We at MRCI support this initiative to make Virignia one of the first states to implement such a database. We pray this database be expanded to include those that also have civil protective orders, temporary and permanent, ordered against them, since the numbers of convicted offenders is exceedingly far lower than the actual number of perpetrators of DV/IPV in the general population.

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.

NAACP Virginia State Conference supports these bills Hb1246 Hb861 Hb857 Hb851

My son has not spoken to his lawyer for months. The jail is on constant lockdown and they do not pass along the calls. This is a big problem since his Appeal date is approaching and he has not had access to counsel. She even came by to visit him once at the jail and was told she can't visit because they are on lockdown.. the jail seems to be on lockdown 90 percent of the time

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.

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

Yes I agree , I was thinking that this was already a law but seeing how these laws get over looked so easily I am sure it's wasting time on something even more important that could be fixed if everyone just followed our laws . I agree with this bill all inmates should have a right to counsel.

I travel almost 400 miles to see my LO. 6 hours to drive and 2 hrs to visit. Limited contact during visits. It is so important to our family to have face to face contact. It improves mental health and overall physical wellbeing. Extending visits and appropriate additional contact would increase that I believe. They spend almost 23 hours a day locked down so it’s imperative to allow for additional contact during visits. Phone And kiosks get jammed when they come out to allow everyone time but it’s so limited. Increased contact and visitation hours are a very healthy way to improve our relationships and for them when they return to their pod.

NAACP Virginia State Conference supports hb173

Visitation and contact with family is a vital part of rehabilitation for inmates. I am writing in support of the two bills that make visitation a more accessible, and easier, process for family. I also believe that restricting visitation as a punitive measure is uncalled for. My husband and I are currently experiencing this, DOC removed his visitation for a year (without any institutional charges) because he spoke to a fellow inmate in the background of a video visit. In addition, I would be travelling over 3000 miles to visit in person and the facility would allow me to visit for just three hours. The three hours in an exception to the standard two, but there is no reasonable reason to make visitation so difficult for family and friends. I understand changes were introduced during covid, but we are no longer dealing with a pandemic, so why have these changes remained? Please consider passing these bills and allowing inmates and family to benefit from easier access to visitation.

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I write in strong support of HB173, HB296, and HB1246 based on my lived experience and years of witnessing how powerful visitation can be when it is treated with humanity and consistency. Family connection stabilizes incarcerated individuals, improves behavior, and gives people hope. Visitation is not a luxury; it is a critical part of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, current practices often work against that purpose. On December 6, 2025, my visit at Buckingham Correctional Center was denied, along with three other women, because our jeans were said to be “too tight,” even though visitors wearing nearly identical clothing had been allowed in earlier that same day. One woman had driven nearly six hours and was still denied an in-person visit. This type of inconsistent enforcement discourages families and erodes trust. I have also had a visit stopped because of a one-inch crack in my car window during the middle of summer, in nearly 90-degree heat. Instead of focusing on safety or reasonable solutions, the visit was terminated. Experiences like this make families feel punished rather than supported. What hurts most is that I remember when visitation brought real family unity. I grew up visiting my father during times when DOC hosted family days. We could go out on the yard, eat hamburgers and hotdogs, play cards, and run around in the field. Those moments mattered. They created connection, motivation, and hope. I looked forward to those visits because they felt human. Now, visits feel stripped of that purpose. There is no movement, no access to nourishment, and even using the bathroom can risk ending a visit. Families are expected to sit for hours without basic accommodations. Where is the family unity in that? HB173, HB296, and HB1246 move Virginia toward fairness, consistency, and dignity. They recognize that families are not a threat to safety, but a vital part of rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support all three bills. Their passage would help restore trust, humanity, and the true rehabilitative power of family connection in Virginia’s correctional system.

HB173 and HB296 represent common sense and humane visitation policies. Strong connections to the outside world are demonstrably vital to reentry success. HB1041 is another obvious gain for everyone concerned, returning citizens, their loved ones, and tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth. HB553 is another no brainer that deserves full support.

I write in strong support of HB296, HB173, and HB1246 as an individual directly affected by Virginia’s visitation policies. I am a long distance visitor who must travel hundreds of miles and coordinate interstate and international travel in order to maintain contact with an incarcerated family member. I am also a parent and a spouse, and the responsibility for planning, funding, and navigating visitation falls primarily on me. My husband is my children’s stepfather and supports them at home while I manage the logistics and emotional labour of maintaining family connection through a complex and inconsistent system. Virginia is nationally recognised for reducing recidivism, with a three year re incarceration rate of approximately 17.6 percent, the lowest in the country. Research consistently shows that maintaining family connections during incarceration is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry. Individuals who receive visits are significantly less likely to reoffend, with reductions in reconviction rates exceeding 30 percent in some studies. Protecting visitation is therefore not only compassionate policy but a sound public safety strategy. In Virginia, approximately one in fourteen children will experience parental incarceration before age eighteen. As a parent, I experience firsthand how visitation policies affect not only the incarcerated individual but the family member who must absorb the financial costs, travel demands, and administrative barriers in order to keep that connection alive. National data shows fewer than half of incarcerated parents receive in person visits with their children, despite in person contact being the most effective way to preserve meaningful relationships. When visits are shortened or cancelled after significant travel, the burden and impact fall directly on the caregiver who has made those sacrifices. HB173 directly addresses these realities by recognising long distance visitors, minor children, and infrequent visitors, and by establishing a minimum two hour visit. For someone in my position, a short or unpredictable visit does not justify the extensive planning, expense, and disruption required. Limiting suspension of visitation to situations involving a direct and substantial safety threat provides essential protection against arbitrary denials that currently occur without explanation or appeal. HB296 addresses the lack of consistent and clearly communicated visitation rules that I and others must navigate. Requirements often vary by facility or change without notice, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Clear standards improve compliance, reduce conflict, and support staff while ensuring visitors are treated with dignity. HB1246 ensures these reforms are implemented through transparency, data collection, and oversight. Advancing HB296, HB173, and HB1246 affirms Virginia’s commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and the family members who carry the responsibility of maintaining connection under difficult circumstances.

Good Morning, the House Of Delegates, I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we support these four (4) bills : HB173, HB296, HB533 and HB1041. These bills are well needed in the Department of Correction for the detained individuals and families in order to maintain a productive re entry to the communities. Please, vote yes. Thank you. Ms Stover

I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and I support this bill. Visitation has dropped by 92% since before the pandemic. Staying in touch with family and friends is vital to successful reentry. Please vote yes for this bill.

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.

Dear Delegates, I write in strong support of House Bill 296. My son-in-law is incarcerated within the VA Department of Corrections. My daughter has personally experienced repeated denials of visitation at Virginia state prisons when trying to visit her husband. On multiple occasions, she was told there was an “anomaly” on the body scanner; when she offered to be searched, staff refused. When she asked for clarification, she was disrespected by staff and cursed at (told her that they didn't have to tell her sh*t) My 11-year-old granddaughter was also denied visitation to see her father because one of the staff members did not like her pants. The officer claimed they were orange and it wasn't allowed, however, her pants were peach colored sweatpants. My daughter drives four hours each way to visit her husband, only to be offered a video visit with no explanation. Across multiple facilities, what is acceptable attire at one prison is not accepted at another, creating confusion and inconsistency for families. HB296 addresses these issues by requiring clear, publicly posted dress codes, standardized procedures, and accountability when visits are denied. It ensures families can maintain meaningful contact, which is critical for rehabilitation and family stability. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of HB296. Sincerely, Thomas Brust

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.

I strongly support HB173 and its effort to establish humane, evidence-based visitation standards in Virginia correctional facilities. Under current VDOC practice, most in-person visits last two hours, seated across a small table, with physical contact limited to one hug and one kiss. There are no shared activities, games, or child-friendly accommodations, which makes meaningful family interaction difficult, especially for married couples and children. These conditions do not promote rehabilitation or family stability. The body scanner process is also deeply problematic, particularly for women. Menstruation, clotting, or feminine hygiene products can register as “anomalies,” resulting in visitors being denied entry, pressured to accept a strip search, diverted to a shortened on-site video visit, or forced to wait for supervisory review. Any delay reduces the already limited visit time and is not restored. This process is invasive, humiliating, and disproportionately affects women without clear evidence that it improves safety. VDOC often justifies restrictive visitation policies as necessary to prevent contraband. However, drugs continue to enter facilities regardless of visitation rules. During the two years when in-person visits were suspended after COVID, overdoses and drug-related deaths still occurred. This strongly suggests that visitation is not the primary source of contraband. Limiting family contact has not solved this problem, but it has caused real harm to incarcerated individuals and their families. I also support HB173’s provision that visitation privileges may be suspended only for conduct during visitation that poses a direct and substantial threat to safety or security. Family visitation should not be used as leverage or punishment for unrelated or minor institutional infractions. Maintaining family connections supports mental health, institutional stability, and successful reentry. The bill’s requirement for extended visitation for long-distance visitors is especially important. Families traveling 150 miles or more invest significant time and money for visits that currently offer minimal meaningful interaction. Providing additional access is reasonable and humane. Finally, the pilot program and data-collection requirements in HB173 are critical. Decisions about visitation should be guided by evidence, not assumptions. Transparency and reporting will allow lawmakers to evaluate operational, staffing, and safety impacts honestly. HB173 balances safety with human dignity and reflects what research and experience show: strong family connections reduce harm and support rehabilitation. I urge the General Assembly to advance this bill.

FOIA reports from VADOC show that visitation has dropped 92% when compared to pre-COVID visitation. The department has chosen to use enhanced sanctions to punish by taking away in person visits for YEARS for charges that had nothing to do with visitation! This bill will put a stop to that. Contact with family and friends is vital for successful reentry. The Valley Justice Coalition Supports this bill. Please vote YES.

Maintaining the "sacred bond" of family is essential for the psychological well-being of both incarcerated individuals and their children. HB173 protects in-person visitation rights and prevents them from being used as a tool for arbitrary punishment, ensuring that bridges to the community remain intact. S4JR supports this bill because we know that true public safety is built by strengthening family connections, not by severing them for administrative convenience.

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

My thoughts on HB173: (HB173) is a great bill to present. Ever since Covid, visitation in DOC has declined tremendously for (3) reasons. (1) The online visiting process. This process is discouraging to many of our family members because a lot of men and women have elderly parents that are not computer savvy. Before, all inmates had to do was turn in a visitors list and that was that, but now everything is online and a lengthy waiting process. (2) The restroom process is very inhumane. If a visitor has to use the restroom, they have to leave out of the visitation room and walk back to the front entrance instead of being allowed to use the restroom in the visitation room. After being scanned and patted down, visitors should not be subjected to the same process just to use the restroom. (3) There are no food machines in the visitation room. Family members are traveling hours away, some with health issues that require them to eat something over a course of time. Not having food machines discourages family members from not wanting to visit their loved ones. Sitting for hours with no food or drink is very discouraging. DOC should want to encourage family bonding instead of discouraging family bonding. Creating an atmosphere of joy, respect, and peace strengthens that family bond, but neglecting those elements creates separation between the incarcerated and their loved ones. These visitation issues, along with many others, affect the incarcerated mentally.

I support this bill. As an incarcerated individual I understand how visitation is part of rehabilitation, hope, and imperative to social growth. Virginia DOC visitation has been stripped continuously over the years. Instead of taking incarcerated individuals out of prison mentally for a little while it now brings people’s loved ones into prison. Visitation is an important part of rehabilitation and should be treated as such. When people take their time to come see a loved one, that time should be considerate especially when coming from a distance. It should be treated as a program because it supports a part of mental health and social growth.

I have had visitors travel from as far as England (11 hours on a plane) and Arkansas (11 hours on the road) and each was only allowed 2 hours with me. I felt it was inherently unfair that we weren't given more time together after traveling from such a distance. Also, with me being 11 years charge-free, I feel there should be some sort of incentive for guys like myself. Give people a reason to want to do better.

This bill affects me personally because in 20 years I've had 2 visits and mostly people didn’t want to drive to see me for 1 hour after driving 8 hours and that has damaged my mental health a lot of the years. It makes me feel worthless a lot of the time - like I’m not worth a family member coming to visit me. Then finding out that it is unfair to them to have to drive all those hours for a 1 hour visit and having to leave as fast as they got here. This bill will help men and women like myself know that their family loves them by having a meaningful chance to sit down and talk and eat and tell stories to help get through the tough days and weeks that lie ahead. I believe this bill is worth passing, to give families and loved ones a chance to show their love, because visiting someone at their lowest and most troublesome times says a lot about how you really care for that person.

I support this bill because my own family has to travel over 12 hours to visit me. Allowing them to stay longer and or visit for multiple days would encourage family bonds.

The provisions within HB173 are particularly crucial in establishing a framework for reasonable and consistent visitation, which is a vital conduit for maintaining these essential connections. This is especially pertinent for individuals with families residing at a distance and, critically, for ensuring children can sustain relationships with their incarcerated parents. Such interactions provide invaluable positive support systems, mitigating feelings of isolation and despair, and fostering a sense of accountability and hope for the future. Crucially, these enduring ties are a powerful deterrent to recidivism, offering a stable foundation and network upon release that is essential for reintegration into society. The legislative intent behind this bill is clear: to champion greater accountability within the justice system, cultivate stronger family units, and pave a more successful pathway for reentry. These collective benefits extend far beyond the incarcerated population, contributing substantively to the overall health, stability, and prosperity of the entire Commonwealth. Therefore, I strongly advocate for the passage of House Bill 173.

Visitation and contact with family is a vital part of rehabilitation for inmates. I am writing in support of the two bills that make visitation a more accessible, and easier, process for family. I also believe that restricting visitation as a punitive measure is uncalled for. My husband and I are currently experiencing this, DOC removed his visitation for a year (without any institutional charges) because he spoke to a fellow inmate in the background of a video visit. In addition, I would be travelling over 3000 miles to visit in person and the facility would allow me to visit for just three hours. The three hours in an exception to the standard two, but there is no reasonable reason to make visitation so difficult for family and friends. I understand changes were introduced during covid, but we are no longer dealing with a pandemic, so why have these changes remained? Please consider passing these bills and allowing inmates and family to benefit from easier access to visitation.

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I write in strong support of HB173, HB296, and HB1246 based on my lived experience and years of witnessing how powerful visitation can be when it is treated with humanity and consistency. Family connection stabilizes incarcerated individuals, improves behavior, and gives people hope. Visitation is not a luxury; it is a critical part of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, current practices often work against that purpose. On December 6, 2025, my visit at Buckingham Correctional Center was denied, along with three other women, because our jeans were said to be “too tight,” even though visitors wearing nearly identical clothing had been allowed in earlier that same day. One woman had driven nearly six hours and was still denied an in-person visit. This type of inconsistent enforcement discourages families and erodes trust. I have also had a visit stopped because of a one-inch crack in my car window during the middle of summer, in nearly 90-degree heat. Instead of focusing on safety or reasonable solutions, the visit was terminated. Experiences like this make families feel punished rather than supported. What hurts most is that I remember when visitation brought real family unity. I grew up visiting my father during times when DOC hosted family days. We could go out on the yard, eat hamburgers and hotdogs, play cards, and run around in the field. Those moments mattered. They created connection, motivation, and hope. I looked forward to those visits because they felt human. Now, visits feel stripped of that purpose. There is no movement, no access to nourishment, and even using the bathroom can risk ending a visit. Families are expected to sit for hours without basic accommodations. Where is the family unity in that? HB173, HB296, and HB1246 move Virginia toward fairness, consistency, and dignity. They recognize that families are not a threat to safety, but a vital part of rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support all three bills. Their passage would help restore trust, humanity, and the true rehabilitative power of family connection in Virginia’s correctional system.

I began visiting Greensville Correctional Center in 2016 and required the use of a wheelchair due to a documented medical disability. I was informed that I needed to provide a doctor’s letter to continue visiting with my wheelchair. My physician provided documentation verifying my medical need on three separate occasions. Despite providing a medical letter, I was denied visits because the warden stated the letter was not “worded correctly” according to his preference. No written policy was provided explaining what wording was required. I believe this constituted improper interference with medical documentation and disability accommodation. On multiple occasions, I was left outside in the weather for extended periods while waiting for a golf cart or transport assistance, despite staff being aware of my mobility impairment. My elderly mother with dementia was also made to put the wheelchair on the golf cart. A correctional officer questioned the legitimacy of my disability during a visit after seeing me in public on a separate occasion receiving a pedicure without wearing my brace. At the next visit, the officer confronted me about this, creating a hostile and intimidating environment. My mother, age 79, was denied visitation after a K-9 jumped on her. Staff claimed the dog “hit on ” her, even though the dog jumped up on her not sitting . No accommodation or alternative screening was offered. Visits were terminated or denied when one of us needed to use the restroom, even when the visit had already begun. These terminations were inconsistent and appeared punitive. Due to fear of retaliation against my incarcerated loved one, I did not feel safe speaking up at the time. The cumulative effect of these actions interfered with my ability to safely and equally participate in visitation due to my disability and age-related cognitive concerns for my mother. These actions caused emotional distress, humiliation, physical discomfort, and prevented lawful visitation. I believe these actions constitute disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliatory conduct.

HB173 and HB296 represent common sense and humane visitation policies. Strong connections to the outside world are demonstrably vital to reentry success. HB1041 is another obvious gain for everyone concerned, returning citizens, their loved ones, and tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth. HB553 is another no brainer that deserves full support.

I write in strong support of HB296, HB173, and HB1246 as an individual directly affected by Virginia’s visitation policies. I am a long distance visitor who must travel hundreds of miles and coordinate interstate and international travel in order to maintain contact with an incarcerated family member. I am also a parent and a spouse, and the responsibility for planning, funding, and navigating visitation falls primarily on me. My husband is my children’s stepfather and supports them at home while I manage the logistics and emotional labour of maintaining family connection through a complex and inconsistent system. Virginia is nationally recognised for reducing recidivism, with a three year re incarceration rate of approximately 17.6 percent, the lowest in the country. Research consistently shows that maintaining family connections during incarceration is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry. Individuals who receive visits are significantly less likely to reoffend, with reductions in reconviction rates exceeding 30 percent in some studies. Protecting visitation is therefore not only compassionate policy but a sound public safety strategy. In Virginia, approximately one in fourteen children will experience parental incarceration before age eighteen. As a parent, I experience firsthand how visitation policies affect not only the incarcerated individual but the family member who must absorb the financial costs, travel demands, and administrative barriers in order to keep that connection alive. National data shows fewer than half of incarcerated parents receive in person visits with their children, despite in person contact being the most effective way to preserve meaningful relationships. When visits are shortened or cancelled after significant travel, the burden and impact fall directly on the caregiver who has made those sacrifices. HB173 directly addresses these realities by recognising long distance visitors, minor children, and infrequent visitors, and by establishing a minimum two hour visit. For someone in my position, a short or unpredictable visit does not justify the extensive planning, expense, and disruption required. Limiting suspension of visitation to situations involving a direct and substantial safety threat provides essential protection against arbitrary denials that currently occur without explanation or appeal. HB296 addresses the lack of consistent and clearly communicated visitation rules that I and others must navigate. Requirements often vary by facility or change without notice, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Clear standards improve compliance, reduce conflict, and support staff while ensuring visitors are treated with dignity. HB1246 ensures these reforms are implemented through transparency, data collection, and oversight. Advancing HB296, HB173, and HB1246 affirms Virginia’s commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and the family members who carry the responsibility of maintaining connection under difficult circumstances.

Support for HOUSE BILL NO. 296 – Correctional Facility Visitation Policies Dear Committee Members, I am writing to express my strong support for HOUSE BILL NO. 296, which seeks to improve visitation policies in Virginia’s state correctional facilities. As someone who travels a significant distance from New York to Virginia—over 550 miles each way—to visit my loved one, I can personally attest to the challenges and hardships that current visitation policies create for families like mine. Due to my demanding job, childcare responsibilities, and the considerable travel expenses involved, I am only able to visit my loved one perhaps twice a year. These visits are precious and essential, both for my loved one’s well-being and my own. Unfortunately, the current system often allows for only very limited and inconsistent visitation—typically two hours once a week, if at all, during the rare occasions when I am able to make the long journey. This restriction creates significant emotional strain and disrupts our ability to maintain meaningful family connections. The ability to have extended, in-person visits when I am finally able to travel would make a profound difference. Longer, more consistent visitation would not only allow us to maintain family bonds, but also provide vital support for my loved one’s rehabilitation, mental health, and eventual reintegration into society. Research has shown that strong family connections reduce recidivism and improve behavior within facilities, which benefits everyone—incarcerated individuals, their families, and the broader community. I am especially grateful that this bill includes provisions for transparency, objective visitation rules, and the involvement of diverse stakeholders in policy development. These measures will help ensure that visitation policies are fair, respectful, and trauma-informed, and that families are not unjustly penalized or denied access due to arbitrary or unclear regulations. I urge you to support HOUSE BILL NO. 296. Making visitation more accessible, consistent, and humane is not just a matter of policy—it is a matter of compassion, public safety, and basic human dignity. Thank you for considering my perspective and for your service to the Commonwealth. Sincerely, Hilary Snyder

Good Morning, the House Of Delegates, I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we support these four (4) bills : HB173, HB296, HB533 and HB1041. These bills are well needed in the Department of Correction for the detained individuals and families in order to maintain a productive re entry to the communities. Please, vote yes. Thank you. Ms Stover

I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and I support this bill. Visitation has dropped by 92% since before the pandemic. Staying in touch with family and friends is vital to successful reentry. Visitors feel intimidated when constantly having to guess what is appropriate to wear at each facility. Please vote yes for this bill.

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.

Dear Delegates, I write in strong support of House Bill 296. My son-in-law is incarcerated within the VA Department of Corrections. My daughter has personally experienced repeated denials of visitation at Virginia state prisons when trying to visit her husband. On multiple occasions, she was told there was an “anomaly” on the body scanner; when she offered to be searched, staff refused. When she asked for clarification, she was disrespected by staff and cursed at (told her that they didn't have to tell her sh*t) My 11-year-old granddaughter was also denied visitation to see her father because one of the staff members did not like her pants. The officer claimed they were orange and it wasn't allowed, however, her pants were peach colored sweatpants. My daughter drives four hours each way to visit her husband, only to be offered a video visit with no explanation. Across multiple facilities, what is acceptable attire at one prison is not accepted at another, creating confusion and inconsistency for families. HB296 addresses these issues by requiring clear, publicly posted dress codes, standardized procedures, and accountability when visits are denied. It ensures families can maintain meaningful contact, which is critical for rehabilitation and family stability. I respectfully urge you to vote in favor of HB296. Sincerely, Thomas Brust

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.

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 strongly support this bill and its requirement that the Department of Corrections establish and publicly post an objective, uniform visitation dress code that cannot be exceeded by individual facilities. Current visitation dress code enforcement is inconsistent, subjective, and disproportionately impacts women. I have personally witnessed women being denied entry for wearing underwire bras or leggings, even when their clothing was otherwise modest and fully compliant with posted rules, including tops that fully cover the hips and backside. At the same time, female staff routinely enter and exit facilities wearing athleisure or leggings without issue. This double standard undermines trust and exposes visitors to arbitrary enforcement. Body scanners further compound this problem. Menstruation, clotting, and feminine hygiene products can register as “anomalies,” which are sometimes incorrectly interpreted as contraband violations. These biological realities are not addressed clearly in existing policies, leaving women vulnerable to denial of visitation for circumstances entirely beyond their control. The bill’s requirement that no visitor be denied entry unless they are in clear violation of visitation rules is critical. Just as important is the mandate that any denial be reviewed in person by an administrative duty officer and approved by a regional administrator or superior. This safeguard recognizes a reality many families experience: frontline staff are often required to make rapid judgment calls in high-pressure environments and may not always have sufficient training to interpret scanner results, clothing policies, or edge cases accurately. Meaningful review reduces the risk of error, bias, and unnecessary harm. The annual reporting requirement is also essential. Collecting and publishing data on the number of visitors denied entry and the specific reasons for denial will bring transparency to a process that currently lacks accountability. Disaggregated data will help identify patterns of disproportionate impact, inconsistent enforcement, or training gaps that need to be addressed. Finally, I support the creation of a stakeholder work group to develop practical policy and legislative recommendations related to visitation. Families, formerly incarcerated individuals, correctional staff, and advocates all bring valuable perspectives that can help ensure visitation policies are fair, clear, and workable while maintaining facility security. Visitation is not a privilege to be arbitrarily withheld. It is a stabilizing force that supports family connection, mental health, and successful reentry. This bill introduces fairness, transparency, and common sense into a system that too often relies on subjective judgment. I urge its passage.

I strongly support HB173 because maintaining family and community connections is proven to improve rehabilitation, mental health, and public safety. Reasonable, consistent visitation—especially for long-distance families and children helps incarcerated individuals stay connected to positive support systems and reduces recidivism after release. HB173 creates fair, structured visitation standards while still preserving institutional safety. This bill promotes accountability, family stability, and successful reentry, all of which benefit not only incarcerated individuals, but the Commonwealth as a whole. I respectfully urge you to support HB173.

My thoughts on HB173: (HB173) is a great bill to present. Ever since Covid, visitation in DOC has declined tremendously for (3) reasons. (1) The online visiting process. This process is discouraging to many of our family members because a lot of men and women have elderly parents that are not computer savvy. Before, all inmates had to do was turn in a visitors list and that was that, but now everything is online and a lengthy waiting process. (2) The restroom process is very inhumane. If a visitor has to use the restroom, they have to leave out of the visitation room and walk back to the front entrance instead of being allowed to use the restroom in the visitation room. After being scanned and patted down, visitors should not be subjected to the same process just to use the restroom. (3) There are no food machines in the visitation room. Family members are traveling hours away, some with health issues that require them to eat something over a course of time. Not having food machines discourages family members from not wanting to visit their loved ones. Sitting for hours with no food or drink is very discouraging. DOC should want to encourage family bonding instead of discouraging family bonding. Creating an atmosphere of joy, respect, and peace strengthens that family bond, but neglecting those elements creates separation between the incarcerated and their loved ones. These visitation issues, along with many others, affect the incarcerated mentally.

I support this bill. As an incarcerated individual I understand how visitation is part of rehabilitation, hope, and imperative to social growth. Virginia DOC visitation has been stripped continuously over the years. Instead of taking incarcerated individuals out of prison mentally for a little while it now brings people’s loved ones into prison. Visitation is an important part of rehabilitation and should be treated as such. When people take their time to come see a loved one, that time should be considerate especially when coming from a distance. It should be treated as a program because it supports a part of mental health and social growth.

I have had visitors travel from as far as England (11 hours on a plane) and Arkansas (11 hours on the road) and each was only allowed 2 hours with me. I felt it was inherently unfair that we weren't given more time together after traveling from such a distance. Also, with me being 11 years charge-free, I feel there should be some sort of incentive for guys like myself. Give people a reason to want to do better.

This bill affects me personally because in 20 years I've had 2 visits and mostly people didn’t want to drive to see me for 1 hour after driving 8 hours and that has damaged my mental health a lot of the years. It makes me feel worthless a lot of the time - like I’m not worth a family member coming to visit me. Then finding out that it is unfair to them to have to drive all those hours for a 1 hour visit and having to leave as fast as they got here. This bill will help men and women like myself know that their family loves them by having a meaningful chance to sit down and talk and eat and tell stories to help get through the tough days and weeks that lie ahead. I believe this bill is worth passing, to give families and loved ones a chance to show their love, because visiting someone at their lowest and most troublesome times says a lot about how you really care for that person.

I support this bill because my own family has to travel over 12 hours to visit me. Allowing them to stay longer and or visit for multiple days would encourage family bonds.

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 name is Anthony Gomez, and I lead PATH Reentry, a nonprofit organization that provides transitional services to individuals returning to the community. I was formerly incarcerated for 24 years, and I am bilingual in English and Spanish. I support this bill because I have seen firsthand how people who do not speak English are often denied or unable to access essential services simply because they cannot understand the process or advocate for themselves. Language access is not a convenience—it is a necessity for fairness, dignity, and successful reentry.

HB173 and HB296 represent common sense and humane visitation policies. Strong connections to the outside world are demonstrably vital to reentry success. HB1041 is another obvious gain for everyone concerned, returning citizens, their loved ones, and tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth. HB553 is another no brainer that deserves full support.

Good Morning, the House Of Delegates, I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we support these four (4) bills : HB173, HB296, HB533 and HB1041. These bills are well needed in the Department of Correction for the detained individuals and families in order to maintain a productive re entry to the communities. Please, vote yes. Thank you. Ms Stover

As an ELL teacher and a member of the Valley Justice Coalition, I am strongly in support of this bill. Please vote Yes for HB553.

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.

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 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.

Brunswick County is an economically challenged rural community that was devastated by the sudden closure of the former Brunswick Correctional Facility, and we would like to gain access to this property to market and foster economic development, attracting a business and thus creating much needed tax revenue and job creation. We have been working with General District but was unable to make any real progression over the last 3 years towards some resolve thus the property has remained in its current state. Having this property as a part of the County's aggressive marketing resources will help to revitalize this struggling economic engine.

Support of HB 793

Support of HB 793

Brunswick County is an economically distressed rural community that has narrowly survived several traumatic economic and workforce disruptions, most notably the closure of the former Brunswick Correctional Center and St. Paul’s College. Together, these losses resulted in the elimination of hundreds of jobs, significant decline in infrastructure usage, and a measurable decrease in population. The transfer of the former Brunswick Correctional Facility property to Brunswick County would represent a substantial economic boost at a critical time, as the County continues its efforts to revitalize the local economy and position itself for sustainable growth. Ownership of this property would significantly enhance the County’s ability to attract new investment, support business development, and create quality employment opportunities. As Brunswick County actively pursues market opportunities in advanced manufacturing, agriculture, and information technology, control of this site would serve as a strategic asset-providing a competitive advantage in business attraction and long-term job creation for our community.

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.

NAACP Virginia State Conference supports these bills Hb1246 Hb861 Hb857 Hb851

The Virginia State Conference NAACP supports this bill.

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.

NAACP Virginia State Conference supports these bills Hb1246 Hb861 Hb857 Hb851

The Virginia State Conference NAACP supports this bill.

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.

As a native resident of Portsmouth, Virginia, I have grown up witnessing shady business practices be allowed to stay in operation despite numerous calls to local authorities reporting suspicious behavior. As a previous resident of Norfolk, Virginia, I witnessed and reported instances of kidnapping, neglect, and domestic violence with minimal response. Digital identification and reporting platforms will allow citizens to help local and state law enforcement where funding and employees remain scarce. HB927 | Tata | Human trafficking; creates process for use of digital identification and reporting platforms, etc. is necessary for our state, especially in light of recent executive orders made by Governor Spanberger. Restricting communications with ICE directly impacts trafficking victims and their likelihood of being rescued. Any time we decide not to cooperate with other law enforcement agencies, we run the risk of more people being victimized through lack of accountably and informational gaps. With Governor Spanberger's former CIA background in intelligence gathering in the field, I find it surprising that she would go against cooperation with a government agency. This lack of accountability in her own administration regarding this decision is exactly why we are in need of citizen reporting, especially for our most vulnerable populations. Thank you.

IN SUPPORT OF HB927 Members of Virginia Delicacy, My name is Lindsey Gray. I am a board director for Virginia Coalition Against Human Trafficking, anti-trafficking operations coordinator in VA, a former EMT, behavioral health professional, certified Human trafficking investigator, a mother, a wife, and a SURVIVOR. I stand before you because I have seen the failures from every angle—as a child who slipped through the cracks, a young adult who felt those recurring consequences… and as a professional who watched others slip through those cracks too. At seventeen, I was trafficked out of a split-level house with curtains, a driveway, and a mailbox in an affluent neighborhood - Not an alley. Not a truck stop. A neighborhood that looked like yours by men who had friends and family who said nothing. During that time, I interacted with healthcare providers, teachers, and systems that should have seen me. They didn't—because they didn't have the tools. Later, working as a frontline professional, I watched it happen again and again. Patients presenting with signs we now recognize as trafficking indicators—but no standardized way to report concerns. No secure platform. No way to aggregate red flags. Just gut feelings and long sleepless nights, wishing we could have said something, or done something more with that “nauseating” intuition, instead of leaving to create secondary trauma in our frontline workers as well. HB927 changes that. This bill creates what we desperately need: a trauma-informed, anonymous digital reporting system that empowers frontline professionals to act on what they see. It doesn't replace 911 or the national hotline… it fills the gap where victims are falling through. We know tech has changed exploitation patterns with devastating efficiency w/ 89% of sexual advances happening on tech - and it has the opportunity to fight human trafficking as effectively. I survived because someone finally saw me, it’s never too late. But I wish they had seen me earlier, before the trauma compounded. Before it had affected my children. Before the sleepless nights. Now my sleepless nights get to mean something, they mean others may not have to experience quite as many as I have. This legislation ensures more people have the tools to see—and the privilege to act. Please support HB927. Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Human trafficking is not a partisan issue. It is a public safety issue, a crime issue, and a human dignity issue—and HB 927 reflects that shared understanding. This legislation brings together principles that members on both sides of the aisle consistently support: protecting victims, strengthening law enforcement tools, safeguarding privacy, and using taxpayer dollars responsibly. At its core, HB 927 addresses a hard truth we all recognize: fewer than one percent of trafficking victims are ever identified. That is not because trafficking is rare—it is because identification is difficult under our current systems. Traffickers rely on fear, isolation, and silence. Victims often cannot safely make a phone call, wait on hold, or identify themselves without risk. When our systems rely on those methods alone, traffickers win. What makes HB 927 bipartisan is that it does not expand criminal statutes, create new mandates, or grow state bureaucracy. Instead, it modernizes how information reaches law enforcement and service providers, ensuring tips are actionable, routed correctly, and handled securely. This bill supplements existing systems—it does not replace them—giving law enforcement more usable intelligence while preserving existing authorities and processes. From a public safety perspective, this matters. Early deployment of certified digital reporting tools has shown dramatic increases in credible tips and faster connections to services—results that help law enforcement intervene earlier and more effectively. More tips, better triage, and real-time routing mean less time wasted and fewer victims missed. That is a win for investigators, prosecutors, and communities alike. From a survivor protection standpoint, HB 927 is intentionally trauma-informed and privacy-first. Reports can be anonymous. Data is encrypted. Retention is limited. Consent is central. These safeguards reflect bipartisan agreement that victims should not have to choose between safety and reporting, and that civil liberties must be protected even as we pursue criminals. From a fiscal standpoint, this bill is also pragmatic. Leveraging external partners it avoids costly state development of its own solution and staffing, while still requiring transparency, performance reporting, and independent evaluation from the operator to the General Assembly. That is responsible governance—leveraging innovation without burdening government agencies. In Virginia, survivors are already being identified and served—but the data is clear: identification reflects capacity, not prevalence. Where systems improve, identification rises. HB 927 is about building that capacity so fewer victims fall through the cracks and fewer cases go undetected for years. Members of this Subcommittee this is an opportunity to come together to protect victims, stop traffickers, and strengthen public safety. HB 927 reflects bipartisan values in action: smart policy, limited government, survivor dignity, and stronger law enforcement outcomes. I respectfully urge your support for HB 927 and thank you for your leadership on public safety.

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.

HB173 and HB296 represent common sense and humane visitation policies. Strong connections to the outside world are demonstrably vital to reentry success. HB1041 is another obvious gain for everyone concerned, returning citizens, their loved ones, and tax paying citizens of the Commonwealth. HB553 is another no brainer that deserves full support.

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.

Good Morning, the House Of Delegates, I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we support these four (4) bills : HB173, HB296, HB533 and HB1041. These bills are well needed in the Department of Correction for the detained individuals and families in order to maintain a productive re entry to the communities. Please, vote yes. Thank you. Ms Stover

As a retired educator and member of the Valley Justice Coalition, I strongly support this bill. Nothing can improve reentry success like an education. Please vote Yes for HB1041.

On behalf of Survivors for Justice Reform (S4JR), a survivor-led coalition grounded in the belief that justice is not found in the deprivation of human potential, but in its cultivation, are in strong support of HB1041. We urge the Committee to advance HB1041 because access to literacy and higher education is one of the most effective ways to reduce harm, strengthen families, and improve public safety. Education is a human right that should not end at the prison gates. HB1041 takes meaningful steps to modernize and expand educational access by ensuring functional literacy programming, creating a Prison Education Task Force to improve consistency and quality across facilities, and investing in educators through competitive compensation. These are practical, evidence-based reforms that support rehabilitation and successful reentry. As survivors, we understand that when an incarcerated person gains education, entire families benefit. Education helps interrupt intergenerational cycles of harm, supports parents in showing their children what growth and accountability can look like, and increases the likelihood of stability after release. Research consistently finds that participation in correctional education is associated with significantly lower recidivism, often cited around 43% lower odds, which means safer communities and fewer people harmed in the future. Survivors are not a monolith, and many of us want a system that returns people to our communities more capable, more grounded, and more prepared to contribute. True public safety is built through empowerment, not stagnation. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to support HB1041.

100% support this bill, we can abuse this bill to disarmed Virginia citizens quicker and it will make our planned invasion so much easier

It would be a wonderful thing if Virginia and take all it's citizen guns and firearms away. Citizens do not need to have any firearms or weapons of any sort, it make it harder for us to invade the country with all them firearms everywhere.

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.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence supports this bill.

Substantial risk reporting should include names when related to violence, abuse, and neglect.

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 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. My son owes court costs and is serving a long sentence. Once he is released it is going to take him time to find a place and a job (which will almost be near impossible because.of his offense). He will need time to get on his feet before he can even think about court costs. Thank you

I am Scott E. Peyton, Director of Government Affairs at Prison Fellowship, and I am writing to express Prison Fellowship’s support of HB 1142. With nearly 50 years of experience encountering Jesus with men and women behind bars, Prison Fellowship® is a leading national voice shaping the public debate on justice. Our guiding principles are rooted in the biblical call to seek justice, love mercy, and restore hope. In the early period after prison, the risks of recidivism, suicide, drug relapse, homelessness, and unemployment for men and women are particularly high. To aid this transition period, this legislation provides individuals returning from incarceration with a six-month grace period during which they are not required to make payments on court-assessed fines and fees related to their criminal case. This bill does not reduce the amount an individual owes to the court. Virginia has made great strides in supporting successful reentry. We respectfully urge this committee to continue that progress by voting YES on House Bill 1142.

NAACP Virginia State Conference supports these bills Hb1246 Hb861 Hb857 Hb851

Dear Members of the General Assembly, I write in strong support of HB173, HB296, and HB1246 based on my lived experience and years of witnessing how powerful visitation can be when it is treated with humanity and consistency. Family connection stabilizes incarcerated individuals, improves behavior, and gives people hope. Visitation is not a luxury; it is a critical part of rehabilitation. Unfortunately, current practices often work against that purpose. On December 6, 2025, my visit at Buckingham Correctional Center was denied, along with three other women, because our jeans were said to be “too tight,” even though visitors wearing nearly identical clothing had been allowed in earlier that same day. One woman had driven nearly six hours and was still denied an in-person visit. This type of inconsistent enforcement discourages families and erodes trust. I have also had a visit stopped because of a one-inch crack in my car window during the middle of summer, in nearly 90-degree heat. Instead of focusing on safety or reasonable solutions, the visit was terminated. Experiences like this make families feel punished rather than supported. What hurts most is that I remember when visitation brought real family unity. I grew up visiting my father during times when DOC hosted family days. We could go out on the yard, eat hamburgers and hotdogs, play cards, and run around in the field. Those moments mattered. They created connection, motivation, and hope. I looked forward to those visits because they felt human. Now, visits feel stripped of that purpose. There is no movement, no access to nourishment, and even using the bathroom can risk ending a visit. Families are expected to sit for hours without basic accommodations. Where is the family unity in that? HB173, HB296, and HB1246 move Virginia toward fairness, consistency, and dignity. They recognize that families are not a threat to safety, but a vital part of rehabilitation. I respectfully urge you to support all three bills. Their passage would help restore trust, humanity, and the true rehabilitative power of family connection in Virginia’s correctional system.

I fully support this bill so does my son. Especially earned sentence credit. Please pass this bill. It's so important!

i don’t agree with this bill because that would mean even more limits on how often you can visit your loved one. it’s already lots of restrictions & that would just add another one. i feel as if visitation shouldn’t be looked upon as a privilege nor be used as punishment. they are still human & deserve to be able to see & interact with their family. i feel we should have longer visitation time with our loved one. hour or two extra nothing too dramatic. the visits give most of these guys incarcerated hope. being able to see their families give them a reason to keep pushing to the next day. communication with family is already very difficult as most facilities are always locked down. as a family member, we all should be able to see our loved ones not based on vadoc gca levels.

I support real family connection and meaningful visitation. I want people to be able to hug their loved ones and maintain relationships that help them survive incarceration and succeed when they come home. But this bill does not expand visitation as a right. It turns family contact into something that must be earned through “good time” class levels and that can be taken away when someone is struggling. HB1246 creates a phase system tied to Good Conduct Allowance levels and time in those levels. That means visitation and physical contact are not protected. They become an incentive and a punishment tool. When a person’s GCA level drops, they can lose good time and also lose family access. That is a double penalty, and it is not pro family. It creates pressure and instability for people who are already living in a high stress environment. This structure will harm vulnerable populations the most. People with mental health disabilities, intellectual or developmental disabilities, limited English proficiency, trauma histories, or communication barriers are more likely to receive disciplinary infractions or struggle to navigate rules. People in protective custody or restrictive housing for safety reasons may be effectively excluded from the “enhanced” visitation that the bill claims to expand. Families should not lose contact because a loved one is in crisis, misunderstood, or placed in isolation. Virginia should strengthen visitation without weaponizing it. If the General Assembly wants to support families, the bill should remove the GCA based phases and instead create a universal baseline visitation standard for everyone. Enhanced appropriate physical affection should be available during contact visits unless there is a specific, individualized safety reason to restrict it. Any restrictions should require written notice, a clear reason, a time limit, and an appeal process. We should not allow blanket bans based on housing status or classification. Family connection should not be used as leverage. It should be protected as a stabilizing, life saving support, especially for people in crisis. Please reject HB1246 unless it is amended to remove the incentive system and include real guardrails that prevent visitation from being revoked arbitrarily or used as a behavioral control.

I am against this bill and I would think if DOC prides themselves on family and rehabilitation they would not be using an incentive tier for men and women to have that much needed time with their families. Also, you already get 2 hours at visit as it is so it’s not like that’s an added bonus.

I write in strong support of HB296, HB173, and HB1246 as an individual directly affected by Virginia’s visitation policies. I am a long distance visitor who must travel hundreds of miles and coordinate interstate and international travel in order to maintain contact with an incarcerated family member. I am also a parent and a spouse, and the responsibility for planning, funding, and navigating visitation falls primarily on me. My husband is my children’s stepfather and supports them at home while I manage the logistics and emotional labour of maintaining family connection through a complex and inconsistent system. Virginia is nationally recognised for reducing recidivism, with a three year re incarceration rate of approximately 17.6 percent, the lowest in the country. Research consistently shows that maintaining family connections during incarceration is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry. Individuals who receive visits are significantly less likely to reoffend, with reductions in reconviction rates exceeding 30 percent in some studies. Protecting visitation is therefore not only compassionate policy but a sound public safety strategy. In Virginia, approximately one in fourteen children will experience parental incarceration before age eighteen. As a parent, I experience firsthand how visitation policies affect not only the incarcerated individual but the family member who must absorb the financial costs, travel demands, and administrative barriers in order to keep that connection alive. National data shows fewer than half of incarcerated parents receive in person visits with their children, despite in person contact being the most effective way to preserve meaningful relationships. When visits are shortened or cancelled after significant travel, the burden and impact fall directly on the caregiver who has made those sacrifices. HB173 directly addresses these realities by recognising long distance visitors, minor children, and infrequent visitors, and by establishing a minimum two hour visit. For someone in my position, a short or unpredictable visit does not justify the extensive planning, expense, and disruption required. Limiting suspension of visitation to situations involving a direct and substantial safety threat provides essential protection against arbitrary denials that currently occur without explanation or appeal. HB296 addresses the lack of consistent and clearly communicated visitation rules that I and others must navigate. Requirements often vary by facility or change without notice, creating unnecessary stress and uncertainty. Clear standards improve compliance, reduce conflict, and support staff while ensuring visitors are treated with dignity. HB1246 ensures these reforms are implemented through transparency, data collection, and oversight. Advancing HB296, HB173, and HB1246 affirms Virginia’s commitment to public safety, rehabilitation, and the family members who carry the responsibility of maintaining connection under difficult circumstances.

I am a directly impacted family member of someone incarcerated in Virginia. I am submitting this comment in opposition to HB1246, not because family connection is unimportant, but because this bill misunderstands the reality families like mine are living in. My family member has been held in long-term solitary confinement. In that reality, “enhanced visitation” is not meaningful access, it is largely theoretical. When someone is isolated for months or years, visits are rare, tightly restricted, and often impossible to reach. Families live hours away, must miss work and school, and still may be denied contact due to lockdowns, classifications, or arbitrary enforcement. More importantly, this bill does nothing to address the conditions that make visitation meaningless in the first place. There is also a child involved in this. A child who used to hear from their parent regularly. A child who depended on those calls for comfort, guidance, and reassurance. Now there are long silences where no call comes, let alone visits. This is bill is not fair for children and families who are innocent in this. HB1246 suggests that increased visitation alone can repair this harm. It cannot. Visitation is not a substitute for humane conditions. You cannot “enhance” a visit while someone is being psychologically harmed in isolation. You cannot strengthen families while simultaneously breaking the person at the center of them. This bill fails to grapple with that reality. It offers optics without addressing the root harm. For families like mine, it feels like being asked to accept crumbs while enduring ongoing damage. I urge you to listen to directly impacted families and to prioritize policies that reduce isolation, protect mental health, and preserve real human connection, not symbolic access.

We oppose HB 1246 as written. Visitation is not a “behavior incentive”, it’s harm reduction and a basic human need. This bill makes family connection conditional through DOC-controlled phases tied to good-time levels, creating a system where children and loved ones become leverage. HB 1246 also gives VADOC another tool to restrict families through subjective classifications and uneven program access, disproportionately harming people with disabilities, language barriers, and mental health needs, and families who already travel far to stay connected. If Virginia truly believes family connection supports rehabilitation and safer reentry, then visitation should be a protected baseline for all people, limited only by a documented, individualized safety risk with due process and time limits, not by incentive tiers the DOC can weaponize. Please vote NO on HB 1246 in its current form.

I 100% support this bill. My son is in the process of being transferred from jail to state prison. He is so ready to turn his life around and be an asset to his community and this would provide the stepping stones for him to begin almost immediately

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.