieving your intended goals. Whether that be a sincere attempt to lower gun violence or an overt attempt to disarm law abiding American citizens. Thank you for the time you dedicate to serving our great commonwealth and for taking the time to read this comment.

I agree with VCDL on all these bills.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill.

I support the VCDL stance on these bills.

I agree with the VCDL.

I support House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, and 696. The 2nd amendment is a neccessary to prevent any government infringement on our liberties. It is particularly neccessary in the time that we are currently living through. With the current civil unrest throughout the country we should encourage more gun ownership and carrying of firearms. The Virginia Constitution in Article I Section 3 states that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...". I believe these laws lessen the infringements on the rights that so many Virginians died for. I strong oppose House Bill 702. I oppose the give-back program for two reasons. Firstly, I believe destroying these firearms will lead to the destruction of historical firearms. This has occured in many other states. It would be preferable to have them stored or resold. I also worry about the financial costs that a bill like this would have. The labor costs and cost of destruction could be better allocated in our schools, roads, or VIrginia State Police.

HB101: This allows for modern electronic methods of applying for concealed handgun permits. I strongly support this bill. HB106: The monetary burden for exercising your right to bear arms should be as low as possible so everyone can participate. I strongly support this bill. HB540: I strongly support this bill. HB623: There should always be a clearly defined route for having seized property of any kind returned. I strongly support this bill. HB691: Citizens should not have to choose between exercising their Constitutionally protected rights or enjoying the parks and other public facilities in their area - especially those of us that are parents and choose to bear arms to protect our families. I strongly support this bill. HB692: I strongly support this bill. HB696: Similar to HB691, I should be able to use the rest areas that my taxes help to pay for while peacefully exercising my right to bear arms in self defense. Lawful firearm owners are no danger to the other guests of these rest stops or government run stores. Criminals looking for easy targets will happily violate the law as it stands now to go armed in these areas knowing that their victims are disarmed. I strongly support this bill. HB702: Programs like the one that this bill are mainly used by family members to destroy heirloom firearms that are no longer wanted and in many cases rare or historic firearms are permanently destroyed with no option for museums, historians or collectors to rescue them. I OPPOSE this bill as it is written here and would prefer to see a program where the public is allowed access to purchase any abandoned firearms at fair market value before they are destroyed.

I am in favor of HB101,HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB 696. I am against HB702 and any type of buy back program

HB101, Del. Ballard, this would be helpful and accessible to people with mobility impairments and stalking victims who fear leaving home HB106, Del. Ballard - this would make CHPs more accessible to the working poor living in expensive areas. HB540, Del. Hamilton - this will help victims of domestic violence far more HB623, Del. Cherry, - return of confiscated weapons should be automatic, but since it is not, this is the next best thing HB691, Del. Zehr, - courts have already ruled that laws restricting firearms in these areas are unconstitutional HB692, Del. Zehr, - this will help those whose budgets are already tight and is consistent with the reduction in charges based on court rulings that UBCs are unconstitutional for 18-21 year olds. HB696, Del. Zehr - stalkers only need to follow us into places where we cannot carry to complete their crimes. Let's reduce the availability of defense free zones HB702, Del. Cole, J., - this is an expensive program that lacks justification. There are services to dispose of unwanted firearms already, we don't need more government to achieve this.

There is no reason to require physical CHP applications in 2026. Allowing electronic submissions would reduce Virginia’s expenses and free up time for the clerks to work on important business. It benefits Virginia and its citizens.

I support VCDL’s position on this legislation.

Allowing concealed handgun permits to be submitted electronically is common sense. It will save time and money for citizens and busy circuit courts clerks without affecting who is eligible to receive a permit.

I am writing in support of HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696 and in opposition to HB702. Any bills returning us to the simple verbiage in the Constitution stating "shall not be infringed" is a bill that any representative should be happy to sign. HB702 is a nonsensical bill and unnecessary bill . Anyone no longer wishing to possess a firearm can very easily sell it to an FFL for compensation or destruction if it is beyond repair.

As a retired US Army Warrant Officer and avid gun enthusiast, I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed! This is a punishment to law abiding Virginians.

I agree with the VCDL positions regarding the above bills.

Comments Document

The attachment lays out reasoning and comments the committee should consider when reviewing House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696 and 702.

I agree with VCDL. No infringement on my Constitutional Rights.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill.

I stand with VCDL on these bills, they are common sense and do no harm to law abiding gun owners.

We stand with VCDL

aprrove hb 101 reduces time and government employee's time saving money approve hb106 it doesn't cost $50 in labor to renew a permit approve hb 540 women need to be able to protect themselves against dangerous males approve hb 623 a firearm should be returned to the original owner after someone used it illegally approve hb 696 rest stops are very dangerous areas for criminals to attack people oppose 702 firearms should be sold to a legitimate FFL Dealer not destroyed. The money could be put into the general fund

Please support these bills. As a Democrat and gun owner, we need to support common sense gun legislation that protects the rights of lawful gun owners and those seeking to purchase firearms for self-defense reasons. My girlfriend used a handgun to protect herself against a forced entry into her apartment. Without that firearm, which she did not fire, there is no telling what could have happened. Please support these bills - search your conscience.

I support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696. I oppose HB702.

I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed!

Chairman Clark and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony regarding the several firearms-related bills scheduled for consideration on January 22nd. I submit this comment in strong opposition to any legislation that restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians, including but not limited to HB540, HB691, HB696, and any bill that imposes new fees, new barriers, or expanded discretion over the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a conditional privilege granted by the state — it is a pre-existing individual right that government is obligated to protect, not chip away at. This is not a matter of personal opinion; it is the settled law of the United States, reaffirmed in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, any modern firearms restriction must align with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. None of the proposals in these bills satisfy that standard. On fee increases and permit limitations (HB101, HB106, HB692) Attempting to raise fees or add administrative hurdles to the concealed handgun permit process places a financial burden on the exercise of a constitutional right. Fundamental rights cannot be conditioned on a citizen’s ability to pay a government-imposed fee. That principle is well established across multiple Supreme Court rulings dealing with constitutional freedoms. On expanding local authority to restrict firearms (HB691) Allowing localities to create their own firearm restrictions guarantees inconsistency, confusion, and unequal treatment of Virginians depending on which side of a city line they stand. State-level preemption exists for a reason: constitutional rights should not be fragmented or subject to a patchwork of differing local rules. This approach is not compatible with constitutional uniformity. On forfeiture, reclassification, and new criminal penalties (HB523, HB696) These proposals do not target criminal behavior; they target lawful Virginians. Violent crime is already committed overwhelmingly by individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms. Adding new categories of liability or expanding restricted locations has no historical foundation and only burdens citizens who already comply with the law. On the Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund (HB720) While labeled as voluntary, state-funded “give-back” programs have repeatedly been shown nationwide to provide no measurable improvement in public safety. They serve only symbolic purposes while reinforcing the misguided narrative that lawful gun ownership is inherently problematic. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund ineffective strategies with no empirical foundation. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to reject any bill that infringes upon the rights of law-abiding Virginians to own, carry, and responsibly use firearms. Public safety is not achieved by restricting the liberties of responsible citizens. It is achieved by enforcing existing laws against those who commit violent acts and by upholding the constitutional protections that every Virginian is entitled to. Thank you for your time and your attention to this critical issue. Respectfully submitted, Patrick McCormick Citizen, Commonwealth of Virginia

I support both HB101 and HB106. It's time to cut through some of the red tape that interferes with exercising our constitutionally protected rights.

I strongly support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696 and I respectfully request the members to Support these bills on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. I am strongly opposed to HB702 I and respectfully request that Members oppose this bill on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. Furthermore, I fully support the comments by VCDL- Virginia Citizens Defense League's on these proposed bills. Thank you, Chris McDorman

To the Honorable Members of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am writing to you today to express my stance on several bills currently under review by this esteemed body. On Behalf of the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I agree with the Citizens Defense League on all these matters. And specifically, I disagree with HB 702. Not only is HB 702 a disgusting way to damage the environment with more trash, and encourages it, but the funds of the program are not correctly distributed back to where those taxes originally went. It also implies that the government gave me a product they did not and it's my responsibility to return it. Which is an inappropriate depiction of the government and certainly overreach. Thank You for reviewing my statement. Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia

These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills.

I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. These bills seem to only be targeting law abding citizens, which i do not agree with nor believe Virginia resident's will be better off for. Laws such as these will actually make Virginians less safe.

I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. They are government over reach. All gun laws are infringements on the second amendment. The bills give criminals an upper hand because they don’t follow laws.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill and VA should follow the 2nd Amendment and what is being established at the Federal Govt level.

I support the position of VCDL on this bill.

I support the VCDL on these bills. Recognizing and expanding the rights of peaceful carry and ownership of all sorts of firearms is an essential part of guaranteeing freedoms for all VA citizens.

Hello, I wanted to express my support for both HB101 and HB106. As a left-of-center gun owner I believe these will make safe and legal access to firearms for self defense more equitable. I would also like to call to attention HB217 and HB207. I urge you to vote against these bills. Many of the features used to define an "assault weapon" are ultimately leveraged by people with physical disabilities or ailments. For someone with joint issues a muzzle brake, vertical foregrip, and a pistol grip can significantly reduce pain experienced when using a rifle. Standard capacity (i.e. 30-round) magazines for rifles are critical for people who have lost the use of an arm or hand due to injury or a variety of ailments. I strongly urge you to reconsider these features as accessibility aids and vote no on HB217. Guns used in training and competition can typically produce up to 160 decibels when fired, well above the 90 decibel threshold for hearing loss. The most effective method to prevent hearing loss for people who regularly use or are around firearms is a layered approach include ear plugs, ear muffs, and a suppressor. A $500 tax on suppressors will have minimal impact on crime as they are vary rarely used in crimes, but it would reduce access to this hearing protection technology for individuals in critical professions such as education that live paycheck to paycheck. Why should hearing protection be made less available to these groups? Thank you for taking the time to review these comments, as these matters are critical to both myself and my community of left-of-center competitive shooters. Regards, Kyle Gervais

HB101 - This bill brings our CHP process into the 21st century and will help make our local courthouses more efficient and paperless

As a representative of r/VAGuns, a popular online community of Virginia gun owners on the social media platform Reddit, we fully and unanimously DO NOT support this bill and others like it that blatantly violate Second Amendment rights with disregard for tradition or case law. These bills DO NOT represent practical, balanced measures that help safeguard our community, and r/VAGuns does NOT back these efforts to infringe on the rights of Virginians.

I agree with the position of VCDL, this bill will allow limiting administrative traffic in courts building.

I am writing to oppose this legislation as a proud Virginia resident. This legislation will have no effect on public safety and will only provide an undue burden on the law abiding residents of Virginia. Other states have tried these methods and have shown no drastic reduction in gun violence. Instead, this merely prevents law abiding Virginians from fully exercising their constitutional rights. And it is clearly a constitutional right of both our nation and the state. It is the only amendment where “shall not be infringed” is expressly stated. Under the recent New York vs Bruen decision, there must be historical precedent for it to be constitutional of which there is none especially none that are not based in racist ideologies. I urge my delegates to vote no on this legislation and will be allocating my vote accordingly.

As a representative of r/VAGuns, a popular online community of Virginia gun owners on the social media platform Reddit, we fully and unanimously endorse this bill and others like it that promote common-sense gun laws. Our community stands united in support of the recent legislation being passed in the General Assembly, which aims to protect and strengthen our neighborhoods while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. These bills represent practical, balanced measures that help safeguard our community, and r/VAGuns proudly backs these efforts to promote safety and responsibility across Virginia.

Simply unconstitutional. Only a tyrant would agree with this. A waste of time and money for no benefit.

HB101 subsidizes the NRA and it allows someone who knows nothing about handguns to obtain a carry permit and still not know anything about handguns by completing one of the following: 1. A hunter education course which does not teach participates to operate or shoot a handgun; 2. An AR-15 Fundamentals course; 4. A rifle course or class conducted by an individual who is not a certified firearms instructor; 5. A course or class with unknown content and conducted by an out-of-state instructor with unknown credentials; 6. Participation in a shotgun shooting match: These problems must be solved by introducing a substitute bill that will replace the subparagraphs of §§ 18.2-308.02(B) and 18.2-308.06(B) with the following. 1. Completing any National African American Gun Association, United States Concealed Carry Association, or National Rifle Association handgun shooting class or course that teaches the efficient, effective, and responsible use of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside the home and the applicable Virginia Law; 2. Completing any law-enforcement firearms safety or training course or class offered for security guards, investigators, special deputies, or any division or subdivision of law enforcement or security enforcement; 3. Obtaining or previously having held a license to carry a firearm in the Commonwealth or a locality thereof, unless such license has been revoked for cause; 4. Completing any governmental police agency firearms training course and qualifying to carry a firearm in the course of normal police duties; 5. Completing any firearms training that any court in the Commonwealth of Virginia or the Virginia Department of State Police deems adequate. If names of organizations cannot be included the subparagraph 1 above can be changed to: 1. Completing handgun shooting class or course that teaches the efficient, effective, and responsible use of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside the home and the applicable Virginia Law;

Wonderful changes. Makes access to a CCW permit lower cost and easier to obtain. Next step, permit less carry

I am here to respectfully support HB101. HB101 is a reasonable, commonsense bill that modernizes the concealed handgun permit application process by allowing alternate methods of submission. This does not weaken background checks, lower standards, or change eligibility requirements. It simply improves access, efficiency, and fairness in how law-abiding Virginians interact with the permitting system. Many residents face unnecessary barriers under the current system—limited office hours, long travel distances, appointment backlogs, or work and family obligations that make in-person submission difficult. These obstacles do not enhance public safety; they only delay or discourage compliance with the law. HB101 maintains all existing safeguards while allowing localities to process applications in ways that better reflect modern technology and the realities of people’s lives. Making lawful compliance easier strengthens respect for the law and improves administrative efficiency for local governments. This bill is not about expanding carry rights beyond current law. It is about ensuring that law-abiding citizens can exercise existing rights without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

I am glad to see the CHP application process getting attention. Having just gone through the process in fairfax county, there is no reason why the entire process can't be accomplished through an online portal. As is, the process is exceptionally annoying. The complete set of instructions for applying via mail cannot be found online. Some of the relevant information can be found across multiple webpages on the fairfax district court and Virginia state police websites, but other information such as the application fee and the knowledge that the court only accepts payment via cashier's check, can only be obtained by calling them in person. Applying by mail proved frustration enough that I just drove to the courthouse to renew my application in person, but many Virginians do not have a work schedule to spend 3 hours at the fairfax district court in the middle of a work day.

While not a particularly visible group, home gunsmithing has been a time honored tradition in this country and specifically Virginia since before the ratification of the constitution. In an attempt to prevent the use of 3d printed handguns in crimes (something that is already illegal many times over by the way, which might prompt you to ask why you'd expect making it even more illegal to have any effect on its occurrence) you are criminalizing thousands of otherwise law abiding Virginian hobbyists, many of whom produce firearms that require a great deal of skill to craft and that are wholly different from anything that has ever turned up at a crime. This bill is also poorly written as it fails to consider that firearms were even not federally required to have a serial number before 1968, and as such outlaws the possession of an untold number of antique firearms and will turn countless Virginians into felons, likely without them even realizing it. Additionally, the idea of an entirely plastic firearm that is invisible to a metal detector seems to have first been popularized (to the best of my knowledge) by the Diehard movies, which repeatedly refer to a glock made out of porcelain. No glocks have ever been made out of porcelain, this is not a thing and I have no idea where they got that from. In real life, people *have* successfully produced single shot, essentially single use handguns made entirely from plastic, but these have generally been wildly impractical, borderline dangerous devices that can't withstand more than a couple shots. They are also extremely uncommon and largely separate from the firearms being used to commit crimes, and I'm unaware of one having ever been actually used in connection to a crime

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

How about making cannabis-marijuana illegal instead of using our tax dollars for more drug programs? Common sense policies

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I am writing in support of Virginia House Bill 361. My perspective comes from personal experience. My loved one has been incarcerated within the Virginia Department of Corrections for 17 years. During that time, he has spent long periods confined under conditions and policies that offered no opportunity to earn sentence credits — despite consistent effort, good behavior, and personal growth. HB 361 is not about excusing past mistakes. It is about fairness. Time served is time lived, and individuals should not be denied earned sentence credits simply because of when their incarceration occurred or circumstances beyond their control. After 17 years, I have seen how denying earned credits deepens hopelessness while recognizing effort encourages accountability and rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support HB 361 and help ensure Virginia’s sentencing system reflects fairness, humanity, and modern justice principles.

We thought this ombudsman would be an answer to our prayers . December 2024 we met with the general assembly who stated red onion be priority it still has not been investigated by the ombudsman and waiting on 13 members I guess we should just can it because these people are getting paid to not do anything we need complete outside oversight with powers to be able to do complete investigations inside and out . We all know the grievance process is a failure but yet to investigate it has to be completed my son has severe mental health issues from being in solitary confinement for so long he is unable to complete any forms but yet continues to be mistreated and no investigations because he didn't file the grievance process this is just another smoke and mirror situation which is costing the tax payers a fortune for nothing .

I am against these proposed bills to impededany sort of restriction on the carry of firearms, banning any sort of accessory, type or feature of a firearm, or any law that adds additional penalties, burdens, fees, or taxes on firearms. The punishment the law abiding citizen with burdensome laws and infringe upon their constitutional rights. The 2nd ammendment is very clear in "shall not be infringed," yet these bills infringe on the freedom of people to bear arms. The propososers of these bills know they're illegal bills and are not constitutional. Virginia has long been a beacon of freedom, and was instrumental in in the American Revolution to secure that freedom. It is disguisting seeing its politicians try to forcibly take that freedom away from its people. I am opposed to these bills and urge the legislature to throw them out, with prejudice.

U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". These are a slap to the face of law abiding gun owners of the state of Virginia. I'm atonished at the blatan ignorance of a firearm and my rights, who voted for these idiots?

I agree with VCDL.

When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.

I stand strongly with the VCDL on these proposed laws. VA has always been a bipartisan state on gun issues, and although the second amendment has may purposes- it must be preserved to protect the citizens of this state. Overreaching federal law enforcement, and all threats domestic and foreign are kept in line by responsible firearm ownership. Gun control also impacts lower income groups, impoverished populations, and people of color disproportionately. We must preserve the 2nd amendment.

I strongly support this bill.

Oppose every and all bills.

I stand with the VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on these bills. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". End of story. Let me point you back to the part that states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".

I stand with VCDL on these bills.

I stand with VCDL on all firearms bills

I stand with the VCDL concerning these bills

Why is it when the world turns to shit all the elected representatives in the Democratic Party wants to pass nonsense firearm legislation Lets go after the actual criminals once Use the firearm laws already in the books and hold criminals accountable instead of creating criminals from law abiding firearm owners unless it’s part of the agenda to disarm the citizens Which is what it’s looking like. I am an independent voter just for reasons such as this

I stand with VCDL on these bills!

Gun control will not be tolerated. I have a ton of money and will see you in court.

I stand with VCDL on all the above bills

I stand with the VCDL on these bills.

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

I am not going to sugar coat this.. the anti gun bills need to stop. As a Former Virginia Police Officer I urge you to support the 2nd amendment just as I did for many years serving Arlington, Virginia. Leave the guns alone, go after the criminals and let people carry their firearms. We as Cops can use the good guys.

I stand in full support of the VCDL against these unconstitutional bills! You folks were elected to serve the Virginia citizen, not turn them into you serfs!

I stand with the VCDL on all issues

HB101 – Support I support HB101 because it modernizes the concealed handgun permit process by allowing digital and online submissions. This bill improves access for law-abiding citizens, reduces administrative burden on local offices, and increases efficiency without compromising public safety or the integrity of background checks. Modern government services should reflect current technology, and HB101 moves Virginia in that direction. HB106 – Support I support HB106 because it reduces the maximum concealed handgun permit fee from $50 to $25 by lowering law enforcement background check costs. This bill promotes fairness by ensuring that permitting fees reflect actual administrative expenses rather than acting as a financial barrier to the exercise of a constitutional right. Responsible citizens should not be priced out of lawful compliance. HB540 – Support I support HB540 because it allows women with active protective orders against a family or household member to carry a firearm in locations that are otherwise restricted. This bill recognizes the heightened and immediate safety risks faced by victims of domestic violence and provides them with a lawful means of self-defense during a vulnerable period. It balances public safety with personal security and individual rights. HB623 – Support I support HB623 because it establishes a clear legal process to petition for the return of confiscated firearms. This bill strengthens due process protections by ensuring that law-abiding citizens have a fair and timely pathway to reclaim property once legal grounds for confiscation no longer exist. Transparency and accountability in this process benefit both the public and the justice system. HB691 – Support I support HB691 because it removes the option for localities to prohibit firearms in parks and at permitted events. This bill promotes uniformity in state law, ensuring that citizens are not subject to a patchwork of local rules that can create confusion and unintended violations. Consistent statewide standards improve clarity, compliance, and respect for lawful carry. HB692 – Support I support HB692 for the same reasons as HB106: it lowers the maximum concealed handgun permit fee to better reflect actual background check and administrative costs. This bill helps ensure that the permitting process remains accessible, equitable, and focused on public safety rather than revenue generation. HB696 – Support I support HB696 because it removes the prohibition on carrying a firearm in highway rest areas, stops, and government-run retail locations such as ABC stores. This bill acknowledges that these locations are often transit points where individuals may be traveling long distances and should be able to maintain lawful self-defense. It aligns carry laws with practical, real-world safety considerations.

I stand with VCDL

I support the VCDL's stance on these bills.

I side with the VCDL on these bills.

I agree with the VCDL

I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Thank you.

I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) on the bills selected. For further clarification: The stance that the VCDL takes on these bills, I also take the same stance.

I strongly support HB623. A lawful firearm owner should not be permanently penalized because someone else committed a crime. This bill provides a fair and reasonable process to recover property when the owner is not the offender.

I want to speak about the gun control bills that are up for a vote.

Dear Committee Members, I urge you to appose all further restrictions on the right of law abiding Virginians to aquire, keep, and lawfully carry firearms. While this will likely fall on deaf ears, it is obvious that such unconstitutional bills do nothing to curb violence and are entirely intended to penalize law abiding citizens of apposing political persuasion. Even the most modest estimates of defensive gun use annually shows that citizens defend themselves with firearms far more often than do criminals commit murder with them. Only law abiding citizens are impeded by such overreach.

Members of the General Assembly, I submit this letter in response to several firearms-related bills currently under consideration, including HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696, and HB702. While these proposals differ in scope, they collectively expand government control over the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected right. That cumulative effect warrants careful scrutiny. The Second Amendment was not adopted as a policy preference or regulatory convenience. It was written as a structural safeguard, grounded in the Founders’ experience with centralized authority and their understanding of history and human nature. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to solve a problem the Founders knew well from history: free republics collapse when the government holds a monopoly on force. This concern was not abstract. British gun control policies played a direct role in sparking the American Revolution, including the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder, the 1774–1775 confiscations of privately owned arms and powder, and the use of violence to enforce those confiscations. On the morning of April 19, 1775, British forces marched to Lexington and Concord for the explicit purpose of seizing firearms, ammunition, and powder from the colonists. The first shots of the Revolution were fired not over abstract theory, but over disarmament. The Founders carried these lessons forward. They distrusted standing armies and concentrated power, understanding that liberty survives only when authority remains restrained and answerable to the people. To them, the militia was not a narrow, state-controlled force, but the people themselves. George Mason stated plainly, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” James Madison explained that an armed populace serves as a safeguard against abuse of power, writing that “the advantage of being armed… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” This applied not only to foreign threats, but to domestic overreach. The goal was deterrence and prevention, not reaction after liberty has been lost. Alexander Hamilton likewise observed that a standing army could never threaten liberty so long as the people retained comparable access to arms and training. The Founders relied on balance and structure, not perpetual trust in future leaders. Samuel Adams made this understanding explicit during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, stating, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” This reflects the Founders’ clear intent that lawful citizens retain arms independent of government discretion. The Bill of Rights restrains government power. The Second Amendment enforces those restraints. Rights that exist only at the discretion of the state are not rights at all. The Amendment’s language is declarative, recognizing a pre-existing right because a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to evaluate these bills not only individually, but for their combined impact on the constitutional balance between the citizen and the government. Legislation affecting a fundamental right should meet the highest standard of necessity and restraint. The preservation of liberty demands nothing less. Respectfully, Brad Rector, MSgt, USAF Ret Williamsburg, VA

I would urge the committee to support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696. These bills will make it easier for citizens of the commonwealth to comply with firearms regulation by reducing costs and friction. Making compliance easier can only increase both the rate of compliance and the legitimacy of the law itself by ensuring that the citizens needn't jump through arbitrary hoops or bear unnecessary burdens. I hope the committee members will make it easier for the public to be active participants in their own safety. Thank you.

As a lifelong Virginia resident, landowner, taxpayer, and active voter in Fauquier County, I strongly urge this committee to support legislation that strengthens and preserves the constitutional rights of the citizens of the Commonwealth. The right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes—including self-defense, recreation, and sporting use—is explicitly protected by both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Virginia. As duly elected representatives of the Commonwealth, you have sworn an oath to uphold and defend these rights. I expect that oath to be honored. This body should be working to make it easier, simpler, and more affordable for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights—not placing additional financial, legal, or bureaucratic barriers in their way. The focus of public policy must be on addressing the real drivers of violence in our communities: untreated mental illness, repeat violent offenders, and a failure to enforce existing laws. This is a crisis of violence—not of lawful firearm ownership. Criminals, by definition, do not respect the law or human life. Punishing responsible citizens with higher taxes, increased restrictions, and diminished freedoms does nothing to deter those who already operate outside the law. The solution I expect from my elected officials is firm enforcement of existing statutes, tougher sentencing for violent offenders, and the removal of hate-filled, violent criminals from our communities—not the erosion of fundamental liberties. I strongly support the bills currently before this committee that advance these principles. I expect you to support them in committee and, should they reach the floor, to vote in their favor. As a voter, I am paying close attention.

I stand with the VCDL regarding our inherent Second Amendment rights. You took an oath to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Law abiding citizens should NOT have to have our rights stolen based on others unconstitutional views.

I agree with VCDL's position on all bills.

I fully support this bill. Please respect our 2nd amendment rights.

I am in strong support for House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696. Not only do they ensure that our access to carry remain affordable to the average person, they expand options for women who have more of a need to conceal carry.

These anti -gun bills are unconstitutional. Under no circumstances should they be passed into law. “Shall not be infringed!”

I support VCDL’s position on the following bills. As one of the founding colonies, Virginia has a long history of firearms being kept, stored, and used by the average citizen and not relegated to an elite class. Virginias founders understood the importance of an armed population to protect against the dangers of tyranny and external maligned forces

I stand with VCDL.

There shouldn’t be any fees associated with the right to carry a firearm. Permits are nothing but the state taking a right and selling you it back to you. There should be no restricted locations in which a firearm can’t be carried.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill. The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed.

I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to HB110, HB21, HB217, HB229, HB24, HB623, HB626, HB700, HB871, and HB916. These proposals represent a sweeping expansion of firearm regulation that raises serious constitutional concerns under both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. Recent Supreme Court precedent makes clear that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Broad restrictions on commonly owned firearms, magazines, permitting, carry, storage, commerce, and industry liability extend well beyond that tradition and place undue burdens on law abiding Virginians. Several proposals also seek to impose increased taxation of firearms, ammunition, and accessories such as the proposed $500 tax on suppressors. These proposals are nothing more than a means of discouraging lawful ownership. Using taxation to create financial barriers to the exercise of a constitutional right is deeply concerning and disproportionately impacts lower income Virginians. Constitutional rights should not be accessible only to those who can afford significant additional fees or penalties. Many of these bills do not meaningfully target criminal misuse, but instead regulate the conduct of responsible citizens who already comply with existing laws. Measures such as expanded prohibitions, waiting periods, altered permitting standards, reciprocal permit limitations, storage penalties, civil liability expansion, forfeiture hurdles, location based carry bans, and punitive taxation risk criminalizing otherwise lawful behavior while doing nothing to address violent crime or its underlying causes. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to reject these proposals in their entirety. Virginians should not be asked to surrender constitutional rights through cumulative restrictions, financial barriers, or regulatory complexity that would never be tolerated if applied to any other enumerated right. Public safety and constitutional liberty are not mutually exclusive, and legislation that undermines one in the name of the other ultimately serves neither. The Commonwealth can and must pursue solutions that respect both the Constitution and the Virginians it exists to serve.

I support the bills sponsored by Delegates Ballard, Hamilton, Cherry, and Zehr. I recommend they all be reported out of the Firearms subcommittee. I believe the bill sponsored by Delegate Cole is a waste of my tax dollars and would recommend that it is not reported out of the subcommittee. Thank you.

HB106, HB692: My out-of-state concealed carry license costs me $50. I should not have to pay the Commonwealth of VA such a high fee to be my own security. This should cost $0, but $25 down from $50 at least makes an improvement. HB623: The rightful owners of any weapon should have the ability to retrieve property wrongfully taken from them. Once the justice system's need for the weapon has ended, keeping the weapon from the rightful owner, who committed no wrongdoing, only makes the Commonwealth of VA a thief itself. HB691: Prohibiting the carry of firearms in parks and publicly permitted events does not make either safer. Anyone who would do harm will not abide by such restrictions, and such restrictions only make others soft targets. I used to run the trail in one such park that now prohibits the carry of firearms. A brutal murder took place there, and the current ban only makes someone like me less safe and more vulnerable. Similarly, in highway rest stops, the more dangerous part of making a stop happens when outside of a vehicle. It makes no sense to un-holster a firearm, potentially in a tight space, only store the firearms in a somewhere in the vehicle while I walk to where I cannot access it. HB702: Destroying a working firearm makes no sense whatsoever. This bill creates a waste of resources. It wastes raw materials and energy. Vote this down and replace it with a bill that makes surrendered guns purchasable at a discount by low-income buyers or by retired military, law enforcement, or first responders.

HB106, HB692: My out-of-state concealed carry license costs me $50. I should not have to pay the Commonwealth of VA such a high fee to be my own security. This should cost $0, but $25 down from $50 at least makes an improvement. HB623: The rightful owner of any weapon should have the ability to retrieve his or her property wrongfully taken from them. Once the justice system's need for the weapon has ended, keeping the weapon from the rightful owner, who committed no wrongdoing, only makes the Commonwealth of VA a thief itself. HB691: Prohibiting the carry of firearms in parks and publicly permitted events does not make either safer. Anyone who would do harm will not abide by such restriction, and such restrictions only make others soft targets by prohibiting. I used to run the trail in one such park that now prohibits the carry of firearms. A brutal murder took place there, and the current ban only makes someone like me less save and more vulnerable. Similarly, in highway rest stops, the more dangerous part of making a stop happens when outside of a vehicle. It makes no sense to un-holster a firearm, potentially in a tight space only store the firearms in a somewhere in the vehicle while I walk to where I cannot access it. HB702: Destroying a working firearm makes no sense whatsoever. This bill creates a waste of resources. It wastes raw materials and energy. Vote this down and replace it with a bill that makes surrendered guns purchasable at a discount by low-income buyers or by retired military, law enforcement, or first responders.

I stand with VCDL.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

No new firearms laws will lower gun violence rates. Begin enforcing the existing laws and stop letting violent offenders off the hook. All of the firearms related bills being presented fly directly in the face of the 2nd amendment. Making guns harder to come by for law abiding citizens does not stop criminals from getting them. They don’t obey the law anyway! If you pass these bills it will be a direct statement that you do not care about the rights of Virginia residents and only seek to disarm all citizens. The second amendment is quite clear, “shall not be infringed”, stop infringing on our rights given to us by our creator God almighty. Please, truly think about what you are voting for. I think you will realize that the majority of Virginians do not want these new gun laws and that they will be ineffective at achieving your intended goals. Whether that be a sincere attempt to lower gun violence or an overt attempt to disarm law abiding American citizens. Thank you for the time you dedicate to serving our great commonwealth and for taking the time to read this comment.

I agree with VCDL on all these bills.

I support the VCDL stance on these bills.

I support this bill. It seems like common sense for the Commonwealth to return property of any kind to its rightful owner, if the property was stolen from the owner and later comes into the Commonwealth's possession. I'm sure that's how it works for a stolen car, so why not the same standard for firearms?

I agree with the VCDL.

I support House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, and 696. The 2nd amendment is a neccessary to prevent any government infringement on our liberties. It is particularly neccessary in the time that we are currently living through. With the current civil unrest throughout the country we should encourage more gun ownership and carrying of firearms. The Virginia Constitution in Article I Section 3 states that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...". I believe these laws lessen the infringements on the rights that so many Virginians died for. I strong oppose House Bill 702. I oppose the give-back program for two reasons. Firstly, I believe destroying these firearms will lead to the destruction of historical firearms. This has occured in many other states. It would be preferable to have them stored or resold. I also worry about the financial costs that a bill like this would have. The labor costs and cost of destruction could be better allocated in our schools, roads, or VIrginia State Police.

HB101: This allows for modern electronic methods of applying for concealed handgun permits. I strongly support this bill. HB106: The monetary burden for exercising your right to bear arms should be as low as possible so everyone can participate. I strongly support this bill. HB540: I strongly support this bill. HB623: There should always be a clearly defined route for having seized property of any kind returned. I strongly support this bill. HB691: Citizens should not have to choose between exercising their Constitutionally protected rights or enjoying the parks and other public facilities in their area - especially those of us that are parents and choose to bear arms to protect our families. I strongly support this bill. HB692: I strongly support this bill. HB696: Similar to HB691, I should be able to use the rest areas that my taxes help to pay for while peacefully exercising my right to bear arms in self defense. Lawful firearm owners are no danger to the other guests of these rest stops or government run stores. Criminals looking for easy targets will happily violate the law as it stands now to go armed in these areas knowing that their victims are disarmed. I strongly support this bill. HB702: Programs like the one that this bill are mainly used by family members to destroy heirloom firearms that are no longer wanted and in many cases rare or historic firearms are permanently destroyed with no option for museums, historians or collectors to rescue them. I OPPOSE this bill as it is written here and would prefer to see a program where the public is allowed access to purchase any abandoned firearms at fair market value before they are destroyed.

I am in favor of HB101,HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB 696. I am against HB702 and any type of buy back program

HB101, Del. Ballard, this would be helpful and accessible to people with mobility impairments and stalking victims who fear leaving home HB106, Del. Ballard - this would make CHPs more accessible to the working poor living in expensive areas. HB540, Del. Hamilton - this will help victims of domestic violence far more HB623, Del. Cherry, - return of confiscated weapons should be automatic, but since it is not, this is the next best thing HB691, Del. Zehr, - courts have already ruled that laws restricting firearms in these areas are unconstitutional HB692, Del. Zehr, - this will help those whose budgets are already tight and is consistent with the reduction in charges based on court rulings that UBCs are unconstitutional for 18-21 year olds. HB696, Del. Zehr - stalkers only need to follow us into places where we cannot carry to complete their crimes. Let's reduce the availability of defense free zones HB702, Del. Cole, J., - this is an expensive program that lacks justification. There are services to dispose of unwanted firearms already, we don't need more government to achieve this.

I support VCDL’s position on this legislation.

If someone steals a gun and uses it in a crime, the gun's owner should be allowed to recover his or her property when the gun is no longer needed for evidence in court proceedings. Please support HB 623 to allow innocent people to recover their property.

I am writing in support of HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696 and in opposition to HB702. Any bills returning us to the simple verbiage in the Constitution stating "shall not be infringed" is a bill that any representative should be happy to sign. HB702 is a nonsensical bill and unnecessary bill . Anyone no longer wishing to possess a firearm can very easily sell it to an FFL for compensation or destruction if it is beyond repair.

As a retired US Army Warrant Officer and avid gun enthusiast, I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed! This is a punishment to law abiding Virginians.

I agree with the VCDL positions regarding the above bills.

Comments Document

The attachment lays out reasoning and comments the committee should consider when reviewing House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696 and 702.

I agree with VCDL. No infringement on my Constitutional Rights.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill.

I stand with VCDL on these bills, they are common sense and do no harm to law abiding gun owners.

We stand with VCDL

aprrove hb 101 reduces time and government employee's time saving money approve hb106 it doesn't cost $50 in labor to renew a permit approve hb 540 women need to be able to protect themselves against dangerous males approve hb 623 a firearm should be returned to the original owner after someone used it illegally approve hb 696 rest stops are very dangerous areas for criminals to attack people oppose 702 firearms should be sold to a legitimate FFL Dealer not destroyed. The money could be put into the general fund

Please support these bills. As a Democrat and gun owner, we need to support common sense gun legislation that protects the rights of lawful gun owners and those seeking to purchase firearms for self-defense reasons. My girlfriend used a handgun to protect herself against a forced entry into her apartment. Without that firearm, which she did not fire, there is no telling what could have happened. Please support these bills - search your conscience.

I support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696. I oppose HB702.

I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed!

Chairman Clark and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony regarding the several firearms-related bills scheduled for consideration on January 22nd. I submit this comment in strong opposition to any legislation that restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians, including but not limited to HB540, HB691, HB696, and any bill that imposes new fees, new barriers, or expanded discretion over the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a conditional privilege granted by the state — it is a pre-existing individual right that government is obligated to protect, not chip away at. This is not a matter of personal opinion; it is the settled law of the United States, reaffirmed in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, any modern firearms restriction must align with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. None of the proposals in these bills satisfy that standard. On fee increases and permit limitations (HB101, HB106, HB692) Attempting to raise fees or add administrative hurdles to the concealed handgun permit process places a financial burden on the exercise of a constitutional right. Fundamental rights cannot be conditioned on a citizen’s ability to pay a government-imposed fee. That principle is well established across multiple Supreme Court rulings dealing with constitutional freedoms. On expanding local authority to restrict firearms (HB691) Allowing localities to create their own firearm restrictions guarantees inconsistency, confusion, and unequal treatment of Virginians depending on which side of a city line they stand. State-level preemption exists for a reason: constitutional rights should not be fragmented or subject to a patchwork of differing local rules. This approach is not compatible with constitutional uniformity. On forfeiture, reclassification, and new criminal penalties (HB523, HB696) These proposals do not target criminal behavior; they target lawful Virginians. Violent crime is already committed overwhelmingly by individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms. Adding new categories of liability or expanding restricted locations has no historical foundation and only burdens citizens who already comply with the law. On the Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund (HB720) While labeled as voluntary, state-funded “give-back” programs have repeatedly been shown nationwide to provide no measurable improvement in public safety. They serve only symbolic purposes while reinforcing the misguided narrative that lawful gun ownership is inherently problematic. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund ineffective strategies with no empirical foundation. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to reject any bill that infringes upon the rights of law-abiding Virginians to own, carry, and responsibly use firearms. Public safety is not achieved by restricting the liberties of responsible citizens. It is achieved by enforcing existing laws against those who commit violent acts and by upholding the constitutional protections that every Virginian is entitled to. Thank you for your time and your attention to this critical issue. Respectfully submitted, Patrick McCormick Citizen, Commonwealth of Virginia

I strongly support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696 and I respectfully request the members to Support these bills on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. I am strongly opposed to HB702 I and respectfully request that Members oppose this bill on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. Furthermore, I fully support the comments by VCDL- Virginia Citizens Defense League's on these proposed bills. Thank you, Chris McDorman

To the Honorable Members of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am writing to you today to express my stance on several bills currently under review by this esteemed body. On Behalf of the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I agree with the Citizens Defense League on all these matters. And specifically, I disagree with HB 702. Not only is HB 702 a disgusting way to damage the environment with more trash, and encourages it, but the funds of the program are not correctly distributed back to where those taxes originally went. It also implies that the government gave me a product they did not and it's my responsibility to return it. Which is an inappropriate depiction of the government and certainly overreach. Thank You for reviewing my statement. Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia

These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills.

I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. These bills seem to only be targeting law abding citizens, which i do not agree with nor believe Virginia resident's will be better off for. Laws such as these will actually make Virginians less safe.

I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. They are government over reach. All gun laws are infringements on the second amendment. The bills give criminals an upper hand because they don’t follow laws.

I agree with the VCDL on this bill and VA should follow the 2nd Amendment and what is being established at the Federal Govt level.

I support the position of VCDL on this bill.

I support the VCDL on these bills. Recognizing and expanding the rights of peaceful carry and ownership of all sorts of firearms is an essential part of guaranteeing freedoms for all VA citizens.

I urge you to vote yes on these bills. These bills are moderate and common sense laws that help improve all Virginians ability to exercise their rights and protect themselves.

These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. Whether it is Republicans or Democrats it seems our rights are being pinched away, piece by piece. I ask our representatives and Governor to use "common sense" and not pass these blatant violations to our guaranteed constitutional right. You representatives cannot simply pick and choose which constitutional amendments apply to citizens or we may as well not have a constitution at all.

I am against these proposed bills to impededany sort of restriction on the carry of firearms, banning any sort of accessory, type or feature of a firearm, or any law that adds additional penalties, burdens, fees, or taxes on firearms. The punishment the law abiding citizen with burdensome laws and infringe upon their constitutional rights. The 2nd ammendment is very clear in "shall not be infringed," yet these bills infringe on the freedom of people to bear arms. The propososers of these bills know they're illegal bills and are not constitutional. Virginia has long been a beacon of freedom, and was instrumental in in the American Revolution to secure that freedom. It is disguisting seeing its politicians try to forcibly take that freedom away from its people. I am opposed to these bills and urge the legislature to throw them out, with prejudice.

I support this common sense bill.

When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.

I strongly support this bill.

I oppose this bill because data show that states that have passed permitless carry legislation are experiencing a substantial increase in gun violence.

This bill allows someone without a concealed handgun permit, but who would qualify for one, to carry a concealed handgun anywhere they could lawfully open carry a handgun. Twenty-nine states now have Permit-less Carry, none have repealed it, and more states are expected to follow suit. Neighboring Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia are all Permit-less Carry states, with North Carolina expected to do so in the near future.

In 2021, my elderly stepmother shot through a closed door during an argument with my elderly father, striking him in the back and paralyzing him. My father has spent the past five years in extreme physical agony, unable to walk, paying caretakers out of pocket to hoist him in and out of bed, unable to care for himself. The lack of movement in his life has led to horrific bed sores, which become bone infections, which lead to extended hospital stays and a horrible quality of life. All this because my stepmother was allowed to have a gun. There are countless stories like this of the bullet's aftermath: of the lifelong physical and mental damage that comes from guns. It has been a horrific five years, full of physical pain and mental anguish for our entire family. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The bills before you now will not only save lives, they will spare whole swaths of our neighborhoods from needing to deal with these horrors. One bullet, lodged in my father's spine, didn't kill him. Instead, it has shattered the life he had, his ability to work and care for himself, and his family. Each bullet we allow in our communities has the ability to do the same. His care has bankrupted him personally, and now he relies on state care and Medicaid, an avoidable burden on taxpayers. There are numerous reasons guns have no place in our society, and I hope my father's story is just one that helps make change. Please support all bills that make guns harder to access, harder to keep. Please do everything you can to keep guns out of the hands of our society. Thank you for the great work you are doing to keep Virginians safe.

I am a 70 year resident and businessman of Virginia. I strongly request you're support of this bill. 29 states have passed constitutional carry with zero increase in criminal misuse of firearms. Thank you.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I strongly encourage you to pass HB694. This is inline with the 2nd Amendment in terms of "keep and BEAR arms." Many other states have embraced Constitutional Carry and have had no increase in crime or incidents from those who carry concealed. Virginia gun owners who wish to carry concealed are law abiding citizens who have been properly vetted through background checks to simply own a firearm. They are trained and well-versed in the responsibilities and rules of firearm ownership and carry. Criminals who choose to carry will no more be discouraged from concealed carry than they will be discouraged from owning a firearm in the first place. A requirement to have a permit to carry means nothing to them - that's why they're criminals. This is a smart step forward for Virginia's legal gun owners.

I strongly encourage you to pass HB694. This is inline with the 2nd Amendment in terms of "keep and BEAR arms." Many other states have embraced Constitutional Carry and have had no increase in crime or incidents from those who carry concealed. Virginia gun owners who wish to carry concealed are law abiding citizens who have been properly vetted through background checks to simply own a firearm. They are trained and well-versed in the responsibilities and rules of firearm ownership and carry. Criminals who choose to carry will no more be discouraged from concealed carry than they will be discouraged from owning a firearm in the first place. A requirement to have a permit to carry means nothing to them - that's why they're criminals. This is a smart step forward for Virginia's legal gun owners.

I urge you to vote yes on these bills. These bills are moderate and common sense laws that help improve all Virginians ability to exercise their rights and protect themselves.

I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.

My brother personally spent over three years in a county jail awaiting trial and transfer to the Virginia Department of Corrections, and he currently receives no credit toward his earned sentence for that time served. This is deeply unfair. Time spent in confinement—whether for months or for years—is time served, and it should count toward sentence calculations, including good time credits. Under current law, some individuals who await trial may spend only a few months in jail, while others, like my brother, spend years. HB 726 would ensure that all qualifying pretrial confinement is recognized, including time spent awaiting extradition or transfer, so that sentences are applied equitably. This reform is about fairness, proportionality, and ensuring that individuals do not serve more time than their sentence legally requires. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of HB726. It is a commonsense measure that corrects an inequity in Virginia’s sentencing system and ensures that time served is properly acknowledged.

I am writing in support of Virginia House Bill 361. My perspective comes from personal experience. My loved one has been incarcerated within the Virginia Department of Corrections for 17 years. During that time, he has spent long periods confined under conditions and policies that offered no opportunity to earn sentence credits — despite consistent effort, good behavior, and personal growth. HB 361 is not about excusing past mistakes. It is about fairness. Time served is time lived, and individuals should not be denied earned sentence credits simply because of when their incarceration occurred or circumstances beyond their control. After 17 years, I have seen how denying earned credits deepens hopelessness while recognizing effort encourages accountability and rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support HB 361 and help ensure Virginia’s sentencing system reflects fairness, humanity, and modern justice principles.