Public Comments for 02/04/2026 Appropriations - Transportation and Public Safety Subcommittee
HB35 - Restorative housing and isolated confinement; restrictions on use.
I support HB35. Virginia, it's time to end prolonged solitary confinement.
My fiancé came home in 2024 after doing over a decade incarcerated. The last several months of his incarceration he had been kept in segregation, which for someone who has severe mental health issues already that’s not a good combination and only makes your mental health worse. For a year and a half I watched him have PTSD and night terrors often from trauma he had endured most of his life between foster care and incarceration. Sadly, during a mental health episode he was killed while threatening self harm. I watched the love of my life slowly spiral out of control with his mental health because not only prison but solitary confinement. I know some really good people who since being incarcerated have been diagnosed with multiple personalities. Why? Because in a setting like that, all you have is yourself to talk to so eventually, you come up with other personalities to communicate with to distract you from the hell that you’re in. For some of those who already suffer from mental health, some of those personalities aren’t so nice and constantly remind them how they’d be better off gone. And then when you have guards mentally breaking you down more and more each day some tend to eventually break. VADOC already doesn’t take mental health seriously so the facilities get pleasure in sending men and women to solitary confinement and keeping them back there for extended periods of time. We need to start taking mental health more seriously and ending solitary confinement is a great start because how long do you think you would last living in your bathroom 23 hrs a day with no TV, 2 calls a month and one visit a week, if that?
I, Willie X Brown, RIHD Mobile Justice Tour Ambassador, support the passage of HB35 to end long term isolation and the psychological harms and damages it causes to the safety of the incarcerated individuals and families. Please pass this HB35. Thank you. With Best Regards for Humanity, Willie X Brown
Dear Committee Members, I am incarcerated in the model facility in VADOC. I am writing in support of HB35 to end prolonged solitary confinement. I can tell you first hand from what I have witnessed about the horrors of the effects of solitary confinement. It warps the minds of the men in the facility and causes more harm than good. It restricts them from any positive influences that may help them better themselves such as regular phone access and contact visits with family. If the purpose of DOC is to help rehabilitate individuals and long term segregation is counterproductive to that agenda. Individuals do not even have access to the commissary in solitary confinement and often are starved. They are verbally and physically abused and often lack medical attention. Their mail is confiscated and not distributed to them and their complaints are discarded and not taken seriously. This horrendous treatment is not only stressful for the individual incarcerated but also for his or her family that hears about the abuses of their loved ones but are helpless in assisting them. This also proves dangerous to others on the compound because of the mind state that the individual is in once he returns to population. He may be aggressive and introverted and socially awkward. If you can imagine an individual being kidnapped and tortured in an undisclosed location where no help can reach them and then after years of this torture they are released back amongst society. PTSD sets in along with many other psychological issues they may have. There has to be more therapeutic options in order to correct disruptive behavior if the agenda is safety and rehabilitation. I understand that this may be different for more serious cases of individuals that are a major threat to others and themselves, but many of the individuals in solitary do not fit this description. I implore you to end solitary confinement an come with alternatives for corrective behavior.
I created a Community Advocacy Organization called CCCAN Virginia. For the past year and a half, I have been receiving severe abuse complaints, many of which originate in solitary at Red Onion, Wallens Ridge, and River North. Even when people tell me they have been physically abused; which many of them have, they nearly always tell me that the worst part was solitary. Solitary is known to worsen psychological symptoms - in a person with previous psychological symptoms, their symptoms will worsen. In a person with NO psychological symptoms, when they endure solitary, they will often develop severe anxiety and depression. Nearly everything VADOC does is the opposite of evidence based - to include solitary. We have know since the 70s that solitary does not bring us the results we want, since it is BAD for people, even bad for the COs watching the people in solitary. Please let's become a HUMANE, evidence based state, and get rid of long-term solitary once and for all. If someone is displaying extremely aggressive behaviors, we Still need to figure out how to incarcerate them withOUT the intentional deprivation of human contact that is solitary. Solitary is bad for everyone. Thank you.
I am a survivor of solitary confinement and it is the most inhumane experience I have ever had. The irreversible effects are well known. Prison should be rehabilitating not torturous. Studies show that isolation does nothing for public safety. There is no programming or therapeutic benefit from it. Passing HB 35 is the right thing to do.
Restorative housing is not rehabilitation for the inmates. This type of treatment causes depression, anxiety, PTSD and can also cause suicide. Imaging already being tried by a jury and given the time by a judge and then you go to prison to be judged again by the staff who is there to oversee you. Day by day these men are haunted by their past mistakes that caused them to be incarcerated. Nobody should have to stay put in a small room for weeks , months and years at a time. A damn dog doesn’t want to be locked in a cage all day, so how can you lock a human being in a cage all day. This is modern day bull crap and it should be against the law. Mentally and physically it’s disturbing and it only makes matters worse for the inmate. My son was incarcerated in Red Onion state prison. It’s like the officers get a kick out of putting those men in the restorative housing. Chadwick Dotson , last year said that they have to “BEHAVE” are you kidding me. He said that as if they are kids getting in trouble. The trouble comes from the staff in most cases provoking situations to keep the inmates going at it with each other. This goes on and it keeps facilities like Red Onion in business because the inmates can’t behave themselves so they get into fights, get points, get charges, go to restorative housing and then their time gets jacked up. That is not fair and it is a complete set up system for failure. Something needs to change and the staff needs more training, better approach systems, no retaliation and just do the damn job. Respect is the key factor of it all.
I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I support the elimination of prolonged solitary confinement for several reasons: 1. It is NOT always used for the most violent offenders as the public might assume. 2. Prolonged confinement is regularly being used for non-violent people. Some convicted of selling marijuana Some with minor prison violations smoking or not following a direction 2. Studies show that there are people locked in cells so small they cannot stretch out their arms. THIS TORTURE RESULTS IN HIGH SUICIDE RATES for people who could have been rehabilitated! 3. Many violent criminals who have committed murder, violent rape and/or conspired to coordinate the death of other people in prison remain in their regular cells , while many non-violent inmates are forced into punitive solitary confinement for months and YEARS!!! STOP THIS IMMEDIATELY AND USE THE PROVEN METHODS SHOWN TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN OTHER PRISON SYSTEMS!!!
Solitary confinement has deeply harmed my mental health and significantly worsened my CPTSD. Being locked down 24 hours a day, seven days a week—allowed out for just one hour on only three days to shower and make a call—stripped away any sense of normalcy or human connection. There was no interaction with anyone, except through a slot in the door. That level of isolation breaks something inside you. While confined, I witnessed a man in the cell next to me being beaten and sprayed with OC.R. The chemical came into my cell through the vents, leaving me trapped with the fear, the pain, and the panic, with no escape. Experiences like this don’t end when the door opens—they replay endlessly in the mind, fueling hypervigilance, nightmares, and emotional shutdown. This kind of isolation is not confinement. It is psychological harm. Depriving a person of human contact, safety, and dignity is detrimental to mental health and exacerbates trauma. Solitary confinement, as it is practiced, is cruel—and the damage it causes can last long after the confinement ends. I support hb35
Solitary confinement has deeply harmed my mental health and significantly worsened my CPTSD. Being locked down 24 hours a day, seven days a week—allowed out for just one hour on only three days to shower and make a call—stripped away any sense of normalcy or human connection. There was no interaction with anyone, except through a slot in the door. That level of isolation breaks something inside you. While confined, I witnessed a man in the cell next to me being beaten and sprayed with OC.R. The chemical came into my cell through the vents, leaving me trapped with the fear, the pain, and the panic, with no escape. Experiences like this don’t end when the door opens—they replay endlessly in the mind, fueling hypervigilance, nightmares, and emotional shutdown. This kind of isolation is not confinement. It is psychological harm. Depriving a person of human contact, safety, and dignity is detrimental to mental health and exacerbates trauma. Solitary confinement, as it is practiced, is cruel—and the damage it causes can last long after the confinement ends.
I support HB 35.
Bending the Bars Foundation proudly supports HB35, patroned by Delegate Joshua G. Cole, which places critical restrictions on the use of isolated confinement in Virginia’s state correctional facilities and advances a more humane, accountable, and evidence-based approach to incarceration. For decades, isolated confinement has been overused as a default management tool rather than a last resort, despite overwhelming evidence of its devastating physical, psychological, and rehabilitative consequences. Prolonged isolation exacerbates mental illness, increases self-harm and suicide risk, undermines rehabilitation, and ultimately makes both correctional facilities and communities less safe. HB35 represents a necessary and responsible shift. By prohibiting isolated confinement except under limited, clearly defined circumstances, requiring less-restrictive alternatives first, and mandating frequent reviews, medical and mental health evaluations, and transparent oversight, this bill prioritizes human dignity, safety, and accountability while preserving the ability of facilities to respond to legitimate security concerns. We strongly support the bill’s requirements that: • Placement decisions be reviewed every 48 hours; • Medical and mental health evaluations occur promptly; • Individuals be informed, present, and given an opportunity to respond during formal reviews; and • Senior administrative oversight be notified within 24 hours of any placement. These safeguards ensure that isolation is not hidden, indefinite, or unexamined, and that incarcerated individuals are treated as human beings, not management problems. Restorative housing, when properly implemented, offers a path forward that aligns with modern correctional best practices, trauma-informed care, and constitutional standards. HB35 moves Virginia closer to a correctional system focused on rehabilitation, stability, and long-term public safety rather than punishment alone. Bending the Bars Foundation urges members of the General Assembly to advance and pass HB35. This legislation is not only sound policy, it is a moral imperative that reflects our shared responsibility to uphold human rights, protect mental health, and build safer institutions and communities. Respectfully, Bending the Bars Foundation
I support HB35!!!!!!
Comment in support of HB 35, which has passed the past 2 legislative sessions, as written, only to be vetoed. HB35 sets clear limits and basic safeguards so that prolonged isolation isn’t used as a default tool, and so Virginia’s approach reflects dignity, accountability, and prevention of harm. Research clearly shows that prolonged solitary confinement destabilizes people, increases their risk of violence (against self and others), and separates families by restricting their contacts, all with lasting damage. 95% of people incarcerated will return to our communities -- we must not allow discredited practices like prolonged isolation to damage their psyches, their ability to live in community, and their contacts with their families and communities. Prolonged isolation, which typically reduces an incarcerated person's opportunity for contact with family and community supports weakens the precise supports necessary for individuals re-entering society to succeed. Please take this common sense step to limit this harmful and counter-productive practice by supporting HB 35. Sincerely, Mary Bohan, Arlington VA 22205
i supposed HB35 as my loved ones are directly impacted
I fully support HB35 and recognize that solitary confinement and isolation have profound and well-documented negative effects on mental health. I urge your support for HB35. Incarcerated individuals and their families deserve conditions that promote safety and healing, not practices that exacerbate trauma and crisis. Prolonged isolation causes lasting harm and severs critical connections to the supports that help prevent future harm. HB35 establishes clear limits and meaningful oversight to address these concerns.
I support HB35
I support the HB35 bill.
The Justice & Witness Action Network – VA of the United Church of Christ supports the passage of HB35. Our denomination recognizes prolonged solitary confinement, as defined by ‘The Mandela Rules,’ as a form of torture and condemns its use. Calling it "restrictive housing" or "restorative housing" does not change the fact that it is de facto solitary confinement. No one, no matter what they’ve done, deserves to be subjected to such degrading treatment. It is a violation of the inherent dignity and humanity endowed upon all of us by our Creator. While we recognize that there may be circumstances in which an individual needs to be isolated for their own safety or that of others, there needs to be strict regulation and oversight as well as humane, rehabilitative alternatives to solitary confinement. This legislation provides reasonable restrictions and safeguards, and we urge you to vote yes.
I am in full support of HB 35 which seeks to end prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia’s Correctional Facilities! It causes more harm than good when used for extended periods of time!
Statement in Support of HB35 Thursday, January 22, 2026 Testimony of Reverend Dr. Chris Zacharias, Executive Director of Interfaith Action for Human Rights Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Rev. Dr. Christopher Zacharias, and I offer this testimony on behalf of Interfaith Action for Human Rights, a coalition of people of faith committed to dignity, justice, and the restoration of all who bear the image of God. Our support for HB35 is rooted first in Scripture. The biblical witness is unmistakable: God hears the cries of the oppressed, commands us to “proclaim liberty to the captives,” and calls us to treat every person—incarcerated or free—as one made in God’s likeness. In Matthew 25, Jesus identifies himself with those in prison, reminding us that how we treat the most marginalized is how we treat Him. Prolonged isolation, deprivation of human contact, and the absence of meaningful programming are not simply policy failures; they are moral failures that contradict the sacred worth God places on every life. Let me be clear: solitary confinement is not a tool for rehabilitation. It is torture. Studies have shown that prolonged isolation inflicts severe psychological, emotional, and physical harm, often leaving individuals permanently scarred. For many, it exacerbates pre-existing mental health conditions and fosters despair, not transformation. HB35 moves us toward a more just and humane system. It establishes clear limits on isolated confinement, ensures regular medical and mental health evaluations, mandates documented reviews, and requires access to out of cell programming that supports rehabilitation rather than deterioration. These are not abstract ideals—they are evidence based standards aligned with human rights norms and the best practices of modern corrections. This bill does not compromise safety. In fact, it strengthens it. By requiring that isolation be used only when absolutely necessary, by ensuring oversight and documentation, and by mandating pathways back to the general population, HB35 promotes stability, reduces violence, and supports the well being of both incarcerated people and staff. As a person of faith, I believe that punishment must never eclipse the possibility of redemption. As advocates for human rights, I believe that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to uphold dignity, transparency, and accountability in every correctional facility. HB35 honors both commitments. For these reasons, Interfaith Action for Human Rights urges you to pass this legislation. It is morally right, operationally sound, and essential for building a corrections system that restores rather than destroys. Thank you for your consideration.
I truly believe that the prison need to do away with solitary confinement. Isolating the inmates even if in their cells, mentally affects them and us. To punish inmates for one persons actions, is wrong. The dangers it can put the inmates mentally in, will either cause them lash out of frustration on each other, staff or harm themselves. My fiance and others are already on medication for mental health, and not being to live in humane conditions set them up for failure. My fiance is Muslim and Red Onion does not accommodate them properly. They serve food with mold on it. Shooting them in the face just because. I have heard they way talk to the inmates while I’m on a call with my fiance. Or he has to tell me hold on why he tries to de-escalate a CO about to shoot an inmate. So the family of the inmates all experience the treatment all well. I also feel that more thorough investigations in the hiring process of the COs need to be done. They are definitely killing the inmates and getting away with it. Why would my fiance and all the other inmates all report the same story back to us? While they are trying to survive the day to day, never knowing they next time they will see us, going long periods of time without eating, hear our voice, while possibly be assaulted then killed by it. A lot of family members of the inmates still live off on hope and faith, that we will see our loved ones again at home. But when they are stuck in a place that have staff that doesn’t want the best for them. They are setting them up for failure intentionally. So please pass these bills. Can a change be made for the better for human lives at stake. Thank you
I am writing in full support of House Bill 35, which seeks to end the use of prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia’s correctional facilities. My husband, Lamont Woods, was transferred to Wallens Ridge Correctional Center on October 20, 2025. Upon arrival, he was placed in the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU), reportedly for his own safety. My husband is not a threat to anyone. Rather, there are individuals housed at this facility who pose a threat to him. Both the facility and the Department of Corrections in Richmond approved my husband for a transfer out of Wallens Ridge. However, more than three months later, he remains in solitary confinement, with no clear timeline for transfer. During this period, my husband—who was already struggling with his mental health prior to this placement—has continued to deteriorate. I have sent numerous emails to DOC staff at both the facility and in Richmond and have requested internal investigations, yet I have received no responses or meaningful updates. Each time I inquire about his status, I am told only that he will be transferred “when a bed becomes available.” Meanwhile, he remains isolated indefinitely. Extended placement in solitary confinement is widely recognized as harmful to mental health. This raises a serious question: how is it fair or humane to subject someone to prolonged isolation solely for their own protection? In practice, my husband is being punished for being at risk, with no end in sight. HB35 is critically important because it would establish clear limits, accountability, and oversight in situations like this. It recognizes that solitary confinement—even when labeled as protective—can cause profound harm when used for extended periods and without adequate review. I strongly urge you to vote in favor of HB35. This bill impacts not only individuals who are considered dangerous, but also those who are vulnerable and placed in isolation under the guise of safety. Families like mine are living with the consequences of a system that lacks meaningful limits and transparency. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Brianna Woods
On behalf of our nonprofit organization Resource Information Help for the Disadvantaged and Disenfranchised (RIHD) we support HB35 Restorative housing and isolated confinement; restrictions on use bill. We respectfully request the committee cite I’m favor of this important and necessary legislation. Thank you Lillie Branch-Kennedy Founder
I support HB35 because prolonged solitary confinement is a family crisis and a public safety issue. When the Commonwealth isolates a human being for months or years, it doesn’t just punish one person, it destabilizes entire families. As a mother, I have watched solitary confinement change my son's mind, body, and ability to stay connected to the people who love them. It erodes hope, worsens mental health, and creates a constant state of fear for families on the outside, especially children, who are forced to live with long silences, missed milestones, and uncertainty that no child is prepared for. Solitary confinement does not rehabilitate. It breaks people down and increases the likelihood of psychological harm. And when someone eventually returns to the community after prolonged isolation, they return with deeper trauma and fewer supports, which makes reentry harder and communities less safe. HB35 matters because it draws a humane line and recognizes what research and families have been saying for years: prolonged solitary confinement causes lasting harm. I urge you to support HB35 and move Virginia away from practices that isolate, destabilize, and traumatize people instead of preparing them to come home healthier.
Commenting on HB296 visitation, Dress Code First time visitors at a new facility always ask the FB groups what they can wear at the new facility because they really don't know. It can be very different from one facility to another.. Im sure many have had the frightening and frustraating experience ofrefusal and was sent out in search of the local Dollar General. I have worn the same pants to visitation for years afraid to try other pants because I might be refused. No wonder visitation has dropped by 92%. Valley Justice Coalition Supports this bill. Please vote Yes!
I am writing to express my unequivocal support for House Bill 35, a critical piece of legislation that reflects our society's commitment to justice, rehabilitation, and fundamental human dignity. The manner in which we administer justice and manage individuals within our correctional facilities is a profound indicator of our collective values and ethical standards. The practice of prolonged solitary confinement, often presented as a mere administrative tool, carries devastating and well-documented psychological consequences. Extensive research demonstrates that isolating individuals for 22 to 23 hours daily constitutes a form of severe psychological deprivation. This extreme lack of external stimulation and social interaction profoundly alters brain function, leading to a cascade of debilitating effects. Individuals subjected to such conditions frequently exhibit impaired emotional regulation, diminished cognitive clarity, a pervasive inability to trust, and significant challenges in maintaining healthy interpersonal communication. The commonly observed outcomes, far from being exceptional, include heightened anxiety, clinical depression, paranoia, hallucinatory experiences, and severe memory impairment. Human beings are inherently social creatures; our cognitive and emotional well being is intrinsically linked to regular interaction and engagement with others. When this fundamental need for social contact is systematically denied, the punitive environment does not foster corrective behavior. Instead, it actively erodes the very capacities essential for successful reintegration into society, such as patience, problem-solving skills, empathy, and self-control. Moreover, prolonged isolation has been shown to compromise impulse control and exacerbate aggression, thereby inadvertently undermining the safety and stability of both incarcerated individuals and correctional staff within the facility environment. It is particularly concerning that a significant proportion of those placed in isolated confinement are not necessarily the most dangerous offenders, but rather individuals with pre existing histories of trauma, serious mental illnesses, or other profound vulnerabilities. For these individuals, solitary confinement does not provide stability; instead, it often serves to deepen psychological wounds and impede any prospect of recovery or rehabilitation.House Bill 35 is not an endeavor to undermine accountability or discipline within our correctional system. Rather, it represents a thoughtful and pragmatic approach to introduce essential humanity, robust oversight, and fundamental common sense into our practices. By mandating regular reviews of confinement placements, comprehensive medical and mental health evaluations, and prioritizing less-restrictive housing alternatives, this bill offers critical protections for the lives and well being of all involved. This proactive approach not only enhances the safety of staff and incarcerated individuals but also contributes significantly to the long term public safety of our communities. House Bill 35 represents a pivotal step forward for Virginia, guiding us toward a correctional system that is demonstrably smarter, inherently safer, and unequivocally more humane. For the sake of mental health, institutional integrity, and the preservation of basic human dignity, I urge you to support the passage of this vital legislation.
I am writing in support of HB35, legislation to end prolonged solitary confinement in the state of Virginia. I am the mother of an man who has been in solitary confinement. Below is his story: "My name is V.K, This was my first time ever facing a felony charge in my 42 years, and I was terrified and completely lost. From the start, jail shattered me. I suffer from major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and insomnia, and the conditions here have made everything so much worse. They placed me in a padded green velcro suit—uncomfortable, sleeveless, with nothing underneath—and gave me only a small padded blanket for warmth and sleep on a bare floor. No bed, no pillow, just a toilet and sink in a freezing cell. For months, I was kept in 23-and-1 lockdown: 23 hours alone in my cell, one hour out. Noise from others screaming, banging, and hurting themselves made sleep impossible. I was moved between medical observation, mental health units, protective custody, and crisis cells—often without explanation. In one crisis cell, the air reeked, over 50 flies buzzed around a grated hole in the floor instead of a toilet, and I had no window to the outside, no rec time, no calls, no tablet, not even a book. I begged not to be sent there, knowing it would deepen my despair, but I was denied contact with my mom or any comfort. The hardest moment came on July 3, 2025, when I learned my beloved Dean had to be put down while I was locked away. Grieving alone in that cell, unable to hold him or say goodbye, broke my heart in ways I can't describe. Winter brought constant freezing temperatures on top of the isolation—90% of my time here has been 23-and-1, even on units meant for more rec. These harsh conditions don't rehabilitate; they crush the human spirit, worsening mental health for people like me who are quiet, compliant, and just trying to hold on. Despite it all, this experience has given me a deep resolve: when I'm released, I want to become an advocate for prison policy reform, sharing my story to help create a more humane system.
I am writing in strong support of HB35, legislation to end prolonged solitary confinement in Virginia. I am the partner of a man currently held in long-term solitary confinement at Red Onion State Prison. What I have witnessed is not rehabilitation, it is prolonged isolation that destabilizes the human mind, fractures families, and undermines public safety. In solitary confinement, my partner spends nearly all day alone in a cell, with limited human interaction, inconsistent access to recreation, restricted phone calls, delayed mail, and minimal opportunities for meaningful programming. Basic needs, food, showers, and out-of-cell time, are controlled entirely by floor officers. Progress out of isolation includes subjective measures, creating a system where people can remain trapped for years with no clear path forward. This environment does not just harm the incarcerated person. It places families in a constant state of crisis. As a survivor and directly impacted loved one, I live with ongoing fear, anxiety, and helplessness. He is a father and I watch his 12 year old son lose consistent access to his father. No family is prepared for the psychological toll of long-term solitary confinement. Research consistently shows that prolonged isolation increases mental illness, self-harm, suicide risk, and long-term trauma, outcomes that affect not only incarcerated people, but also correctional staff and communities when individuals eventually return home. Solitary confinement does not make prisons safer. It makes people sicker. HB35 is a necessary step toward a corrections system rooted in safety, accountability, and rehabilitation rather than isolation and harm. I urge you to support this bill and help end a practice that has caused profound damage to individuals, families, and the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Alison Chaffin Survivors 4 Justice Reform - VA State Co-Rep & Family Member
Prolonged isolation is a violation of basic human dignity that causes irreversible neurological damage and mental health crises. S4JR advocates for this bill to end state-sponsored torture, recognizing that the "unraveling" caused by solitary confinement ripples out to traumatize families and destabilize communities. We believe in a system that maintains safety through trauma-informed care rather than the psychological destruction of human beings.
I agree with this bill in part. Solitary confinement is a necessary part of prisons and sometimes longer confinement is warranted. However, during these times of confinement, there needs to be a better standard of care. Putting someone in solitary and nothing else doesn’t really help to promote change. There needs to be more frequent reviews, mental health checks, reintegration planning and written justification. Why put someone in solitary with no plans of helping them change the actions that DOC say are wrong?
I support this bill because throughout my 20 years of incarceration, I have had my fair share of conversations with men who have spent years in solitary confinement and the toll that it itakes on a human mind is inhumane. It takes a very strong person to come out exactly how they went in, because listening to other men lose themselves while you’re present can mess with you, even years after. I have been in solitary confinement and I have seen men lose themselves in a short period of time and just the thought of speaking to yourself for weeks on is unbearable. Solitary confinement is not something to use as a form of punishment, rather as stated to do mental health checks - to allow a man or woman to know they are still human. Yes they have made choices to put themselves in this situation, but still giving a chance to help and make better.
Let's talk about this RHU is a cat in a dog suit but it's still a cat . Solitary confinement is 23 and 1 which right now my son is going on three months without 1 out can they explain that RaHU is 20 and 4 my son is in river north he is Ada solitary is completely against Ada rights but there is no accountability no one is answering for what is being done . My son's mental health has gone downhill drastically and I am afraid that I will lose him before he can come home in 2 years and not one person in them prisons care . Our law states it is illegal so why are people not being held accountable and why aren't programs being done this is the wardens job and Chadwick who quickly resigned to not feel the heat . Studies prove that this deteriorates the mental state of a normal human and is illegal so we need to be holding these wardens accountable file charges the proof every camera in the facilities are the proof.
HB88 - Highway rights-of-way; invasive species.
Please vote YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.
Hello, my name is Robert Nellis, and I'm a constituent from VA House of Delegates District 15 (Laura Jane Cohen) and VA State Senate District 35 (David W. Marsden) . I'm writing to ask you to vote: YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold; YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer; YES on HB388/SB89 by Delegate Katrina Callsen; and, YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you Delegate Laufer for HB88. I am fighting invasive plants on my 365 acres in conservation easement and planting many natives every year. I expect the state to address the proliferation of invasives. Of course, that includes NOT making the problem worse by planting them. Please support HB88.
I am encouraging you to vote YES on HB88 to prevent the spread of invasive plants in Virginia.
Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands.
Hello, my name is Lisa Sheehan, and I'm a constituent from Purcellville, VA. I'm calling today to ask you to vote YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Invasive plants bring invasive species, which destroy our native vegitation. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about efforts made to address this critical issue.
Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands.
Please support HB 88. As a landowner and steward, I am already dealing with enough invasive species strangling my forest from our past mistakes. We can't keep introducing invasive species to our state.
Hello, my name is Renee Kitt, and I'm a constituent from Warrenton, if Fauquier County. I'm writing today to ask you to vote YES on HB88 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB109 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about Mr. Michael J. Webert's efforts to address this critical issue. I would like to add that I am an active volunteer that works to remove invasive plants from The Clifton Institute and I have removed invasive plants from my acre of land that I own and have planted all Virginia native plants in my yard. Doing my part. I have received a VCAP award as well for the work I am doing on my property. This means so much to me that I started a business helping others do the same. We need the state to start doing what the citizens have been doing for years and we help. Please vote yes on this important bill. Thank you, Renee D. Kitt
Hello, my name is Sharon Moore, and I'm a constituent from Charlottesville, VA. I'm writing today to ask you to vote YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to hearing about the efforts to address this critical issue.
Please vote Yes on this bill.
I submit this written testimony in strong support of House Bill 88, which amends § 33.2-217 to require the Commonwealth Transportation Board to establish and implement a policy for identifying, controlling, and removing invasive plants (from the Department of Conservation and Recreation's list) along state highway rights-of-way. It prohibits the Board and Commissioner of Highways from planting or causing such invasives to be planted there, expanding beyond the current narrow limits on just three species. My name is Jonathan Hoover and I live in Fauquier County. I work in the re-wholesale plant industry, where I witness known invasive or toxic plants sold daily to retailers, landscapers, and consumers statewide. I see DCR-listed invasives—aggressive spreaders that outcompete natives, destroy biodiversity, ruin wildlife habitat (pollinators, birds, etc.), and wreck ecosystems—moving unchecked. Highways are prime spread vectors: disturbed soils, seed hitchhiking on vehicles/equipment, runoff into wild areas. VDOT maintenance and construction often introduce or let these persist, costing millions in control while native systems suffer. HB88 hits this hard: mandatory statewide ID/control of DCR invasives on rights-of-way, plus a ban on state-planted invasives. It's preventive, science-driven, and mirrors what other states do to stop roadsides becoming invasive highways. To make it stick long-term, implementation must prioritize regularly available seed blends specifically blended for native biodiversity and roadside management. VDOT already explores native mixes (via research like VTRC studies on Andropogon virginicus, Sorghastrum nutans, etc.), but we need consistent, affordable Virginia-ecotype grass/wildflower blends stocked and standard for revegetation. These stabilize soils better, boost pollinators/wildlife, cut chemical/mechanical needs, and look damn good—real wins over invasives that erode everything. I'm choosing to support this bill because I want to save our environment rather than keep profiting from these plants. My trade makes short-term cash selling invasives (many landing in landscapes that bleed into roadsides), but the ongoing devastation of Virginia's native ecosystems, water quality, farmland, and natural heritage ain't worth it. We can't pretend profit trumps poisoning the state. Urge the committee to report HB88 favorably (with/without substitute) and push it through Appropriations to House vote ASAP. As a trade insider seeing the damage daily and ditching profits from harmful shit for real protection, HB88 + reliable native roadside seed access is overdue and essential. Thank you for fighting invasives head-on.
I fully support this bill as someone who previously worked outside primarily removing invasive species, and as someone who spends an appreciable amount of time cycling and driving on Virginia roads and notice the plethora of invasive species that are still actively planted. Perhaps not always by state agencies, but the number of plants that ought to qualify as noxious weeds such as nandina, Bradford pear, and wintercreeper that show up every year is quite ridiculous by this point. Nearly all metrics show us wildlife is severely declining across the world, and while it will still continue, curbing invasive plants can significantly slow the decline. This bill can only do good things and help the ecology of Virginia.
I too support HB 88 to ensure invasive plants are not planted along state highways and that VDOT develops a plan to manage existing infestations that spread rapidly along road corridors.
I support HB88 to allow better management of the plants along Virginia’s highways. This is a key part of the strategy to protect our environment by reducing the damage caused by invasive plants, and a great opportunity to beautify our community for commuters and travelers year round.
I support HB 88 to ensure invasive plants are not planted along state highways and that VDOT develops a plan to manage existing infestations that spread rapidly along road corridors.
I support the passage of this bill defining noxious plants as “ invasive plant on the list of invasive plants created pursuant to § 10.1-104.6:2.”. These noxious plants are creating damage far beyond government or commercial attempts to remove them. Thank you.
Please pass this legislation. Getting rid of non-native invasive species is literally taking years off of my life. Support old and young people by prohibiting the state from using non-native species ANY WHERE. Our kids need to know what our native plant, tree, shrub species even look like, plus non-natives do not support wildlife, including insects. Plant a non-native invasive species along the road side and I can guarantee you it will show up in my garden so I HAVE TO REMOVE IT!. Thank you.
Hello, Please vote YES on HB88 by Delegate Holly Seibold, Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. I am presently working on the removal of invasive plants on my own property. This is something that is very important to me, my friends and neighbors. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Margaret Carter
I am writing from Midlothian to urge that you support HB88. Ensuring that invasive plants will not be planted along state highways and that the state will develop a plan for managing existing invasive plants along our highways are practical investments in solving a damaging and costly problem that will not improve with further neglect.
Invasive plants cost Virginians millions of dollars each year. This bill, along with HB 109, HB 388/SB89, and SB 163, will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.
I'm wroting today to ask you to vote YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle.
Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. This bill will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways. This bill will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.
Roadsides are home to some of the rarest, coolest, and prettiest native wildflowers due to their edge habitat and open canopy. Unfortunately, decades of chemical suppression of natives and improper identification or management approaches have subdued our awesome natives while encouraging noxious invasives to take over. All a Virginian has to do is drive down 66 and 81 to see how much of a mess we've left our environment in. Extensive stands of tree of heaven (spotted lanternfly, anyone?), callery pear, paulownia, white mulberry, mullein, wisteria, bittersweet, kudzu, mile a minute, vetch, poison hemlock, porcelain berry, Japanese honeysuckle, bush honeysuckle, autumn olive, and SO many more litter our roadsides. And it's getting tangibly worse every single year. Plenty of invasive species were intentionally planted and introduced by VDOT in the past while ignoring natives that fill the same niche without wrecking our natural areas. Meanwhile, every growing season, communities of native species like sumac and our native grasses like switchgrass & indiangrass are wholesale sprayed by VDOT directly next to patches of invasive garbage species. A glaring example is I-66W at The Plains off ramp interchange, a no mow/no spray VDOT area is 100% invasive tree of heaven. This type of mismanagement makes the entire state look incredibly incompetent and ignorant. Please, it's as simple as encouraging the good natives and discouraging the invasives along our roadways. We can and should do better.
I'm a constituent from Charlottesville, and I'm asking you to vote YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. This bill would help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. This bill, along with HB109, HB388, and SB163, would support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.
Please support this bill. My family has spent more than a thousand man-hours and a fair bit of money trying to eliminate and knock back invasive plants on our property. We need the state (VDOT) and legislators to do their part to stop loophole sales and making excuses about the problems with these non-native, aggressive and costly (invasive) plants. Sincerely, William Benish Verona (Augusta County)
I support HB 88 to ensure invasive plants are not planted along state highways and that VDOT develops a plan to manage existing infestations that spread rapidly along road corridors.
I support HB88. Invasive species are a major threat to our native plants and animals and they must be removed and controlled as much as possible before they spread further.
HB 88 would be of benefit to our County in helping to control the devastation of the invasive species along our highways and by preventing the planting of listed invasive plants. As a member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, I support HB 88. Thank you for your leadership. Bea LaPisto-Kirtley Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Comments on behalf of The Piedmont Environmental Council, Christopher G. Miller. President The Commonwealth of Virginia, through the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), is the state's largest landowner. The maintenance of rights-of-way, including the plant materials used, or allowed to be used, are an important element in roadway corridor design. Well designed plantings using native plants can reduce stormwater runoff, provide scenic benefits for travelers, and make VDOT property habitat for pollinators. The use of non-native, invasive plants, on the other hand, can have significant negative impacts for both VDOT as a landowner, as well as the residents of the Commonwealth. These impacts include, but are not limited to, decreased wildlife habitat and diversity of native species in and around VDOT rights-of-way. Invasive plants can also negatively impact water quality as their root systems are typically more shallow than natives, which contributes to erosion and increased sediment in waterways. Further, monocultures of invasive vegetation can provide dense patches of fuel for wildfires and intensify the risk to nearby property. Alternatively, well designed plantings using native plants can reduce stormwater runoff, provide scenic benefits for travelers, and make VDOT property habitat for pollinators and other wildlife. *might be worth noting that these plantings may require a change in management? Taking proactive steps to stop the planting of non-native, invasive species in VDOT rights-of-ways is especially important given the rising cost of invasive plant removal and the challenges with acquiring contracted labor for invasive management at scale. Additionally, what is planted in VDOT rights-of-way has the potential to spread to adjoining properties, raising costs and threats for residents, business owners, and infrastructure. HB88 addresses the importance of not spending limited Commonwealth resources for vegetation on invasive plants. It is a simple directive, consistent with the recommendations from other state agencies as to species that should be considered invasive. It also requires VDOT to establish and implement a plan for identifying and removing or controlling any invasive plant on the list of invasive plants created pursuant to § 10.1-104.6:2 on any state highway right-of-way. This is particularly important for controlling species like Tree of Heaven (Althanthus altissima) which has contributed to the spread of the invasive and damaging Spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula). Both of these are direct, common sense approaches to reducing the threat of invasive plants spreading in VDOT rights of way and into public and private properties.
Environment Virginia is a non-profit organization with thousands of members across Virginia. Managing invasive species and protecting native pollinators and wildlife are priorities for us and our members. We thank Delegate Laufer for introducing HB 88 and express our support for it. We want more nature in Virginia where wildlife can thrive, clean water can flow and old trees can grow. Invasive plant species get in the way of this. English ivy covers entire portions of the James River Park system, trail crews are overwhelmed by kudzu on the Appalachian Trail, and farmers cannot keep up with the Callery pear trees spreading rapidly throughout the Shenandoah Valley. Not only do invasive species cause a headache for anyone managing land, they outcompete native plants. Native plants are pollinator powerhouses and feed Virginia’s more than 400 native bees. Our mountain mint is a favorite during a monarch’s migration. Our white oaks are habitat to countless critters. And our gorgeous Virginia bluebells have festivals dedicated to them. Stopping the spread of invasive plant species is critical to protecting Virginia’s wild spaces and wildlife. HB 88 is an important step towards effectively controlling invasive species. Virginia manages the land directly adjacent to thousands of miles of state highways. These rights-of-way commonly become home to invasive plants. Right now, the commonwealth is only supposed to control three plant species on highway rights-of-way, one of which isn’t even on DCR’s list of invasives. HB 88 will require the Commonwealth Transportation Board to control all plants on DCR’s invasive list that are growing on highway rights-of-way. It will also ensure that state officials and contractors do not intentionally plant any invasives along our roads. Managing invasives along our roads is critical to the overall control of invasive plants. Please take action on invasives and vote YES on HB 88.
HB108 - Honor Guard Grant Program; Department of Veterans Services to establish.
Without financial assistance, VSO Honor Guards performing military honors to those veterans who served their country honorably will cease to exist, primarily because age and attrition. My team provided military honors, both at the veteran’s cemetery and private cemeteries throughout the New River Valley, for 167 families in 2025. We anticipate that number will exceed 200 funerals this year. It is costly to provide uniforms in a United States Military image as well as travel, food expenses and other unexpected ancillary costs we frequently experience. This Grant fund will go a long way to help VSO’s continue this very important tradition as outlined in U.S.10 code, subsection 1491
VSO Honor Guards need financial assistance in order to maintain staffing and recruit new members to assist veterans families during their loved ones final military salute. Without this assistance the VSO Honor Guards will parish due to attrition and veterans will no longer enjoy full military honors every veteran that honorably served their country deserves.
HB147 - U.S. Route 58 Corridor Development Program; issuance of bonds.
HB169 - Va. Emergency Management Preparedness and Capabilities Grant Program and Fund; established, report.
HB354 - Online portal; Commissioner of Department of Veterans Services to develop and maintain.
HB366 - Virginia Military Community Infrastructure Grant Program and Fund; award guidelines.
HB411 - Commissioner of Highways; certain agreements with U.S. Department of Transportation.
Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is James “Trapper” Fowler, and I am representing Wild Virginia and speaking in support HB 411. We see HB 411 as providing an opportunity for more public engagement, assurances that there are tailored protections for specific projects and species of concern, and a means for the state to fill gaps in the review process currently lost under federal review. Within the environmental review manual update requirement, there is great opportunity for the consideration of wildlife crossing infrastructure and aquatic organism passage projects. And where feasible and implemented these wildlife crossings and aquatic organism passage projects leading to safer roads and better water quality for all Virginians. HB 411 aims to streamline the permitting process and provide for more efficiency and transparency. For these reasons, we ask that you support HB 411. Thank you.
HB529 - Suicide Prevention Program; created, deaths by suicide of veterans or military service members.
These should be basic right standards. These cause less trauma, less injuries, deaths, and for a better society
HB702 - Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund; established and created, report.
To these proposed bills, the Bills of Rights of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia apply: "That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law" - Constitution of Virginia, Article 1, Section 11, "That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use" - Constitution of Virginia, Article 1, Section 11, "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Constitution of The United States of America, Amendment V. HB19 - This bill expands already un-Constitutional red flag laws and could allow any person who has had sexual relations with the reported individual within the past 12 months to have their guns forcibly and un-Constitutionally taken by the State. The existing red flag laws are already immoral and illegal, do not expand the further expand the authoritarian powers of the State. HB702 - A firearm "give-back" or "buy-back" program implies that the State, in some capacity, has provided these firearms to the Residents of Virginia. As it stands, the State has only ever provided firearms to the Police; that being on a temporary basis for the duration of their employment by the State. Seeing as the State has never Gifted a firearm to any Resident, it would be improper for this proposed program to be named "give-back." Subsection (iv) states "that returned firearms shall be destroyed within 90 days after a determination that such firearms are not evidence and are not required for prosecution." Again, the word "returned" implies that the State provided these firearms to the Residents, which it has not. Additionally, destroying a firearm does nothing for Virginia or her Residents. Historically significant and antique firearms are allowed to be transferred to an FFL, why can modern firearms not also be transferred? Once the firearm in question is under the ownership of the State, there are many other ways that a State-owned firearm could be useful to the Commonwealth; destruction is not one of those ways. Finally, I will end with this from the Constitution of Virginia. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Every bill seeking to make the possession of any firearm more difficult, whether through taxation or bureaucratic processes, is a violation of not only the USA's Constitution, but the Constitution of our very own Commonwealth.
HELL TO THE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLER SAYS THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!
The gun bills are problematic for all of Virginia ..Every race will be affected.Dem Repub.Etc. It is plain to see in the form of complaints that democrat gun owners did not expect this.A moderate admin was expected.Now they realize the vote outcome was an extreme swing to the left bordering on communist traits..We may disagree or support some bills but there is common agreement that the gun bills are over each to the max..Join VCDL ,Gun owners of America, write your legislator..The problem iis just not gun bills .It is other dumb ideas such as a dog walking tax.That come from Richmond..Ideas that are empty in substance. And produce a lot of gibberish confused words..
I am writing as a concerned military member stationed in your district regarding the ongoing debate about proposed firearms legislation. As someone deeply committed to both public safety and constitutional liberties, I want to respectfully express my strong belief in the continued importance of the Second Amendment and share why I feel proposed restrictions could have unintended consequences. Recent events in Minneapolis, Minnesota have highlighted intense tensions around law-enforcement interactions and individual rights. On January 7, 2026, Renée Good, a 37-year-old citizen, was fatally shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Independent reporting indicates that the agent fired multiple shots at her vehicle, and eyewitness accounts have raised questions about whether those actions were justified. Later, on January 24, 2026, federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital. Pretti’s death occurred amid a federal immigration operation, and while Department of Homeland Security officials contend he approached officers with a firearm, video footage and local accounts show him filming agents with a cellphone before he was pepper-sprayed, pinned to the ground, and shot multiple times. These incidents have sparked widespread protests and raised difficult questions about the use of force, accountability, and community safety. They also underscore the complexity of real-world encounters between armed individuals and law enforcement — whether federal agents or private citizens — and how quickly such situations can escalate. For many Americans, the Second Amendment serves as more than a constitutional phrase: it represents a safeguard for personal defense, protection of loved ones, and a check on potential abuses of power. As policymakers consider new regulations that could further restrict lawful firearm ownership, I urge careful consideration of the broader implications. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens may not prevent tragic events like those in Minnesota, especially when questions remain about how force was applied and whether existing policies and training were sufficient. Rather than broad legislative restrictions, I encourage: Strengthened enforcement of current laws to ensure that responsible gun owners aren’t unduly affected; Investment in community safety and law-enforcement training to de-escalate tense encounters before they turn deadly; Support for mental health services and conflict resolution programs that address underlying causes of violence; Enhanced transparency and accountability for all use-of-force incidents, whether involving federal agents or private citizens. The Second Amendment is an integral part of our constitutional framework. I believe that any legislative approach should respect that framework while promoting public safety in ways that do not diminish the rights of responsible citizens. Thank you for your service and for considering the diverse viewpoints of your constituents. I hope you will weigh these concerns carefully as you engage with ongoing legislative discussions.
With the exception of HB1303, HB229, HB871, and HB1300 I reject these bills as common sense gun law as written. Several are patently unconstitutional and a waste of committee time as they will be overturned on issuance. To my democratic friends, we do agree to common sense laws, but adding state licenses to federal tax plays is unacceptable. HB19, remove "or an offense substantially similar" as it vague and could not be reasonably enforced. HB21 does not provide a reasonable method to determine straw buyers. This is an enforcement issue and should be changed to fund LEO records reviews to identify and pursue straw buyers. HB40, material type and detectability should be irrelevant. While I support serialization of all components, 2A rights should not be infringed in place of enforcement methods. HB93 doesn't make sense. We want a prohibited person to get rid of firearms and LEOs can already apply for a warrant if they think prohibited persons still have firearms. If the law currently doesn't provide a window for prohibited persons to get rid of firearms we should focus on that aspect. HB110 remove the unattended motor vehicle may subject to removal clause and I am ok with this bill. HB217 anyone who uses the term "assault firearm" has no business writing legislation on firearms. This is a meaningless term. Magazine capacity, by itself, has no realistic baring on firearm lethality. 3-10 round vs 1-30 round mag with minimal practice is a 2-3 sec difference. HB626 creates complexity and vagueness where all we need are posted signs to prevent carry. HB702 is there really a police station that would turn you away if you wanted to turn in a weapon? This seems like unnecessary use of funds. HB969 is already covered by DOH, we do not need a new center bill to execute this work. Just increase their budget for this line item. HB1359 is the bill I reject the most. We already have federal background checks and do not need an additional tax/time delay to use our 2A rights. In general, I wish our democratic representatives to work with our republican representatives to find common sense and compromise. Focus on the bad guys with guns as the majority of Virginians respectfully and appropriately manage their firearms. The polls show where the common ground is and both sides ignore this in the search for whatever rationale they use to put forth bills and vote. You are making it harder than it needs to be, ignoring the will of the people, and failing to faithfully represent the majority.
Maybe the legislators will realize of how there infringing on citizens rights..The problem is the Democrat mindset.It is a deep-rooted disturbing system .The system is invoked in most Democrats.A system that started years ago.Created to manipulate laws,create new laws They seek to shape history in there own manner. Micromanage citizens lives through penalties for not complying.The simplest thing such as not paying for a car registration on time invokes a penalty.The U.S has become a penalized society .This was not the founders idea of a system..England did this ..Dictators , fascists, monarchs do this. And we see this in the gun bills introduced in session.A legal firearm today will be confiscated and be illegal tomorrow.It is amazing to see to see legislators copy other dictators systems and be proud of there accomplishment..Citizens will buy into this form of rights suppression.This happened during the American revolution ..Citizens become dependent on gov. to manage there life.Sad to see. This will remain on record and hopefully citizens 30 ,50 years from now,read this and learn about infringement of rights created by the authors of these bills..You , citizen can apply this to all Bill infringing ideas...
Why would you give Noncitzens have rights to anything? We do not need more illegals with guns. We have lost a lot of people in this country due to illegals. If they are not legal citizens of Virginia they do not get any rights. They need to apply for citizenship first before any rights should be given. Common sense. Also Our gun rights are set by the Constitution. You trying to change our rights is not ok with any of us and you know it. We have the Right to bare arms. To try to make any changes to that is not ok. Stop impeding on our rights and Actually help the Citizens of Virginia Not the illegals. Let ICE do their jobs and stop with the drama. Use COMMON SENSE.
The statements here are a permanent record.Of how citizens opposed oppressive infringing behavior by legislators creating bad laws.Infringing on citizens rights.May future generations read this and oppose any bad law that is oppressive to citizens and the constitution. If you do not believe look at other countries of past that oppressed there citizens rights.God Bless
Good afternoon I write to this committee today to show my concern over these unconstitutional bills that lay before you. Every bill that is being proposed does nothing to save one Va citizens life. These bills are about control. This nation was founded on principals to keep governing officials and tyrannical measures off the shores of America. Guns are not the problem, we have a problem of the heart when it comes to humanity. The tool does not change the outcome. We have seen time and time again where nations have stripped the rights of citizens only to still use issues with gangs, drugs and government corruption. With the 1st amendment we are allowed to speak against our government and others who seek to destroy our constitutional republic. The second amendment is what keeps the rest of our right in tact. By limiting the types of firearms and or magazines we are allowed to own you are taking our fundamental liberties as Americans away. Many of you from the larger cites and or other less rural areas don’t understand that semi auto firearms allow us to hunt coyotes that harm the live stock of the farmers in our areas. They are also need in some instances when there are more than 2-3 attackers in a home invasion. Just because some of you didn’t not grow up with guns and or hunting doesn’t meant you legislate it away from those us who use firearms for sport and protection. I grew up in a family that mostly only hunted deer and squirrels but as I got older and really understood what the 2nd amendment was for I quickly have changed my families out look on firearms and there importance in the American household. Mental illness is where politicians need to spend their efforts but neither the state or federal level wants to tackle that. If you fix the mental health crisis and gang crisis in our nation there’s no reason for individuals to resort to violence that takes innocent life.
Giving up your right to the 2nd amendment For those who think that the 2nd Amendment does not matter then read giving up the right to protect yourself from unlawful may again lead to this!!!!!! Disarmament of the German Jews The Holocaust warns us of the deadly consequences of antisemitism and hatred, dehumanization and apathy left unchallenged those who perished in Nazi death camps The disarmament of the German Jews started in 1933, initially limited to local areas. A major target was Berlin, where large-scale raids in search for weaponry took place. Starting in 1936, the Gestapo prohibited German police officers from giving firearms licenses to Jews. In November 1938, the Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden prohibited the possession of firearms and bladed weapons by Jews. The legal foundations that the Nazi Party later used for the purpose of disarming the Jews were already laid during the Weimar Republic. Starting with the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928, weapon purchase permits were introduced, which only allowed "authorized persons" the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory registration of weapons was introduced, which gave the government the opportunity of accessing weapon owner and their weapons at any given time. Manufacture and sale of weapons was only permitted if authorized so. The purpose was to ensure that firearms were only issued to "reliable individuals". Starting in 1930, bladed weapons were also regulated. The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit Immediately following the "Machtergreifung" in 1933, the weapon laws of the Weimar Republic were used to disarm Jews, or to use the excuse of "searching for weapons" as a justification for raids and searches of homes. Because the weapons law of 1928 gave the police the authority to issue or withdraw weapon permits, Jewish weapon owners were disarmed through warrants issued by the police. For instance, the president of the police of Breslau enacted an order on 21 April 1933 which stated that Jews had to give their weapons and shooting permits to the police immediately. After the Jewish population was judged as not to be trusted, no weapon permits were issued to them The weapons law was also used for searches of homes and raids. The preface for that was the allegation that the victims of these searches stored large amounts of weapons and ammunition. A prominent example is Albert Einstein, whose summer residence in Caputh, near the Schwielowsee was searched in spring 1933. The only item found there was a bread knife. Raids, for instance on 4 April 1933 at the Scheunenviertel in Berlin, also took place. Not only many weapons were found, but also a lot of publications that included criticism of Nazi Germany. Sometimes, Jews without residence permits were also found and arrested. Starting in 1935, the Gestapo prevented the issue of weapon permits and weapon purchase permits to Jews. The police authorities were the executing authorities and had to comply with the orders issued by the Gestapo. The self-defense of Jews was abolished, and they were subjected to the arbitrariness and terror of the police authorities, without the need to introduce a new law for this. Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945. For all groups persecuted by Nazi Germany
Dear Members of the House Committee, Thank you for the time and effort you give to reviewing legislation that impacts the safety of our Commonwealth. I am writing as a law-abiding Virginia resident who cares deeply about public safety and about protecting the constitutional rights of responsible citizens. My concern with the firearm bills currently before this committee is not rooted in politics, but in whether these proposals truly make our communities safer or instead place additional burdens on citizens who are not the source of violent crime. Respectfully, I ask the committee to consider the following: Public safety is ultimately about people, not objects. Acts of violence are committed by individuals who choose to harm others. Laws that focus primarily on regulating firearms owned by responsible citizens do not address the behavior of those intent on committing crimes. These proposals largely affect law-abiding Virginians. Criminals, by definition, do not follow firearm laws. Restrictions on possession, transfer, or technical features primarily impact citizens who already comply with the law and use firearms responsibly for self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed individual firearm rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognized an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. More recently, NYSRPA v. Bruen held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. Many modern restrictions raise serious constitutional questions under this standard. The public safety benefit of these measures is unclear. Research and court findings show mixed or inconclusive evidence that bans or feature-based restrictions reduce violent crime. Meanwhile, illegal markets, theft, and repeat offenders remain largely unaffected. True public safety solutions focus on violent behavior. Enforcing existing laws, addressing repeat violent offenders, improving mental health resources, and targeting illegal firearm use would more directly improve safety without limiting the rights of responsible citizens. I believe most Virginians want safer communities and effective solutions that address violence at its source. I respectfully ask this committee to consider whether these bills accomplish that goal, or whether they risk limiting constitutional rights without meaningfully improving public safety. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration. Respectfully, Ron Lowman Virginia Resident
If a nation's government becomes so oppressive and tyrannical, we have the right to fight it. Our guns provide us with self defense against tyranny, evil, and malice. Our forefathers knew this and that is the very reason for the second amendment. It shall not be infringed!
Our freedom was won with illegal and unregistered firearms. Please look to VCDL and G.O.A. for guidance on second amendment issues.
When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they had just won their independence from a tyrannical system. The 2nd Amendment was right at the top behind freedom of speech because it’s THAT important. As elected representatives of the greater Commonwealth you MUST vote NO on any new legislation that will restrict law abiding citizens from exercising their rights under the US Constitution. It states “Shall not be infringed…” which means any rule or law attempting to be enforced or passed is in direct violation of our country’s constitutional rights. Enough is enough. NO on all these bills. Radical tyranny must be met with vigilance from FREE people. Do the right thing.
Please OPPOSE: HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. All of these are infringements on Americans' Second Amendment Civil Rights and will not address their stated intent
Gov Spangenberger received support from Virginia Police benevolent association, claims she was a federal law enforcement officer.But cuts ties with immigration enforcement . To place detainers and notify federal authorities of criminals being released from detainment.The claim of supporting law enforcement and doing the opposite when it comes detainer notification is hypocrisy..Same deal with firearms owners..
Our Bill of Rights are the Laws Of We The People for the Government State and Federal to abide by. Not for the Governments to use and change the definitions to meet their agenda to make Conservative Christians into criminals. Any and all anti gun regulations, restrictions or bans against law abiding America Citizen the Rights to bare Arms shall not infringed and will not be permanent. An act of the legislature which is repugnant to the Constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008.
I retired from the military after 26 years of service. I could have chose any state to settle. However I chose Virginia. Taking our right away or any part of it to bear arms is unconstitutional. What is an assault weapon. The Ar platform is just a semiautomatic rifle. Law abiding citizens use these for sport and hunting nuisance animals such as coyotes etc. Speed limits are what they are yet people buy sports cars that double or triple speed limits. That is the great thing about America we live free. I’m not against gun reform; but let’s use common sense gun reform. Make gun owners have guns stored in locked safes. Let’s look into mental health. These two things will prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands. My belief is that criminals will always get guns because they don’t follow law. Why are we punishing law abiding citizens? If these bills amongst others I will be deciding to relocate and support a state that stand behind the second amendment I so longed to protect and preserve. God bless Virginia.
The same politicians whom plan to penalize citizens for lawfully owned firearms by making them illegal.Plan on reducing mandatory minimum sentences and bail for criminals. makes sense..Semi auto ban,magazine ban,penalties and more for honest citizens
The qualify immunity bill if can give scitizen rights to sue the judiciary for illegal gun control bills
The 14 bills manufactured with only one thought behind them .Passing the bills at all costs.Sacrificing citizens rights with down the road illegality which is what oslegal today.Oh we will pick and choose what to grandfather. In other words firearms are legal now but we will do you a favor citizen and grandfather them in when we make them illegal. Big egos and ideas that don't work.
I oppose these bills.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills
I adamantly oppose all of these bills and their overreach. You going to take the bulk of Virginia citizens and make them criminals by the stroke of a pen.
11 percent tax,500 dollar suppressors, what happened to the promise of lower costs..Did anyone offer a gun bill to lower concealed permit fees?
Stop harassing citizens you need to stop the criminals instead of letting them free and trying to keep us from protecting ourselves. Over and over you stand against your people . I do not understand.
Why can you not vote for a pro gun bill? Why are law abiding citizens penalized for owning firearms?
The legislators took an oath to serve it's citizens.The actions taken creating the gun laws create penalties for the citizens of Virginia.Is this protecting and serving citizens...?
I am writing as a Virginia resident to express my strong opposition to all proposed anti-gun bills and to respectfully remind you of the constitutional limits placed on the General Assembly with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is explicit and unambiguous: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This language is not conditional, qualified, or ambiguous. It is a direct limitation on GOVERNMENT power and reflects the understanding that the militia consists of “the body of the people,” not a select or state-controlled class. Likewise, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affirms that this right “shall not be infringed.” As a state, Virginia is bound by both its own Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Legislation that criminalizes or restricts the ownership, possession, transfer of commonly owned firearms or standard magazines, or restricts where a person may carry or how to store their firearm, directly conflicts with both. I respectfully urge you to uphold your oath to support and defend the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States. Virginians expect their elected officials to respect enumerated rights, even when doing so is politically inconvenient. Thank you for your time and for your service to the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Sean Fredericksburg, VA.
Citizens of Virginia, do not give up..I. They love to see citizens defeated.Thy thrive on misery .The chaotic bills are a reflection of there own self.Miserable spoiled and confused.
Ban magazines,semi autos,and more. you don't comply your penalized..It is disgusting to see law abiding citizens being placed in this position.And the legislators using law enforcement as there tool to enforce the penalty side..This shows how the Democrats will use ,abuse anything and body whom stands in there way..To get to there power goal..Throughout history dictatorships have done the same thing to there citizens .
It’s my belief that blanket bans based solely upon firearm features rather than measures that tackle the cause of gun violence, poverty, domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental illness will not meaningfully make Virginians safer; and merely cover up systemic issues. These feature laws also criminalize millions of law abiding Virginians, redirecting law enforcement resources away from solving said systemic issues and having them chase down arbitrary invented infractions. Instead of fostering a sense of responsibility and openness with the firearms community which could help law enforcement recognize potential crisises before they occur, by criminalizing a majority of firearms from the last 50 years, you enclose criminal and lawful citizen together under the same umbrella . In summary, I am not opposed to the these laws because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by gun violence, I am opposed because I believe that laws based on features of firearms rather than the circumstances which created the violence does a disservice to those victims, their families, and to the community at large.
I support this bill as it provides reasonable procedures for safely removing guns from circulation.
This is a waste of resources and created more pollution. STOP POLLUTING OUR PLANET WITH TRASH. It should be illegal for any form of Government to take and destroy ANY property because of waste whether a gun or car.
These bills the Virginia Democrat 2026 general assembly will infringe on people's God given rights, look at the statistics gun laws cause more deaths by causing law abiding citizens to jump through hoops.especially the bill which requires a VA resident to obtain a permit to rent, purchase a firearm, that bill alone will cost people their lives and if it passes the blood on the hands of the general assembly. The bills which Sadaam are passing are unnecessary measures, and a total slap in the face to all people in Virginia. Abigail promised tax breaks but then she did a 360 reversal and proposed 150 percent pay raise for her and her constituents, 15 percent sales tax on many services and goods. It was extremely reckless for the governor of 2026 to end state police corporation with ICE, NOW these bills will further infringe on Virginians rights. It makes absolutely no sense to enable criminals by taking away the minimum sentence requirement, so the general assembly is pro criminal and doesn't care about Virginians. If these bills are passed then what I've stated is true. Police are already underrated, pass these bills and you further jeopardize Virginians safety and well being. Most likely will be taken to the supreme Court
Please scrap these gun control billsbills. These bills restrict current and future safe and lawful gun owners access to their current and any future firearms while limiting their ability to protect themselves and their families in the commonwealth. Second amendment restrictions in the name of safety dont make us safer in all communities of the commonwealth. Most all the states that have more second amendment restrictions on firearms have more crime statistically. Disadvantaged neighborhoods are more at risk of drug pusher/gang violence with the flow of drugs to all the cities and towns in the US today. Making more gun free zones makes it better for those with criminal intentions to commit crimes. These state government restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights can result in legal challenges in the commonwealth. These bills will raise the cost of ownership and will slowly but surely whittle away all of our ability to afford the protections all of us enjoy now
NO to all firearms bills, laws, and unjust documentation. You are warned, we will fight until we have no breath left. This is the line. We will organize, and fight tyranny. This is Virginia! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
This is NOT why I voted for Spanberger. I have lost my faith in my own party. It's a shame to say I will have to vote as my husband suggested, with the republican party. I have been bleeding heart blue since I was 18. This state that I love is slowly dying with these crazy laws! I'm blue, but I believe in our constitution. Abigail is a LIAR! Figures the CIAs pet would lie to us. I can't believe how embarrassing it is that it only took 2 days to show her colors. I feel duped!
I proudly served for 30 years with the New York State Police retiring and moving to Virginia in 2017. I attained the rank of Major and my last assignment was leading a state wide narcotics and weapons task force. The majority of my career was spent in criminal investigations including homicide, major crimes and counterterrorism. Based on my experience, these proposed pieces of legislation will do nothing to curb crime and will make law abiding citizens less safe. A common sense proposal to increase the penalty for using a gun in a crime was defeated in committee on a party line vote. What a missed opportunity to protect the citizens of Virginia. Criminals by definition will follow none of these laws if enacted and will only be emboldened. Additionally, most if not all of these proposals fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions in the Heller and Bruen cases. I urge you to vote against any bill which strips the rights of law abiding citizens from exercising their God given right to self defense and does nothing to address the root causes of violence.
We strongly oppose every bill against the 2nd amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. You will force action with these unjust laws. Be warned
We strongly oppose All of the bills and tax increases this governor is pushing. She ran as a moderate, And has lied about everything she stood for. We will not stand for unconstitutional Bills, This is the line in the sand. Virginia is the state where our great constitution Was written, It's disgusting to see all of you taking a piss all over the Constitution of the United States of America. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I have just moved to VA from Florida where I fought very hard to put the socialism and communism to the dust bin of history there. I will fight with my last breath the garbage you people are trying to do here in Virginia. All of you disgust me, look forward to debating many of you in the future. Enjoy the win while you can, real conservatives are coming with lawyers and organization.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! VOTE NO TO ALL FIREARMS LAWS, OR WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT. NO TO ALL TAX INCREASES. NO TO RAISING YOUR MONEY FOR HOUSING, AND PAY! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! DONT MAKE US USE OUR RIGHTS AGAINST TYRANNY, TYRANTS
I vehemently oppose all anti second amendment bills. I urge you to reconsider your support of these bills and remember your oaths to the Virginia State Constitution and US Constitution. Though I doubt that will happen. Thus they will be challenged in a court of law and very highly likely to be found unconstitutional, and therefore, unenforceable.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This language establishes an individual right, a conclusion affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). While the government retains authority to enact certain regulations, broad or restrictive anti-gun laws that substantially burden law-abiding citizens exceed constitutional limits and undermine the intent of the Amendment. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties, including self-defense. The right to bear arms is not contingent upon government permission but is recognized as pre-existing and inherent. Laws that impose excessive restrictions—such as blanket bans on commonly owned firearms or arbitrary licensing regimes—effectively nullify this right for ordinary citizens, contradicting both the text and historical understanding of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has emphasized that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, making sweeping bans constitutionally suspect. Beyond constitutional concerns, strict anti-gun laws often fail to achieve their stated public safety goals. Criminals, by definition, do not comply with gun laws. As a result, restrictive legislation disproportionately affects responsible gun owners while leaving violent offenders largely undeterred. Numerous jurisdictions with stringent gun control measures continue to experience high rates of gun violence, suggesting that such policies address symptoms rather than root causes such as gang activity, drug trafficking, and repeat violent offenders. Additionally, overly restrictive gun laws can weaken personal and community safety. Firearms are frequently used defensively, often without a shot being fired, to deter crime and protect lives. Limiting access to lawful self-defense tools may leave vulnerable populations—particularly those in high-crime or rural areas—less able to protect themselves when law enforcement response times are delayed or unavailable. Anti-gun laws also raise concerns about unequal enforcement and civil liberties. Complex regulatory frameworks can result in arbitrary or discriminatory application, exposing citizens to severe penalties for minor or unintentional violations. This undermines public trust in the legal system and diverts resources away from prosecuting serious violent crime. A more effective approach to public safety respects constitutional boundaries while focusing on evidence-based solutions: enforcing existing laws, targeting violent offenders, improving mental health interventions, and strengthening community-based crime prevention. Protecting constitutional rights and promoting public safety are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are best achieved together. In conclusion, anti-gun laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon a fundamental right explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. They are also ineffective as public policy, burdening lawful citizens while failing to address the underlying drivers of violence. A constitutional, balanced approach is both legally sound and more likely to produce lasting improvements in public safety.
I oppose this bill. I stand with VCDL on each of these bills.
With due respect to those who reportedly represent the people of this fine state, As a Veteran of the United States Navy I swore an oath to protect and uphold to Constitution of the United States! That’s oath has no expiration. I fully support the right and responsibility of a free people to the right to bear arms. Any member of political office who truly represents the American people who are in fact their constituents should also fully support and defend the right of a free people to bear arms. All the proposed bills being reviewed today are an infringement on those rights and will do nothing to make the lives of good people better. They will only restrict the freedom of law, abiding citizens, while doing nothing to prevent crime as the definition of a criminal is an individual who does not follow or respect the rule of law. As a veteran who served this great country, I am very much ashamed of the direction that politicians have gone in, trying to restrict the freedoms and the quality of life that myself and other members of the military fought to uphold so it is with all due respect that I strongly encourage these these bills to be rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and express my views. Mr Jeffrey Nortman. Franklin county.
All of these measures will cost a large amount of money to fund and enforce. This goes against the message the governor ran on of affordability for the state and living in it. This will also only affect people who already abide by the laws the state has in place. Criminals will not abide by these laws. Criminals will continue to disobey the law, and will possibly put legal gun owners at risk when they cannot defend themselves. If we are going to charge gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals using their products, we need to do the same with the spirits industry involving cases where a drunk driver kills someone, after they have left a bar.
I stand with VCDL on all bills
I support the points the VCDL makes. Delegate Helmer is a liar and a coward. Delegate Cole is a coward that blocks people because he cannot handle Logic pointing how he is dishonest and ignorant.
As a concerned Virginia resident, I am deeply concerned with the bills introduced regarding firearm legislation. These bills I feel are only hurting law abiding citizens and will not help with gun violence by criminals. It seems like the laws that have been introduced to punish criminals have been voted down but laws that will hurt the average legal Virginian continue to advance. I would ask that you please consider to vote no on these introduced bills. Thank you.
I strongly oppose any of the bills that infringe on the 2nd amendment. The only people that these bill affect are law abiding citizens. Criminals and ill willed people don’t get their guns legally. Why should I be punished for never committing a crime? More gun control makes our state that more unsafe and will not solve any of the issues that the patrons of the bills are wanting to solve. Taking more rights away from law abiding citizens is just a way to reward the criminals. Thank you for your time Steve Bennett Spotsylvania county
I respectfully request you oppose these unreasonable and overly restrictive anti-gun bills which are unnecessary and violate or 2nd Amendment rights. Gun owners are responsible citizens. We already have laws that adequately address crimes and harmful actions by people. We need to remember that people conduct these crimes, not inanimate objects. Heavy automobiles kill people regularly but we don’t try to outlaw them. Virginia needs to remain a state that respects the rights of our responsible citizens. Thanks
I oppose all of these. I have been a gun owner for over 20 years. I've never broken a law aside from a moving violation. Why should I have to give up a constitutional right. When this state now wants to protect others who have broken the law. I can not believe we have elected a man who wished harm on someone else and their children. He is the one who shouldn't have a gun. Anything can be an assault weapon , should we next limit cars to not go over 65 mph? Someone could hurt a lot of people with those too. My point is the problem is the people, not the guns.
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
I would encourage the members of this committee, and most particularly the sponsors of the bills being considered, to reflect upon what their goals are when evaluating these items. If thoughts of “safety” come to mind, I would then encourage members to consider matters which address criminal behavior(sentencing guidelines, support for law enforcement, etc). Arbitrarily setting magazine capacity limits, withdrawing concealed carry permit reciprocity, or establishing a purchase permit system does not protect the general public from criminals who do not follow these laws. Setting magazine capacity limits to make the world safer is like trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions by enacting gas tank volume limits. Mr Helmer appears to like to tout his military service, particularly when speaking about his bills. As a fellow veteran I find this repugnant, and it makes me question his frame of reference. Anyone who has been in the military understands that merely having served(a great and noble act regardless) does not equate into automatically being an expert in firearms. Most particularly in how their regulation in the continental US affects things like violent crime. Over my career in law-enforcement, I’ve seen firsthand the regard criminals have for the law, as well as the way they capitalize when others are handicapped by it. Enacting barriers to make it more difficult to lawfully obtain firearms, or banning ones that are very commonly owned(and turning untold amounts of people into criminals overnight) will not make anyone safer. Through this evaluation, one could easily begin to suspect that claims of making things safer by nature of this legislation are at a minimum ill-informed, if not completely disingenuous. While the former could be explained by possible good intentions driven by emotion or misunderstanding, the latter is naturally of more sinister nature. Such an accusation cannot be made lightly, but it must be considered when examining the facts. Thus I call on the members of this committee to do a thorough self reflection on what their goals are, and how the bills being considered will affect law abiding Virginians.
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
I am a longterm resident and homeowner in the commonwealth of Virginia. I am a wife, a mother, and a teacher. I also am an advocate for our constitutional rights, especially the second amendment. I open carry often and have had my conceal carry permit for over 5 years. I have read the laws and stayed as up to date on the topic as I can. It seems these days that people are making decisions based on emotions rather than logic. “Shall not be infringed” is clear as clear can be. If that’s not clear enough, look at the cities and states with the strictest gun laws. Those are the most violent areas with the greatest rate of criminal activity. Emotional decisions come with the gravest outcomes. Look at the countries throughout the world fighting for their lives. They are the ones who have lost their right to bear arms. Do not dig our own grave by ignoring our constitutional rights. It is your duty to uphold the constitution, not let your emotions drive you to treason. Respect the constitution and respect the second amendment in its entirety. Nothing less. Thank you.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE ALL OF THESE BILLS. I agree with VCDL stance on all of these bills. They are unconstitutional!
I strongly oppose all of these bills except for HB1303. These proposed changes will do nothing to make our Commonwealth safer, if anything it will become more dangerous for all. HB217 is an egregious attempt at violating our constitutionally protected right. Using the justification that other states have enacted similar laws is a weak argument since these bans do not pass review using the Bruen standard established by the US Supreme Court. The bills fail the two part test required by Bruen. The first part requires looking at whether the conduct is covered by the plain text of the second amendment. Which these bills are blatantly unconstitutional, since it would impede our ability to keep and bear arms. The second part requires historical analogues of founding era laws restricting ownership of commonly owned arms. Of which, there are no laws from that era to outright ban entire classes of firearms. Furthermore, the state should not waste millions of taxpayer dollars that will inevitably be exhausted attempting to defend a set of unconstitutional laws that the courts will rule in favor of we the people of the commonwealth of Virginia in the end.
These bills should all be opposed. Refer to the opinion issued by the Attorney General on why HB217 and HB1359 are unconstitutional and would not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court based on the Bruen decision. HB217 bans firearms which are in “common use” and constitutionally protected. HB1359 should not require a license to exercise a constitutionally protected right. This is true whether to speak freely, protest, be free from search and seizure, or keep and bare arms. https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/26-001-Webert-issued.pdf HB40 is masquerading as “ghost gun” bill but bans historic and antique firearms which may be hundreds of years old and made before serial numbers were even conceived. Requiring antique firearms to be serialized will destroy both history and their value. Additionally this bill will ban the home production of personal firearms, of which Virginia has a rich history. There is no “history and tradition” of banning firearm manufacturing for personal use, and this bill will or stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. OPPOSE HB21 This bill allows one of the most highly regulated industries, the firearms industry, to be sued civilly for a variety of already illegal actions. No way to foresee what the actions of a third party might be; good or bad. OPPOSE. HB40 Specifying the material from which a firearm is constructed doesn't contribute to public safety. OPPOSE. HB 110 . It’s still a crime to burglarize an automobile so why not targe the burglar? The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. OPPOSE. HB 217 VA has no problem to solve and this solution doesn't make VA measurably safer targeting law abiding owners. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm 'in common use' is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. OPPOSE. HB 702 This is a waste of money as there is no measure of success. If a person wants to sell their guns there are plenty of qualified buyers that will pay the market price. OPPOSE. HB 969 Additional government bureaucracy that has an ill-defined mission and no measure of success. Funded by law abiding citizens rather than felons. Also, guns are incapable of violence. OPPOSE. HB 1359 We have instant background check and by all accounts it works fine with little delay in the process. We don’t need additional bureaucracy in the middle. Further, we don’t need permits for any other basic rights guaranteed by the US and VA constitutions, why this one? Don’t our constitutions keep the government’s hands off? OPPOSE.
Dear Legislators While I am fairly sure all of these bills were created with the thought of public safety but one will never be able to legislate morality. Many of these bills take law abiding citizens and turn them into felons..I do not support any of these bills as they are a clear violation of the second amendment which id remind you of the oath you swore to uphold that constitution.
I oppose any bill that limits a Virginian’s ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. They only affect law abiding citizens.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills!
The creators of these bills. Have backgrounds in Law,Finance,etc. They are wordy long meaningless statements. Often contradicting one another.Serving to confuse the citizen firearm owner on what is lawful,not lawful,what is legal,illegal..Where can I carry a firearm and not carry..This is a tactic that legislators use with all bills,laws, Example, The reciprocity bill. Reciprocity is harmless ..The Creator of this bill saw something and decided to make a harmless entity.into a big deal..This is the mentality of the design plan of all of the anti gun bills. The creator of the reciprocity bill does not understand, not willing to understand the benefits of reciprocity. It is the same with all creators of the bad bills..Create wordy legalese mumbo jumbo.That sounds intellectual at first read but are actually hollow words.The end goal is to ban firearms which cannot be done outright but make it difficult enough so citizens will not bother owning a firearm..The founders kept the law simple because they knew the common man had to understand there rights .But as you can see lawyers judicial system complicated it with addendums to the addendum so the common man no longer understands the law and has to be confused on what lawful or not..
These bill are yet another example of government overreach. The constitution of the United States of America is very clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed." These bills are in clear violation of our rights and will only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals who they're supposedly supposed to affect. I urge you to stand up for what is right and stand up for the oath you took to uphold our constitution.
I side with the VCDL’s position on these gun bills. I oppose all gun control efforts. As a Federally Licensed Dealer, all of these bills will either make my costs higher or end all or most commerce in the Firearms Industry. Individually: HB19- misdemeanors should not remove firearms rights HB21 - this bill will skyrocket liability insurance and effectively end all firearm business in Virginia. Advertising alone could be used in spurious lawsuits. Dealers already have more regulation than necessary. Additionally, there is no exemption for LE or Military or agency sales. HB40 - since PMF (privately made firearms) are legal and their numbers are unknown, this is unenforceable. There are no serials on the prior produced units. As a Dealer, I will not touch these for both liability and federal excise tax. As a gunsmith, we will not work on these already. I will not take these in as I do not want my credentials marked on these units. Bruen requires a historical review- citizens have always been able to produce their own firearms in America. HB93 This bill is poorly written and will bar often lawful ownership from access to firearms should another person in the household be convicted. HB110 victims of crimes should not be penalized for thefts or attacks. Stop limiting carry in buildings and the firearms will not get stolen. HB217 - this bill is why the 2nd Amendment exists. This bill will NOT meet the Bruen test, This Bill is substantially different than MD’s ban as compared to in the senate meeting, This bill will effectively ban 90% of the most common firearms and magazines. In Virginia it is estimated that 75% of the magazines already here will be prohibited- there are millions of these magazines. The arbitrary “features” ban represents an abuse of power. This bill will also undermine commerce in Virginia. HB229 disarming law abiding citizens creates a higher risk of attack in places where often mentally unstable individuals and criminals congregate. HB626 adults in college should not be disarmed for seeking higher education HB702 creates a slush fund that should not destroy otherwise valuable property which could be lawfully sold to dealers. This bill encourages waste. HB871 bruen decision requirements will not be met by this bill- Americans can conduct their homes as they see fit. Also, most owners already have safes that are often better than the cheap biometric ones. HB969 - these organizations not only represent a waste of time, money, and resources, they historically only undermine commerce while using taxpayer funds to work against the interests of the people. This is a slush fund. HB 1303 45 days is plenty as it is. A right delayed is a right denied. HB1359 permitting will not survive the bruen test. We should not have to get a background check before getting a background check to buy a gun. This bill potentially also creates a 45day to 2 month lag in business that could end many retailers business in virginia. This bill is unconstitutional.
We The People of Virginia would like to remind you that the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states, "Shall Not be Infringed" yet you continually attempt to Infringe on the 2nd Amendment which is CLEARLY a BLATANT and Willful VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment. We The People will not stand for the violation of our rights. Need we remind you of your oaths off office and to the Constitution....If you violate our rights you will be held liable. Do not pass these bills. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
Mandating specific storage means and technologies is an attack on families with limited means. Enforcement of such would infringe on my 4th Amendment rights.
HB 229, Delegate Hernandez, prohibits firearms, or knives with a blade longer than 3.5 inches, in facilities that provide mental health services or developmental services, including hospitals, emergency departments, or emergency medical care facilities, if they offer such services. Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB 626, Delegate Callsen, restricts firearms at public institutions of higher education by requiring such firearms be part of an authorized program or activity inside a building. A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students are adults and have a right to self-defense. HB 702, Delegate Cole, creates a “Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund.” The sole purpose is for either the State Police, or, optionally, local law enforcement, to collect and destroy any firearms that are voluntarily turned in. Destroying what might be perfectly functional, and possibly quite valuable, firearms is a waste of money. The State could offset any costs by selling the firearms to licensed gun dealers through an auction. The name of the program implies that the Commonwealth gives firearms to citizens and now wants citizens to give them back. That is not the case. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program. HB 871, Delegate Downey, requires all firearms in a home, that are not being carried on or about a person, to be unloaded and placed in a locked container if there is a minor in the home or if there is a prohibited person in the home. A gun may only be stored loaded if it is in a biometric safe. Gun dealers must post signage about the law and there is also a provision to educate the public on firearm storage. Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes. Biometric safes can be unreliable when being used under stress and they also require batteries to work. Why are biometric safes the only option for storing a loaded firearm? There are plenty of other locking mechanisms for safes that are just as secure.
I've been working in healthcare for up to 40 some years and say the biggest issue that we have this truck related to death and alcohol-related deaths, I see more stabbings than I do gunshots. As a proud Jewish American I also am against this abandoning and outlawing of certain firearms due to their style and look and how they are fed. I'm also against the magazine restriction that y'all want to put in place. I'm also against wanting to raise the tax rate on purchasing firearms and ammunition. Reason being my grandfather had his firearms/weapons taken away from him in Germany and was told the government would keep them safe and fed... this was not the case has later on they were rounded up and stuck in camps and had no means to protect themselves when they came through and pulled them from their homes and their families. I never got to meet him or an uncle of mine. I did not want to have a government tell me what I can and can't have to protect my family and loved ones when the biggest issue we have right now here in America is law enforcement going door to door ripping families apart and deporting them and the current drug epidemic we have in our country. If you really support and care about the safety and lives of the American people and The Virginian residence you allow them to have and use what they think is best to protect them and their families.
It is an abuse of my tax dollars to fund such a program.
While each bill is presented as a discrete public-safety measure, taken together they represent an overbroad and legally fragile expansion of firearm regulation that exposes the Commonwealth to constitutional, fiscal, and enforcement risks without a demonstrated link to reduced violent crime. 1. Constitutional vulnerability and litigation risk Several proposals regulate possession, transfer, manufacture, or availability of arms and components that are in common lawful use or impose liability standards untethered from criminal intent. This places the Commonwealth on unstable ground under modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, which requires historical analogues and narrow tailoring. Enacting multiple overlapping restrictions increases the likelihood that a single successful challenge could invalidate broad portions of the framework, wasting legislative effort and public funds. 2. Overcriminalization of lawful conduct Bills addressing storage, vehicle possession, transfers, and manufacturing sweep broadly enough to penalize responsible, non-violent citizens for technical or situational violations. This diverts law-enforcement resources away from violent offenders and undermines respect for the law by treating lawful ownership as presumptively suspect rather than protected conduct. 3. Enforcement ambiguity and regulatory incoherence The combined effect is a patchwork of prohibitions, civil penalties, and standards that are difficult for citizens to understand and for law enforcement to apply consistently. Vague or expansive definitions—particularly regarding firearm components, classifications, and “responsible conduct” standards—invite selective enforcement and uneven application across jurisdictions, raising due-process and equal-protection concerns. 4. Civil liability expansion without fault Imposing novel civil liability on firearm industry participants for downstream criminal misuse departs from established principles of proximate cause. Such provisions risk collapsing lawful commerce through litigation pressure rather than adjudicated wrongdoing, exposing the Commonwealth to economic harm and predictable constitutional challenges. 5. Weak alignment with public-safety outcomes The proposals do not meaningfully address repeat violent offenders, illegal trafficking networks, or prosecutorial follow-through—areas with the strongest evidence of impact on gun violence. Programs such as buy-backs and new administrative centers risk becoming symbolic expenditures with limited measurable return. 6. Disparate impact and equity concerns Complex compliance regimes disproportionately burden lower-income and rural residents who lack ready access to legal counsel, storage infrastructure, or permitting resources, resulting in inequitable enforcement outcomes without corresponding public-safety benefits. Conclusion If the General Assembly’s objective is violence reduction, these bills should be rejected or substantially narrowed in favor of constitutionally durable measures focused on violent-crime enforcement and due-process protections. As drafted, the package increases legal exposure, enforcement confusion, and public distrust while offering minimal demonstrable benefit.
I do not support any further restrictions on our second amendment rights. It is a right given to us by God and guaranteed by the VA and US constitution. This constant attack on our second amendment rights is an illegal immoral nuisance and it seems to me an attack on the people who enjoy using their second amendment rights. These bills do nothing to make us safer. I further note that while allowing far more latitude for criminal behavior in sentencing this legislative body seems intent on disarming innocent civilians making them more vulnerable to the criminals being released. One additional point. Several of these bills would make almost all modern firearms illegal with out any grandfather clause, thus immediately making people who have done nothing wrong liable for criminal prosecution. This further leads me to to believe that this is a veiled attack on people that this legislative body doesn’t like vs an attempt at public safety.
I stand in firm opposition to these bills, which both infringe upon my protected rights, and squander taxpayer money both in defending against the inevitable lawsuits that will follow in their wake should they pass, and in establishing state sponsored programs that will accomplish virtually nothing, save to take a slap at the faces of lawful gun owners and supporters of the Constitution, both state and federal. These various bill cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard that the Supreme Court has established with regard to second amendment issues. They will tie up resources better spent elsewhere in protracted court battles that will inevitably end with such legislation being overturned. Virginia does not have an "assault weapons" problem, nor a problem with ownership of standard capacity magazines, that is those holding more than ten rounds. There is likewise no pressing issue with infractions of existing laws by legal firearms owners, particularly concealed carry permit holders. Thus, there is no need to call for any additional licensing, notwithstanding the demonstrable fact that criminal elements of the population would ignore such requirements, regardless of the penalties. Then there is the matter of the takings clause, as thousands, of not tens of thousands of Virginians would have the value of their property destroyed, or have their property taken without recompense. Barring any grandfathering of already owned firearms and magazines, this places the state in an even more precarious legal position. Finally these laws smack of being ex post facto in nature, turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, simply for continuing in the possession, or in activities that were entirely legal previously. These laws appear to be nothing short of punitive in nature, intended not to improve public safety, but to cause maximum pain towards political opponents and defenders of liberty.
What is being presented today supports a decline of freedom for law abiding citizens. Criminals dont follow laws therefore these carry zero weight on the people who would choose to abuse our rights and freedoms. These laws will restrict law abiding citizens of their right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. These bills also go against the constitutions 2nd amendment for us to bear arms and it states "it shall NOT be infringed". As this legislation seeks to make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice their 2nd amendment rights and decrease law abiding citizens freedoms you same people are trying to limit minimum sentences for some of the worst criminals. I ask you.... Why do your actions work against law abiding Virginians, to limit our recourse against those who would do us harm and at the same time work to assit criminals? Your allegiance is logically and morally askew.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills!
Restricting free ownership and bearing of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” does not come with any “except for” situations. Any American citizen should have the ability to own and carry any firearm they wish without any restriction as the Constitution intends. Morality cannot be legislated and individual freedom is of the highest priority. Citizens should have the freedom (and they do, per the constitution) to have the firearm of their choosing with a magazine size of their choosing as well. As the state motto is “Sic Semper Tyrannis” this nation was built on refusing tyranny from government oppressors. Most of the proposed bills already have Supreme Court precedent as being unconstitutional. The right thing to do is immediately withdraw every firearm related bill from consideration immediately.
As a Virginian and US Marine Corps veteran, I urge you to OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. An "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, a "permit to purchase," and others, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. I request that you instead pursue legislation that HOLDS CRIMINALS ACCOUNTABLE for their crimes and establishes substantial penalties for criminal activity, NOT legislation that targets law-abiding citizens. I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee and support our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
All of these bills infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights. I'm a retired Chesterfield County Police Officer and I see nothing that these bills can do to lower "gun crime". What needs to be done is to pass laws that will go after the criminals that misuse firearms. All of these bills along with their companions in the senate will only reduce the availability of firearms that the good law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth want to own. HB21 will shut down the firearm and firearm accessory business here. As a retired police officer an AR-15 is an excellent firearm to own for the shooting sports and self defense along with other lawful activities. If I could carry one in my patrol car, I should be able to have access to one at home as well. I should also be able to purchase them in the future along with standard capacity magazines. Oppose HB217! HB1359 is totally unnecessary. I've lived in Virginia for almost 40 years and I see no point in this law. This is a back door registration that I'm sure will extend to having to have this permit to purchase ammunition, accessories, and firearm possession in the future. It will add more expense to trying to buy a firearm. The infringements that this bill if it becomes law will be unlimited. You want people to be properly trained with firearms but these bills will keep people away from that goal. As a police officer I carried a Glock with a 15 round standard capacity magazine, a Remington 870, and an Armalite AR-15 with 30 round standard capacity magazines. As a citizen of this Commonwealth I should have the same ability to have those firearms at my disposal as well. My fellow gun owners should have the same options. All firearms are dangerous to use. All firearms can be considered "weapons of war". I received firearm training from father when I was young, then more training in the Marine Corps, then even more training with the police department. Having worked at a shooting range, many gun owners came to practice to become proficient in handling firearms. These laws will prevent citizens from participating in their 2nd Amendment rights.
I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “
I do not support any bill that restricts my ability to keep and bear a firearm. Assault weapon bans, and other restrictions are unconstitutional under the original US Constitution and further under the Bruen decision. These bills will be defeated in court. Having the AG spend my tax payer dollar to defend a tyrannical law is not what an affordable Virginia means to me. Wife and I have donated lots of $ to gun rights groups to fight this now and in the courts. Please honor your VA and US constitutional duties.
Responsible gun ownership is on the rise among Virginians of all diverse backgrounds, sexual orientations, and political affiliations. This is not the time to restrict access to firearm ownership, especially in light of recent events in which the federal government has displayed attacks on First and Second Amendment rights. Passing of all of these bills would only further distrust in our government and leadership across all communities. This would only strip law-abiding Virginians of their ability to control their own safety and that of their families and communities. I oppose all bills that restrict access to commonly owned firearms, invade personal privacy and data, or impose unreasonable financial burdens on the ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Remember our state motto.
I oppose all the anti-2nd amendment bills being considered. These bills will limit and in some cases strip me of my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, especially if there is no grandfather clause included in the bills
HB19- I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill to add random "intimate partners" into the mix HB21 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, we do not hold any other industry to this standard its discriminatory to hold the firearms community to it. HB40 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as there is already federal law relating to serializing firearms. HB93 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as it could endanger the family or other inhabitants of a home by leaving them defenseless HB217 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill in its entirety, Heller and Bruen decisions by the SCOTUS are VERY clear in the protections of "in common use" the sheer "desire" for this bill shows the fact these arms are in common use. HB701 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state should be force to SELL not destroy the firearms, thus creating revenue for the state and removing another tax burden from its citizens. HB871 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state already has laws in place to deal with this for minors (endangerment) the government has NO place making decisions inside a citizens home. HB969 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, as the legislature refuses to keep minimum sentence requirements for violent criminals, a prevention fund is a moot point HB1303 - I Vote/stand FOR this bill, if the state police cna not accomplish this task in 90 days there is a clear lack of competency in the agency. HB1359 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, no other constitutional right is EVER subject to a fee for the state. This is nothing more than a play to extort citizens and create a gun registry to be used for unknown purposes.
I respectfully oppose Virginia House Bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359 for the following reasons: 1. Undermining Fundamental Rights Without Clear Justification Several of these bills (e.g., HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB217, HB1359) impose new and expansive restrictions on the purchase, possession, transfer, manufacture, and sale of firearms and related items. These proposals, including potential bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and requirements for civil liability standards on lawful businesses, risk infringing on Virginians’ constitutional rights without clear evidence that they will reduce violent crime or improve public safety. Laws regulating firearms must be narrowly tailored, respect due process, and align with constitutional protections; sweeping and punitive restrictions do not meet that standard. 2. Overly Broad Criminal Penalties and Civil Liabilities Bills such as HB21 create standards of “responsible conduct” with vague criteria that could expose lawful industry members to civil liability for nearly any outcome. This creates unreasonable legal risk for businesses operating within existing federal and state laws and could chill lawful commerce. Ambiguous legal standards harm predictability and fairness in our legal system. 3. Expansion of Regulatory Burdens Without Demonstrated Benefit Provisions in bills like HB110 (unattended firearm in vehicle civil penalty), HB229 (health data collection duties), and HB871 (storage or related provisions) extend regulatory reach into areas that are already covered by existing law or established best practices. Imposing new penalties or requirements without strong data showing a public benefit contributes to unnecessary complexity in the legal code and may divert law-enforcement resources from more impactful public-safety priorities. 4. Risk of Unintended Consequences for Law-Abiding Citizens Many of these bills expand what qualifies as prohibited conduct or expand definitions of prohibited persons in ways that risk penalizing individuals who have not demonstrated a threat to public safety. For example, expanding liability or prohibitions based on association with an industry, ownership of lawful equipment, or civil data-reporting burdens can cast too wide a net and punish responsible citizens. Public policy must balance safety with fairness in application. 5. Lack of Clear Evidence Supporting Policy Changes Committees are reviewing many of these measures early in the session, and there is not yet a robust public record of bipartisan evaluation or impact analyses demonstrating that these bills will achieve stated policy goals more effectively than existing law. Responsible governance requires empirical support for expanding penalties and regulations — especially where constitutional rights are implicated. In conclusion, while Virginians are committed to public safety, effective legislation must be evidence-based, constitutional, and carefully scaled to address specific harms. These bills, as currently drafted, create broad regulatory frameworks, new criminal liabilities, and unclear standards that threaten individual liberties, burden lawful commerce, and could redirect enforcement resources without clear benefit. For these reasons, I urge legislators to reconsider, substantially revise, or reject these proposals.
I support and agree with the VCDL on these bills.
The semi auto magazine bill would turn thousands of LAW ABIDING citizens into law breakers. Is that the role of legislators. What was once legal and then make it illegal with the stroke of a pen. Government system does not work like that.A million gun owners Democrat and Republican will be affected. Time finance,paying taxes into local, state economy, training wasted because of a legislative elected power grab. 11 percent tax on ammo,500 dollar suppressors. The new admin claims to want to end discrimination for citizens. And lower costs ..Yet again legal firearm owners are placed in a class of discrimination..Protect every other right but the rights of firearm ownership. Why is it that that every new anti firearm law placed the burden on a law abiding citizen? The concealed permit bill restricting other states and Virginia will have the negative effect of the reciprocating state rescinding reciprocity.This is a good program .Yet it is a ridiculous bill that the author has no clue of what they have created. Why were ex ,retired police officers exempt from these bad bills?Policing is a hard job . But ex or retired police means relegated to citizen status. The flurry of bills is a result of the giddy power effect of I can do this because I can. Discriminating and favoring certain classes is a civil infraction and illegal . This is what is happening right now.All who favor the gun bills .Think..Of the discrimination against firearm owners . And then decide thank you
I agree with the VCDL on these bills.
I oppose all of these bills. The focus of these bills is criminalizing ordinary law abiding citizens while not enforcing harsher punishments for actual criminals.
I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills.
I oppose these bills. HB 217 and HB 1359, in particular, are egregiously unconstitutional and contrary to clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It is difficult to overstate the shocking breadth of HB 217. It bans the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. It also bans the standard magazines for essentially all modern handguns. Approximately 45% of Virginian adults have firearms in their household. Given that this law impacts nearly all modern handgun magazines (as well as standard magazines for many of the most popular rifles), it is likely that 20-30% of Virginians, if not more, possess arms that would be banned under this law. Criminalizing the conduct and lifestyle of 20-30% of all Commonwealth citizens is not reasonable, is not moderate, and certainly does not represent common sense. It is also clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which forbid bans on arms in common use. Finally, there is no evidence that these laws would reduce crime or promote safety. Regarding HB 1359, the law's unconstitutionality is self-evident. It forbids anyone from exercising their most basic Second Amendment rights unless they go through an expensive and lengthy permitting process--apparently on a repeated basis. The Commonwealth could not constitutionally forbid all citizens from buying books unless they first go through lengthy, costly, and intrusive permitting processes. It can no more do the same for constitutionally protected arms under the Second Amendment.
So frist of all how can a lying governor who has went against everything she promised in her campaign . Trying to take our guns away this is va so good luck with that we have this thing called the second amendment an our rights shouldn’t be fringed upon. Then they all gonna double there pay that’s why she’s goin to raise taxes in the state to pay for that. People won’t move to Va company’s won’t move to Va with taxes the highest in the us. She needs to be removed from office as she didn’t not comply with the promises she’s has done. If she’s all about having illegals here let them live with her an the rest of her crew. Nobody else wants them here. Every thing our great president is doin she is undermining them. Va we can’t let her go on we need governor youngkin back in office for good he made Va great
I’m a left-wing voter. You won the House and Senate because of Trump’s lawlessness—not because I wanted assault weapon bans, not because I wanted 10-round magazine limits, not because I wanted biometric safe mandates. You do not have a mandate on guns. If you pass any of these bills without grandfather clauses, you will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals for items they purchased legally. I will never vote Democratic again, and I will march. At a moment when we may need to resist actual tyranny, you’re ensuring only the right remains armed. This is political malpractice.
I support Bill HB1303. I oppose bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, and HB1359.
I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.
I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.
Please see attached PDF with comments showing opposition to each of the proposed anti gun legislation.
Any bill that would remove the ability of a citizen to protect himself from threats both foreign or domestic is in stark contrast to the spirit in which the founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I oppose the selected bills.
I am writing to express my outrage and disbelief at the level of government over reach being exhibited by the newly eleccted Virginia Assembly. The idea that jewish implants from New Jersey to muslims from Bangladesh, funded by outside sources think they can simply erase Americas consitutional rights at the stroke of a pen is outrageous. Maybe the assemblys time would be better spent making sure that Virginia is represented by real Virginians by barring foreign born actors from elections.
I am a responsible person and have spent 26 years in the U.S. Navy. I do not want my rights infringed upon. I enjoy target shooting as a hobby. You politicians need to go after criminals with guns. Right bills that effect crimes that people do with guns. Leave law abiding tax paying citizens alone. R, Tom Hofsiss Virginia Beach USN Retired.
CONSTUTION STATES NO RETRO ACTIVE LAWS, WHERE ARE THE LAW 0N HE REAL PROBLEM NOT PHONY BILLS THAT ONLY EFFECT THE LEGAL STATUS OF LAWEN ABIDING CITIZENS!
2A not to be infringed
These proposed gun control bills are the epitome of government overreach. They're completely unconstitutional and I heavily urge you all to vote no on every single one of these! Representation of what this state wants as a whole should be at the front of your minds. Not simply what the few small districts with the big population centers have been lead to believe will help gun violence. These laws will do nothing whatsoever to curb crime, as criminals dont care what the law states . Thank you for listening.
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.
All of these bills are unconstitutional infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting any of them requires that you violate your oath of office. With respect to the "permit to purchase" scheme, what other enumerated right requires a permit to exercise? Persons who have reached the age of eighteen may marry, enter into contracts, join the military and be deployed to hazardous duty, and a host of other things. But may not purchase a handgun? If one is mature enough any of those things one is mature enough for all.
I urge all Delegates to vote AGAINST all these anti-gun/2A bills. -The current laws on the books aren't enforced. -No one should lose their gun rights over a misdemeanor conviction. -Guns & magazines of all types that are in 'common use' are to be allowed to be owned & purchased by no prohibitive persons. ie SCOTUS Heller decision. -Thus the majority of these bills are unconstitutional & not injunction with the meaning & history of the US Constitution. They also violate VA's Constitution. -No one needs a license to purchase a firearm. They already have to go through a background check through the FBI NICS system. Fingerprints are not needed & overkill. Guns can be legally sold, stolen, lost, etc. Guns are already expensive & requiring another fee to do repetitive checks is unreasonable & unaffordable to some. -I've had a VA CHP since 2003 & has been renewed every 5 years as required. I've taken many training classes over the years & been to ranges countless times. I know what I'm doing & shouldn't be required to take some 'other' course to prove I can fire 10 rounds safely. It's ridiculous! -So called 'assault rifles' account for less then 5% of all homicides each year. These rifles & their equivalents are not the problem or is magazine capacity. . Criminals aren't going to obey any gun laws, so how can a person defend themselves against multiple intruders with 30 round magazines each & the defender only have 10 rounds. The defender will lose their life & possibly their entire family as no criminal is going to wait for a defender 'wait to reload'. -Reciprocity is very important to VA CHP holders & for CCW holders from other states. Not allowing reciprocity with other states because of some arbitrary requirement they lack puts VA CHP holder's lives in DANGER. -You cannot retroactively punish citizens who purchased any gun or magazine LEGALLY. This is acceptable. Please enforce the laws on the books, prosecute those criminals, & if convicted keeo them in prison. More laws solve nothing & are 'feel good' measures. -Guns are tools just like a knife or a bat. They can be used to save lives or take them. It's the individual that makes these decisions, not the tools. 99% of gun owners in VA are law abiding & VA CHP holders are the safest group in VA according to VSP. -Homicides across the nation are down to their lowest levels since 1900. None of these are needed & will only hurt law abiding citizens. -Please stop the constant attack on gun rights by VA Democrats in the General Assembly. It's every 2 years & never ends. End it now! -Focus on much more important of issues than adding to your pile of gun laws. Which the tax payers in VA will have for as these laws will have numerous lawsuits fighting against them. Many have already been declared by SCOTUS. -The Second Amendment is a RIGHT & was given to us by our creator. Why is this continuously ignored? No other right is under constant attack as the 2A, especially in VA. -Stop blaming tools & fix the real problem. Bad people & our society. for starters!
I agree with VCDL.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment, just as the whole of the Bill of Rights, is a God-given right affirmed by the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect individual liberties from government encroachment. Not the other way around. A legislative desire to enact Second Amendment infringements runs afoul of any Constitutional application. Every one of these anti-Second Amendment bills constitutes an outright infringement, in one form or another, on an individual’s right to keep and bear Arms. To claim otherwise is either woefully ignorant or deliberately deceitful. The Second Amendment's imperative, "shall not be infringed,” is free from ambiguity or pretense without exception and is an unqualified command despite assertions to the contrary. No permit was required of me to exercise my freedom of speech, here, in order to comment (redress my grievance) on these proposed bills that reek of oppression. The same applies to the Second Amendment and other protected rights. As to “gun violence,” no gun ever served time in prison for committing a crime. Besides, the Second Amendment is no more contingent upon rates of crime than the First Amendment is subject to rates of literacy. Responsibilities may come with the exercise of Constitutionally-affirmed rights, but not infringements. None of these bills should see the light of day or remotely be considered. So let it be written, so let it be done.
As a US military veteran who has also been a victim of violent criminal use of a firearm, I appreciate the numerous sacrifices that have been made throughout the years to preserve our God given rights from frivolous political tinkering that fail to provide significant increases in public safety in exchange for undue infringement upon our citizens’ rights and liberties without certifiable evidence of the intended results. As an example, I provide the following report to show why lawful citizens 2A rights should not be infringed for any notional do gooder political brownie points to just “do something.” The following 11 year old probably wouldn’t be with us today if some of these current gun control measures being considered in Richmond were in effect in her state. “ 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: 1) they were in Montana and 2) Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control! Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.' I like this kind of E-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes”
I stand with the VCDL on these bills.
My daughter lived in Christ Church, New Zealand when the Mosque mass shooting occurred there and I was very impressed when then Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern conducted a buy back program immediately after that tragedy. VA should be proactive with Firearm Give Back programs and standards if local law enforcement is amendable. I also really like the idea of a non-reverting fund to develop and implement such a program.
The right to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed. These laws all in their rhetoric and restrictions seek to unduly limit and abridge the constitutional right of the American Citizens who reside in Virginia. None of these proposals have merit and the members of this legislature know they do not.
I oppose the bills as I do not think they are a solution to the problems facing us today. Further, they will cost the commonwealth more legal resources and expenses.
HB217 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB217. This bill bans the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” and it also restricts certain ammunition feeding devices based on manufacture date/capacity. These are arms and components commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, which places them squarely within the protection recognized in Heller and subject to Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. Broad category bans do not target criminals; they burden only the compliant and invite years of expensive litigation. Virginia should pursue violent-crime enforcement and mental-health interventions—not bans on commonly owned firearms and standard magazines. HB19 (McClure) — OPPOSE I oppose HB19. This bill imposes a broad firearm disability based on a misdemeanor assault-and-battery conviction involving an expanded set of relationships, including “intimate partner,” and then bars purchase/possession/transport for a defined period. That is a serious deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right without the kind of historically grounded analogue required under Bruen. It also risks sweeping in non-dangerous conduct (including cases arising from contentious domestic disputes), while doing little to stop violent criminals who already ignore weapons laws. Virginia should focus on punishing violent misuse of firearms and enforcing existing laws—not creating new, broad disarmament categories for otherwise law-abiding citizens. HB21 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB21. This bill creates sweeping “standards of responsible conduct” for firearm industry members and then exposes lawful businesses to expansive civil liability theories (including public nuisance-style claims). The practical effect is to chill lawful commerce and constrain the supply of constitutionally protected arms through litigation pressure rather than democratic process—an indirect burden on the right to keep and bear arms that Bruen does not permit. Criminals do not buy guns through lawful channels and won’t be deterred by civil lawsuits against retailers and manufacturers. This proposal targets constitutionally protected conduct instead of violent offenders. HB40 (Simon) — OPPOSE I oppose HB40. This bill criminalizes broad categories of firearms, frames/receivers, and parts based on serialization status—including possession prohibitions that take effect later—while also restricting transfers. It risks criminalizing ordinary Virginians for paperwork/technicalities rather than misconduct, and it directly burdens the ability of law-abiding people to acquire and possess arms that are in common use. We should prosecute prohibited possessors and violent criminals, not create new possession crimes aimed at people who are otherwise lawful.
Hello Today, January 29, 2026 is my BIRTHDAY, I AM 46 YEARS OLD TODAY. I was born in 1980 in Byrn Mawr, PA to a WW2 and Korean war Vet named William S Lindsay and my mother Mary Lindsay. Because of my upbringing, and the constant talk about History and other topics; i was raised with healthy understanding of both Guns, engines and Cars. When i became old enough; i served my country for 8 years in Submarines before leaving the navy for civilian work in submarine repair. During my life, i have owned many rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I have target shot, carried defensively and on two occassions in my life-i had both need of a firearm and the firearm was with me to provide defensive effect. I think sometimes about what would have happened if i had lived in a state that did not permit me to have firearms or limited my choices with beauraucratic hurdles? In both instances i might not be alive to retell the story. Simply put; both times-the mere presence of having a firearm detured or otherwise changed the outcome of me being robbed or carjacked. Now-Va democrats would rather have me become a victim or a deceased casulty than admit that having a legal firearm with a substantial number of rounds in the magazine is the ultimate deterant to crime. I would point out to anyone listening that those 27 words mean more than people think they do; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This is not just the quintessential AMERICAN IDEA, BUT AN IDEA THAT HAS PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN THAT WE ARE STRONGER WITH OUR GUNS THAN WITHOUT. IF we allow these bills to pass, then we as Americans are surrendering to the theory that our Amendments are little more than suggestions, and that the founding fathers didn't really mean for us to follow them. I SAY AGAIN; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. WHAT PART OF THIS IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THE END
As a lifelong resident of Virginia. I have enjoyed the shooting sports, even as far back as on the rifle team in high school. Also, as a retired law enforcement officer of over 30+ years. I am saddened to see our general assembly doing nothing more than a knee-jerk feel good effort to restrict law abiding citizens. let’s bring back and strictly enforce. If you commit a violent crime with a firearm you will serve a minimum of five years in a penitentiary there’s are all saying, and I have seen it before criminals do not care at all what laws that are past restricting firearms, they will continue to be just that lawbreaking individuals who do not care.
I oppose all of the checked bills. Most of them are wildly unconstitutional, and none of them will make a single person safer.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the anti-gun bills scheduled for consideration in your subcommittee meeting on January 29, 2026. As a law-abiding citizen who values the rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, I urge you to vote against these measures that infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. These bills, including but not limited to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, represent direct assaults on this constitutional protection. They impose unnecessary restrictions on firearm ownership, possession, and transfer that disproportionately burden responsible gun owners while doing nothing to address the root causes of crime. It is a well-established fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Measures like bans on certain firearms (HB217), mandatory storage requirements (HB871), prohibitions on unserialized firearms (HB40), and penalties for leaving firearms in vehicles (HB110) will only disarm law-abiding citizens who follow the rules. These individuals are not the source of violent crime; rather, they are often the ones who rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Criminals will continue to acquire and use firearms illegally, unaffected by these new regulations, leaving ordinary Virginians more vulnerable. History and data show that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates but instead empower those who operate outside the law. For example, cities with strict gun laws often experience higher rates of violent crime compared to areas where law-abiding citizens can more freely exercise their rights. These bills will create more "gun-free" zones and bureaucratic hurdles that criminals ignore, effectively turning law-abiding citizens into easier targets. I respectfully request that you reject these infringement on our constitutional rights and focus instead on policies that target actual criminal behavior, such as enforcing existing laws against violent offenders and supporting mental health initiatives. Protecting the Second Amendment is essential to preserving our freedoms and ensuring public safety for all Virginians. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will vote NO on these anti-Second Amendment bills. Sincerely, Bailey Pratt
In reviewing these various bills it seems that many of them disregard the Constitution that was sworn to be upheld. Additionally several have already been ruled on in various courts across the country. They serve to divide constituents especially those who vote rather than provide civil discourse and leadership. They further fail to address larger issues that plague our society. Punishing those who abide by the law and creating penalties for innocent civilians is conceptually flawed. I urge you all to reexamine the methods behind these bills and abandon them at this point. Work toward the greater good and try something that hasn’t already failed repeatedly. Truly focus on serving this great Commonwealth. It will serve all of us better in the future.
HB1303, I support. The remaining bills are unnecessary and bureaucratic. You are creating bills meant to solve statistically insignificant events. HB1359 and HB217 are particularly objectionable. Requiring a "purchaser license" infringes on the right to bear arms and is a complete duplication of existing background checks. The assault firearm definition is unconstitutional and will not stand up to legal challenge. Our tax dollars and attorney general resources will be wasted on such an obviously flawed legislation. Gun buy back programs are have proven to be a waste of tax payer dollars with no impact on gun crime statistics. HB110 is very heavy handed. Just because someone could detect a weapon in a private motor vehicle should not make that vehicle subject to confiscation by the state nor a penalty applied to the firearm owner. This is totally a way to punish firearm owners without solving any real gun violence crimes that you, as legislators, could better focus your time and effort on. Focus on enforcing existing laws and not letting habitual criminals get away with warnings or light sentencing for their crimes. That is the common sense approach. We have more than enough laws, we do not need more ways to trap law abiding citizens and our merchants with this slew of bills.
Dear Members of the Virginia House Public Safety Firearms Subcommittee: I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding several of the bills currently on the docket at today’s meeting that I believe impose overly restrictive and chilling effects on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. As someone with over six decades of active participation in shooting sports, I feel compelled to share my perspective based on extensive experience in the responsible exercise of these constitutional rights. For more than 60 years, I have been a devoted participant in shooting sports across various disciplines. Throughout this time, I have witnessed firsthand how responsible gun ownership and proper safety training create a culture of respect for firearms and the rights they represent. I am both an NRA Certified Range Safety Officer and a United States Marine Corps Certified Range Safety Officer, credentials that reflect my commitment to the highest standards of firearm safety and education. In these roles, I have dedicated countless hours to ensuring that shooters of all skill levels understand and practice safe firearm handling. Much of the proposed legislation before your committee, in my view, risks discouraging lawful participation in shooting sports and responsible firearm ownership without demonstrably addressing criminal misuse. Overly broad restrictions often burden those who already comply with the law, while doing little to deter individuals who disregard it entirely. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to carefully consider whether these measures strike the appropriate balance between public safety and the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians. Shooting sports have been an integral part of American culture and Virginia's heritage. They teach discipline, responsibility, focus, and respect. These are values that strengthen our communities. Overly burdensome regulations such as those on the docket today do not distinguish between those who respect the law and those who do not; instead, they disproportionately affect those of us who have demonstrated decades of safe and responsible firearm use. I urge this committee to carefully consider the unintended consequences of legislation that may seem reasonable in theory but proves impractical or unjust in application. The rights protected by the Second Amendment are fundamental, and any restrictions placed upon them must be narrowly tailored, clearly justified, and respectful of Virginia's long tradition of responsible gun ownership. I thank you for allowing me to submit this written response and for providing the opportunity for citizens to voice their concerns on these important matters. More importantly, I thank each of you for your service to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The work you do on behalf of our citizens is vital to our democracy, and I appreciate your willingness to consider all perspectives as you deliberate on these critical issues. Respectfully submitted, George Mather, Jr. 6212 Sudley Church Court Fairfax Station, VA 22039 Email: mather.george.6212@gmail.com Mobile: 1.703.598.8848
The bills under consideration are only going to affect those who have no intention of breaking the law. Coupled with the other bills lessening the penalties for many violent crimes, these will do nothing to prevent crime. Criminals do not follow the law. That is a textbook definition. We have plenty of laws to deal with those who perpetrate crimes. What is needed is to deal with the existing criminals. Stop what leads these people to break the law to begin with. Punish those who commit violent crimes firmly. Stop the revolving door justice that keeps them on the streets committing more crimes. Making the law abiding public defenseless while turning more violent criminals loose makes no sense. Police forces are not bodyguards! All that can be expected after calling 911 is the victim being taken to a hospital, or possibly the morgue, and an investigation, hopefully followed by an arrest. The only person that can hope to defend themselves from these violent criminals is the victim. It would be better to provide a system for more self defense classes for the public. Better help for the victims of violent crime. And fitting punishment for those who have broken the law. None of the proposed bills will do that. I hope that the Constitutional rights of the public will be considered over feel good measures. I thank you for your time in reading my comments and hope you will consider these points in voting on the proposed bills.
I urge committee members to vote against these bills, many of which infringe on our God-given rights as Americans, and some of which are already unconstitutional under existing rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States. Respectfully, a lifelong Virginian.
Hi, My name is Catherine Shultz and I’m writing this as a woman that survived almost being strangled to death, then stalked for 2 years. I was in fear of my life and I bought my first firearm and trained. My personal defense weapon saved my life and I didn’t have to pull the trigger. A piece of paper does nothing to protect survivors but I stand with VCDL & am co director of Women for Gun Rights in Va. I’m also disabled and an amputee & I can’t run from danger but I can use my firearm to protect myself. People don’t seem to understand that educating oneself vs restricting mags etc… they affect people like me and it shows me that the “gun safety” laws are simply a psychological bandage & does nothing to protect women like myself. Thank you, Catherine Shultz Women for gun rights
To the legislators; Not one of the proposed HBs should be approved. The authors of the proposed bills lack experience or insight into gun ownership or general safety of the public. Not one of these bills can be proven to save lives or stop criminal acts. What I do see is the potential for a level of state bureaucrats to create new jobs for their buddies. Let’s monitor who has a gun or who has too many bullets in their magazine. Whose family member is related to someone involved with domestic violence. This sounds like the state boys and girls are out to get their hands into Virginians pocket's again. Vote no for everyone of these HBs.
Shall not be infringed was and still is very clear. The bill of rights was written to limit the government. Please stop infringing on my god given rights.
HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB21 A firearm accessory seller could not know they were selling a accessory to a prohibited person. A car parts store cannot be sued if they sell a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery. HB40 This bill is unconstitutional, there is no analog in history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the US existed. HB93 If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that shotgun. That punishes and needlessly endangers her life. HB110 Car owner should not be at fault for a criminal stealing a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. This bill could put a handgun in the possession of a tow truck driver that is a convicted felon. HB217 U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in both DC v Heller, and The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. Guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common in the US, making this bill unconstitutional. HB229 Disarming visitors and guests, including CHP holders, violates their right to protect themselves. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB626 Students have a right to self-defense. HB702 Destroying a functional, and possibly valuable firearms is a waste of money. State could offset costs by selling firearms to gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program. HB871 Biometric safes are more expensive and can be unreliable when being used under stress and require batteries to work. There are other locking mechanisms that are just as secure. HB969 Center would only target violence committed using firearms and ignoring root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm. Term “Gun Violence” gives away true agenda: “gun violence” is a term coined by gun-control lobby to blame guns, which are inanimate objects, and not criminals that misuse guns. If a police officer shoots someone, officer gets blame, not his gun. If a criminal shoots someone, gun gets blame, not criminal. No one says, “tire iron violence” or “hand and feet violence.” It is just called “violence.” But there is a disarmament agenda with firearms and “gun violence” is just an excuse to go after firearms with more gun control. HB1300 Oppose HB1303 Oppose HB1359 Bill will get innocent people killed, it will take at least two months before a person can purchase a first firearm. If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long. Price to get a permit, likely in hundreds of dollars, will be prohibitive for poor people and is equivalent of a poll tax. And even with all hoops to get a permit, even citizens with a CHP will be limited to one handgun a month. Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country.
My entire life I have taken great pride and stewardship in being a law abiding citizen of a great country. A very large part of my patriotism is the freedom and trust the founders of the nation gave me in the Second Amendment of the US constitution and Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. The anti-gun bills that have been introduced in Virginia show me that the supporters of these bills have zero regard for the Constitution, my rights as a lawful citizen and my rights to be able to defend myself and others from violent crime. The supporters of these bills have lost all sense of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I see this when early release is granted to hundreds of violent felons, many of which then go on to reoffend and violently prey on the very people you are supposed to protect, all for nothing more than some misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when prosecutors do not pursue charges against violent offenders in a misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when legislative efforts focus on the law-abiding and do nothing to violent felons who will not bother to be hindered by any gun laws. I see this when legislators talk about “gun violence” and do nothing about the underlying problem of “violence” and how to reduce it. I see this when I see news stories of repeat violent offenders who have been arrested for dozens of violent crimes, including murder, who end up killing someone yet again due to some form of “catch and release”. The laws are in place to remove violent felons, whether or not they use firearms, from society and prevent them from preying on your law-abiding constituents. Please use them. I urge opposition to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969 and HB1359. I urge support for HB1300 and HB1303.
I oppose all legislation which seeks to undermine our Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment. Therefore, I would encourage all members to vote against these bills with a resounding NO!
As a life long Virginia resident and lawful firearms owner, I speak for myself and millions of other Virginians in saying that all of us strongly oppose any bill being introduced that restricts and infringes upon our Second Amendment rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of Virginia and of the United States. These gun control bills have been drafted under the guise of safety and crime prevention, while simultaneously doing the opposite and only increasing further resistance in both crime and safety. For decades, Virginia has been a pro-2A state where generations of families have been born into and raised on safe and responsible gun ownership. Hunting, personal protection, or simply being an enthusiast does not make someone a criminal or implies criminal intent because of the technology behind modern firearms has far surpassed the firearms of our grandfathers’s generation. Manufacturing methods and technology is ever changing, but our natural rights as law abiding citizens should never be hung in the balance and toyed with as privileges. I implore the General Assembly to please review these bills with logic, with reason, and with the hope that our state government will not make a mockery of the Second Amendment to further a political agenda not based upon fact, but upon incessant fear mongering and disarmament of the people.
Name: Brad Toohill Location: Loudoun County, Virginia I strongly oppose the following bills. These proposals punish law-abiding Virginians, undermine due process, and infringe on constitutionally protected rights while failing to address violent crime. Criminals do not follow gun laws—these bills target citizens who already do. HB 19 (McClure) This bill allows permanent loss of firearm rights based on vague “dating relationship” misdemeanors. Fundamental rights should not be stripped without clear standards and robust due process. HB 21 (Helmer) Holding firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for crimes they did not commit is unjust and dangerous. This policy attacks lawful commerce instead of criminal behavior. HB 40 (Simon) Criminalizing unfinished frames and receivers turns peaceful hobbyists into felons without evidence of crime reduction. This is regulation without results. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) Forced firearm surrender under protective orders risks disarming innocent family members. Rights should not be suspended by accusation alone. HB 110 (Laufer) Penalizing lawful gun owners for storing a handgun in a vehicle is excessive and punitive. This bill targets responsible citizens, not criminals. HB 217 (Helmer) This bill bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines that are clearly protected as arms in common use. It is unconstitutional and ineffective. HB 229 (Hernandez) Blanket bans on firearms and knives in medical facilities leave lawful citizens defenseless and create confusion without improving safety. HB 626 (Callsen) Disarming adults on college campuses does not enhance safety. Law-abiding individuals should not lose their right to self-defense based on location. HB 702 (Cole) Taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy programs waste public funds and show no measurable impact on crime. HB 871 (Downey) Mandated storage methods and biometric safes intrude into private homes and impose unnecessary costs on families. HB 969 (Price) Creating a new state agency focused solely on firearms expands bureaucracy while ignoring repeat offenders and enforcement failures. HB 1359 (Hope) This permit-to-purchase scheme creates delays, costs, fingerprinting, and a de facto registry. It burdens lawful ownership and disproportionately harms low-income Virginians. Virginia should focus on enforcing existing laws and prosecuting violent offenders—not restricting the rights of responsible citizens.
I urge you to oppose all of the proposed bills. None of these bills will have meaningful impact on crime committed with fire arms. The only honest way to reduce crime committed with firearms is to enforce mandatory and harsh penalties on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Once has to realize that guns can only commit a crime in the hands of a criminal. The criminal, not the tool is the problem that needs to be addressed. A case in point: England has super strong regulations on guns. Was that effective? Did the crime rates really drop ? No, crime rates didn't drop all that much. Eliminating firearms just shifted the criminals over to using knives as their weapon of choice. These proposed regulations seem to be more aimed at annoying firearm owners, as opposed to solving any real problems. While I want to vote Democratic, these essentially useless regulations are making me seriously reconsider which party I will support in the future. Please put regulations in place to SOLVE problems, not these silly things that only provide talking points. Never forget, RESULTS are what voters want.
Not one of these bills will make anyone safer, but rather strip the rights of law abiding citizens of which pose no threat. Maybe try enforcing or increasing the penalties for laws against murder or violent felonies that are already in place? The problem isn't guns. It's the mentally ill people who misuse them. Making good people criminals for simply owning common firearms or magazines will not make a difference to people who have no regard for law.
All these bills infringe on citizens AMENDMENT RIGHT we the people been lied to BY OUR Government OFFICIALS & mainly democratic officials ABIGAIL SPANBERGER is one of them
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee.
My family and I OPPOSE all these insidious, un-Constitutional anti-2A Bills you're proposing.
Dear Legislators, You have been elected to a position for the purpose of representing citizens in VA. You have taken an oath to the state and U.S. Constitution. It is not your place to push radical agendas or ideologies that clearly oppose those Constitutions. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Whether you agree or disagree with it is not important. Whether you appreciate firearms or hate and fear them, is not important. What is important, is that you respect my Constitutional right to own them, carry them, use them, transport them, have immediate access to them, decide for myself how I will store them in my own home. It is NOT your place to infringe upon these rights in any way. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to be able to repel, remove, and defend against a tyrannical government. Don’t be a tyrannical government. Remember and honor your oaths. Put aside the partisanship. Sincerely, One of millions of gun owners
All these proposed are laws are just awful. The right of self-preservation is a fundamental human right and having the best tools for self-preservation furthers that fundamental human right. Without those tools, you degrade the most important human right in the world, the right to live and live free. Suing gun dealers and manufacturers will prevent the public from acquiring guns. Banning large swaths of arms and accessories prevent the public from defending themselves with the best tool possible. All these proposed laws are bad. Bad for Virginians and bad for human rights. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry.
My name is Cossie Scott a lifelong Virginia resident. This is my first time speaking here. I strongly oppose HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1359 I do support HB1303 45% of Virginia homes own guns lawfully. Nationally, 93% of the guns associated with crime are obtained illegally. So how are any of these regulations moving the needle in illegal gun trafficking? Or attacking the root cause of violent crime? Furthermore, the majority of the average gun related crime occurs in 9 districts in Virginia (Richmond and Hampton Roads). So you are proposing punishing the entire state and every law biding gun owner for an “illegal” gun problem in Hampton and Richmond. Not to mention 63% of the gun related deaths in Virginia are suicide related. That means that all of these bills listed are not scientifically proven with sound data, but emotionally charged by political gun grabbing rhetoric and is saturated with slippery slope informal fallacies with proposed changes being made without analytical data to suggest we have a need to change. Why do we not first address Richmond and Hampton locally before pushing your unfounded ideology on the rest of the commonwealth. Gun laws do not solve for the human condition problem in those 9 districts. We would be better served spending our time, and tax dollars, addressing the poverty problem that drives violent crime, rather than trying to make law biding citizens criminals.
I’ve been a lifelong Democrat because I believe deeply in protecting working people, expanding access to healthcare, safeguarding civil rights, and investing in strong public institutions, but I’ve never fully aligned with my party on gun control. To me, supporting the Second Amendment isn’t about ideology or partisanship — it’s about personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the belief that law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their families. I value evidence-based policy, and I worry that many proposed gun laws primarily burden responsible owners while doing little to address the root causes of violence like poverty, mental health gaps, and systemic inequality. I want safer communities, but I believe that comes from smarter enforcement, education, and prevention rather than broad restrictions that limit constitutional rights. Holding these views sometimes puts me at odds with fellow Democrats, but I see it as proof that political identity doesn’t have to mean agreeing with every plank of the platform — it means thinking critically and standing by the principles you believe in. Please vote no to any gun restrictions that are being presented.
The attachment contains my comments on the proposed bills.
Nearly half of all households in the Commonwealth own a firearm and yet Virginia has one of the lowest gun related death rates in the nation (5.6 per 100,000). Not only are you trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist, you're sacrificing your constiunts to pander towards national politics.
As a law abiding gun owner and retired military Virginia Citizen I vehemently oppose any law that opposes our Constitutional Right via the Second Amendment. All of the bills you are considering meet this criteria. Please cease and desist any band all actions that would infringe on my rights…those that our Founding Fathers of whom many were from our Great Commonwealth, believed to be self-evident. Very respectfully, Shannon J. Cornelius, USA/USAF (Ret)
I strongly urge voting against the following bills as all of them will cause undue hardship on legal gun owners, go against the spirit of the US 2nd amendment, will place firearm manufacturers in legal jeopardy solely because their products may have been used in an unlawful fashion (same as suing Ford for getting a speeding ticket). HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. Thank you,
I oppose the passage of these bills. HB 19, 21, 40, 93, 110, 217, 229, 626, 702, 871, 969, 1359.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Stop writing and putting Unconstitutional Legislation in the Virginia Code. That covers just about everything I have seen the Democratic Majority propose as new legislation. Want to live in a communist paradise - Move to Cuba - They do not get Snow and sleet there, and you will have someone to give you instructions on how to live your life.
Just to let you know, I am an independent in every sense of the word. I tend to lean left on many issues but on the subject of the second amendment I am a firm believer. I don’t think we need these new restrictions being proposed. The topic is so complex and polar I don’t know how to convince you all of the folly of this legislation except to say many of us are single issue voters regardless of how we feel about certain social issues. I know many democrats in this state who regularly use these weapons that are the subject for future restrictions or outright banning. I will try to touch on a few issues. Assault weapons and high capacity magazine are the current boogie man of the anti gun lobby and have been since the 1990s. This was originally a deliberate attempt to confuse modern civilian semiautomatic weapons with their more dangerous fully automatic assault military versions as a prelude to ban handguns. The term assault weapon is a purely political term that has no universal meaning and it was chosen to instill fear and confusion in the public’s mind. I ask you to review these laws and ask yourself which one of these features makes these weapons more dangerous than other rifles. Is a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or similar feature what makes a rifle dangerous? Or is it caliber, muzzle energy, and rate of fire? If public safety is the true goal why doesn’t this legislation address these factors instead of cosmetics? I will tell you why. Because the average hunting rifle is more powerful than an ar-15 by a wide margin. These are not overpowered rifles as some would have you believe. It’s a semiautomatic version of an intermediate powered rifle - part way between the power of a pistol and a full power hunting rifle. Did you know even Great Britain has no restrictions on weapons with military style features? Their ban is on the caliber and rate of fire. You can even have a semiautomatic uzi there witt a 50 round magazine as long as it is chambered in 22lr. Silencers have very few restrictions there as well because they protect hearing and help minimize noise pollution. Let’s talk about the legality as well. Most of these restrictions are unconstitutional because the weapons and features are in common use. It’s unconstitutional to ban any weapon that is in common use as per DC vs Heller and Brien. If the state court doesn’t overturn these unconstitutional restrictions the Supreme Court will. I will end this conversation by saying our founding fathers faced the same issues we do. At that time most governments restricted civilian arms because they wanted to remain in power. They reasoned through their dealings with Great Britain that an armed population could never be slaves to any tyrannical government or foreign power. This may sound like a tired old saying that is often made fun of. I have heard people saying things like deer don’t need bullet proof vests and you can’t fight against a government without f-16s but is this really true? The ar-15 for instance is not powerful enough to take down a large elk humanly so the bullet proof vest comment is just plain silly. That cartridge is commonly used in other rifles as a varmint round. As far as f-16s are concerned, the Taliban sure kicked us out of their country with nothing more than small arms and guerrilla tactics. Civilian resistance movements rarely fight pitch battles with tanks and fighter jets. They use hit and run tactics combined with numbers to wear the enemy down.
Dear Committee Members, I urge you to reject the blatantly unconditional and egregious anti Second Amendment bills before you. This will do nothing to curb crime, and you know that, but will make criminals out of your political opponents, as well as many of your constituents. Scencerly, Sal DeGennaro
PLEASE PROTECT OUR GUN RIGHTS AND DO NOT DEGRADE VIRGINIANS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT ME IMMEDIATELY STEP IN AND COME UP WITH LAWS IN AN ATTEMPT TO FRAME ME AS A CRIMINAL FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS. IN NO WAY HAVE I BROKEN ANY EXISTING LAWS, NOR DO I OWN ANY ITEM CURRENTLY CONSIDERED ILLEGAL. THAT THESE "REPRESENTATIVES" CAN, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN, PENALIZE ME, MAKES ME WONDER JUST WHO THEY "REPRESENT". WE DO NOT NEED MORE LAWS TO "LESSEN CRIME", WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE.
Our Second Amendment is clear and succinct: "... the right of the People to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." What I see is an example of the government overstepping its bounds under the illusion of public safety. Many of the measures including assault weapons, magazine capacities, and "ghost guns" are based on buzz words that strike fear because people do not understand them. Let us embark on a few definitions: Infringe: "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on" -Oxford Dictionary. Synonyms include Erode, Impair, and Weaken. ANY legislation that limits impairs, or weakens a citizen's right to own and carry weapons is, by definiton, infringement, and therefore a violation of our beautiful country's constitution. Ghost Gun: the ATF classifies the part of the weapon containing the trigger assembly as a "firearm," colloquially called a Lower Receiver. It is possible to manufacture this part and therefore build a weapon that has no serial number and is unregistered with the police department. This takes skill and specialized, expensive tooling; these firearms sound scary, but are by and large produced by hobbyists, not killers. Assault Weapons (HB217): The limiting, reduction, and impairment of the size of magazine that one can purchase, keep, and carry is simply a violation of the 2nd amendment. Storage (HB871): The State government has no business inside my home and how my weapons are stored. I learned to handle guns at 7 years of age, children can learn. If I lock my weapons as this bill requires, I can no longer access them in an emergency. Its safer to gun-proof my children than child-proof my guns. Permit to purchase (HB1359): We do not need a permit to exercise our first amendment rights. We do not have permits to secure our rights against inappropriate search and seizure, the 4th amendment. We also do not have permits to protect ourselves from cruel and unusual punishment. No other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights requires a permit, why do we treat the 2nd amendment differently? We already strip this right from convicted criminals, we have background checks, leave us law-abiding gunowners alone. I understand these bills have good intentions. We want to see our communities safe, healthy, and thriving, and have our neighbors and friends go about their days without fear. But let us not succumb to fear to such an extent that we throw away our freedom for the illusion of heightened safety. Let's look at California, llinois, and New York, who have the strictest policies in the nation, yet rising rates of violent crimes, and instantly the illusion is dispelled. These measures do not increase safety. What they do accomplish is an erosion of freedom, disarmament of law-abiding citizens, and violation of our country's constitution. I ask you please, as your neighbor and constituent, vote NO to these measures.
This bill establishes a so-called "Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program" that would use taxpayer dollars to collect and destroy privately owned firearms that are voluntarily surrendered. Despite its misleading name, the Commonwealth did not give these firearms to citizens, and it has no legitimate claim to take them back. These firearms are the lawful private property of Virginians. HB 702 promotes the permanent destruction of functional and often valuable firearms, wasting public resources and eliminating property that could otherwise be responsibly resold through licensed dealers. If the state’s goal were truly fiscal responsibility, it could offset costs through lawful auctions rather than spending money to destroy usable assets. There is no credible evidence that firearm "turn-in" programs reduce violent crime. Studies and law enforcement data have repeatedly shown that these programs overwhelmingly collect older, nonfunctional, or rarely used firearms, not the weapons used in criminal activity. Criminals do not participate in voluntary surrender programs, and violent offenders are not deterred by symbolic gestures. This proposal also reinforces the false narrative that firearms are a public problem to be removed rather than constitutionally protected tools for lawful self-defense. By encouraging citizens to surrender their property for destruction, the state sends the message that exercising a fundamental right is something to be discouraged. HB 702 further raises concerns about the long-term implications of normalizing government-led firearm collection efforts. History shows that "voluntary" programs can become the foundation for future mandatory confiscation schemes once the infrastructure and funding mechanisms are in place. This committee should respect private property, constitutional rights, and responsible firearm ownership. HB 702 does none of these things. It wastes taxpayer money, undermines individual liberty, and advances an anti-gun political agenda.
I disagree with any and all laws pertaining to our gun rights and any law that infringes our right to own,sell, trade or gift. These amendments are a total outreach of our constitutional rights and we the people will not stand for it.
These bill do nothing to address criminals and only affects law abiding gun owners. As a black man I feel they are racist as well. Vote NO to all of these bills.
I stand with Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League in opposing any attempt to restrict law abiding Virginians 2nd amendment rights. These bills will do nothing to stop crime and only serve to limit the rights of the people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. As a constituent, I urge you to OPPOSE these gun bills: HB 19, Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB 21, This bill is designed to have a chilling effect on all aspects of the firearms industry. HB 40, This bill is unconstitutional, as there was no analog in the history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. HB 93, This disctriminates against people in the same household and also discriminates against young people who are legally allowed to own fire arms. HB 110, Punish criminals who do this, not the law abiding citizens. HB 217, The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands. HB 229, Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB 626, A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students are adults and have a right to self-defense. HB 702, The name of the program implies that the Commonwealth gives firearms to citizens and now wants citizens to give them back. That is not the case. The State does not give us our rights and does not own our property. HB 871, Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes and often times more unreliable when being used under stress, This discriminates against those people who are poor and still have a right to self protection. HB 969, we do not need to grow the state bureaucracy to study violent crime when most violent crime does not involve firearms. HB 1359, please find me a constitutional right that you have to get a permit for. There is not one and we should not be limiting the rights of the people by require a permit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I SUPPORT the following bill: HB 1303, 90 days is more than sufficient for the State Police to issue a non-resident permit. There is no reason that this should take longer than this.
I’m against all these worthless anti-gun / anti-freedom bills that will do nothing to reduce crime, but will only serve to reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Please retract them and do something good for Virginians. Thank you.
Virginia opposes all these illegal unconstitutional bills. The second amendment is a right not a privilege.! I oppose these bills as an individual taxpayer.
I do not support these bills.
HB21 This bill seeks to punish law-abiding hardworking gun manufacturers and those they employ, either directly or indirectly, by making them conspirators in crimes committed using guns. Besides it being unconstitutional, this law is also discriminatory in that it does not impose the same laws against car manufacturers whose autos and trucks are used in the commission of crimes and a plethora of other legal products used in the commission crime. HB-217 is arbitrary and capricious in that there is no such objective definition or standard for what constitutes a “standard magazine capacity” and/ or firearm. HB-702. This is misuse of public funds. It represents an ideological or charitable function that should be funded like other charities - voluntary contribution. As such it should require the same federal approvals as any other authorized charity. HB-1359. This is textbook 2A infringement prohibited by the US Constitution. Infringe is defined by Meriam-Webster dictionary as “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another”. Imposition of taxes, requisite training, purchase delays, etc constitute infringement. Time and public funds are better spent funding law enforcement and executive offices to enforce civil and criminal laws that directly affect or deter criminal activities.
I oppose any and all restrictions on our God given and Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms. None of this nonsense passes constitutional muster. And will have the effect of making the lives Of law abiding citizens less safe while you are Lowering penalties for real crime and turning Law abiding citizens into criminals... These bills are nothing more than a government power grab. What part of "Shall NOT be infringed " do you not Understand??
All bills with the exception of HB 1303 are unconstitutional and I do NOT support them.
I oppose these bills
When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.
I oppose every gun-control bill pending before this committee because they are prohibited by both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that this language protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, independent of militia service. The Court emphasized that the Amendment protects arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens and forbids bans on entire classes of such arms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court reaffirmed that this right is fully incorporated against the states, binding Virginia to the same constitutional limits as Congress. Virginia’s Constitution independently protects this right, stating in Article I, Section 13 that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court rejected interest-balancing tests and adopted a text-history-tradition standard: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, it is presumptively protected, and the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Modern policy goals, crime statistics, or legislative preferences are insufficient. Many pending bills restrict semi-automatic rifles, including AR-style firearms that are owned by millions of Americans and commonly used for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting. Under Heller, arms in common use cannot be banned, and the “dangerous and unusual” exception does not apply. There is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned firearms based on rate of fire, operating mechanism, or cosmetic features, and under Bruen the absence of such historical analogues is dispositive. Other bills ban magazines over ten rounds, which are standard components of many commonly owned handguns and rifles. Because magazines are integral to firearm function, such bans operate as functional prohibitions on protected firearms. There is no Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of limiting ammunition capacity, making these bans unconstitutional under Bruen. Permit-to-purchase schemes likewise unconstitutionally burden a fundamental right by converting it into a government-granted privilege. The right to keep arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them, and fees, training mandates, biometric requirements, and processing delays disproportionately burden citizens and lack historical justification. These schemes invite arbitrary enforcement and indirect suppression of a constitutional right. While public safety is a legitimate concern, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional rights cannot be traded away through legislative cost-benefit analysis. Regulations unsupported by historical tradition fail regardless of asserted benefits. For these reasons, the pending gun-control bills before this committee are inconsistent with both the United States and Virginia Constitutions and should be rejected.
Please no more gun bans
These proposed actions would increase the amount of money that is already taken from us in taxes. They make no sense, as we have a 2.3 billion surplus. These actions only hurt Virginians. The democrat party ran on affordability, and these bills do just the opposite. The taxes on firearms, and the banning of them and accessories have already proven to do nothing but punish law abiding citizens. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS! Reducing manditory sentecing for rape and other horrible crimes only make us less safe. Combined with TRYING to disarm us and helping criminals you out us at risk, and rob us of our rights and money. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for being bought off. You all remind me of our flag. You are acting like tyrants. You talk of affordability, yet you are trying to take more of our money. The people will not stand for tour unconstitutional actions. You may have control for the next two years, but your political careers will be destroyed. Tou have become radical tyrants. You hate the other side so much, that you are willing to destroy us. Shame on all of you. The pendulum always swings back, and you are just guaranteeing it will swing so far back that you will wish you never did this. The destruction of our constitution, and your petty attacks are not worth the backlash that will come when the people rise up against what you believe in.
Leave my second amendment rights alone and worry about all the criminals both legal and illegal. Don't screw with law-abiding citizens who work and pay your salary
Hello, I agree and stand with the opinions of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America on these troubling bills. The right to keep and bear ares enshrined as a God given right in both the US (2nd amendment) and Virginia (article 1, section 13) Constitutions. Please do not legislate millions of peaceful, law abiding Virginians into criminals with the stroke of a pen.
Please Protect Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Thank You.
Please don’t support any Bills that restrict or infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.
To whom it may concern, It is important to recognize that criminals, by definition, disregard existing laws and are unlikely to be deterred by the introduction of new legislation. Consequently, the implementation of additional laws often impacts only law-abiding citizens, placing new restrictions or obligations upon those who already comply with legal standards. The focus, therefore, should not be on drafting further statutes but rather on ensuring the consistent and effective enforcement of the laws currently in place. By allocating resources toward upholding existing regulations, society can enhance public safety, maintain fairness, and uphold the integrity of the justice system without unnecessarily burdening responsible citizens. Respectfully, Mr. Jones
You were elected as a protest against the President. You definitely weren't elected to cancel Virginians constitutional rights. I'm sure your big donors outside of Virginia will be happy. But last time you tried this 90 of 95 counties, Cities and Town revolted against you. Plus once your donor lists are published by the influential VCDL and the lawsuits start. The people will find out who you actually serve. Unless you represent Arlington or Fairfax all democratic seats will be in jeopardy for the next election. Finally: You take an oath to honor the constitution when you get the privilege to serve the people. Someone who immediately violates their oath has no honor and can never be trusted with authority. People will remember that when it's time to vote again. I know I will. I used to be a Democrat and donor. But I will never vote for a Democrat again.
Please consider this by destroying the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia. You also will eventually come to the repercussions of your decisions, ie court action and loss of tax payer money etc.Now the 2nd amendment to the constitution in short says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ,basically no laws are to go against the constitution and also as per article 6 clause two of the constitution. Thank you and think wisely because your constituents as whole do not want this. Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amdt2.1Overview of Second Amendment, Right to Bear Arms Amdt2.2Historical Background on Second Amendment Amdt2.3Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence Amdt2.4Heller and Individual Right to Firearms Amdt2.5Post-Heller Issues and Application of Second Amendment to States Amdt2.6Bruen and Concealed-Carry Licenses Amdt2.7Rahimi and Applying the Second Amendment Bruen Standard
Not one of you liberals submitted a bill to address the real evil that is using a gun. So all of these bills are designed to punish legal law abiding gun owners and protect the real criminals. Im78 years old and have owned and bought guns from the age of 15 when I purchased my first gun with money earned from a paper route. NOT ONE OF THE GUNS I'VE OWNED EVER HARMED ANYONE. IT'S AN INANIMATE OBJECT
As a veteran, I am against any so called gun control legislation that has not demonstrably proven to improve public safety while only minimally impacting individuals’ God given rights and liberties. It is unconscionable to think that elected leaders would even think about passing legislation that infringed upon individual rights merely for purposes of “doing something” without having weighed the impact on law abiding citizens and the innumerable sacrifices made to sustain and protect those rights and liberties through the years. Having served myself and also been the victim of illegal firearm use I staunchly support the 2A rights and individuals’ right to self-defense. Each person’s situation and experiences are different and they deserve to exercise their rights and liberties in a way that accommodates those circumstances, experiences, limitations, etc. So called “assault weapons” (a misnomer in itself) may have features and appearances that some persons find scary or intimidating but, to someone possessing that firearm for their own, individual law purposes, most all of those features actually improve the performance or safety related to the use of that same firearm. All semi-automatic firearms, regardless of how they might LOOK to a casual or uninformed observer basically function the same. Stocks, forearm, bipods, scopes, rails, magazines, etc. do not alter the fundamental intended purpose of this “tool.” I certainly understand those who do not appreciate firearms, in general, or who might actually be scared by their existence or appearance. But our 2A and self defense rights should never be indescribably infringed upon merely for these type reasons. There are very good reasons our fore fathers were adamant about including these inalienable rights as foundational principles in our founding documents. These foundational principles are as relevant today as they were at our founding. Anyone who is arrogant enough to think that they have studied and researched and experienced as much as the founding father scholars and thinkers should reconsider their actions carefully before indiscriminately treading upon one of our sacred rights and liberties without certifiable proof of the amount of public safety that would be realized by their actions. Anything less goes against the solemn oath you have sworn to uphold.
I oppose this bill, honor your oath
I agree with the VCDL on these bills.
Opposite any gun laws. They will not stop any crime. Try enforcing the laws we already.
These sorts of draconian proposals severely restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves against threats of violence. None of the proposed measures which have been inflicted on the citizenry of other states have made one iota of difference in crime levels. They HAVE however restricted law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights via the 2nd Amendment. Vote now to cease this onslaught on the rights of law-abiding Virginians. Gun violence is perpetrated by CRIMINALS, so focus on the criminal prosecutions. Limiting the rights of law-abiding Virginians is tantamount to fascism. And as always, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!". That's what you are saying to Virginians. If I cannot be trusted to defend myself legally, then you cannot be trusted to run the Commonwealth.
These legislations violate many sections of the Virginia Constitution not just the U.S. Constitution. Legislations like these does nothing to prevent, curtail, deter or otherwise stop crimes or acts of violence. These legislations do not hold criminals that cannot legally possess, purchase or own firearms accountable for their possession, use or handling of a firearm. These legislations do not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Cliché but true rhetoric (Criminals will get guns and magazines and commit crimes regardless of the laws. These legislations are immoral, unethical and down right oppressive and serve no purpose other than to infringe upon rights and deny rights. Reminder: - 18, 19 and 20 year old men and women are entrusted in the operation, use, carry and implementation of the following in the service of our country as Servicemembers, Coast Guardsmen, National Guardsmen and Air National Guardsmen and Reservists as well as law enforcement: Semi-automatic Pistols with high capacity magazines, Semi- Automatic Rifles with 30 round magazines, machine guns, rockets, tanks, missiles, rocket Launchers etc and yet Virginia Legislators want to strip away the rights of civilians of that age group of their right to own and bear arms. That is hypocritical and it undermines the Constitution. Our nation foundation and freedom was earned through the blood and sweat of young 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 year old men from the Revolutionary War for our independence and that of our 17 year old to 20 year old war fighters today standing tall and maintaining our soon to be 250 years of being a Constitutional Republic and our Freedom. Do not allow the stripping of the rights of these military aged men and women that serve and defend our nation, our freedom and our Constitutions. Do not insult them or slap them in the face or turn your backs on them. Fight for them because at some point we have fought and we have sacrificed for you and these young men and women will too. Any legislation that denies and deprives this age group the use, ownership while expecting them to serve in our country and have them carry, operate and use them in the defense of our nation and potentially die, be seriously injured or maimed is diabolical and is disgraceful. Magazine capacity restrictions: (Do not limit or stop the intent of criminals or those intent on committing any act of violence. We have seen the demonstrated and factual extreme actions/tactics that have been used for example: Using a vehicle to run into crowds, Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devises (VBIED), Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), mass stabbings, gas attacks and chemical warfare, fire, and more Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights Sections 1,2, 9,10,11. These legislations below, restrict the right to self- defense. Legal gun owners are not committing crimes and do not intend to committ crimes. These legislations are not about accountability for criminals. They are written to suppress and take away the rights of law abiding citizens and ro take away a means of self-defense. These legislations do not create a safer Virginia. HB110, HB1359, HB969, HB871, HB702, HB24, HB21, HB700, HB229, HB217, HB110, HB93, HB19, Example: - HB700: Denies and delays the access to firearms in an emergency situation where a victim of stalking or domestic abuse are in imminent danger. V/R Raymond Carter SFC(Retired)
I strongly oppose this bill
All of these bills are intolerable infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting these bills is a violation of your oaths of office. In addition, as should be evident, these bills will only affect law-abiding gun owners, the very people least likely to offend. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They are unlikely to obey these.
Please do not consider any anti-gun bills. Any potential law that goes against our Constitution is wrong and should not be acknowledged. We shouldn't have to pay for our rights. No innocent person should be penalized for a criminal's actions. A gun's capacity is irrelevant. If a person comments a REAL crime, they should be convected and sentenced accordingly. A right should be lost only through certain major criminal actions, not some fool's option of potential. No manufacturer should be responsible for how their product is used. The one responsible is the one in possession of said product, even if it was stolen. Our last Governor understood this. Our new Governor and her political party desperately needs to. We have seen the failures of worthless states like California, Maryland, New York and others. We don't need to be another one. No law will ever stop a crime. The law should provide proper penalties or real crimes. No law should be made for the sole purpose of controlling and wielding power over the citizens of this State or our country.
I am opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, I support HB 1300 and HB1303.
My father was born in Romania in 1933 and as a child lived under the fascism of socialism. The first thing the fascist socialists did was to confiscate guns. Nearly 400,000 Jews were slaughtered by the socialists after having been disarmed in Romania. Now socialists have taken power in Virginia by running as "moderates" and immediately showing their true selves once safely elected. Democrats, like their brethren Nazis, seek to disarm and enslave the general population. I oppose any legislation which punishes law-abiding citizens from protecting themself, their family, and their property. I oppose any legislation which punishes a citizen for potentially being robbed, as if the thief is not the problem-- the victim is treated as the criminal. I oppose any legislation which allows accusations to remove the rights of others. If I accuse every member of government of being a child abuser, are you forced to remain away from your child(ren)? I oppose Nazis and Democrats for the same reasons.
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. I support HB 1303 by Delegate Ware. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.
Disarming the population is not a viable means to promote public safety. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves from physical harm that may occur by criminal activity. It is not the responsibility of politicians or police. That is why bills like HB 19, HB 21, HB 40, HB 93, HB 229, HB 1359 are unconstitutional and put the general public in more danger as violent criminals will take advantage of unarmed civilians. HB 110 and HB 702 will promote criminal use of firearms as the firearms will be taken away from the registered owners' possession which greatly increases the likelihood the firearm will end up on the black market for resale where violent criminals obtain their weapons. HB 871 will also be ineffective as gun violence prevention means while again adding a monetary burden and serious disadvantage to law a biding citizens in the immediate face of danger. The people of Virginia do not support these policies that waste the time of politicians and money of the tax payer.
I oppose all of these unconstitutional bills.
HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. ALL of these bills are Unconstitutional and will cause Lawsuits and MASS NON COMPLIANCE
I oppose all these bills!
As a fellow virginian I am very disappointed in these outrageous bills proposed. They do nothing to stop criminals cause they don't follow rules or laws anyways it just hurts people trying to protect themselves from being hurt or God forbid something worse. I have lived in virginia my whole life and love this state but i also love the 2nd amendment and freedom to bear arms so please take in consideration myself and thousands of other virginian's that love the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia and strike down these outrageous bills. Thank you for your time god bless the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia!
All these bills are an infringement on our constitutional second amendment rights!
You ran as a middle of the road moderate ticket, and wanted to bring everyone together. all these bills go against that and alienate half of the state. You want bi partisan support? Well to get that you can not be going after law abiding citizens and take away a constitutionally protected right.
Hello, as a true Virginian whose family goes back to the founding of this state, country and fought in the revolutionary war. The anti gun bills being pushed on us are completely unconstitutional. My ancestors would be rolling in their graves right now knowing what you all are trying to do to our personal liberties, freedom and property. All of the anti gun legislation being pushed is not only unconstitutional but against previous Supreme Court rulings. You plan to turn over half of your state into criminals overnight for legally purchased items. So not only are you infringing on the 2nd Amendment but now on our 5th Amendment. 12 months in jail! Sounds like an 8th Amendment violation. True Virginians do not want these unconstitutional laws placed on us. Virginia is where freedom was won and not taken! I urge you all to vote against these unconstitutional bills. We are not California or New York. Our friends in Northern Virginia do not speak for all of Virginia anymore. My kindness regards. True Virginian.
These bills are ill-advised “solutions” in desperate search of largely non-existent problems. The 2nd amendment was quite clear. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly those words. These bills will only make law-abiding citizens less safe. Please actually consider your constituents safety instead of your partisan talking points.
I urge a vote against this, and any gun related bill, that would arguably restrict gun rights, or increase the cost of having,/buying firearms or ammunition, or create any kind of registry of such, of law abiding citizens of Virginia. Most of these bills would do nothing for saving lives, and criminals will not abide by them.
These anti-Second Amendment legislations violate the Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Virginia Constitution. These bills will not make Virginians safer. but will put us at risk for predatory criminals. Also, the Second Amendment wpuld protect us from a tyranical government. Who protects us from you? Do you so crave power that you must disatm us? Why do you hate fireams?
I oppose these bills. Limiting our right to defend ourselves will not reduce crime or make anyone safer, except violent criminals.
Dear Committee Chair, I am writing to respectfully urge you to OPPOSE these bills. These proposals place unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root causes of criminal misuse of firearms. Measures such as taxpayer-funded gun turn-in and destruction programs, knife and firearm bans at medical facilities, and magazine capacity restrictions unfairly target responsible gun owners in my community without demonstrable public safety benefits. I ask that you vote “NO” on this legislation and instead support policies that enforce existing laws and address criminal behavior, rather than restricting the rights of lawful citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jan
My family and I hope you will reconsider all of these unconstitutional and tyrannical bills that seek to limit the God given right of citizens to defend themselves. Supporting these unconstitutional. bills as the Governor simultaneously supports the actions of Mr. Petti as a legal firearms owner, is indeed hypocrisy.
Good Morning. I respectfully oppose the following House Bills, which collectively place excessive burdens on law-abiding Virginians while offering little evidence of meaningful reductions in violent crime. These proposals raise serious concerns related to constitutional rights, due process, public safety, and cost. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for certain misdemeanors involving a broadly defined “dating relationship.” This imposes severe constitutional consequences without felony-level due process protections and relies on vague definitions prone to misuse. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. This abandons long-standing liability principles by holding lawful businesses responsible for third-party criminal acts, increasing costs and reducing lawful access without improving public safety. HB 40 (Simon) criminalizes unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized, burdening lawful hobbyists and small manufacturers despite a lack of evidence that such items meaningfully drive crime. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) mandates firearm surrender under protective orders in ways that may disarm innocent family members who are not accused of wrongdoing, undermining due process and property rights in shared households. HB 110 (Laufer) penalizes and allows towing of vehicles when a handgun is left unattended, even if secured. This may discourage lawful compliance with firearm-restricted locations by eliminating practical storage options. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines manufactured after July 1, 2026. Such bans target arms in common lawful use and raise serious constitutional concerns while failing to address criminal misuse of existing firearms. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities, removing lawful self-defense options from patients, visitors, and staff, including permit holders who have already undergone background checks. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts lawful firearm possession on college campuses, treating adult students and faculty as if they forfeit constitutional rights despite documented safety concerns and delayed emergency response times. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy program with no demonstrated impact on violent crime, diverting resources from proven enforcement and prevention strategies. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage methods and biometric safes in homes with minors, imposing costly, one-size-fits-all requirements that intrude into private homes and may delay access in emergencies. HB 969 (Price) creates a new state agency focused solely on firearms while ignoring broader contributors to violence such as repeat offenders, mental health access, and community-based interventions. HB 1359 (Hope) establishes a costly permit-to-purchase system with fingerprints, training mandates, and a de facto registry, creating delays and barriers to exercising a constitutional right without clear public safety benefits. Conclusion: Taken together, these bills represent a sweeping expansion of government control over lawful firearm ownership. They burden responsible citizens, weaken due process, and prioritize symbolic regulation over effective crime reduction. I urge the General Assembly to reject these measures and focus on enforcing existing laws and addressing violent criminal behavior.
Forum: These Bills are an attack on the lawful Citizen and will not stop the criminal element from doing harm. This has been proven time and time again. The intent of these Bills is to discourage the Citizenry from exercising their rights as protected by the US Constitution and the VA Constitution. These documents are explicit that our rights are being protected and not being given to us by the Govt. It is the Govt responsibility to protect our Bill of Rights and not to subvert them at the Federal and Local level. These bills seek to create a list and registry as forbidden by law. The declaration that all guns that are semi-automatic are "assault weapons" is absurd. The look of a gun does not define it as an assault weapon. These Bills have been stricken down by the highest court(s) in the land time and time again. The only reason for these bills is too attack the lawful citizen and will not do anything to stop the aggressor in his/her intent to do harm. There is significant history that illustrates that an armed populace in society is a peaceful and secure society. I respectfully oppose these Bills that attack the fundamental Bill of Rights that the Federal and State Constitutions protect. V/R, Mr. Charters
I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “
I oppose these bills because they are unconstitutional!!
I urge you not oppose all of these bills.
All of these bills pushing further gun control only hurt law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of criminals. Further they aim to disarm potential victims in a lame attempt to establish “common sense” gun control that is anything but. California, Chicago, New York are the model for many of these bills and the evidence is clear that they are not effective and even harmful. If a criminal stole a car and drove it into a crowd of people, you wouldn’t hold the car’s owner responsible. You wouldn’t hold the vehicle’s manufacturer responsible. You wouldn’t pass a law that requires safe storage of vehicles. If someone exhibited a “red flag” you wouldn’t take aware their location driver’s license with no due process or investigation. We don’t do any of that because “common sense” says that it’s ridiculous. The difference between cars and firearms however is there is no Second Amendment for cars, which means that these laws make even less sense and are directly unconstitutional.
All of the aforementioned bills are a substantial attack the God given rights & the 2nd Amendment. These in fact are the opposite of good governance. How does the aforementioned reduce the size & scope of government? How does the aforementioned lead to affordability? There are no statistics that show a benefit to society! Furthermore the aforementioned will only lead to a higher government cost to the citizens while squashing the rights of the citizens!
As a single woman and trained gun owner, I object to any kind of restrictions against my rights as protected by the 2nd amendment. My safety and those of women like me depends on having unrestricted access to the purchase and ownership of a "great equalizer". The next training facility is over an hour from my house, and another I use is more than two hours away. If I cannot leave my gun unattended in the car, I cannot even take a break on my way to or from the range? And since when have taxpayers given you permission and a mandate to use our hard-earned tax money to "buy back" something you haven't bought in the first place? These programs have shown to be a proven failure in other communities. Please vote no.
I oppose this bill. This is a waste of resources and I'm tired of seeing politicians waste and pollute more.
As a resident of York County I am opposed to the bills listed above and wish for them to be rejected by this committee.
As a Virginian, I am completely opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359. Similar ideas have been tried in the past in other states, and have been proven not to reduce any crime, but only serve to unnecessarily burden law-abiding citizens in the lawful exercise of their Second-Amendment rights. If "common sense" were used to try to reduce violent crime, it would be completely obvious that inanimate objects, can, by themselves, do nothing. The sole responsibility lies in the hands of the person who commits the crime, not in what object they chose to use in the perpetration of the crime. The focus of "public safety" initiatives should be keeping violent criminals off the streets, not limiting citizens of their Constitutionally -protected rights. I do not appreciate my tax dollars being used to advance this agenda, and then being further used to try to defend it in the inevitable litigation of these infringements on Virginian's rights. Thank you for your time.
All Anti-Gun bills are Unconstitutional and Impede Citizens' right to Self Defense. We, the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia OPPOSE any and all of these and will fight each and every one of themthem
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Many of the bills proposed have already been declared unconstitutional by multiple Supreme Court decisions. Most others are likely to be struct down in future court proceedings. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Respectfully, Mark Salamone
Unconstitutional. What part of shall not be infringed is misunderstood?
I firmly oppose any laws or policies that infringe upon my Second Amendment rights. I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional protection, and I do not support legislation that restricts law‑abiding citizens from exercising that right. Tucker Ophof Bristow, VA 20136
Stop all bills restricting our Second Amendment rights.
I strongly oppose this bill. HB 702
I appose this bill.
My name is Cole Zerrenner, and I am a registered voter residing in Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia. I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to the following bills scheduled before the House Public Safety – Firearms Subcommittee: HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359. I oppose these bills because, taken individually and collectively, they impose additional restrictions and penalties on law-abiding citizens while failing to meaningfully address criminal misuse of firearms or the underlying causes of violence. Many of these proposals expand prohibitions, create new compliance burdens, or rely on vague standards that raise concerns regarding due process, inconsistent enforcement, and unintended consequences. Several of the bills before the subcommittee emphasize preemptive restrictions or broad prohibitions rather than focusing on enforcement of existing laws, accountability for criminal conduct, or effective mental health interventions. Policies that reduce procedural safeguards or delay the exercise of constitutional rights risk undermining public confidence without clear evidence of improved public safety outcomes. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider whether these measures meaningfully target criminal behavior or instead primarily impact responsible Virginians who already comply with the law. Public safety is best served through targeted enforcement, due process protections, and policies that address root causes rather than symbolic or duplicative restrictions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record and for your consideration of my views. Respectfully submitted, Cole Zerrenner Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia
First and foremost, I fully support any comments made by Virginia Citizens Defense League, The NRA, and Gun Owners of America in regard to support for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. A lot of these proposed bills are unconstitutional and may even be a civil rights violation due to the fact that they most certainly will disproportionally have a negative effect on minorities, women, and people of lower income and certainly violating an 18–20 year-old persons 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms. If they have to work and pay taxes and be held accountable as an adult you can't legally deny them any rights under the constitution. Many of these proposed bills have already successfully been challenged at the U.S. Supreme court in rulings supporting the 2nd amendment. Examples cases- v Heller and v Bruen, so you are intentionally trying to pass bills that will not hold up in court and wasting valuable taxpayer money to pursue these bills. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Sincerely, Chris McDorman
Why I Oppose Each Bill below: HB 19 – Opposition: Punishes a non‑violent misdemeanor unrelated to firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); Hayes (4th Cir. 2009) – proportionality; Bruen (2022) – no historical basis for such a blanket ban. HB 21 – Opposition: Imposes strict liability for third‑party crimes, chilling lawful commerce. Violates: Heller (2008); Printz (1997) – cannot commandeer private actors; Bruen (2022) – no historic analogue. HB 40 – Opposition: Criminalizes already‑lawful homemade components and deprives property without compensation. Violates: Heller (2008); Miller (1939) – regulation must have a reasonable safety link; Bruen (2022); Lucas (1992) – takings. HB 93 – Opposition: Overbroad removal punishes lawful spouses and 18‑20‑year‑olds who may already possess firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); McDonald (2010); Bruen (2022) – age‑restriction lacks history; Carpenter (2018) – vague “if officer believes” standard violates due process. HB 110 – Opposition: Penalizes mere visibility and treats the gun as property that can be seized without due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Jones (2012) – towing = unlawful seizure; Bruen (2022) – no historic precedent. HB 217 – Opposition: Bars weapons in common lawful use and imposes capacity limits without historical support. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Miller v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2021). HB 229 – Opposition: Prevents lawful armed visitors in public medical settings without a narrow justification. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Katz (1967) – potential Fourth‑Amendment search issues. HB 626 – Opposition: Denies adult students the right to self‑defense on public campuses. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Washington v. Davis (1976) – lacks rational basis. HB 702 – Opposition: Authorizes confiscation/destruction of lawfully owned property without compensation or due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Kelo (2005) – takings require just compensation; Bruen (2022) - no historic precedent. HB 871 – Opposition: Expensive, tech‑exclusive requirement makes lawful loaded storage impracticable. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) – overinclusive impact on owners with minors. HB 969 – Opposition: Single‑issue agency risks viewpoint discrimination and may enable firearm‑specific regulations lacking constitutional footing. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) – inadequate procedural due process. HB 1359 – Opposition: Creates costly, time‑consuming barriers that effectively deny the right to acquire firearms for lawful purposes. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); McDonald (2010); Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966) – fee structure resembles a poll tax. The Virginia Constitution’s Article I § 16 protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and the state Supreme Court requires any limitation to be narrowly tailored, historically grounded, and consistent with due‑process (§ 13) and takings (§ 14) protections. The bills listed: HB 19, 93, 110, 871 (mandatory surrenders/penalties); HB 21, 40, 1359 (civil‑liability or costly licensing); HB 217, 229, 626, 702 (bans on common‑use firearms or accessories); and HB 969 (a gun‑only state agency)—all impose restrictions without a clear historical analogue, over‑reach permissible regulation, and create undue financial or procedural burdens. Consequently, they conflict with Virginia’s constitutional guarantees.
I SUPPORT HB1303. A right delayed is a right denied. I OPPOSE HB19: Misdemeanors should not remove rights. I OPPOSE HB21: How could a firearm accessory seller reasonably know if they were selling a gun sling to a prohibited person? Should a car parts store be sued if they sold a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery? I OPPOSE HB40: Even a chunk of aluminum, if sold to the public to become a frame or receiver once completed, must be serialized under this bill. The bill doesn’t grandfather existing homemade firearms. This bill is unconstitutional under Bruen. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. I OPPOSE HB93: There are multiple problems with the bill as written. If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun for home defense, for example, and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that co-owned shotgun. That punishes the wife and needlessly endangers her life. Also, a person 18-20yo can legally possess rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Others right can not be removed because of the actions of another. I OPPOSE HB110: The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. I OPPOSE HB217: The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently in Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the 2A. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the US & VA, making this bill unconstitutional. I OPPOSE HB229: Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under Bruen. I OPPOSE HB626: A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students and staff are adults and have a right to self-defense. I OPPOSE HB702: Destroying what might be perfectly functional, and possibly quite valuable, firearms is a waste of money. The State could offset any costs by selling the firearms to licensed gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program, the government never owned them. I OPPOSE HB871: Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes. Biometric safes can be unreliable when being used under stress and they also require batteries to work. There are plenty of other locking mechanisms for safes that are more secure. I OPPOSE HB969: The Center would only be targeting violence committed using firearms and ignoring the root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm! I OPPOSE HB1359: This bill WILL get innocent people killed, as it will take at least two months before a person can purchase their first firearm. If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long. The price to get a permit, is not equitable. Even citizens with CHPs will be limited to one handgun a month. Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country. It is sickening to see this bill even proposed.
Disarming the law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry of the Commonwealth is going to drive me away from this state. Stop creating unconstitutional efforts that curtail my Rights as an American Citizen. If you want to change the Right, then change the Constitution through the amendment process. Otherwise, focus on what you can really change and fund. Schools and roads. Quit wasting my hard earned money that I spend on local businesses that keep Virginians employed. I am not the only one who will vote with my feet. I left California for a reason...not you're trying to re-create it on the East coast.
In summary, I support House Bills 19, 93, 110, 201, 691, 696, 702, 871, 901, 909, 969, 1303, and 1359. I oppose House Bills 21, 40, 207, 217, 229, 626, 700, 907, 919. Please refer to my attached document for further explanation.
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.
Gun buyback programs are an ineffective and inefficient response to gun violence. They overwhelmingly collect obsolete, damaged, or unwanted firearms rather than weapons used in crimes, producing no meaningful reduction in violent crime. Despite this, buybacks consume taxpayer dollars that could be spent on proven interventions such as focused deterrence policing, mental health treatment, or community-based violence prevention. Worse, many states choose to destroy surrendered firearms, squandering a clear fiscal opportunity. Lawfully owned, functional guns could be resold through regulated auctions, generating revenue to support public safety or victim compensation instead of being melted down at public expense. Ultimately, gun buybacks substitute symbolism for strategy—offering political theater while failing both public safety and basic financial responsibility.
I strongly oppose this bill.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently proposed bills on gun control. While I understand the intent behind these bills—to enhance public safety—I firmly believe that they will have unintended consequences that infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms", and it is a fundamental part of what makes this country free. These bills being proposed would place unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on responsible gun owners, making it harder for Virginians to exercise their rights in a lawful and safe manner. Rather than focusing on restricting access to firearms, I urge the General Assembly to consider measures that target criminals and illegal activities, such as enforcing stricter penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of crimes, or improving background checks for gun purchases. It is essential to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues and gang-related activity, rather than punishing responsible gun owners who follow the law. Furthermore, these proposed bills could create significant logistical challenges for gun owners, particularly those who rely on their firearms for self-defense, hunting, or recreational activities. The financial burden and potential legal ramifications of complying with these new regulations would be overwhelming for many Virginians. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and to focus on policies that protect both our rights and our communities. I trust that you will make the best decision for all Virginians, and I sincerely hope that you will oppose these bills.
HB110, Del. Laufer (D): This bill will save lives by eliminating provisions allowing any person to store their firearms in their car and preventing firearms from being stolen from cars. I SUPPORT this bill as half of all stolen guns are ones that are stolen from a car, and half of all crimes committed with a gun have a stolen gun used. This is a straightforward way to reduce these crimes and gun violence. HB19, Del. McClure (D): I SUPPORT this bill as it expands critical protections to additional relationship categories. This is a critical step to ensuring that more individuals are protected from domestic violence and gun violence. HB21, Del. Helmer (D): I SUPPORT this bill as industry accountability is a great way to force manufacturers to raise standards of safety. Firearm manufacturers and distributors must be held accountable for reckless behavior and practices that make our communities less safe. HB229, Del. Hernandez (D): I SUPPORT this bill and commonsense restrictions on gun access and believe in protecting the safety of our medical care providers. HB24, Del. Helmer (D): I SUPPORT this bill as visitors wishing to carry concealed handguns in Virginia should meet the same level of safety requirements that we require of our state’s residents. HB40, Del. Simon (D): I SUPPORT this bill as it would make it easier to prosecute and prevent crimes committed by ghost guns. HB626, Del. Callsen (D): I SUPPORT extending the protection of k-12 schools to our institutions of higher education. HB702, Del. Cole (D): I SUPPORT this bill as currently it can be incredibly difficult to find a way to get a gun destroyed that you no longer want or has come into your possession through something like inheritance. The public benefits from the creation of more drop-off point for individuals, of their own free will, to relinquish firearms to be destroyed. HB700, Hayes (D): I SUPPORT this bill as waiting periods provide law enforcement additional time to perform an accurate background check and create a “cooling off” period to prevent acts of violence or suicide attempts. HB93, Bennett-Parker: I SUPPORT this bill, as it strengthens protections for domestic violence survivors. We must establish a clear process to separate a person from their firearms who has been convicted of a domestic violence offense, or who is subject to a protective order.
Adam Turck was shot and killed in August of 2025 when he saw someone in trouble and intervened to help. He was in his early 30's and beloved in both the theater and weightlifting community here in RVA. Lets not make his loss of life be in vain. Gun ownership is already at an all time high, so it makes sense to enact laws that reflect that. These four bills are not trying to take away anyone's guns. They are trying to create deterrents to tragic events like the one that happened to Adam. Please dont be swayed by the ugly rhetoric that I have read in some of the comments. We can enact a few common sense gun safety laws without people fearing that their guns will be taken away. That is an old argument and one that is never going to be realized. So lets move on from that and do what we can to ensure the public safety as much as possible. Thanks for your consideration of: HB 93, HB 702, HB 110, and HB 19
I support HB702 because it creates a safe, voluntary way for individuals to relinquish firearms they no longer want or need. Establishing a statewide give-back program makes it easier to responsibly and permanently remove unwanted guns from circulation.
Oppose every and all bills.
I stand with the VCDL on these bills.
I stand with VCDL on these bills.
I stand with VCDL on these bills. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". End of story. Let me point you back to the part that states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
I support the presented gun laws that will improve the Commonwealth’s safety
I stand with VCDL on these bills.
I stand with VCDL on all firearms bills
I stand with the VCDL concerning these bills
Why is it when the world turns to shit all the elected representatives in the Democratic Party wants to pass nonsense firearm legislation Lets go after the actual criminals once Use the firearm laws already in the books and hold criminals accountable instead of creating criminals from law abiding firearm owners unless it’s part of the agenda to disarm the citizens Which is what it’s looking like. I am an independent voter just for reasons such as this
I stand with VCDL on these bills!
Gun control will not be tolerated. I have a ton of money and will see you in court.
I stand with VCDL on all the above bills
I stand with the VCDL on these bills.
I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills.
In 2021, my elderly stepmother shot through a closed door during an argument with my elderly father, striking him in the back and paralyzing him. My father has spent the past five years in extreme physical agony, unable to walk, paying caretakers out of pocket to hoist him in and out of bed, unable to care for himself. The lack of movement in his life has led to horrific bed sores, which become bone infections, which lead to extended hospital stays and a horrible quality of life. All this because my stepmother was allowed to have a gun. There are countless stories like this of the bullet's aftermath: of the lifelong physical and mental damage that comes from guns. It has been a horrific five years, full of physical pain and mental anguish for our entire family. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The bills before you now will not only save lives, they will spare whole swaths of our neighborhoods from needing to deal with these horrors. One bullet, lodged in my father's spine, didn't kill him. Instead, it has shattered the life he had, his ability to work and care for himself, and his family. Each bullet we allow in our communities has the ability to do the same. His care has bankrupted him personally, and now he relies on state care and Medicaid, an avoidable burden on taxpayers. There are numerous reasons guns have no place in our society, and I hope my father's story is just one that helps make change. Please support all bills that make guns harder to access, harder to keep. Please do everything you can to keep guns out of the hands of our society. Thank you for the great work you are doing to keep Virginians safe.
I stand in full support of the VCDL against these unconstitutional bills! You folks were elected to serve the Virginia citizen, not turn them into you serfs!
I stand with the VCDL on all issues
I stand with VCDL
I support the VCDL's stance on these bills.
I side with the VCDL on these bills.
I agree with the VCDL
I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Thank you.
I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) on the bills selected. For further clarification: The stance that the VCDL takes on these bills, I also take the same stance.
I do NOT support HB702. While voluntary surrender programs may be well-intended, this proposal risks reducing lawful second-hand firearm availability, driving up costs for local buyers, and incentivizing local governments to participate in a state-funded program. As a taxpayer, I do not believe this is an appropriate use of state tax revenue.
I want to speak about the gun control bills that are up for a vote.
Dear Committee Members, I urge you to appose all further restrictions on the right of law abiding Virginians to aquire, keep, and lawfully carry firearms. While this will likely fall on deaf ears, it is obvious that such unconstitutional bills do nothing to curb violence and are entirely intended to penalize law abiding citizens of apposing political persuasion. Even the most modest estimates of defensive gun use annually shows that citizens defend themselves with firearms far more often than do criminals commit murder with them. Only law abiding citizens are impeded by such overreach.
Members of the General Assembly, I submit this letter in response to several firearms-related bills currently under consideration, including HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696, and HB702. While these proposals differ in scope, they collectively expand government control over the lawful exercise of a constitutionally protected right. That cumulative effect warrants careful scrutiny. The Second Amendment was not adopted as a policy preference or regulatory convenience. It was written as a structural safeguard, grounded in the Founders’ experience with centralized authority and their understanding of history and human nature. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to solve a problem the Founders knew well from history: free republics collapse when the government holds a monopoly on force. This concern was not abstract. British gun control policies played a direct role in sparking the American Revolution, including the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder, the 1774–1775 confiscations of privately owned arms and powder, and the use of violence to enforce those confiscations. On the morning of April 19, 1775, British forces marched to Lexington and Concord for the explicit purpose of seizing firearms, ammunition, and powder from the colonists. The first shots of the Revolution were fired not over abstract theory, but over disarmament. The Founders carried these lessons forward. They distrusted standing armies and concentrated power, understanding that liberty survives only when authority remains restrained and answerable to the people. To them, the militia was not a narrow, state-controlled force, but the people themselves. George Mason stated plainly, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” James Madison explained that an armed populace serves as a safeguard against abuse of power, writing that “the advantage of being armed… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” This applied not only to foreign threats, but to domestic overreach. The goal was deterrence and prevention, not reaction after liberty has been lost. Alexander Hamilton likewise observed that a standing army could never threaten liberty so long as the people retained comparable access to arms and training. The Founders relied on balance and structure, not perpetual trust in future leaders. Samuel Adams made this understanding explicit during the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, stating, “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” This reflects the Founders’ clear intent that lawful citizens retain arms independent of government discretion. The Bill of Rights restrains government power. The Second Amendment enforces those restraints. Rights that exist only at the discretion of the state are not rights at all. The Amendment’s language is declarative, recognizing a pre-existing right because a well-armed citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state. I respectfully urge the General Assembly to evaluate these bills not only individually, but for their combined impact on the constitutional balance between the citizen and the government. Legislation affecting a fundamental right should meet the highest standard of necessity and restraint. The preservation of liberty demands nothing less. Respectfully, Brad Rector, MSgt, USAF Ret Williamsburg, VA
Each regional division headquarters of the state police may voluntarily serve as a drop-off point for individuals, of their own free will, to relinquish firearms to be destroyed. We SUPPORT this bill as currently it can be incredibly difficult to find a way to get a gun destroyed that you no longer want or has come into your possession through something like inheritance.
I stand with the VCDL regarding our inherent Second Amendment rights. You took an oath to protect, defend, and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Law abiding citizens should NOT have to have our rights stolen based on others unconstitutional views.
I agree with VCDL's position on all bills.
These anti -gun bills are unconstitutional. Under no circumstances should they be passed into law. “Shall not be infringed!”
I support VCDL’s position on the following bills. As one of the founding colonies, Virginia has a long history of firearms being kept, stored, and used by the average citizen and not relegated to an elite class. Virginias founders understood the importance of an armed population to protect against the dangers of tyranny and external maligned forces
I stand with VCDL.
There shouldn’t be any fees associated with the right to carry a firearm. Permits are nothing but the state taking a right and selling you it back to you. There should be no restricted locations in which a firearm can’t be carried.
I agree with the VCDL on this bill. The 2nd Amendment shall not be infringed.
I support the bills sponsored by Delegates Ballard, Hamilton, Cherry, and Zehr. I recommend they all be reported out of the Firearms subcommittee. I believe the bill sponsored by Delegate Cole is a waste of my tax dollars and would recommend that it is not reported out of the subcommittee. Thank you.
HB106, HB692: My out-of-state concealed carry license costs me $50. I should not have to pay the Commonwealth of VA such a high fee to be my own security. This should cost $0, but $25 down from $50 at least makes an improvement. HB623: The rightful owners of any weapon should have the ability to retrieve property wrongfully taken from them. Once the justice system's need for the weapon has ended, keeping the weapon from the rightful owner, who committed no wrongdoing, only makes the Commonwealth of VA a thief itself. HB691: Prohibiting the carry of firearms in parks and publicly permitted events does not make either safer. Anyone who would do harm will not abide by such restrictions, and such restrictions only make others soft targets. I used to run the trail in one such park that now prohibits the carry of firearms. A brutal murder took place there, and the current ban only makes someone like me less safe and more vulnerable. Similarly, in highway rest stops, the more dangerous part of making a stop happens when outside of a vehicle. It makes no sense to un-holster a firearm, potentially in a tight space, only store the firearms in a somewhere in the vehicle while I walk to where I cannot access it. HB702: Destroying a working firearm makes no sense whatsoever. This bill creates a waste of resources. It wastes raw materials and energy. Vote this down and replace it with a bill that makes surrendered guns purchasable at a discount by low-income buyers or by retired military, law enforcement, or first responders.
HB106, HB692: My out-of-state concealed carry license costs me $50. I should not have to pay the Commonwealth of VA such a high fee to be my own security. This should cost $0, but $25 down from $50 at least makes an improvement. HB623: The rightful owner of any weapon should have the ability to retrieve his or her property wrongfully taken from them. Once the justice system's need for the weapon has ended, keeping the weapon from the rightful owner, who committed no wrongdoing, only makes the Commonwealth of VA a thief itself. HB691: Prohibiting the carry of firearms in parks and publicly permitted events does not make either safer. Anyone who would do harm will not abide by such restriction, and such restrictions only make others soft targets by prohibiting. I used to run the trail in one such park that now prohibits the carry of firearms. A brutal murder took place there, and the current ban only makes someone like me less save and more vulnerable. Similarly, in highway rest stops, the more dangerous part of making a stop happens when outside of a vehicle. It makes no sense to un-holster a firearm, potentially in a tight space only store the firearms in a somewhere in the vehicle while I walk to where I cannot access it. HB702: Destroying a working firearm makes no sense whatsoever. This bill creates a waste of resources. It wastes raw materials and energy. Vote this down and replace it with a bill that makes surrendered guns purchasable at a discount by low-income buyers or by retired military, law enforcement, or first responders.
I stand with VCDL.
I am writing to oppose the current slate of firearm restriction bills before the General Assembly. While these proposals are framed as public safety measures, in practice they disproportionately harm marginalized Virginians — including racial minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals (especially trans people), immigrants, and low-income residents — who often face higher risks of targeted violence and slower or unequal police response. These bills add costs, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles to exercising a fundamental right. Increased fees, mandatory waiting periods, feature bans, and expanded disqualifications fall hardest on people with limited financial resources, unstable work schedules, or justified concerns about their personal safety. For many vulnerable individuals, the ability to lawfully and promptly acquire a firearm is not about ideology, but about self-defense. History shows that restrictive gun laws are most aggressively enforced in minority communities, amplifying disparities in arrests, prosecution, and legal exposure — even when no harm has occurred. Expanding civil liability, criminal penalties, and subjective risk standards increases that risk. Public safety should not come at the expense of civil rights or equal access to self-protection. Policies that price people out of their rights or delay lawful self-defense do not address the root causes of violence and instead leave the most vulnerable less safe. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and support approaches that protect both public safety and the rights of all Virginians, regardless of income, identity, or background. Thank you for your time and consideration.
I agree with the VCDL on this bill.
No new firearms laws will lower gun violence rates. Begin enforcing the existing laws and stop letting violent offenders off the hook. All of the firearms related bills being presented fly directly in the face of the 2nd amendment. Making guns harder to come by for law abiding citizens does not stop criminals from getting them. They don’t obey the law anyway! If you pass these bills it will be a direct statement that you do not care about the rights of Virginia residents and only seek to disarm all citizens. The second amendment is quite clear, “shall not be infringed”, stop infringing on our rights given to us by our creator God almighty. Please, truly think about what you are voting for. I think you will realize that the majority of Virginians do not want these new gun laws and that they will be ineffective at achieving your intended goals. Whether that be a sincere attempt to lower gun violence or an overt attempt to disarm law abiding American citizens. Thank you for the time you dedicate to serving our great commonwealth and for taking the time to read this comment.
I agree with VCDL on all these bills.
I support the VCDL stance on these bills.
I agree with the VCDL.
I support House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, and 696. The 2nd amendment is a neccessary to prevent any government infringement on our liberties. It is particularly neccessary in the time that we are currently living through. With the current civil unrest throughout the country we should encourage more gun ownership and carrying of firearms. The Virginia Constitution in Article I Section 3 states that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...". I believe these laws lessen the infringements on the rights that so many Virginians died for. I strong oppose House Bill 702. I oppose the give-back program for two reasons. Firstly, I believe destroying these firearms will lead to the destruction of historical firearms. This has occured in many other states. It would be preferable to have them stored or resold. I also worry about the financial costs that a bill like this would have. The labor costs and cost of destruction could be better allocated in our schools, roads, or VIrginia State Police.
HB101: This allows for modern electronic methods of applying for concealed handgun permits. I strongly support this bill. HB106: The monetary burden for exercising your right to bear arms should be as low as possible so everyone can participate. I strongly support this bill. HB540: I strongly support this bill. HB623: There should always be a clearly defined route for having seized property of any kind returned. I strongly support this bill. HB691: Citizens should not have to choose between exercising their Constitutionally protected rights or enjoying the parks and other public facilities in their area - especially those of us that are parents and choose to bear arms to protect our families. I strongly support this bill. HB692: I strongly support this bill. HB696: Similar to HB691, I should be able to use the rest areas that my taxes help to pay for while peacefully exercising my right to bear arms in self defense. Lawful firearm owners are no danger to the other guests of these rest stops or government run stores. Criminals looking for easy targets will happily violate the law as it stands now to go armed in these areas knowing that their victims are disarmed. I strongly support this bill. HB702: Programs like the one that this bill are mainly used by family members to destroy heirloom firearms that are no longer wanted and in many cases rare or historic firearms are permanently destroyed with no option for museums, historians or collectors to rescue them. I OPPOSE this bill as it is written here and would prefer to see a program where the public is allowed access to purchase any abandoned firearms at fair market value before they are destroyed.
HB101, Del. Ballard, this would be helpful and accessible to people with mobility impairments and stalking victims who fear leaving home HB106, Del. Ballard - this would make CHPs more accessible to the working poor living in expensive areas. HB540, Del. Hamilton - this will help victims of domestic violence far more HB623, Del. Cherry, - return of confiscated weapons should be automatic, but since it is not, this is the next best thing HB691, Del. Zehr, - courts have already ruled that laws restricting firearms in these areas are unconstitutional HB692, Del. Zehr, - this will help those whose budgets are already tight and is consistent with the reduction in charges based on court rulings that UBCs are unconstitutional for 18-21 year olds. HB696, Del. Zehr - stalkers only need to follow us into places where we cannot carry to complete their crimes. Let's reduce the availability of defense free zones HB702, Del. Cole, J., - this is an expensive program that lacks justification. There are services to dispose of unwanted firearms already, we don't need more government to achieve this.
I support VCDL’s position on this legislation.
Please reject HB702. What I object to most about this bill is its use of the term "give-back." Virginians did not receive their guns from the government, so giving guns to the government is not giving them "back." Second, the bill should not require that guns be destroyed; otherwise, valuable antique firearms which would not have been used in crime may be needlessly destroyed. Any program to allow people to dispose of firearms should not be funded at taxpayer expense and should require that firearms be sold at auction.
I am writing in support of HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696 and in opposition to HB702. Any bills returning us to the simple verbiage in the Constitution stating "shall not be infringed" is a bill that any representative should be happy to sign. HB702 is a nonsensical bill and unnecessary bill . Anyone no longer wishing to possess a firearm can very easily sell it to an FFL for compensation or destruction if it is beyond repair.
As a retired US Army Warrant Officer and avid gun enthusiast, I agree with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed! This is a punishment to law abiding Virginians.
I agree with the VCDL positions regarding the above bills.
The attachment lays out reasoning and comments the committee should consider when reviewing House Bills 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696 and 702.
I agree with VCDL. No infringement on my Constitutional Rights.
I agree with the VCDL on this bill.
This is a waste of the tax payers money. If someone has an unwanted firearm they can go to a gun shop and sell it to them instead of turning it in to be destroyed. What would be the cost to us taxpayers? This is ridiculous!!
So called buy back programs have always proven to be a significant waste of tax payer money and have done nothing to remove fully functional firearms from circulation. This would be better served by informing citizens that they can simply sell unwanted firearms to FFLs and as for non-functional firearms they should contact local law enforcement who can evaluate the firearm and take it for disposal. There is no reason to waste tax payer money buying firearms from citizens.
We stand with VCDL
aprrove hb 101 reduces time and government employee's time saving money approve hb106 it doesn't cost $50 in labor to renew a permit approve hb 540 women need to be able to protect themselves against dangerous males approve hb 623 a firearm should be returned to the original owner after someone used it illegally approve hb 696 rest stops are very dangerous areas for criminals to attack people oppose 702 firearms should be sold to a legitimate FFL Dealer not destroyed. The money could be put into the general fund
Dear Chairman Clark and Members of the sub-committee, I am strongly opposed to any bill that restricts the constitutional rights of Virginians to own, purchase, carry or use firearms responsibly. This is an inherent right which can NOT be negated by the General Assembly. So called "Common Sense" gun regulations do nothing but infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. Please redirect your efforts on becoming tough on violent crime, removing illegal aliens from the Commonwealth, and lowering taxes for hard working Virginians. I support HB 101, 106, 540, 623, 691, 692, 696 and am opposed to HB 702. Thank you for your time regarding this matter.
Please support these bills. As a Democrat and gun owner, we need to support common sense gun legislation that protects the rights of lawful gun owners and those seeking to purchase firearms for self-defense reasons. My girlfriend used a handgun to protect herself against a forced entry into her apartment. Without that firearm, which she did not fire, there is no telling what could have happened. Please support these bills - search your conscience.
I support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, and HB696. I oppose HB702.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills. Any infringement to our second amendment rights is unconstitutional and can not be allowed!
Chairman Clark and Members of the Subcommittee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony regarding the several firearms-related bills scheduled for consideration on January 22nd. I submit this comment in strong opposition to any legislation that restricts the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians, including but not limited to HB540, HB691, HB696, and any bill that imposes new fees, new barriers, or expanded discretion over the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment is not a conditional privilege granted by the state — it is a pre-existing individual right that government is obligated to protect, not chip away at. This is not a matter of personal opinion; it is the settled law of the United States, reaffirmed in Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022). Under Bruen, any modern firearms restriction must align with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. None of the proposals in these bills satisfy that standard. On fee increases and permit limitations (HB101, HB106, HB692) Attempting to raise fees or add administrative hurdles to the concealed handgun permit process places a financial burden on the exercise of a constitutional right. Fundamental rights cannot be conditioned on a citizen’s ability to pay a government-imposed fee. That principle is well established across multiple Supreme Court rulings dealing with constitutional freedoms. On expanding local authority to restrict firearms (HB691) Allowing localities to create their own firearm restrictions guarantees inconsistency, confusion, and unequal treatment of Virginians depending on which side of a city line they stand. State-level preemption exists for a reason: constitutional rights should not be fragmented or subject to a patchwork of differing local rules. This approach is not compatible with constitutional uniformity. On forfeiture, reclassification, and new criminal penalties (HB523, HB696) These proposals do not target criminal behavior; they target lawful Virginians. Violent crime is already committed overwhelmingly by individuals who are prohibited from owning firearms. Adding new categories of liability or expanding restricted locations has no historical foundation and only burdens citizens who already comply with the law. On the Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund (HB720) While labeled as voluntary, state-funded “give-back” programs have repeatedly been shown nationwide to provide no measurable improvement in public safety. They serve only symbolic purposes while reinforcing the misguided narrative that lawful gun ownership is inherently problematic. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund ineffective strategies with no empirical foundation. I respectfully urge the Subcommittee to reject any bill that infringes upon the rights of law-abiding Virginians to own, carry, and responsibly use firearms. Public safety is not achieved by restricting the liberties of responsible citizens. It is achieved by enforcing existing laws against those who commit violent acts and by upholding the constitutional protections that every Virginian is entitled to. Thank you for your time and your attention to this critical issue. Respectfully submitted, Patrick McCormick Citizen, Commonwealth of Virginia
I strongly support HB101, HB106, HB540, HB623, HB691, HB692, HB696 and I respectfully request the members to Support these bills on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. I am strongly opposed to HB702 I and respectfully request that Members oppose this bill on behalf of the Citizens of Virginia. Furthermore, I fully support the comments by VCDL- Virginia Citizens Defense League's on these proposed bills. Thank you, Chris McDorman
To the Honorable Members of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I am writing to you today to express my stance on several bills currently under review by this esteemed body. On Behalf of the People of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I agree with the Citizens Defense League on all these matters. And specifically, I disagree with HB 702. Not only is HB 702 a disgusting way to damage the environment with more trash, and encourages it, but the funds of the program are not correctly distributed back to where those taxes originally went. It also implies that the government gave me a product they did not and it's my responsibility to return it. Which is an inappropriate depiction of the government and certainly overreach. Thank You for reviewing my statement. Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia
These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills.
I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. These bills seem to only be targeting law abding citizens, which i do not agree with nor believe Virginia resident's will be better off for. Laws such as these will actually make Virginians less safe.
I agree with the VCDLs views on these bills. They are government over reach. All gun laws are infringements on the second amendment. The bills give criminals an upper hand because they don’t follow laws.
I agree with the VCDL on this bill and VA should follow the 2nd Amendment and what is being established at the Federal Govt level.
I support the position of VCDL on this bill.
I support the VCDL on these bills. Recognizing and expanding the rights of peaceful carry and ownership of all sorts of firearms is an essential part of guaranteeing freedoms for all VA citizens.
I respectfully urge you to vote NO on House Bill 702 (HB 702), the Virginia Firearm Give-Back Program and Fund during the 2026 session of the Virginia General Assembly. HB 702 would create a statewide “gun give-back” program that directs the Virginia State Police to serve as a permanent drop-off point for firearms surrendered by private citizens and requires those firearms to be destroyed by the Department. It also establishes a special fund to pay for the costs of administering the program and allows for confidential reporting on surrendered firearms. Participation by local law-enforcement agencies is technically “voluntary,” but the bill creates infrastructure that could encourage widespread surrender and destruction of firearms. While the bill is framed as a “voluntary” program, it raises serious concerns about its impact on the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the direction of firearms policy in Virginia: 1. Prematurely Encourages Surrender and Destruction of Lawfully Owned Firearms HB 702 sets up a program that could incentivize surrender and destruction of firearms — even those lawfully owned — without sufficient justification or safeguards to protect property rights. Voluntary programs that funnel guns toward destruction risk creating social pressure and stigma rather than addressing criminal misuse. 2. Establishes a New Government Fund Without Clear Accountability The bill creates a non-reverting “Virginia Firearm Give-Back Fund” to support the program. Money in this fund remains indefinitely and may be used in ways that advance firearms confiscation efforts rather than focusing on public safety outcomes supported by data. 3. Potential Slippery Slope for Future Mandatory Programs Even though participation by local law enforcement is labeled as voluntary, establishing a statewide structure for firearm surrender could lay the groundwork for future pressure or mandates toward buy-back or confiscation programs that do not respect individual rights. 4. Questionable Impact on Violent Crime There is little evidence that broad firearms surrender programs — especially voluntary ones — have a meaningful impact on violent crime rates. Laws and policies should instead focus on targeting criminal behavior and ensuring enforcement of existing statutes. Given these concerns about property rights, civil liberties, and the lack of clear evidence that such a program would improve public safety, I urge you to vote NO on HB 702.
I support this bill as the data and evidence show that it will reduce harm and deaths from guns. Taking this measure will ensure that guns are used responsibly and only for the intended consequences. Owning a gun is a serious responsibility and measures like this must be put into action as currently they are being misused and causing an epidemic in this country. Guns are the #1 killer of children and teens in the United States. When the impact of an item causes so much harm, measures must be put into place to protect people, especially children.
I support the following bills because guns are the number one cause of death for children in our commonwealth and our nation. HB 110 will help reduce the number of gun thefts from cars, and these thefts are on the rise. Additionally, we need to close the boyfriend loophole from domestic violence offenders (HB19).
These proposed bills are clear and direct violations of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional right. Virginia has been an upstanding example of bi-partisan gun ownership since its birth as a Commonwealth. At a time when many other constitutional rights are being directly challenged by the Federal Government, with little resistance from the Supreme Court & Congress, it is extremely ignorant and out of touch for Virginia representatives to even consider passing these unconstitutional bills. Whether it is Republicans or Democrats it seems our rights are being pinched away, piece by piece. I ask our representatives and Governor to use "common sense" and not pass these blatant violations to our guaranteed constitutional right. You representatives cannot simply pick and choose which constitutional amendments apply to citizens or we may as well not have a constitution at all.
HB927 - Human trafficking; creates process for use of digital identification and reporting platforms, etc.
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.
HB1000 - Rappahannock Area Transportation Authority; created, funding, Planning District 16.
HB1096 - Substantial Risk Order Reporting System; established.
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.
HB19 - Firearms; purchase, etc., after assault & battery of family or household member or intimate partner.
To these proposed bills, the Bills of Rights of the United States of America and the Commonwealth of Virginia apply: "That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law" - Constitution of Virginia, Article 1, Section 11, "That the General Assembly shall pass no law whereby private property, the right to which is fundamental, shall be damaged or taken except for public use" - Constitution of Virginia, Article 1, Section 11, "No person... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Constitution of The United States of America, Amendment V. HB19 - This bill expands already un-Constitutional red flag laws and could allow any person who has had sexual relations with the reported individual within the past 12 months to have their guns forcibly and un-Constitutionally taken by the State. The existing red flag laws are already immoral and illegal, do not expand the further expand the authoritarian powers of the State. HB702 - A firearm "give-back" or "buy-back" program implies that the State, in some capacity, has provided these firearms to the Residents of Virginia. As it stands, the State has only ever provided firearms to the Police; that being on a temporary basis for the duration of their employment by the State. Seeing as the State has never Gifted a firearm to any Resident, it would be improper for this proposed program to be named "give-back." Subsection (iv) states "that returned firearms shall be destroyed within 90 days after a determination that such firearms are not evidence and are not required for prosecution." Again, the word "returned" implies that the State provided these firearms to the Residents, which it has not. Additionally, destroying a firearm does nothing for Virginia or her Residents. Historically significant and antique firearms are allowed to be transferred to an FFL, why can modern firearms not also be transferred? Once the firearm in question is under the ownership of the State, there are many other ways that a State-owned firearm could be useful to the Commonwealth; destruction is not one of those ways. Finally, I will end with this from the Constitution of Virginia. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Every bill seeking to make the possession of any firearm more difficult, whether through taxation or bureaucratic processes, is a violation of not only the USA's Constitution, but the Constitution of our very own Commonwealth.
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.
HELL TO THE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLER SAYS THIS IS COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!
The gun bills are problematic for all of Virginia ..Every race will be affected.Dem Repub.Etc. It is plain to see in the form of complaints that democrat gun owners did not expect this.A moderate admin was expected.Now they realize the vote outcome was an extreme swing to the left bordering on communist traits..We may disagree or support some bills but there is common agreement that the gun bills are over each to the max..Join VCDL ,Gun owners of America, write your legislator..The problem iis just not gun bills .It is other dumb ideas such as a dog walking tax.That come from Richmond..Ideas that are empty in substance. And produce a lot of gibberish confused words..
I am writing as a concerned military member stationed in your district regarding the ongoing debate about proposed firearms legislation. As someone deeply committed to both public safety and constitutional liberties, I want to respectfully express my strong belief in the continued importance of the Second Amendment and share why I feel proposed restrictions could have unintended consequences. Recent events in Minneapolis, Minnesota have highlighted intense tensions around law-enforcement interactions and individual rights. On January 7, 2026, Renée Good, a 37-year-old citizen, was fatally shot by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Independent reporting indicates that the agent fired multiple shots at her vehicle, and eyewitness accounts have raised questions about whether those actions were justified. Later, on January 24, 2026, federal agents shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an intensive care nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital. Pretti’s death occurred amid a federal immigration operation, and while Department of Homeland Security officials contend he approached officers with a firearm, video footage and local accounts show him filming agents with a cellphone before he was pepper-sprayed, pinned to the ground, and shot multiple times. These incidents have sparked widespread protests and raised difficult questions about the use of force, accountability, and community safety. They also underscore the complexity of real-world encounters between armed individuals and law enforcement — whether federal agents or private citizens — and how quickly such situations can escalate. For many Americans, the Second Amendment serves as more than a constitutional phrase: it represents a safeguard for personal defense, protection of loved ones, and a check on potential abuses of power. As policymakers consider new regulations that could further restrict lawful firearm ownership, I urge careful consideration of the broader implications. Restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens may not prevent tragic events like those in Minnesota, especially when questions remain about how force was applied and whether existing policies and training were sufficient. Rather than broad legislative restrictions, I encourage: Strengthened enforcement of current laws to ensure that responsible gun owners aren’t unduly affected; Investment in community safety and law-enforcement training to de-escalate tense encounters before they turn deadly; Support for mental health services and conflict resolution programs that address underlying causes of violence; Enhanced transparency and accountability for all use-of-force incidents, whether involving federal agents or private citizens. The Second Amendment is an integral part of our constitutional framework. I believe that any legislative approach should respect that framework while promoting public safety in ways that do not diminish the rights of responsible citizens. Thank you for your service and for considering the diverse viewpoints of your constituents. I hope you will weigh these concerns carefully as you engage with ongoing legislative discussions.
With the exception of HB1303, HB229, HB871, and HB1300 I reject these bills as common sense gun law as written. Several are patently unconstitutional and a waste of committee time as they will be overturned on issuance. To my democratic friends, we do agree to common sense laws, but adding state licenses to federal tax plays is unacceptable. HB19, remove "or an offense substantially similar" as it vague and could not be reasonably enforced. HB21 does not provide a reasonable method to determine straw buyers. This is an enforcement issue and should be changed to fund LEO records reviews to identify and pursue straw buyers. HB40, material type and detectability should be irrelevant. While I support serialization of all components, 2A rights should not be infringed in place of enforcement methods. HB93 doesn't make sense. We want a prohibited person to get rid of firearms and LEOs can already apply for a warrant if they think prohibited persons still have firearms. If the law currently doesn't provide a window for prohibited persons to get rid of firearms we should focus on that aspect. HB110 remove the unattended motor vehicle may subject to removal clause and I am ok with this bill. HB217 anyone who uses the term "assault firearm" has no business writing legislation on firearms. This is a meaningless term. Magazine capacity, by itself, has no realistic baring on firearm lethality. 3-10 round vs 1-30 round mag with minimal practice is a 2-3 sec difference. HB626 creates complexity and vagueness where all we need are posted signs to prevent carry. HB702 is there really a police station that would turn you away if you wanted to turn in a weapon? This seems like unnecessary use of funds. HB969 is already covered by DOH, we do not need a new center bill to execute this work. Just increase their budget for this line item. HB1359 is the bill I reject the most. We already have federal background checks and do not need an additional tax/time delay to use our 2A rights. In general, I wish our democratic representatives to work with our republican representatives to find common sense and compromise. Focus on the bad guys with guns as the majority of Virginians respectfully and appropriately manage their firearms. The polls show where the common ground is and both sides ignore this in the search for whatever rationale they use to put forth bills and vote. You are making it harder than it needs to be, ignoring the will of the people, and failing to faithfully represent the majority.
Please vote no to any bill restricting the freedom offered to us through our beautiful consititution! This bill restricts our personal freedom.
Maybe the legislators will realize of how there infringing on citizens rights..The problem is the Democrat mindset.It is a deep-rooted disturbing system .The system is invoked in most Democrats.A system that started years ago.Created to manipulate laws,create new laws They seek to shape history in there own manner. Micromanage citizens lives through penalties for not complying.The simplest thing such as not paying for a car registration on time invokes a penalty.The U.S has become a penalized society .This was not the founders idea of a system..England did this ..Dictators , fascists, monarchs do this. And we see this in the gun bills introduced in session.A legal firearm today will be confiscated and be illegal tomorrow.It is amazing to see to see legislators copy other dictators systems and be proud of there accomplishment..Citizens will buy into this form of rights suppression.This happened during the American revolution ..Citizens become dependent on gov. to manage there life.Sad to see. This will remain on record and hopefully citizens 30 ,50 years from now,read this and learn about infringement of rights created by the authors of these bills..You , citizen can apply this to all Bill infringing ideas...
Why would you give Noncitzens have rights to anything? We do not need more illegals with guns. We have lost a lot of people in this country due to illegals. If they are not legal citizens of Virginia they do not get any rights. They need to apply for citizenship first before any rights should be given. Common sense. Also Our gun rights are set by the Constitution. You trying to change our rights is not ok with any of us and you know it. We have the Right to bare arms. To try to make any changes to that is not ok. Stop impeding on our rights and Actually help the Citizens of Virginia Not the illegals. Let ICE do their jobs and stop with the drama. Use COMMON SENSE.
The statements here are a permanent record.Of how citizens opposed oppressive infringing behavior by legislators creating bad laws.Infringing on citizens rights.May future generations read this and oppose any bad law that is oppressive to citizens and the constitution. If you do not believe look at other countries of past that oppressed there citizens rights.God Bless
Good afternoon I write to this committee today to show my concern over these unconstitutional bills that lay before you. Every bill that is being proposed does nothing to save one Va citizens life. These bills are about control. This nation was founded on principals to keep governing officials and tyrannical measures off the shores of America. Guns are not the problem, we have a problem of the heart when it comes to humanity. The tool does not change the outcome. We have seen time and time again where nations have stripped the rights of citizens only to still use issues with gangs, drugs and government corruption. With the 1st amendment we are allowed to speak against our government and others who seek to destroy our constitutional republic. The second amendment is what keeps the rest of our right in tact. By limiting the types of firearms and or magazines we are allowed to own you are taking our fundamental liberties as Americans away. Many of you from the larger cites and or other less rural areas don’t understand that semi auto firearms allow us to hunt coyotes that harm the live stock of the farmers in our areas. They are also need in some instances when there are more than 2-3 attackers in a home invasion. Just because some of you didn’t not grow up with guns and or hunting doesn’t meant you legislate it away from those us who use firearms for sport and protection. I grew up in a family that mostly only hunted deer and squirrels but as I got older and really understood what the 2nd amendment was for I quickly have changed my families out look on firearms and there importance in the American household. Mental illness is where politicians need to spend their efforts but neither the state or federal level wants to tackle that. If you fix the mental health crisis and gang crisis in our nation there’s no reason for individuals to resort to violence that takes innocent life.
Giving up your right to the 2nd amendment For those who think that the 2nd Amendment does not matter then read giving up the right to protect yourself from unlawful may again lead to this!!!!!! Disarmament of the German Jews The Holocaust warns us of the deadly consequences of antisemitism and hatred, dehumanization and apathy left unchallenged those who perished in Nazi death camps The disarmament of the German Jews started in 1933, initially limited to local areas. A major target was Berlin, where large-scale raids in search for weaponry took place. Starting in 1936, the Gestapo prohibited German police officers from giving firearms licenses to Jews. In November 1938, the Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden prohibited the possession of firearms and bladed weapons by Jews. The legal foundations that the Nazi Party later used for the purpose of disarming the Jews were already laid during the Weimar Republic. Starting with the Reichsgesetz über Schusswaffen und Munition (Reich law on firearms and ammunition), enacted on 12 April 1928, weapon purchase permits were introduced, which only allowed "authorized persons" the purchase and possession of firearms. Mandatory registration of weapons was introduced, which gave the government the opportunity of accessing weapon owner and their weapons at any given time. Manufacture and sale of weapons was only permitted if authorized so. The purpose was to ensure that firearms were only issued to "reliable individuals". Starting in 1930, bladed weapons were also regulated. The carrying of weapons in public now required a weapons permit Immediately following the "Machtergreifung" in 1933, the weapon laws of the Weimar Republic were used to disarm Jews, or to use the excuse of "searching for weapons" as a justification for raids and searches of homes. Because the weapons law of 1928 gave the police the authority to issue or withdraw weapon permits, Jewish weapon owners were disarmed through warrants issued by the police. For instance, the president of the police of Breslau enacted an order on 21 April 1933 which stated that Jews had to give their weapons and shooting permits to the police immediately. After the Jewish population was judged as not to be trusted, no weapon permits were issued to them The weapons law was also used for searches of homes and raids. The preface for that was the allegation that the victims of these searches stored large amounts of weapons and ammunition. A prominent example is Albert Einstein, whose summer residence in Caputh, near the Schwielowsee was searched in spring 1933. The only item found there was a bread knife. Raids, for instance on 4 April 1933 at the Scheunenviertel in Berlin, also took place. Not only many weapons were found, but also a lot of publications that included criticism of Nazi Germany. Sometimes, Jews without residence permits were also found and arrested. Starting in 1935, the Gestapo prevented the issue of weapon permits and weapon purchase permits to Jews. The police authorities were the executing authorities and had to comply with the orders issued by the Gestapo. The self-defense of Jews was abolished, and they were subjected to the arbitrariness and terror of the police authorities, without the need to introduce a new law for this. Nazi Germany from 1941 to 1945. For all groups persecuted by Nazi Germany
Dear Members of the House Committee, Thank you for the time and effort you give to reviewing legislation that impacts the safety of our Commonwealth. I am writing as a law-abiding Virginia resident who cares deeply about public safety and about protecting the constitutional rights of responsible citizens. My concern with the firearm bills currently before this committee is not rooted in politics, but in whether these proposals truly make our communities safer or instead place additional burdens on citizens who are not the source of violent crime. Respectfully, I ask the committee to consider the following: Public safety is ultimately about people, not objects. Acts of violence are committed by individuals who choose to harm others. Laws that focus primarily on regulating firearms owned by responsible citizens do not address the behavior of those intent on committing crimes. These proposals largely affect law-abiding Virginians. Criminals, by definition, do not follow firearm laws. Restrictions on possession, transfer, or technical features primarily impact citizens who already comply with the law and use firearms responsibly for self-defense. The Supreme Court has affirmed individual firearm rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognized an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense. More recently, NYSRPA v. Bruen held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. Many modern restrictions raise serious constitutional questions under this standard. The public safety benefit of these measures is unclear. Research and court findings show mixed or inconclusive evidence that bans or feature-based restrictions reduce violent crime. Meanwhile, illegal markets, theft, and repeat offenders remain largely unaffected. True public safety solutions focus on violent behavior. Enforcing existing laws, addressing repeat violent offenders, improving mental health resources, and targeting illegal firearm use would more directly improve safety without limiting the rights of responsible citizens. I believe most Virginians want safer communities and effective solutions that address violence at its source. I respectfully ask this committee to consider whether these bills accomplish that goal, or whether they risk limiting constitutional rights without meaningfully improving public safety. Thank you for your time, your service, and your consideration. Respectfully, Ron Lowman Virginia Resident
If a nation's government becomes so oppressive and tyrannical, we have the right to fight it. Our guns provide us with self defense against tyranny, evil, and malice. Our forefathers knew this and that is the very reason for the second amendment. It shall not be infringed!
Our freedom was won with illegal and unregistered firearms. Please look to VCDL and G.O.A. for guidance on second amendment issues.
I appose these bills.
When our founding fathers wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, they had just won their independence from a tyrannical system. The 2nd Amendment was right at the top behind freedom of speech because it’s THAT important. As elected representatives of the greater Commonwealth you MUST vote NO on any new legislation that will restrict law abiding citizens from exercising their rights under the US Constitution. It states “Shall not be infringed…” which means any rule or law attempting to be enforced or passed is in direct violation of our country’s constitutional rights. Enough is enough. NO on all these bills. Radical tyranny must be met with vigilance from FREE people. Do the right thing.
Please OPPOSE: HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. All of these are infringements on Americans' Second Amendment Civil Rights and will not address their stated intent
Gov Spangenberger received support from Virginia Police benevolent association, claims she was a federal law enforcement officer.But cuts ties with immigration enforcement . To place detainers and notify federal authorities of criminals being released from detainment.The claim of supporting law enforcement and doing the opposite when it comes detainer notification is hypocrisy..Same deal with firearms owners..
Our Bill of Rights are the Laws Of We The People for the Government State and Federal to abide by. Not for the Governments to use and change the definitions to meet their agenda to make Conservative Christians into criminals. Any and all anti gun regulations, restrictions or bans against law abiding America Citizen the Rights to bare Arms shall not infringed and will not be permanent. An act of the legislature which is repugnant to the Constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison, 1803. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". It protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in the home, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2008.
I support this bill.
I retired from the military after 26 years of service. I could have chose any state to settle. However I chose Virginia. Taking our right away or any part of it to bear arms is unconstitutional. What is an assault weapon. The Ar platform is just a semiautomatic rifle. Law abiding citizens use these for sport and hunting nuisance animals such as coyotes etc. Speed limits are what they are yet people buy sports cars that double or triple speed limits. That is the great thing about America we live free. I’m not against gun reform; but let’s use common sense gun reform. Make gun owners have guns stored in locked safes. Let’s look into mental health. These two things will prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands. My belief is that criminals will always get guns because they don’t follow law. Why are we punishing law abiding citizens? If these bills amongst others I will be deciding to relocate and support a state that stand behind the second amendment I so longed to protect and preserve. God bless Virginia.
The same politicians whom plan to penalize citizens for lawfully owned firearms by making them illegal.Plan on reducing mandatory minimum sentences and bail for criminals. makes sense..Semi auto ban,magazine ban,penalties and more for honest citizens
The qualify immunity bill if can give scitizen rights to sue the judiciary for illegal gun control bills
The 14 bills manufactured with only one thought behind them .Passing the bills at all costs.Sacrificing citizens rights with down the road illegality which is what oslegal today.Oh we will pick and choose what to grandfather. In other words firearms are legal now but we will do you a favor citizen and grandfather them in when we make them illegal. Big egos and ideas that don't work.
I oppose these bills.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills
I adamantly oppose all of these bills and their overreach. You going to take the bulk of Virginia citizens and make them criminals by the stroke of a pen.
Misdemeanor must not cause this action, way off legal base. VOTE NO as written
11 percent tax,500 dollar suppressors, what happened to the promise of lower costs..Did anyone offer a gun bill to lower concealed permit fees?
Stop harassing citizens you need to stop the criminals instead of letting them free and trying to keep us from protecting ourselves. Over and over you stand against your people . I do not understand.
Why can you not vote for a pro gun bill? Why are law abiding citizens penalized for owning firearms?
The legislators took an oath to serve it's citizens.The actions taken creating the gun laws create penalties for the citizens of Virginia.Is this protecting and serving citizens...?
Legally owned firearms can possibly become illegal. Honest Law abiding citizens can be penalized if there is no compliance.Are the legislators serving citizens by this type of action?who came up with this plan? The same plan in all blue states.
I am writing as a Virginia resident to express my strong opposition to all proposed anti-gun bills and to respectfully remind you of the constitutional limits placed on the General Assembly with respect to the right to keep and bear arms. Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is explicit and unambiguous: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This language is not conditional, qualified, or ambiguous. It is a direct limitation on GOVERNMENT power and reflects the understanding that the militia consists of “the body of the people,” not a select or state-controlled class. Likewise, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution affirms that this right “shall not be infringed.” As a state, Virginia is bound by both its own Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. Legislation that criminalizes or restricts the ownership, possession, transfer of commonly owned firearms or standard magazines, or restricts where a person may carry or how to store their firearm, directly conflicts with both. I respectfully urge you to uphold your oath to support and defend the Constitutions of Virginia and the United States. Virginians expect their elected officials to respect enumerated rights, even when doing so is politically inconvenient. Thank you for your time and for your service to the Commonwealth. Respectfully, Sean Fredericksburg, VA.
Citizens of Virginia, do not give up..I. They love to see citizens defeated.Thy thrive on misery .The chaotic bills are a reflection of there own self.Miserable spoiled and confused.
Ban magazines,semi autos,and more. you don't comply your penalized..It is disgusting to see law abiding citizens being placed in this position.And the legislators using law enforcement as there tool to enforce the penalty side..This shows how the Democrats will use ,abuse anything and body whom stands in there way..To get to there power goal..Throughout history dictatorships have done the same thing to there citizens .
It’s my belief that blanket bans based solely upon firearm features rather than measures that tackle the cause of gun violence, poverty, domestic abuse, substance abuse, mental illness will not meaningfully make Virginians safer; and merely cover up systemic issues. These feature laws also criminalize millions of law abiding Virginians, redirecting law enforcement resources away from solving said systemic issues and having them chase down arbitrary invented infractions. Instead of fostering a sense of responsibility and openness with the firearms community which could help law enforcement recognize potential crisises before they occur, by criminalizing a majority of firearms from the last 50 years, you enclose criminal and lawful citizen together under the same umbrella . In summary, I am not opposed to the these laws because I am indifferent to the suffering caused by gun violence, I am opposed because I believe that laws based on features of firearms rather than the circumstances which created the violence does a disservice to those victims, their families, and to the community at large.
These bills the Virginia Democrat 2026 general assembly will infringe on people's God given rights, look at the statistics gun laws cause more deaths by causing law abiding citizens to jump through hoops.especially the bill which requires a VA resident to obtain a permit to rent, purchase a firearm, that bill alone will cost people their lives and if it passes the blood on the hands of the general assembly. The bills which Sadaam are passing are unnecessary measures, and a total slap in the face to all people in Virginia. Abigail promised tax breaks but then she did a 360 reversal and proposed 150 percent pay raise for her and her constituents, 15 percent sales tax on many services and goods. It was extremely reckless for the governor of 2026 to end state police corporation with ICE, NOW these bills will further infringe on Virginians rights. It makes absolutely no sense to enable criminals by taking away the minimum sentence requirement, so the general assembly is pro criminal and doesn't care about Virginians. If these bills are passed then what I've stated is true. Police are already underrated, pass these bills and you further jeopardize Virginians safety and well being. Most likely will be taken to the supreme Court
Please scrap these gun control billsbills. These bills restrict current and future safe and lawful gun owners access to their current and any future firearms while limiting their ability to protect themselves and their families in the commonwealth. Second amendment restrictions in the name of safety dont make us safer in all communities of the commonwealth. Most all the states that have more second amendment restrictions on firearms have more crime statistically. Disadvantaged neighborhoods are more at risk of drug pusher/gang violence with the flow of drugs to all the cities and towns in the US today. Making more gun free zones makes it better for those with criminal intentions to commit crimes. These state government restrictions on our 2nd amendment rights can result in legal challenges in the commonwealth. These bills will raise the cost of ownership and will slowly but surely whittle away all of our ability to afford the protections all of us enjoy now
This new law is silly. Are we going to take away voting rights because someone stole their neighbors mail?
NO to all firearms bills, laws, and unjust documentation. You are warned, we will fight until we have no breath left. This is the line. We will organize, and fight tyranny. This is Virginia! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS.
This is NOT why I voted for Spanberger. I have lost my faith in my own party. It's a shame to say I will have to vote as my husband suggested, with the republican party. I have been bleeding heart blue since I was 18. This state that I love is slowly dying with these crazy laws! I'm blue, but I believe in our constitution. Abigail is a LIAR! Figures the CIAs pet would lie to us. I can't believe how embarrassing it is that it only took 2 days to show her colors. I feel duped!
I proudly served for 30 years with the New York State Police retiring and moving to Virginia in 2017. I attained the rank of Major and my last assignment was leading a state wide narcotics and weapons task force. The majority of my career was spent in criminal investigations including homicide, major crimes and counterterrorism. Based on my experience, these proposed pieces of legislation will do nothing to curb crime and will make law abiding citizens less safe. A common sense proposal to increase the penalty for using a gun in a crime was defeated in committee on a party line vote. What a missed opportunity to protect the citizens of Virginia. Criminals by definition will follow none of these laws if enacted and will only be emboldened. Additionally, most if not all of these proposals fly in the face of the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions in the Heller and Bruen cases. I urge you to vote against any bill which strips the rights of law abiding citizens from exercising their God given right to self defense and does nothing to address the root causes of violence.
We strongly oppose every bill against the 2nd amendment. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON. You will force action with these unjust laws. Be warned
We strongly oppose All of the bills and tax increases this governor is pushing. She ran as a moderate, And has lied about everything she stood for. We will not stand for unconstitutional Bills, This is the line in the sand. Virginia is the state where our great constitution Was written, It's disgusting to see all of you taking a piss all over the Constitution of the United States of America. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
I have just moved to VA from Florida where I fought very hard to put the socialism and communism to the dust bin of history there. I will fight with my last breath the garbage you people are trying to do here in Virginia. All of you disgust me, look forward to debating many of you in the future. Enjoy the win while you can, real conservatives are coming with lawyers and organization.
Good Afternoon, I am writing in support of HB19 including a definition of intimate partner applicable to assault and battery of a family or household member. It is crucial that intimate partners be afforded the same protections as family or household members as they face the same dangers from domestic and intimate partner violence. I also write in support of HB93 which would strengthen the firearm relinquishment provisions for family abuse protective orders and extend the same relinquishment requirements to convictions for assault and battery of a family or household member. Research shows that armed abusers are dangerous to their intimate partners, family, friends, acquaintances, law enforcement and the general public. Research also shows that firearm relinquishment laws are effective at reducing intimate partner homicide. We must do all we can to ensure that there are no gaps in the relinquishment process. Finally, I write in support of HB1359 which would require individuals to apply for and obtain a firearm purchaser license prior to purchasing a firearm. Fingerprint based background checks would more accurately identify individuals who are prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms, while safety training would ensure that purchasers are adequately trained in using a deadly weapon. Research shows that these laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide, firearm suicide, shootings of and by police, and the diversions of firearms for criminal purpose. Furthermore, in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, a 14-2 en banc ruling, the 4th Circuit upheld Maryland's firearm purchaser licensing law against a Second Amendment challenge, noting the Supreme Court's statements in NYSRPA v Bruen regarding the constitutionality of shall-issue carry licensing laws apply with equal force to purchaser licensing laws. Similar to shall-issue carry licensing laws, purchaser licensing laws are "are designed to ensure only that those [accessing] arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.'” Like shall-issue carry licensing laws, purchaser licensing laws “narrow, objective, and definite standards" guiding the agency issuing the licenses. I strongly urge you to support the aforementioned bills. Best, Kelly Roskam
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! VOTE NO TO ALL FIREARMS LAWS, OR WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT. NO TO ALL TAX INCREASES. NO TO RAISING YOUR MONEY FOR HOUSING, AND PAY! SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! DONT MAKE US USE OUR RIGHTS AGAINST TYRANNY, TYRANTS
My name is Jennifer Earley, Alexandria VA, a member of Moms Demand Action and we support these bills.
I vehemently oppose all anti second amendment bills. I urge you to reconsider your support of these bills and remember your oaths to the Virginia State Constitution and US Constitution. Though I doubt that will happen. Thus they will be challenged in a court of law and very highly likely to be found unconstitutional, and therefore, unenforceable.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This language establishes an individual right, a conclusion affirmed by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). While the government retains authority to enact certain regulations, broad or restrictive anti-gun laws that substantially burden law-abiding citizens exceed constitutional limits and undermine the intent of the Amendment. At its core, the Second Amendment exists to protect fundamental liberties, including self-defense. The right to bear arms is not contingent upon government permission but is recognized as pre-existing and inherent. Laws that impose excessive restrictions—such as blanket bans on commonly owned firearms or arbitrary licensing regimes—effectively nullify this right for ordinary citizens, contradicting both the text and historical understanding of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has emphasized that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be prohibited, making sweeping bans constitutionally suspect. Beyond constitutional concerns, strict anti-gun laws often fail to achieve their stated public safety goals. Criminals, by definition, do not comply with gun laws. As a result, restrictive legislation disproportionately affects responsible gun owners while leaving violent offenders largely undeterred. Numerous jurisdictions with stringent gun control measures continue to experience high rates of gun violence, suggesting that such policies address symptoms rather than root causes such as gang activity, drug trafficking, and repeat violent offenders. Additionally, overly restrictive gun laws can weaken personal and community safety. Firearms are frequently used defensively, often without a shot being fired, to deter crime and protect lives. Limiting access to lawful self-defense tools may leave vulnerable populations—particularly those in high-crime or rural areas—less able to protect themselves when law enforcement response times are delayed or unavailable. Anti-gun laws also raise concerns about unequal enforcement and civil liberties. Complex regulatory frameworks can result in arbitrary or discriminatory application, exposing citizens to severe penalties for minor or unintentional violations. This undermines public trust in the legal system and diverts resources away from prosecuting serious violent crime. A more effective approach to public safety respects constitutional boundaries while focusing on evidence-based solutions: enforcing existing laws, targeting violent offenders, improving mental health interventions, and strengthening community-based crime prevention. Protecting constitutional rights and promoting public safety are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are best achieved together. In conclusion, anti-gun laws are unconstitutional because they infringe upon a fundamental right explicitly protected by the Second Amendment. They are also ineffective as public policy, burdening lawful citizens while failing to address the underlying drivers of violence. A constitutional, balanced approach is both legally sound and more likely to produce lasting improvements in public safety.
I oppose this bill. I stand with VCDL on each of these bills.
With due respect to those who reportedly represent the people of this fine state, As a Veteran of the United States Navy I swore an oath to protect and uphold to Constitution of the United States! That’s oath has no expiration. I fully support the right and responsibility of a free people to the right to bear arms. Any member of political office who truly represents the American people who are in fact their constituents should also fully support and defend the right of a free people to bear arms. All the proposed bills being reviewed today are an infringement on those rights and will do nothing to make the lives of good people better. They will only restrict the freedom of law, abiding citizens, while doing nothing to prevent crime as the definition of a criminal is an individual who does not follow or respect the rule of law. As a veteran who served this great country, I am very much ashamed of the direction that politicians have gone in, trying to restrict the freedoms and the quality of life that myself and other members of the military fought to uphold so it is with all due respect that I strongly encourage these these bills to be rejected. Thank you for the opportunity to serve and express my views. Mr Jeffrey Nortman. Franklin county.
All of these measures will cost a large amount of money to fund and enforce. This goes against the message the governor ran on of affordability for the state and living in it. This will also only affect people who already abide by the laws the state has in place. Criminals will not abide by these laws. Criminals will continue to disobey the law, and will possibly put legal gun owners at risk when they cannot defend themselves. If we are going to charge gun manufacturers for crimes committed by individuals using their products, we need to do the same with the spirits industry involving cases where a drunk driver kills someone, after they have left a bar.
I stand with VCDL on all bills
I support the points the VCDL makes. Delegate Helmer is a liar and a coward. Delegate Cole is a coward that blocks people because he cannot handle Logic pointing how he is dishonest and ignorant.
You cannot take away a right from a misdemeanor conviction!
I strongly oppose any of the bills that infringe on the 2nd amendment. The only people that these bill affect are law abiding citizens. Criminals and ill willed people don’t get their guns legally. Why should I be punished for never committing a crime? More gun control makes our state that more unsafe and will not solve any of the issues that the patrons of the bills are wanting to solve. Taking more rights away from law abiding citizens is just a way to reward the criminals. Thank you for your time Steve Bennett Spotsylvania county
I respectfully request you oppose these unreasonable and overly restrictive anti-gun bills which are unnecessary and violate or 2nd Amendment rights. Gun owners are responsible citizens. We already have laws that adequately address crimes and harmful actions by people. We need to remember that people conduct these crimes, not inanimate objects. Heavy automobiles kill people regularly but we don’t try to outlaw them. Virginia needs to remain a state that respects the rights of our responsible citizens. Thanks
I oppose all of these. I have been a gun owner for over 20 years. I've never broken a law aside from a moving violation. Why should I have to give up a constitutional right. When this state now wants to protect others who have broken the law. I can not believe we have elected a man who wished harm on someone else and their children. He is the one who shouldn't have a gun. Anything can be an assault weapon , should we next limit cars to not go over 65 mph? Someone could hurt a lot of people with those too. My point is the problem is the people, not the guns.
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
I would encourage the members of this committee, and most particularly the sponsors of the bills being considered, to reflect upon what their goals are when evaluating these items. If thoughts of “safety” come to mind, I would then encourage members to consider matters which address criminal behavior(sentencing guidelines, support for law enforcement, etc). Arbitrarily setting magazine capacity limits, withdrawing concealed carry permit reciprocity, or establishing a purchase permit system does not protect the general public from criminals who do not follow these laws. Setting magazine capacity limits to make the world safer is like trying to limit greenhouse gas emissions by enacting gas tank volume limits. Mr Helmer appears to like to tout his military service, particularly when speaking about his bills. As a fellow veteran I find this repugnant, and it makes me question his frame of reference. Anyone who has been in the military understands that merely having served(a great and noble act regardless) does not equate into automatically being an expert in firearms. Most particularly in how their regulation in the continental US affects things like violent crime. Over my career in law-enforcement, I’ve seen firsthand the regard criminals have for the law, as well as the way they capitalize when others are handicapped by it. Enacting barriers to make it more difficult to lawfully obtain firearms, or banning ones that are very commonly owned(and turning untold amounts of people into criminals overnight) will not make anyone safer. Through this evaluation, one could easily begin to suspect that claims of making things safer by nature of this legislation are at a minimum ill-informed, if not completely disingenuous. While the former could be explained by possible good intentions driven by emotion or misunderstanding, the latter is naturally of more sinister nature. Such an accusation cannot be made lightly, but it must be considered when examining the facts. Thus I call on the members of this committee to do a thorough self reflection on what their goals are, and how the bills being considered will affect law abiding Virginians.
As a concealed carry weapons owner I oppose each of these bills, except 1303. Do not take away the 2A rights of legal gun owners. People cause harm, not the equipment used to do it. We have a right to defend our homes and families; and many rely on gaming with our guns to feed our families (although I’m sure you will find a way to tax that too!)
I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support these bills. Thank you to the patrons.
I am a longterm resident and homeowner in the commonwealth of Virginia. I am a wife, a mother, and a teacher. I also am an advocate for our constitutional rights, especially the second amendment. I open carry often and have had my conceal carry permit for over 5 years. I have read the laws and stayed as up to date on the topic as I can. It seems these days that people are making decisions based on emotions rather than logic. “Shall not be infringed” is clear as clear can be. If that’s not clear enough, look at the cities and states with the strictest gun laws. Those are the most violent areas with the greatest rate of criminal activity. Emotional decisions come with the gravest outcomes. Look at the countries throughout the world fighting for their lives. They are the ones who have lost their right to bear arms. Do not dig our own grave by ignoring our constitutional rights. It is your duty to uphold the constitution, not let your emotions drive you to treason. Respect the constitution and respect the second amendment in its entirety. Nothing less. Thank you.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE ALL OF THESE BILLS. I agree with VCDL stance on all of these bills. They are unconstitutional!
I strongly oppose all of these bills except for HB1303. These proposed changes will do nothing to make our Commonwealth safer, if anything it will become more dangerous for all. HB217 is an egregious attempt at violating our constitutionally protected right. Using the justification that other states have enacted similar laws is a weak argument since these bans do not pass review using the Bruen standard established by the US Supreme Court. The bills fail the two part test required by Bruen. The first part requires looking at whether the conduct is covered by the plain text of the second amendment. Which these bills are blatantly unconstitutional, since it would impede our ability to keep and bear arms. The second part requires historical analogues of founding era laws restricting ownership of commonly owned arms. Of which, there are no laws from that era to outright ban entire classes of firearms. Furthermore, the state should not waste millions of taxpayer dollars that will inevitably be exhausted attempting to defend a set of unconstitutional laws that the courts will rule in favor of we the people of the commonwealth of Virginia in the end.
These bills should all be opposed. Refer to the opinion issued by the Attorney General on why HB217 and HB1359 are unconstitutional and would not survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court based on the Bruen decision. HB217 bans firearms which are in “common use” and constitutionally protected. HB1359 should not require a license to exercise a constitutionally protected right. This is true whether to speak freely, protest, be free from search and seizure, or keep and bare arms. https://www.oag.state.va.us/files/Opinions/2026/26-001-Webert-issued.pdf HB40 is masquerading as “ghost gun” bill but bans historic and antique firearms which may be hundreds of years old and made before serial numbers were even conceived. Requiring antique firearms to be serialized will destroy both history and their value. Additionally this bill will ban the home production of personal firearms, of which Virginia has a rich history. There is no “history and tradition” of banning firearm manufacturing for personal use, and this bill will or stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. OPPOSE HB21 This bill allows one of the most highly regulated industries, the firearms industry, to be sued civilly for a variety of already illegal actions. No way to foresee what the actions of a third party might be; good or bad. OPPOSE. HB40 Specifying the material from which a firearm is constructed doesn't contribute to public safety. OPPOSE. HB 110 . It’s still a crime to burglarize an automobile so why not targe the burglar? The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. OPPOSE. HB 217 VA has no problem to solve and this solution doesn't make VA measurably safer targeting law abiding owners. The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm 'in common use' is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. OPPOSE. HB 702 This is a waste of money as there is no measure of success. If a person wants to sell their guns there are plenty of qualified buyers that will pay the market price. OPPOSE. HB 969 Additional government bureaucracy that has an ill-defined mission and no measure of success. Funded by law abiding citizens rather than felons. Also, guns are incapable of violence. OPPOSE. HB 1359 We have instant background check and by all accounts it works fine with little delay in the process. We don’t need additional bureaucracy in the middle. Further, we don’t need permits for any other basic rights guaranteed by the US and VA constitutions, why this one? Don’t our constitutions keep the government’s hands off? OPPOSE.
Dear Legislators While I am fairly sure all of these bills were created with the thought of public safety but one will never be able to legislate morality. Many of these bills take law abiding citizens and turn them into felons..I do not support any of these bills as they are a clear violation of the second amendment which id remind you of the oath you swore to uphold that constitution.
I oppose any bill that limits a Virginian’s ability to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. They only affect law abiding citizens.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills!
The creators of these bills. Have backgrounds in Law,Finance,etc. They are wordy long meaningless statements. Often contradicting one another.Serving to confuse the citizen firearm owner on what is lawful,not lawful,what is legal,illegal..Where can I carry a firearm and not carry..This is a tactic that legislators use with all bills,laws, Example, The reciprocity bill. Reciprocity is harmless ..The Creator of this bill saw something and decided to make a harmless entity.into a big deal..This is the mentality of the design plan of all of the anti gun bills. The creator of the reciprocity bill does not understand, not willing to understand the benefits of reciprocity. It is the same with all creators of the bad bills..Create wordy legalese mumbo jumbo.That sounds intellectual at first read but are actually hollow words.The end goal is to ban firearms which cannot be done outright but make it difficult enough so citizens will not bother owning a firearm..The founders kept the law simple because they knew the common man had to understand there rights .But as you can see lawyers judicial system complicated it with addendums to the addendum so the common man no longer understands the law and has to be confused on what lawful or not..
These bill are yet another example of government overreach. The constitution of the United States of America is very clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT be infringed." These bills are in clear violation of our rights and will only affect law abiding citizens, not criminals who they're supposedly supposed to affect. I urge you to stand up for what is right and stand up for the oath you took to uphold our constitution.
I side with the VCDL’s position on these gun bills. I oppose all gun control efforts. As a Federally Licensed Dealer, all of these bills will either make my costs higher or end all or most commerce in the Firearms Industry. Individually: HB19- misdemeanors should not remove firearms rights HB21 - this bill will skyrocket liability insurance and effectively end all firearm business in Virginia. Advertising alone could be used in spurious lawsuits. Dealers already have more regulation than necessary. Additionally, there is no exemption for LE or Military or agency sales. HB40 - since PMF (privately made firearms) are legal and their numbers are unknown, this is unenforceable. There are no serials on the prior produced units. As a Dealer, I will not touch these for both liability and federal excise tax. As a gunsmith, we will not work on these already. I will not take these in as I do not want my credentials marked on these units. Bruen requires a historical review- citizens have always been able to produce their own firearms in America. HB93 This bill is poorly written and will bar often lawful ownership from access to firearms should another person in the household be convicted. HB110 victims of crimes should not be penalized for thefts or attacks. Stop limiting carry in buildings and the firearms will not get stolen. HB217 - this bill is why the 2nd Amendment exists. This bill will NOT meet the Bruen test, This Bill is substantially different than MD’s ban as compared to in the senate meeting, This bill will effectively ban 90% of the most common firearms and magazines. In Virginia it is estimated that 75% of the magazines already here will be prohibited- there are millions of these magazines. The arbitrary “features” ban represents an abuse of power. This bill will also undermine commerce in Virginia. HB229 disarming law abiding citizens creates a higher risk of attack in places where often mentally unstable individuals and criminals congregate. HB626 adults in college should not be disarmed for seeking higher education HB702 creates a slush fund that should not destroy otherwise valuable property which could be lawfully sold to dealers. This bill encourages waste. HB871 bruen decision requirements will not be met by this bill- Americans can conduct their homes as they see fit. Also, most owners already have safes that are often better than the cheap biometric ones. HB969 - these organizations not only represent a waste of time, money, and resources, they historically only undermine commerce while using taxpayer funds to work against the interests of the people. This is a slush fund. HB 1303 45 days is plenty as it is. A right delayed is a right denied. HB1359 permitting will not survive the bruen test. We should not have to get a background check before getting a background check to buy a gun. This bill potentially also creates a 45day to 2 month lag in business that could end many retailers business in virginia. This bill is unconstitutional.
We The People of Virginia would like to remind you that the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY states, "Shall Not be Infringed" yet you continually attempt to Infringe on the 2nd Amendment which is CLEARLY a BLATANT and Willful VIOLATION of the 2nd Amendment. We The People will not stand for the violation of our rights. Need we remind you of your oaths off office and to the Constitution....If you violate our rights you will be held liable. Do not pass these bills. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
HB19 – Purchase, possession, or transportation of firearm; assault and battery of a family or household member or intimate partner; penalties (available here) I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a reasonable restriction—we do not want domestic abusers to have access to firearms, given their known propensity for violence. Nationally, firearms are used in more than half of intimate partner homicides, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB 93 – Firearms; transfers to another person from a prohibited person (HB available here) I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, individuals subject to a protective order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, there is no clear mechanism to ensure these prohibited individuals actually relinquish their guns, leaving survivors at continued risk. HB 93 addresses this gap by requiring the prohibited person to promptly: (a) surrender the firearm(s) to law enforcement, (b) sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or (c) transfer or sell them to another person who is legally allowed to possess firearms, is at least 21 years old, does not live with the prohibited person, and provide proof of the transfer (including transferee details) to the court. The bill also notifies the individual that law enforcement may seek a search warrant if there's reason to believe firearms have not been relinquished. HB 93 creates a straightforward enforcement mechanism for laws already on the books. It is targeted, limited in scope, and focused on protecting survivors of domestic violence by reducing the risk of armed abusers. This common-sense measure will help safeguard the Commonwealth’s citizens without creating new prohibitions. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
I've been working in healthcare for up to 40 some years and say the biggest issue that we have this truck related to death and alcohol-related deaths, I see more stabbings than I do gunshots. As a proud Jewish American I also am against this abandoning and outlawing of certain firearms due to their style and look and how they are fed. I'm also against the magazine restriction that y'all want to put in place. I'm also against wanting to raise the tax rate on purchasing firearms and ammunition. Reason being my grandfather had his firearms/weapons taken away from him in Germany and was told the government would keep them safe and fed... this was not the case has later on they were rounded up and stuck in camps and had no means to protect themselves when they came through and pulled them from their homes and their families. I never got to meet him or an uncle of mine. I did not want to have a government tell me what I can and can't have to protect my family and loved ones when the biggest issue we have right now here in America is law enforcement going door to door ripping families apart and deporting them and the current drug epidemic we have in our country. If you really support and care about the safety and lives of the American people and The Virginian residence you allow them to have and use what they think is best to protect them and their families.
HB 1303 is the only one that should receive support. HB 19, Delegate McClure, makes battery in a “dating relationship” a misdemeanor and takes away the right to purchase, possess, or transport a firearm for three years. Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB 21, Delegate Helmer, allows one of the most highly regulated industries, the firearm industry, to be sued civilly for a variety of already illegal actions. It also holds the manufacturers and sellers of even the most benign of firearm accessories, like a butt stock or a gun case, liable to a civil lawsuit if it doesn’t “properly” protect that item from theft or misuse by a criminal. How could a firearm accessory seller reasonably know if they were selling a gun sling to a prohibited person? Should a car parts store be sued if they sold a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery? This bill is designed to have a chilling effect on all aspects of the firearms industry. HB 40, Delegate Simon, makes unfinished firearm frames and receivers and un-serialized commercially made firearms unlawful to possess, purchase, sell, or transfer unless they are serialized. Even a chunk of aluminum, if sold to the public to become a frame or receiver once completed, must be serialized under this bill. The bill doesn’t grandfather existing homemade firearms. This bill is unconstitutional, as there was no analog in the history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. And, of course, government, our servant, exempts itself from all this foolishness.
While each bill is presented as a discrete public-safety measure, taken together they represent an overbroad and legally fragile expansion of firearm regulation that exposes the Commonwealth to constitutional, fiscal, and enforcement risks without a demonstrated link to reduced violent crime. 1. Constitutional vulnerability and litigation risk Several proposals regulate possession, transfer, manufacture, or availability of arms and components that are in common lawful use or impose liability standards untethered from criminal intent. This places the Commonwealth on unstable ground under modern Second Amendment jurisprudence, which requires historical analogues and narrow tailoring. Enacting multiple overlapping restrictions increases the likelihood that a single successful challenge could invalidate broad portions of the framework, wasting legislative effort and public funds. 2. Overcriminalization of lawful conduct Bills addressing storage, vehicle possession, transfers, and manufacturing sweep broadly enough to penalize responsible, non-violent citizens for technical or situational violations. This diverts law-enforcement resources away from violent offenders and undermines respect for the law by treating lawful ownership as presumptively suspect rather than protected conduct. 3. Enforcement ambiguity and regulatory incoherence The combined effect is a patchwork of prohibitions, civil penalties, and standards that are difficult for citizens to understand and for law enforcement to apply consistently. Vague or expansive definitions—particularly regarding firearm components, classifications, and “responsible conduct” standards—invite selective enforcement and uneven application across jurisdictions, raising due-process and equal-protection concerns. 4. Civil liability expansion without fault Imposing novel civil liability on firearm industry participants for downstream criminal misuse departs from established principles of proximate cause. Such provisions risk collapsing lawful commerce through litigation pressure rather than adjudicated wrongdoing, exposing the Commonwealth to economic harm and predictable constitutional challenges. 5. Weak alignment with public-safety outcomes The proposals do not meaningfully address repeat violent offenders, illegal trafficking networks, or prosecutorial follow-through—areas with the strongest evidence of impact on gun violence. Programs such as buy-backs and new administrative centers risk becoming symbolic expenditures with limited measurable return. 6. Disparate impact and equity concerns Complex compliance regimes disproportionately burden lower-income and rural residents who lack ready access to legal counsel, storage infrastructure, or permitting resources, resulting in inequitable enforcement outcomes without corresponding public-safety benefits. Conclusion If the General Assembly’s objective is violence reduction, these bills should be rejected or substantially narrowed in favor of constitutionally durable measures focused on violent-crime enforcement and due-process protections. As drafted, the package increases legal exposure, enforcement confusion, and public distrust while offering minimal demonstrable benefit.
I do not support any further restrictions on our second amendment rights. It is a right given to us by God and guaranteed by the VA and US constitution. This constant attack on our second amendment rights is an illegal immoral nuisance and it seems to me an attack on the people who enjoy using their second amendment rights. These bills do nothing to make us safer. I further note that while allowing far more latitude for criminal behavior in sentencing this legislative body seems intent on disarming innocent civilians making them more vulnerable to the criminals being released. One additional point. Several of these bills would make almost all modern firearms illegal with out any grandfather clause, thus immediately making people who have done nothing wrong liable for criminal prosecution. This further leads me to to believe that this is a veiled attack on people that this legislative body doesn’t like vs an attempt at public safety.
I stand in firm opposition to these bills, which both infringe upon my protected rights, and squander taxpayer money both in defending against the inevitable lawsuits that will follow in their wake should they pass, and in establishing state sponsored programs that will accomplish virtually nothing, save to take a slap at the faces of lawful gun owners and supporters of the Constitution, both state and federal. These various bill cannot withstand the strict scrutiny standard that the Supreme Court has established with regard to second amendment issues. They will tie up resources better spent elsewhere in protracted court battles that will inevitably end with such legislation being overturned. Virginia does not have an "assault weapons" problem, nor a problem with ownership of standard capacity magazines, that is those holding more than ten rounds. There is likewise no pressing issue with infractions of existing laws by legal firearms owners, particularly concealed carry permit holders. Thus, there is no need to call for any additional licensing, notwithstanding the demonstrable fact that criminal elements of the population would ignore such requirements, regardless of the penalties. Then there is the matter of the takings clause, as thousands, of not tens of thousands of Virginians would have the value of their property destroyed, or have their property taken without recompense. Barring any grandfathering of already owned firearms and magazines, this places the state in an even more precarious legal position. Finally these laws smack of being ex post facto in nature, turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals overnight, simply for continuing in the possession, or in activities that were entirely legal previously. These laws appear to be nothing short of punitive in nature, intended not to improve public safety, but to cause maximum pain towards political opponents and defenders of liberty.
What is being presented today supports a decline of freedom for law abiding citizens. Criminals dont follow laws therefore these carry zero weight on the people who would choose to abuse our rights and freedoms. These laws will restrict law abiding citizens of their right to protect ourselves, our families, and our property. These bills also go against the constitutions 2nd amendment for us to bear arms and it states "it shall NOT be infringed". As this legislation seeks to make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice their 2nd amendment rights and decrease law abiding citizens freedoms you same people are trying to limit minimum sentences for some of the worst criminals. I ask you.... Why do your actions work against law abiding Virginians, to limit our recourse against those who would do us harm and at the same time work to assit criminals? Your allegiance is logically and morally askew.
I agree with the VCDL on these bills!
Restricting free ownership and bearing of firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. “Shall not be infringed” does not come with any “except for” situations. Any American citizen should have the ability to own and carry any firearm they wish without any restriction as the Constitution intends. Morality cannot be legislated and individual freedom is of the highest priority. Citizens should have the freedom (and they do, per the constitution) to have the firearm of their choosing with a magazine size of their choosing as well. As the state motto is “Sic Semper Tyrannis” this nation was built on refusing tyranny from government oppressors. Most of the proposed bills already have Supreme Court precedent as being unconstitutional. The right thing to do is immediately withdraw every firearm related bill from consideration immediately.
All of these bills infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights. I'm a retired Chesterfield County Police Officer and I see nothing that these bills can do to lower "gun crime". What needs to be done is to pass laws that will go after the criminals that misuse firearms. All of these bills along with their companions in the senate will only reduce the availability of firearms that the good law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth want to own. HB21 will shut down the firearm and firearm accessory business here. As a retired police officer an AR-15 is an excellent firearm to own for the shooting sports and self defense along with other lawful activities. If I could carry one in my patrol car, I should be able to have access to one at home as well. I should also be able to purchase them in the future along with standard capacity magazines. Oppose HB217! HB1359 is totally unnecessary. I've lived in Virginia for almost 40 years and I see no point in this law. This is a back door registration that I'm sure will extend to having to have this permit to purchase ammunition, accessories, and firearm possession in the future. It will add more expense to trying to buy a firearm. The infringements that this bill if it becomes law will be unlimited. You want people to be properly trained with firearms but these bills will keep people away from that goal. As a police officer I carried a Glock with a 15 round standard capacity magazine, a Remington 870, and an Armalite AR-15 with 30 round standard capacity magazines. As a citizen of this Commonwealth I should have the same ability to have those firearms at my disposal as well. My fellow gun owners should have the same options. All firearms are dangerous to use. All firearms can be considered "weapons of war". I received firearm training from father when I was young, then more training in the Marine Corps, then even more training with the police department. Having worked at a shooting range, many gun owners came to practice to become proficient in handling firearms. These laws will prevent citizens from participating in their 2nd Amendment rights.
I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “
Please vote yes for all the gun sense bills. The time is now to make our communities safer! Every single one of these bills respects the second amendment. Moms Demand Action also respects the second amendment.
I do not support any bill that restricts my ability to keep and bear a firearm. Assault weapon bans, and other restrictions are unconstitutional under the original US Constitution and further under the Bruen decision. These bills will be defeated in court. Having the AG spend my tax payer dollar to defend a tyrannical law is not what an affordable Virginia means to me. Wife and I have donated lots of $ to gun rights groups to fight this now and in the courts. Please honor your VA and US constitutional duties.
My name is Gayatri Manoharan, I am a Fairfax Co resident and a Moms Demand Action volunteer. I support the bills listed above. Thank you to the patrons.
Responsible gun ownership is on the rise among Virginians of all diverse backgrounds, sexual orientations, and political affiliations. This is not the time to restrict access to firearm ownership, especially in light of recent events in which the federal government has displayed attacks on First and Second Amendment rights. Passing of all of these bills would only further distrust in our government and leadership across all communities. This would only strip law-abiding Virginians of their ability to control their own safety and that of their families and communities. I oppose all bills that restrict access to commonly owned firearms, invade personal privacy and data, or impose unreasonable financial burdens on the ability to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Remember our state motto.
I oppose all the anti-2nd amendment bills being considered. These bills will limit and in some cases strip me of my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, especially if there is no grandfather clause included in the bills
HB19- I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill to add random "intimate partners" into the mix HB21 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, we do not hold any other industry to this standard its discriminatory to hold the firearms community to it. HB40 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as there is already federal law relating to serializing firearms. HB93 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill as it could endanger the family or other inhabitants of a home by leaving them defenseless HB217 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill in its entirety, Heller and Bruen decisions by the SCOTUS are VERY clear in the protections of "in common use" the sheer "desire" for this bill shows the fact these arms are in common use. HB701 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state should be force to SELL not destroy the firearms, thus creating revenue for the state and removing another tax burden from its citizens. HB871 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, the state already has laws in place to deal with this for minors (endangerment) the government has NO place making decisions inside a citizens home. HB969 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, as the legislature refuses to keep minimum sentence requirements for violent criminals, a prevention fund is a moot point HB1303 - I Vote/stand FOR this bill, if the state police cna not accomplish this task in 90 days there is a clear lack of competency in the agency. HB1359 - I Vote/stand AGAINST this bill, no other constitutional right is EVER subject to a fee for the state. This is nothing more than a play to extort citizens and create a gun registry to be used for unknown purposes.
I respectfully oppose Virginia House Bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359 for the following reasons: 1. Undermining Fundamental Rights Without Clear Justification Several of these bills (e.g., HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB217, HB1359) impose new and expansive restrictions on the purchase, possession, transfer, manufacture, and sale of firearms and related items. These proposals, including potential bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and requirements for civil liability standards on lawful businesses, risk infringing on Virginians’ constitutional rights without clear evidence that they will reduce violent crime or improve public safety. Laws regulating firearms must be narrowly tailored, respect due process, and align with constitutional protections; sweeping and punitive restrictions do not meet that standard. 2. Overly Broad Criminal Penalties and Civil Liabilities Bills such as HB21 create standards of “responsible conduct” with vague criteria that could expose lawful industry members to civil liability for nearly any outcome. This creates unreasonable legal risk for businesses operating within existing federal and state laws and could chill lawful commerce. Ambiguous legal standards harm predictability and fairness in our legal system. 3. Expansion of Regulatory Burdens Without Demonstrated Benefit Provisions in bills like HB110 (unattended firearm in vehicle civil penalty), HB229 (health data collection duties), and HB871 (storage or related provisions) extend regulatory reach into areas that are already covered by existing law or established best practices. Imposing new penalties or requirements without strong data showing a public benefit contributes to unnecessary complexity in the legal code and may divert law-enforcement resources from more impactful public-safety priorities. 4. Risk of Unintended Consequences for Law-Abiding Citizens Many of these bills expand what qualifies as prohibited conduct or expand definitions of prohibited persons in ways that risk penalizing individuals who have not demonstrated a threat to public safety. For example, expanding liability or prohibitions based on association with an industry, ownership of lawful equipment, or civil data-reporting burdens can cast too wide a net and punish responsible citizens. Public policy must balance safety with fairness in application. 5. Lack of Clear Evidence Supporting Policy Changes Committees are reviewing many of these measures early in the session, and there is not yet a robust public record of bipartisan evaluation or impact analyses demonstrating that these bills will achieve stated policy goals more effectively than existing law. Responsible governance requires empirical support for expanding penalties and regulations — especially where constitutional rights are implicated. In conclusion, while Virginians are committed to public safety, effective legislation must be evidence-based, constitutional, and carefully scaled to address specific harms. These bills, as currently drafted, create broad regulatory frameworks, new criminal liabilities, and unclear standards that threaten individual liberties, burden lawful commerce, and could redirect enforcement resources without clear benefit. For these reasons, I urge legislators to reconsider, substantially revise, or reject these proposals.
I support and agree with the VCDL on these bills.
The semi auto magazine bill would turn thousands of LAW ABIDING citizens into law breakers. Is that the role of legislators. What was once legal and then make it illegal with the stroke of a pen. Government system does not work like that.A million gun owners Democrat and Republican will be affected. Time finance,paying taxes into local, state economy, training wasted because of a legislative elected power grab. 11 percent tax on ammo,500 dollar suppressors. The new admin claims to want to end discrimination for citizens. And lower costs ..Yet again legal firearm owners are placed in a class of discrimination..Protect every other right but the rights of firearm ownership. Why is it that that every new anti firearm law placed the burden on a law abiding citizen? The concealed permit bill restricting other states and Virginia will have the negative effect of the reciprocating state rescinding reciprocity.This is a good program .Yet it is a ridiculous bill that the author has no clue of what they have created. Why were ex ,retired police officers exempt from these bad bills?Policing is a hard job . But ex or retired police means relegated to citizen status. The flurry of bills is a result of the giddy power effect of I can do this because I can. Discriminating and favoring certain classes is a civil infraction and illegal . This is what is happening right now.All who favor the gun bills .Think..Of the discrimination against firearm owners . And then decide thank you
I agree with the VCDL on these bills.
I oppose all of these bills. The focus of these bills is criminalizing ordinary law abiding citizens while not enforcing harsher punishments for actual criminals.
I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills.
I oppose these bills. HB 217 and HB 1359, in particular, are egregiously unconstitutional and contrary to clear U.S. Supreme Court precedent. It is difficult to overstate the shocking breadth of HB 217. It bans the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. It also bans the standard magazines for essentially all modern handguns. Approximately 45% of Virginian adults have firearms in their household. Given that this law impacts nearly all modern handgun magazines (as well as standard magazines for many of the most popular rifles), it is likely that 20-30% of Virginians, if not more, possess arms that would be banned under this law. Criminalizing the conduct and lifestyle of 20-30% of all Commonwealth citizens is not reasonable, is not moderate, and certainly does not represent common sense. It is also clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which forbid bans on arms in common use. Finally, there is no evidence that these laws would reduce crime or promote safety. Regarding HB 1359, the law's unconstitutionality is self-evident. It forbids anyone from exercising their most basic Second Amendment rights unless they go through an expensive and lengthy permitting process--apparently on a repeated basis. The Commonwealth could not constitutionally forbid all citizens from buying books unless they first go through lengthy, costly, and intrusive permitting processes. It can no more do the same for constitutionally protected arms under the Second Amendment.
So frist of all how can a lying governor who has went against everything she promised in her campaign . Trying to take our guns away this is va so good luck with that we have this thing called the second amendment an our rights shouldn’t be fringed upon. Then they all gonna double there pay that’s why she’s goin to raise taxes in the state to pay for that. People won’t move to Va company’s won’t move to Va with taxes the highest in the us. She needs to be removed from office as she didn’t not comply with the promises she’s has done. If she’s all about having illegals here let them live with her an the rest of her crew. Nobody else wants them here. Every thing our great president is doin she is undermining them. Va we can’t let her go on we need governor youngkin back in office for good he made Va great
HB 19 (McClure): Having to endure domestic violence alone is an extremely emotionally taxing experience, but having to fear that your offender may come back and further harm you with a firearm is something we as a state cannot allow. While the state may not be able to individually rid Virginia of all domestic violence offenders, we can make survivors of their violence and others feel safer by removing a dangerous weapon from their arsenal. Through HB 19, we are preventing further damage and helping put fears to rest by enforcing that someone convicted of an assault and battery of an intimate partner, or of a similar offense, cannot legally obtain a firearm. Through this bill, we are also helping law enforcement by preventing these volatile situations from worsening to armed escalation, strengthening their ability to ensure the safety of these survivors. We ask that you vote yes on this bill to improve the ability of survivors to safely move on with their lives, without the fear that their abuser may come back to further harm them. HB 21 (Helmer): Gun violence is the leading cause of death amongst American teens and youth. From accidents to intentional acts of violence, there are a variety of reasons gun violence occurs, but all are enabled by the fact that there is a significant lack of common sense gun regulations. As one of the largest youth-led organizations in Virginia, Voters of Tomorrow Virginia proudly supports HB 21 to establish standards of responsible conduct for firearm industry members. Every industry has regulations in place to ensure the safety of consumers and those within their communities, there is no reason the same must not be true for the firearm industry. Today, we call on the General Assembly to act in defense of young people by reducing the means by which we are killed the most. Today, we ask that you vote yes on HB 21.
I’m a left-wing voter. You won the House and Senate because of Trump’s lawlessness—not because I wanted assault weapon bans, not because I wanted 10-round magazine limits, not because I wanted biometric safe mandates. You do not have a mandate on guns. If you pass any of these bills without grandfather clauses, you will turn law-abiding citizens into criminals for items they purchased legally. I will never vote Democratic again, and I will march. At a moment when we may need to resist actual tyranny, you’re ensuring only the right remains armed. This is political malpractice.
I support Bill HB1303. I oppose bills HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, and HB1359.
I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.
I oppose these bills. They are clearly modeled after failed policies and have no track record of “saving lives” . Criminals and the like will simply go to one of the surrounding states to get whatever they want. Where is the logic in taking someone’s firearm they have owned for decades when they have no criminal history? How did a ten round magazine limit save the students at Virginia Tech? Couple this with your soft on crime approach to dealing with actual criminals and your outrageous plans to increase taxation in what is already one of the most overtaxed states in the country,and you will not only increase violence and victims, you will reduce quality of life in the Commonwealth.
Please see attached PDF with comments showing opposition to each of the proposed anti gun legislation.
I oppose the selected bills.
I am writing to express my outrage and disbelief at the level of government over reach being exhibited by the newly eleccted Virginia Assembly. The idea that jewish implants from New Jersey to muslims from Bangladesh, funded by outside sources think they can simply erase Americas consitutional rights at the stroke of a pen is outrageous. Maybe the assemblys time would be better spent making sure that Virginia is represented by real Virginians by barring foreign born actors from elections.
I am a responsible person and have spent 26 years in the U.S. Navy. I do not want my rights infringed upon. I enjoy target shooting as a hobby. You politicians need to go after criminals with guns. Right bills that effect crimes that people do with guns. Leave law abiding tax paying citizens alone. R, Tom Hofsiss Virginia Beach USN Retired.
CONSTUTION STATES NO RETRO ACTIVE LAWS, WHERE ARE THE LAW 0N HE REAL PROBLEM NOT PHONY BILLS THAT ONLY EFFECT THE LEGAL STATUS OF LAWEN ABIDING CITIZENS!
2A not to be infringed
These proposed gun control bills are the epitome of government overreach. They're completely unconstitutional and I heavily urge you all to vote no on every single one of these! Representation of what this state wants as a whole should be at the front of your minds. Not simply what the few small districts with the big population centers have been lead to believe will help gun violence. These laws will do nothing whatsoever to curb crime, as criminals dont care what the law states . Thank you for listening.
I am writing to express strong support for each of these bills ( HB 1359, 21, 19, 969,871, 93, 40) I am a child and adolescent psychiatrist who has spent years serving children, families, and communities in northern VA. Creating safer gun laws does not infringe on the Second Amendment rights of responsible gun owners. Instead, these policies help ensure gun ownership rights are exercised responsibly, protect children and families from preventable harm, and help law enforcement enforce existing laws effectively. Public health research shows that secure, unloaded, and locked storage significantly lowers risks of unintentional injury, suicide attempts, and impulsive use of firearms by unauthorized persons — particularly children and adolescents. Acknowledging that firearm violence is a public safety issue and being able to provide data-driven strategies via more research can help communities in implementing effective violence intervention programs and support evidence-based decision-making. HB 1359 and 21 promote responsible gun ownership by adding consistency/accountability to the purchase process. This reinforces the idea that industry actors should be partners in community safety. Measures to protect survivors and help ensure accountability in situations where the risk of gun-related harm is demonstrably elevated are critical. For physicians like myself who work in the aftermath of violence, these steps represent pragmatic, evidence-informed measures that can reduce trauma and save lives across our Commonwealth.
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.
As a mother of a 2 year old and a 5 year old and with 10 years of experience teaching elementary school in Virginia Public schools, I STRONGLY STRONGLY support each of these bills (HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB871, HB969, HB1359). Each of these bills are common-sense, data driven policies that WILL reduce the number of innocent lives taken by gun violence each year in Virginia. None of these are an infringement on 2nd amendment rights, but rather a protection of all Virginian's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which this gun violence epidemic threatens daily. Passing each of these bills is the first step in the right direction to keeping Virginians safer. I do not want to live in a world where I think about school shootings every day and wonder if my child's school will be next. I do not want to live in a country where gun violence is the leading cause of death in children. I do not want us to be resigned and desensitized to the truth of that last sentence, as it seems that so many of us are. We can fix this, our legislators have the opportunity to begin working to fix this right now by passing these bills. Enhancing background checks(HB1359), closing the dating partner loophole(HB19) and requiring perpetrators of domestic violence to surrender their weapon once convicted (HB93) ensures that those with a history of inflicting violence onto other humans have a harder time accessing lethal weapons. Prohibiting ghost guns (HB40) also makes it harder for those with ill intentions to get around the afore-mentioned policies by building untraceable guns. Secure storage(HB871) is such a common sense solution and enforcing this does nothing to take away guns from responsible gun owners but simply helps to ensure that minors and others who are legally prohibited from accessing a firearm cannot gain access to one. I also support holding the firearm industry accountable (HB21) and Establishing the Virginia Gun Violence Prevention Center (HB 969) to expand research and education on this topic to help inform the state's decisions to further reduce gun violence and implement gun violence intervention measures to help make our communities safer. Bottom line is, as a mother, this is the #1 issue that keeps me awake at night and I cannot stress my support for these bills enough. Passing these bills will result in fewer deaths by gun violence in Virginia, and failure to do so would result in more deaths. I urge our legislators to do right by all Virginians by passing these life-saving bills.
All of these bills are unconstitutional infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting any of them requires that you violate your oath of office. With respect to the "permit to purchase" scheme, what other enumerated right requires a permit to exercise? Persons who have reached the age of eighteen may marry, enter into contracts, join the military and be deployed to hazardous duty, and a host of other things. But may not purchase a handgun? If one is mature enough any of those things one is mature enough for all.
I urge all Delegates to vote AGAINST all these anti-gun/2A bills. -The current laws on the books aren't enforced. -No one should lose their gun rights over a misdemeanor conviction. -Guns & magazines of all types that are in 'common use' are to be allowed to be owned & purchased by no prohibitive persons. ie SCOTUS Heller decision. -Thus the majority of these bills are unconstitutional & not injunction with the meaning & history of the US Constitution. They also violate VA's Constitution. -No one needs a license to purchase a firearm. They already have to go through a background check through the FBI NICS system. Fingerprints are not needed & overkill. Guns can be legally sold, stolen, lost, etc. Guns are already expensive & requiring another fee to do repetitive checks is unreasonable & unaffordable to some. -I've had a VA CHP since 2003 & has been renewed every 5 years as required. I've taken many training classes over the years & been to ranges countless times. I know what I'm doing & shouldn't be required to take some 'other' course to prove I can fire 10 rounds safely. It's ridiculous! -So called 'assault rifles' account for less then 5% of all homicides each year. These rifles & their equivalents are not the problem or is magazine capacity. . Criminals aren't going to obey any gun laws, so how can a person defend themselves against multiple intruders with 30 round magazines each & the defender only have 10 rounds. The defender will lose their life & possibly their entire family as no criminal is going to wait for a defender 'wait to reload'. -Reciprocity is very important to VA CHP holders & for CCW holders from other states. Not allowing reciprocity with other states because of some arbitrary requirement they lack puts VA CHP holder's lives in DANGER. -You cannot retroactively punish citizens who purchased any gun or magazine LEGALLY. This is acceptable. Please enforce the laws on the books, prosecute those criminals, & if convicted keeo them in prison. More laws solve nothing & are 'feel good' measures. -Guns are tools just like a knife or a bat. They can be used to save lives or take them. It's the individual that makes these decisions, not the tools. 99% of gun owners in VA are law abiding & VA CHP holders are the safest group in VA according to VSP. -Homicides across the nation are down to their lowest levels since 1900. None of these are needed & will only hurt law abiding citizens. -Please stop the constant attack on gun rights by VA Democrats in the General Assembly. It's every 2 years & never ends. End it now! -Focus on much more important of issues than adding to your pile of gun laws. Which the tax payers in VA will have for as these laws will have numerous lawsuits fighting against them. Many have already been declared by SCOTUS. -The Second Amendment is a RIGHT & was given to us by our creator. Why is this continuously ignored? No other right is under constant attack as the 2A, especially in VA. -Stop blaming tools & fix the real problem. Bad people & our society. for starters!
I support HB1359, HB21, HB19, HB969, HB871, HB93, HB40, as all these measures will keep our communities in Virginia safer. For HB1359: The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions concluded that firearm purchaser licensing laws “are associated with lower rates of diversions of firearms for use in crime, homicide, mass shootings, suicide, and shootings by police” (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/solutions/permit-to-purchase-firearm-purchaser-licensing). HB21 is a commonsense law that will create standards we can hold the gun industry accountable for, just as citizens would want to hold any industry accountable. For HB19: According to Everytown Research’s analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in the US (https://everytownresearch.org/report/guns-and-violence-against-women/). A partner can include a dating partner, so expanding the definition of "family or household member” is essential. Creating a gun violence prevention center through HB969 will help allocate resources to the projects that will save the most lives. Guns kill nearly 130 people every day, according to Everytown Research’s analysis of data from the CDC (https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-in-america/). Also, gun violence affects many more than the people killed. A 2019 survey found that a third of US adults said fear of mass shootings stops them from going to certain places and events (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting). The economic benefit alone—if not the safety benefit—of curbing gun violence should provide sufficient motivation to pass this bill. Enacting HB871 would align with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics to protect children (https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/safe-storage-of-firearms). Also, one study estimated that safe storage could save up to 251 children’s lives per year (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2733158). HB93 will help keep survivors of domestic violence safer. A 2017 study found a 9.7% lower intimate partner homicide rate when states prohibited firearm possession among people subject to restraining orders related to intimate partner violence (https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2849). Keeping firearms out of the home of those who harmed intimate partners will provide further protection. HB40 would help protect the public by making it harder for people prohibited from lawful firearm possession to get their hands on guns. A Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions report says, “Data from the Baltimore Police Department demonstrate that ghost guns are primarily recovered from individuals who were prohibited from lawful firearm possession including, underage youth, individuals with felony convictions, and those with violent criminal histories that prohibit gun ownership” (https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/2025/the-supreme-court-upholds-regulations-on-ghost-guns). Lastly, public safety laws such as these are designed to protect the public. Saving lives is more important than upholding an individual desire to purchase a gun as quickly as possible or access it at home without having to unlock it. These laws would not create an undue burden on law-abiding citizens. And even if there is an extra step—say, to purchase a gun—wouldn’t that be worth saving even one child’s life?
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment, just as the whole of the Bill of Rights, is a God-given right affirmed by the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights is intended to protect individual liberties from government encroachment. Not the other way around. A legislative desire to enact Second Amendment infringements runs afoul of any Constitutional application. Every one of these anti-Second Amendment bills constitutes an outright infringement, in one form or another, on an individual’s right to keep and bear Arms. To claim otherwise is either woefully ignorant or deliberately deceitful. The Second Amendment's imperative, "shall not be infringed,” is free from ambiguity or pretense without exception and is an unqualified command despite assertions to the contrary. No permit was required of me to exercise my freedom of speech, here, in order to comment (redress my grievance) on these proposed bills that reek of oppression. The same applies to the Second Amendment and other protected rights. As to “gun violence,” no gun ever served time in prison for committing a crime. Besides, the Second Amendment is no more contingent upon rates of crime than the First Amendment is subject to rates of literacy. Responsibilities may come with the exercise of Constitutionally-affirmed rights, but not infringements. None of these bills should see the light of day or remotely be considered. So let it be written, so let it be done.
As a US military veteran who has also been a victim of violent criminal use of a firearm, I appreciate the numerous sacrifices that have been made throughout the years to preserve our God given rights from frivolous political tinkering that fail to provide significant increases in public safety in exchange for undue infringement upon our citizens’ rights and liberties without certifiable evidence of the intended results. As an example, I provide the following report to show why lawful citizens 2A rights should not be infringed for any notional do gooder political brownie points to just “do something.” The following 11 year old probably wouldn’t be with us today if some of these current gun control measures being considered in Richmond were in effect in her state. “ 11 YR OLD SHOOTS ILLEGALS thanks FOX NEWS for reporting it. BUTTE , MONTANA Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders...Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11-year-old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two-story home. It seems the two crooks never learned two things: 1) they were in Montana and 2) Patricia had been a clay-shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12-gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun. Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old's knee-crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the ...street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive. It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45-caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old David 0'Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC news........? An 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home, and herself......against two murderous, illegal immigrants.......and she wins. She is still alive. Now THAT is Gun Control! Thought for the day.... Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an 'unlicensed pharmacist.' I like this kind of E-mail! American citizens defending themselves and their homes”
I stand with the VCDL on these bills.
I support this bill.
The right to keep and bear arms SHALL not be infringed. These laws all in their rhetoric and restrictions seek to unduly limit and abridge the constitutional right of the American Citizens who reside in Virginia. None of these proposals have merit and the members of this legislature know they do not.
I oppose the bills as I do not think they are a solution to the problems facing us today. Further, they will cost the commonwealth more legal resources and expenses.
HB217 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB217. This bill bans the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” and it also restricts certain ammunition feeding devices based on manufacture date/capacity. These are arms and components commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, which places them squarely within the protection recognized in Heller and subject to Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. Broad category bans do not target criminals; they burden only the compliant and invite years of expensive litigation. Virginia should pursue violent-crime enforcement and mental-health interventions—not bans on commonly owned firearms and standard magazines. HB19 (McClure) — OPPOSE I oppose HB19. This bill imposes a broad firearm disability based on a misdemeanor assault-and-battery conviction involving an expanded set of relationships, including “intimate partner,” and then bars purchase/possession/transport for a defined period. That is a serious deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right without the kind of historically grounded analogue required under Bruen. It also risks sweeping in non-dangerous conduct (including cases arising from contentious domestic disputes), while doing little to stop violent criminals who already ignore weapons laws. Virginia should focus on punishing violent misuse of firearms and enforcing existing laws—not creating new, broad disarmament categories for otherwise law-abiding citizens. HB21 (Helmer) — OPPOSE I oppose HB21. This bill creates sweeping “standards of responsible conduct” for firearm industry members and then exposes lawful businesses to expansive civil liability theories (including public nuisance-style claims). The practical effect is to chill lawful commerce and constrain the supply of constitutionally protected arms through litigation pressure rather than democratic process—an indirect burden on the right to keep and bear arms that Bruen does not permit. Criminals do not buy guns through lawful channels and won’t be deterred by civil lawsuits against retailers and manufacturers. This proposal targets constitutionally protected conduct instead of violent offenders. HB40 (Simon) — OPPOSE I oppose HB40. This bill criminalizes broad categories of firearms, frames/receivers, and parts based on serialization status—including possession prohibitions that take effect later—while also restricting transfers. It risks criminalizing ordinary Virginians for paperwork/technicalities rather than misconduct, and it directly burdens the ability of law-abiding people to acquire and possess arms that are in common use. We should prosecute prohibited possessors and violent criminals, not create new possession crimes aimed at people who are otherwise lawful.
Hello Today, January 29, 2026 is my BIRTHDAY, I AM 46 YEARS OLD TODAY. I was born in 1980 in Byrn Mawr, PA to a WW2 and Korean war Vet named William S Lindsay and my mother Mary Lindsay. Because of my upbringing, and the constant talk about History and other topics; i was raised with healthy understanding of both Guns, engines and Cars. When i became old enough; i served my country for 8 years in Submarines before leaving the navy for civilian work in submarine repair. During my life, i have owned many rifles, pistols, and shotguns. I have target shot, carried defensively and on two occassions in my life-i had both need of a firearm and the firearm was with me to provide defensive effect. I think sometimes about what would have happened if i had lived in a state that did not permit me to have firearms or limited my choices with beauraucratic hurdles? In both instances i might not be alive to retell the story. Simply put; both times-the mere presence of having a firearm detured or otherwise changed the outcome of me being robbed or carjacked. Now-Va democrats would rather have me become a victim or a deceased casulty than admit that having a legal firearm with a substantial number of rounds in the magazine is the ultimate deterant to crime. I would point out to anyone listening that those 27 words mean more than people think they do; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. This is not just the quintessential AMERICAN IDEA, BUT AN IDEA THAT HAS PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN THAT WE ARE STRONGER WITH OUR GUNS THAN WITHOUT. IF we allow these bills to pass, then we as Americans are surrendering to the theory that our Amendments are little more than suggestions, and that the founding fathers didn't really mean for us to follow them. I SAY AGAIN; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. WHAT PART OF THIS IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THE END
As a lifelong resident of Virginia. I have enjoyed the shooting sports, even as far back as on the rifle team in high school. Also, as a retired law enforcement officer of over 30+ years. I am saddened to see our general assembly doing nothing more than a knee-jerk feel good effort to restrict law abiding citizens. let’s bring back and strictly enforce. If you commit a violent crime with a firearm you will serve a minimum of five years in a penitentiary there’s are all saying, and I have seen it before criminals do not care at all what laws that are past restricting firearms, they will continue to be just that lawbreaking individuals who do not care.
I support closing the dating partner loophole in this bill which strengthens the prohibition on gun possession by domestic abusers who have been convicted of domestic violence (a misdemeanor crime). Equally, the bill would provide clear definition of family or household member and further protect people in various types of relationships.
I oppose all of the checked bills. Most of them are wildly unconstitutional, and none of them will make a single person safer.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the anti-gun bills scheduled for consideration in your subcommittee meeting on January 29, 2026. As a law-abiding citizen who values the rights enshrined in the United States Constitution, particularly the Second Amendment, I urge you to vote against these measures that infringe upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed. These bills, including but not limited to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, represent direct assaults on this constitutional protection. They impose unnecessary restrictions on firearm ownership, possession, and transfer that disproportionately burden responsible gun owners while doing nothing to address the root causes of crime. It is a well-established fact that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. Measures like bans on certain firearms (HB217), mandatory storage requirements (HB871), prohibitions on unserialized firearms (HB40), and penalties for leaving firearms in vehicles (HB110) will only disarm law-abiding citizens who follow the rules. These individuals are not the source of violent crime; rather, they are often the ones who rely on their Second Amendment rights for self-defense, hunting, and sport. Criminals will continue to acquire and use firearms illegally, unaffected by these new regulations, leaving ordinary Virginians more vulnerable. History and data show that gun control laws do not reduce crime rates but instead empower those who operate outside the law. For example, cities with strict gun laws often experience higher rates of violent crime compared to areas where law-abiding citizens can more freely exercise their rights. These bills will create more "gun-free" zones and bureaucratic hurdles that criminals ignore, effectively turning law-abiding citizens into easier targets. I respectfully request that you reject these infringement on our constitutional rights and focus instead on policies that target actual criminal behavior, such as enforcing existing laws against violent offenders and supporting mental health initiatives. Protecting the Second Amendment is essential to preserving our freedoms and ensuring public safety for all Virginians. Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope you will vote NO on these anti-Second Amendment bills. Sincerely, Bailey Pratt
In reviewing these various bills it seems that many of them disregard the Constitution that was sworn to be upheld. Additionally several have already been ruled on in various courts across the country. They serve to divide constituents especially those who vote rather than provide civil discourse and leadership. They further fail to address larger issues that plague our society. Punishing those who abide by the law and creating penalties for innocent civilians is conceptually flawed. I urge you all to reexamine the methods behind these bills and abandon them at this point. Work toward the greater good and try something that hasn’t already failed repeatedly. Truly focus on serving this great Commonwealth. It will serve all of us better in the future.
As a friend of Adam Turck, the most important thing I want to say first is that Adam was light. He was warmth. He was grace. He loved Superman. He loved his dog Lana. He loved acting. He loved fitness. He loved people. He loved life. He loved with his whole heart and his whole mind and he never let the weight of the world stop him from seeing the good in anyone and everyone. These bills are not only important to the family and friends Adam cultivated in Richmond, but to our community as a whole. Adam did everything right on August 2nd, 2025. He saw a woman in a domestic situation while walking his dog, Lana. He stepped in to try and de-escalate the situation, called the police and never letting that woman out of his sight. He did everything right and it wasn’t enough. A 19-year-old kid pulled a handgun from his backpack and shot Adam in the head. He then turned the gun on himself. That young kid took two lives that day when he never should have been able to put that woman or Adam in that position. He had pending assault charges and was only 19. Any one of the bills The Friends of Adam Turck are supporting today could have saved Adam’s life if they had already been in place. Adam was a superhero in this community, but he shouldn’t have had to be. He should still be here. Lighting up the Richmond Theater Stages, The gym he was a personal trainer at, and the lives of the people who loved him most. The city of Richmond should have long ago implemented gun safety and prevention laws that could have kept Adam here with us today. While no amount of wanting or wishing can bring him back, we can let it not be in vain, by making lasting change that prevents anyone else in Richmond from having to feel the pain we feel with the absence of Adam. He brought light to Richmond, The Theater, The Fitness Industry, and each and every life he touched. Please vote yes on HB 19, HB 21, HB 93, HB 110, and HB 1359
HB1303, I support. The remaining bills are unnecessary and bureaucratic. You are creating bills meant to solve statistically insignificant events. HB1359 and HB217 are particularly objectionable. Requiring a "purchaser license" infringes on the right to bear arms and is a complete duplication of existing background checks. The assault firearm definition is unconstitutional and will not stand up to legal challenge. Our tax dollars and attorney general resources will be wasted on such an obviously flawed legislation. Gun buy back programs are have proven to be a waste of tax payer dollars with no impact on gun crime statistics. HB110 is very heavy handed. Just because someone could detect a weapon in a private motor vehicle should not make that vehicle subject to confiscation by the state nor a penalty applied to the firearm owner. This is totally a way to punish firearm owners without solving any real gun violence crimes that you, as legislators, could better focus your time and effort on. Focus on enforcing existing laws and not letting habitual criminals get away with warnings or light sentencing for their crimes. That is the common sense approach. We have more than enough laws, we do not need more ways to trap law abiding citizens and our merchants with this slew of bills.
The bills under consideration are only going to affect those who have no intention of breaking the law. Coupled with the other bills lessening the penalties for many violent crimes, these will do nothing to prevent crime. Criminals do not follow the law. That is a textbook definition. We have plenty of laws to deal with those who perpetrate crimes. What is needed is to deal with the existing criminals. Stop what leads these people to break the law to begin with. Punish those who commit violent crimes firmly. Stop the revolving door justice that keeps them on the streets committing more crimes. Making the law abiding public defenseless while turning more violent criminals loose makes no sense. Police forces are not bodyguards! All that can be expected after calling 911 is the victim being taken to a hospital, or possibly the morgue, and an investigation, hopefully followed by an arrest. The only person that can hope to defend themselves from these violent criminals is the victim. It would be better to provide a system for more self defense classes for the public. Better help for the victims of violent crime. And fitting punishment for those who have broken the law. None of the proposed bills will do that. I hope that the Constitutional rights of the public will be considered over feel good measures. I thank you for your time in reading my comments and hope you will consider these points in voting on the proposed bills.
I urge committee members to vote against these bills, many of which infringe on our God-given rights as Americans, and some of which are already unconstitutional under existing rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States. Respectfully, a lifelong Virginian.
Hi, My name is Catherine Shultz and I’m writing this as a woman that survived almost being strangled to death, then stalked for 2 years. I was in fear of my life and I bought my first firearm and trained. My personal defense weapon saved my life and I didn’t have to pull the trigger. A piece of paper does nothing to protect survivors but I stand with VCDL & am co director of Women for Gun Rights in Va. I’m also disabled and an amputee & I can’t run from danger but I can use my firearm to protect myself. People don’t seem to understand that educating oneself vs restricting mags etc… they affect people like me and it shows me that the “gun safety” laws are simply a psychological bandage & does nothing to protect women like myself. Thank you, Catherine Shultz Women for gun rights
To the legislators; Not one of the proposed HBs should be approved. The authors of the proposed bills lack experience or insight into gun ownership or general safety of the public. Not one of these bills can be proven to save lives or stop criminal acts. What I do see is the potential for a level of state bureaucrats to create new jobs for their buddies. Let’s monitor who has a gun or who has too many bullets in their magazine. Whose family member is related to someone involved with domestic violence. This sounds like the state boys and girls are out to get their hands into Virginians pocket's again. Vote no for everyone of these HBs.
Shall not be infringed was and still is very clear. The bill of rights was written to limit the government. Please stop infringing on my god given rights.
HB19 Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB21 A firearm accessory seller could not know they were selling a accessory to a prohibited person. A car parts store cannot be sued if they sell a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery. HB40 This bill is unconstitutional, there is no analog in history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the US existed. HB93 If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that shotgun. That punishes and needlessly endangers her life. HB110 Car owner should not be at fault for a criminal stealing a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. This bill could put a handgun in the possession of a tow truck driver that is a convicted felon. HB217 U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in both DC v Heller, and The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. Guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common in the US, making this bill unconstitutional. HB229 Disarming visitors and guests, including CHP holders, violates their right to protect themselves. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB626 Students have a right to self-defense. HB702 Destroying a functional, and possibly valuable firearms is a waste of money. State could offset costs by selling firearms to gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program. HB871 Biometric safes are more expensive and can be unreliable when being used under stress and require batteries to work. There are other locking mechanisms that are just as secure. HB969 Center would only target violence committed using firearms and ignoring root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm. Term “Gun Violence” gives away true agenda: “gun violence” is a term coined by gun-control lobby to blame guns, which are inanimate objects, and not criminals that misuse guns. If a police officer shoots someone, officer gets blame, not his gun. If a criminal shoots someone, gun gets blame, not criminal. No one says, “tire iron violence” or “hand and feet violence.” It is just called “violence.” But there is a disarmament agenda with firearms and “gun violence” is just an excuse to go after firearms with more gun control. HB1300 Oppose HB1303 Oppose HB1359 Bill will get innocent people killed, it will take at least two months before a person can purchase a first firearm. If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long. Price to get a permit, likely in hundreds of dollars, will be prohibitive for poor people and is equivalent of a poll tax. And even with all hoops to get a permit, even citizens with a CHP will be limited to one handgun a month. Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country.
My entire life I have taken great pride and stewardship in being a law abiding citizen of a great country. A very large part of my patriotism is the freedom and trust the founders of the nation gave me in the Second Amendment of the US constitution and Section 13 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. The anti-gun bills that have been introduced in Virginia show me that the supporters of these bills have zero regard for the Constitution, my rights as a lawful citizen and my rights to be able to defend myself and others from violent crime. The supporters of these bills have lost all sense of who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. I see this when early release is granted to hundreds of violent felons, many of which then go on to reoffend and violently prey on the very people you are supposed to protect, all for nothing more than some misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when prosecutors do not pursue charges against violent offenders in a misdirected attempt at virtue signaling. I see this when legislative efforts focus on the law-abiding and do nothing to violent felons who will not bother to be hindered by any gun laws. I see this when legislators talk about “gun violence” and do nothing about the underlying problem of “violence” and how to reduce it. I see this when I see news stories of repeat violent offenders who have been arrested for dozens of violent crimes, including murder, who end up killing someone yet again due to some form of “catch and release”. The laws are in place to remove violent felons, whether or not they use firearms, from society and prevent them from preying on your law-abiding constituents. Please use them. I urge opposition to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969 and HB1359. I urge support for HB1300 and HB1303.
I oppose all legislation which seeks to undermine our Constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment. Therefore, I would encourage all members to vote against these bills with a resounding NO!
As a life long Virginia resident and lawful firearms owner, I speak for myself and millions of other Virginians in saying that all of us strongly oppose any bill being introduced that restricts and infringes upon our Second Amendment rights that are guaranteed by the constitution of Virginia and of the United States. These gun control bills have been drafted under the guise of safety and crime prevention, while simultaneously doing the opposite and only increasing further resistance in both crime and safety. For decades, Virginia has been a pro-2A state where generations of families have been born into and raised on safe and responsible gun ownership. Hunting, personal protection, or simply being an enthusiast does not make someone a criminal or implies criminal intent because of the technology behind modern firearms has far surpassed the firearms of our grandfathers’s generation. Manufacturing methods and technology is ever changing, but our natural rights as law abiding citizens should never be hung in the balance and toyed with as privileges. I implore the General Assembly to please review these bills with logic, with reason, and with the hope that our state government will not make a mockery of the Second Amendment to further a political agenda not based upon fact, but upon incessant fear mongering and disarmament of the people.
I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a reasonable restriction—we do not want domestic abusers to have access to firearms, given their known propensity for violence. Nationally, firearms are used in more than half of intimate partner homicides, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
Name: Brad Toohill Location: Loudoun County, Virginia I strongly oppose the following bills. These proposals punish law-abiding Virginians, undermine due process, and infringe on constitutionally protected rights while failing to address violent crime. Criminals do not follow gun laws—these bills target citizens who already do. HB 19 (McClure) This bill allows permanent loss of firearm rights based on vague “dating relationship” misdemeanors. Fundamental rights should not be stripped without clear standards and robust due process. HB 21 (Helmer) Holding firearm manufacturers and sellers liable for crimes they did not commit is unjust and dangerous. This policy attacks lawful commerce instead of criminal behavior. HB 40 (Simon) Criminalizing unfinished frames and receivers turns peaceful hobbyists into felons without evidence of crime reduction. This is regulation without results. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) Forced firearm surrender under protective orders risks disarming innocent family members. Rights should not be suspended by accusation alone. HB 110 (Laufer) Penalizing lawful gun owners for storing a handgun in a vehicle is excessive and punitive. This bill targets responsible citizens, not criminals. HB 217 (Helmer) This bill bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines that are clearly protected as arms in common use. It is unconstitutional and ineffective. HB 229 (Hernandez) Blanket bans on firearms and knives in medical facilities leave lawful citizens defenseless and create confusion without improving safety. HB 626 (Callsen) Disarming adults on college campuses does not enhance safety. Law-abiding individuals should not lose their right to self-defense based on location. HB 702 (Cole) Taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy programs waste public funds and show no measurable impact on crime. HB 871 (Downey) Mandated storage methods and biometric safes intrude into private homes and impose unnecessary costs on families. HB 969 (Price) Creating a new state agency focused solely on firearms expands bureaucracy while ignoring repeat offenders and enforcement failures. HB 1359 (Hope) This permit-to-purchase scheme creates delays, costs, fingerprinting, and a de facto registry. It burdens lawful ownership and disproportionately harms low-income Virginians. Virginia should focus on enforcing existing laws and prosecuting violent offenders—not restricting the rights of responsible citizens.
I urge you to oppose all of the proposed bills. None of these bills will have meaningful impact on crime committed with fire arms. The only honest way to reduce crime committed with firearms is to enforce mandatory and harsh penalties on criminals who use guns to commit crimes. Once has to realize that guns can only commit a crime in the hands of a criminal. The criminal, not the tool is the problem that needs to be addressed. A case in point: England has super strong regulations on guns. Was that effective? Did the crime rates really drop ? No, crime rates didn't drop all that much. Eliminating firearms just shifted the criminals over to using knives as their weapon of choice. These proposed regulations seem to be more aimed at annoying firearm owners, as opposed to solving any real problems. While I want to vote Democratic, these essentially useless regulations are making me seriously reconsider which party I will support in the future. Please put regulations in place to SOLVE problems, not these silly things that only provide talking points. Never forget, RESULTS are what voters want.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence supports these bills.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence supports this bill.
Not one of these bills will make anyone safer, but rather strip the rights of law abiding citizens of which pose no threat. Maybe try enforcing or increasing the penalties for laws against murder or violent felonies that are already in place? The problem isn't guns. It's the mentally ill people who misuse them. Making good people criminals for simply owning common firearms or magazines will not make a difference to people who have no regard for law.
Thank you - see file attached
All these bills infringe on citizens AMENDMENT RIGHT we the people been lied to BY OUR Government OFFICIALS & mainly democratic officials ABIGAIL SPANBERGER is one of them
My name is Teresa Gancsos and I am with the Richmond chapter of Moms Demand Action and we support these bills. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Teresa Gancsos
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee.
My family and I OPPOSE all these insidious, un-Constitutional anti-2A Bills you're proposing.
Dear Legislators, You have been elected to a position for the purpose of representing citizens in VA. You have taken an oath to the state and U.S. Constitution. It is not your place to push radical agendas or ideologies that clearly oppose those Constitutions. The 2nd Amendment clearly states that it “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. Whether you agree or disagree with it is not important. Whether you appreciate firearms or hate and fear them, is not important. What is important, is that you respect my Constitutional right to own them, carry them, use them, transport them, have immediate access to them, decide for myself how I will store them in my own home. It is NOT your place to infringe upon these rights in any way. The very reason for the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to be able to repel, remove, and defend against a tyrannical government. Don’t be a tyrannical government. Remember and honor your oaths. Put aside the partisanship. Sincerely, One of millions of gun owners
All these proposed are laws are just awful. The right of self-preservation is a fundamental human right and having the best tools for self-preservation furthers that fundamental human right. Without those tools, you degrade the most important human right in the world, the right to live and live free. Suing gun dealers and manufacturers will prevent the public from acquiring guns. Banning large swaths of arms and accessories prevent the public from defending themselves with the best tool possible. All these proposed laws are bad. Bad for Virginians and bad for human rights. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry.
My name is Cossie Scott a lifelong Virginia resident. This is my first time speaking here. I strongly oppose HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1359 I do support HB1303 45% of Virginia homes own guns lawfully. Nationally, 93% of the guns associated with crime are obtained illegally. So how are any of these regulations moving the needle in illegal gun trafficking? Or attacking the root cause of violent crime? Furthermore, the majority of the average gun related crime occurs in 9 districts in Virginia (Richmond and Hampton Roads). So you are proposing punishing the entire state and every law biding gun owner for an “illegal” gun problem in Hampton and Richmond. Not to mention 63% of the gun related deaths in Virginia are suicide related. That means that all of these bills listed are not scientifically proven with sound data, but emotionally charged by political gun grabbing rhetoric and is saturated with slippery slope informal fallacies with proposed changes being made without analytical data to suggest we have a need to change. Why do we not first address Richmond and Hampton locally before pushing your unfounded ideology on the rest of the commonwealth. Gun laws do not solve for the human condition problem in those 9 districts. We would be better served spending our time, and tax dollars, addressing the poverty problem that drives violent crime, rather than trying to make law biding citizens criminals.
I’ve been a lifelong Democrat because I believe deeply in protecting working people, expanding access to healthcare, safeguarding civil rights, and investing in strong public institutions, but I’ve never fully aligned with my party on gun control. To me, supporting the Second Amendment isn’t about ideology or partisanship — it’s about personal responsibility, self-reliance, and the belief that law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves and their families. I value evidence-based policy, and I worry that many proposed gun laws primarily burden responsible owners while doing little to address the root causes of violence like poverty, mental health gaps, and systemic inequality. I want safer communities, but I believe that comes from smarter enforcement, education, and prevention rather than broad restrictions that limit constitutional rights. Holding these views sometimes puts me at odds with fellow Democrats, but I see it as proof that political identity doesn’t have to mean agreeing with every plank of the platform — it means thinking critically and standing by the principles you believe in. Please vote no to any gun restrictions that are being presented.
I support these bills as indicated above.
The attachment contains my comments on the proposed bills.
Nearly half of all households in the Commonwealth own a firearm and yet Virginia has one of the lowest gun related death rates in the nation (5.6 per 100,000). Not only are you trying to solve an issue that doesn't exist, you're sacrificing your constiunts to pander towards national politics.
As a law abiding gun owner and retired military Virginia Citizen I vehemently oppose any law that opposes our Constitutional Right via the Second Amendment. All of the bills you are considering meet this criteria. Please cease and desist any band all actions that would infringe on my rights…those that our Founding Fathers of whom many were from our Great Commonwealth, believed to be self-evident. Very respectfully, Shannon J. Cornelius, USA/USAF (Ret)
I strongly urge voting against the following bills as all of them will cause undue hardship on legal gun owners, go against the spirit of the US 2nd amendment, will place firearm manufacturers in legal jeopardy solely because their products may have been used in an unlawful fashion (same as suing Ford for getting a speeding ticket). HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. Thank you,
I oppose the passage of these bills. HB 19, 21, 40, 93, 110, 217, 229, 626, 702, 871, 969, 1359.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. Stop writing and putting Unconstitutional Legislation in the Virginia Code. That covers just about everything I have seen the Democratic Majority propose as new legislation. Want to live in a communist paradise - Move to Cuba - They do not get Snow and sleet there, and you will have someone to give you instructions on how to live your life.
Just to let you know, I am an independent in every sense of the word. I tend to lean left on many issues but on the subject of the second amendment I am a firm believer. I don’t think we need these new restrictions being proposed. The topic is so complex and polar I don’t know how to convince you all of the folly of this legislation except to say many of us are single issue voters regardless of how we feel about certain social issues. I know many democrats in this state who regularly use these weapons that are the subject for future restrictions or outright banning. I will try to touch on a few issues. Assault weapons and high capacity magazine are the current boogie man of the anti gun lobby and have been since the 1990s. This was originally a deliberate attempt to confuse modern civilian semiautomatic weapons with their more dangerous fully automatic assault military versions as a prelude to ban handguns. The term assault weapon is a purely political term that has no universal meaning and it was chosen to instill fear and confusion in the public’s mind. I ask you to review these laws and ask yourself which one of these features makes these weapons more dangerous than other rifles. Is a pistol grip, bayonet lug, or similar feature what makes a rifle dangerous? Or is it caliber, muzzle energy, and rate of fire? If public safety is the true goal why doesn’t this legislation address these factors instead of cosmetics? I will tell you why. Because the average hunting rifle is more powerful than an ar-15 by a wide margin. These are not overpowered rifles as some would have you believe. It’s a semiautomatic version of an intermediate powered rifle - part way between the power of a pistol and a full power hunting rifle. Did you know even Great Britain has no restrictions on weapons with military style features? Their ban is on the caliber and rate of fire. You can even have a semiautomatic uzi there witt a 50 round magazine as long as it is chambered in 22lr. Silencers have very few restrictions there as well because they protect hearing and help minimize noise pollution. Let’s talk about the legality as well. Most of these restrictions are unconstitutional because the weapons and features are in common use. It’s unconstitutional to ban any weapon that is in common use as per DC vs Heller and Brien. If the state court doesn’t overturn these unconstitutional restrictions the Supreme Court will. I will end this conversation by saying our founding fathers faced the same issues we do. At that time most governments restricted civilian arms because they wanted to remain in power. They reasoned through their dealings with Great Britain that an armed population could never be slaves to any tyrannical government or foreign power. This may sound like a tired old saying that is often made fun of. I have heard people saying things like deer don’t need bullet proof vests and you can’t fight against a government without f-16s but is this really true? The ar-15 for instance is not powerful enough to take down a large elk humanly so the bullet proof vest comment is just plain silly. That cartridge is commonly used in other rifles as a varmint round. As far as f-16s are concerned, the Taliban sure kicked us out of their country with nothing more than small arms and guerrilla tactics. Civilian resistance movements rarely fight pitch battles with tanks and fighter jets. They use hit and run tactics combined with numbers to wear the enemy down.
Dear Committee Members, I urge you to reject the blatantly unconditional and egregious anti Second Amendment bills before you. This will do nothing to curb crime, and you know that, but will make criminals out of your political opponents, as well as many of your constituents. Scencerly, Sal DeGennaro
PLEASE PROTECT OUR GUN RIGHTS AND DO NOT DEGRADE VIRGINIANS' SECOND AMENDMENT GUARANTEED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS!
IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED TO REPRESENT ME IMMEDIATELY STEP IN AND COME UP WITH LAWS IN AN ATTEMPT TO FRAME ME AS A CRIMINAL FOR EXERCISING MY RIGHTS. IN NO WAY HAVE I BROKEN ANY EXISTING LAWS, NOR DO I OWN ANY ITEM CURRENTLY CONSIDERED ILLEGAL. THAT THESE "REPRESENTATIVES" CAN, WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN, PENALIZE ME, MAKES ME WONDER JUST WHO THEY "REPRESENT". WE DO NOT NEED MORE LAWS TO "LESSEN CRIME", WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. PLEASE LEAVE YOUR LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS ALONE.
Our Second Amendment is clear and succinct: "... the right of the People to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed." What I see is an example of the government overstepping its bounds under the illusion of public safety. Many of the measures including assault weapons, magazine capacities, and "ghost guns" are based on buzz words that strike fear because people do not understand them. Let us embark on a few definitions: Infringe: "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on" -Oxford Dictionary. Synonyms include Erode, Impair, and Weaken. ANY legislation that limits impairs, or weakens a citizen's right to own and carry weapons is, by definiton, infringement, and therefore a violation of our beautiful country's constitution. Ghost Gun: the ATF classifies the part of the weapon containing the trigger assembly as a "firearm," colloquially called a Lower Receiver. It is possible to manufacture this part and therefore build a weapon that has no serial number and is unregistered with the police department. This takes skill and specialized, expensive tooling; these firearms sound scary, but are by and large produced by hobbyists, not killers. Assault Weapons (HB217): The limiting, reduction, and impairment of the size of magazine that one can purchase, keep, and carry is simply a violation of the 2nd amendment. Storage (HB871): The State government has no business inside my home and how my weapons are stored. I learned to handle guns at 7 years of age, children can learn. If I lock my weapons as this bill requires, I can no longer access them in an emergency. Its safer to gun-proof my children than child-proof my guns. Permit to purchase (HB1359): We do not need a permit to exercise our first amendment rights. We do not have permits to secure our rights against inappropriate search and seizure, the 4th amendment. We also do not have permits to protect ourselves from cruel and unusual punishment. No other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights requires a permit, why do we treat the 2nd amendment differently? We already strip this right from convicted criminals, we have background checks, leave us law-abiding gunowners alone. I understand these bills have good intentions. We want to see our communities safe, healthy, and thriving, and have our neighbors and friends go about their days without fear. But let us not succumb to fear to such an extent that we throw away our freedom for the illusion of heightened safety. Let's look at California, llinois, and New York, who have the strictest policies in the nation, yet rising rates of violent crimes, and instantly the illusion is dispelled. These measures do not increase safety. What they do accomplish is an erosion of freedom, disarmament of law-abiding citizens, and violation of our country's constitution. I ask you please, as your neighbor and constituent, vote NO to these measures.
HB19 It is improper to deprive citizen rights for a misdemeanor violation Deprivation of rights is part of the accepted sentence for felony crime (voting, firearms, etc) Proposed Fix – Make domestic violence and intimate partner violence a felony level crime. HB40 Causes a wide variety of hardware store supplies felony crime to own. Proposed Fix – Table bill and remove references to unfinished frames/receivers, remove references to serialization until a method of applying for serial number is available to the general public HB110 Tow truck drivers are NOT the ideal steward for firearms The tow yard is not a safe storage location Proposed fix – Police can call a locksmith and have the vehicle opened at owner expense, firearm can be removed and held at police station for recovery HB217 Large capacity varies by firearm, the most common standard capacity is 28-32 per magazine, 100 per belt Shotgun capacity is variable based on shell length If exemptions are made for police, CHP holders (who commit crimes at a rate LOWER than police) should also be exempt (DHS/ICE are making this argument stronger every day) Proposed fix – Change “High Capacity” from 10 to 60 for magazines, and 200 for belts. Define “High Capacity” for shotgun tubes based on a defined shot-shell size. Exempt CHP holders from all magazine restrictions. HB229 As with all prohibited places, if right to self defense is abridged, a duty to protect is created Secure storage should be provided, as due to Arlington Car-Free Diet, many trips are multi-modal, preventing use of anchored, steel, hidden, locking car safe storage. Proposed Fix - Security screening and armed protection must be provided in all prohibited places, failure to protect disarmed individuals to be held under strict liability. At one or more entrance, a staffed safe-storage location to be provided for weapons to be checked-in. HB871 Biometric safes are typically the WORST QUALITY OF ALL SAFES ON THE MARKET Proposed Fix – Allow for any kind of lock, or else indicate a cypher/combo/key lock. HB1300 The police commit crimes at a higher rate than CHP holders Police get paid and can buy guns normally Suggested Fix – Table and do not reintroduce, bill is not needed HB626 As with all prohibited places, if right to self defense is abridged, a duty to protect is created Secure storage should be provided, as due to Arlington Car-Free Diet, many trips are multi-modal, preventing use of anchored, steel, hidden, locking car safe storage. As with the open-carry on streets prohibition currently in place, CHP holders need to be exempted. Proposed Fix - Security screening and armed protection must be provided in all prohibited places, failure to protect disarmed individuals to be held under strict liability. At one or more entrance, a staffed safe-storage location to be provided for weapons to be checked-in. CHP holders to be exempted. HB1359 A criminal record history check is already performed for all firearm transactions DCJS training is for armed security guards and police, if all firearms owners are DCJS certified, then exemptions for armed security and police should apply to purchase permit holders Proposed Fix – Table bill and do not reintroduce, it is redundant to already existing protections, alternatively exempt all purchase permit holders from any firearms regulations that have specific exemptions for police
This bill would strip Virginians of their Second Amendment rights for three years based on a misdemeanor conviction involving a "dating relationship." While domestic violence is a serious issue that must be addressed, HB 19 takes a broad and constitutionally dangerous approach that punishes individuals without regard for due process, proportionality, or long-standing legal principles. Under this proposal, a person could permanently lose access to a fundamental constitutional right over a non-felony offense that may involve minor conduct, mutual disputes, or allegations resolved through plea agreements to avoid costly litigation. Misdemeanors are, by definition, not among the most serious crimes in our legal system. They have never historically justified the loss of core civil rights. The Second Amendment is not a privilege granted by government. It is a natural right protected by both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. Removing that right based on a misdemeanor conviction sets a dangerous precedent that allows politicians to redefine who is "worthy" of exercising constitutional freedoms. HB 19 also creates serious due process concerns. Many misdemeanor convictions result from plea bargaining, often entered into simply to avoid financial hardship, job loss, or prolonged court proceedings. Under this bill, a momentary lapse in judgment or a disputed allegation could result in years of lost constitutional rights. Furthermore, there is no evidence that disarming non-felony offenders reduces violent crime. Criminals who intend to commit acts of violence do not obey gun laws. This bill will not stop violent offenders. It will only disarm law-abiding citizens who have already served their sentence and are attempting to rebuild their lives. This proposal moves Virginia closer to a system where civil rights are treated as conditional privileges, revocable at the discretion of lawmakers. That is fundamentally incompatible with the principles of a free society. Punishment should be proportional, targeted, and focused on truly dangerous individuals. HB 19 fails that test. It expands government power at the expense of constitutional liberty and opens the door to further erosion of rights in the future.
I disagree with any and all laws pertaining to our gun rights and any law that infringes our right to own,sell, trade or gift. These amendments are a total outreach of our constitutional rights and we the people will not stand for it.
These bill do nothing to address criminals and only affects law abiding gun owners. As a black man I feel they are racist as well. Vote NO to all of these bills.
I stand with Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League in opposing any attempt to restrict law abiding Virginians 2nd amendment rights. These bills will do nothing to stop crime and only serve to limit the rights of the people to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. As a constituent, I urge you to OPPOSE these gun bills: HB 19, Misdemeanors should never take away a civil right. HB 21, This bill is designed to have a chilling effect on all aspects of the firearms industry. HB 40, This bill is unconstitutional, as there was no analog in the history or traditions of firearms with any such limitations at the time the Bill of Rights was adopted. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. HB 93, This disctriminates against people in the same household and also discriminates against young people who are legally allowed to own fire arms. HB 110, Punish criminals who do this, not the law abiding citizens. HB 217, The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently The New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the Second Amendment. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the United States, making this bill unconstitutional. There are conservatively estimated to be over 20 million AR-15s and 700 million magazines that hold more than 10 rounds in civilian hands. HB 229, Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen Supreme Court ruling. HB 626, A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students are adults and have a right to self-defense. HB 702, The name of the program implies that the Commonwealth gives firearms to citizens and now wants citizens to give them back. That is not the case. The State does not give us our rights and does not own our property. HB 871, Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes and often times more unreliable when being used under stress, This discriminates against those people who are poor and still have a right to self protection. HB 969, we do not need to grow the state bureaucracy to study violent crime when most violent crime does not involve firearms. HB 1359, please find me a constitutional right that you have to get a permit for. There is not one and we should not be limiting the rights of the people by require a permit to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. I SUPPORT the following bill: HB 1303, 90 days is more than sufficient for the State Police to issue a non-resident permit. There is no reason that this should take longer than this.
I’m against all these worthless anti-gun / anti-freedom bills that will do nothing to reduce crime, but will only serve to reduce the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Please retract them and do something good for Virginians. Thank you.
I do not support these bills.
I am opposed to any and all gun legislation the 2nd amendment is a right not privilege and can not be infringed upon . I also have to question your motives as to why you want to disarm law abiding citizens. Down through history any government that has done that has destroyed the common citizen.
I oppose any and all restrictions on our God given and Constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear arms. None of this nonsense passes constitutional muster. And will have the effect of making the lives Of law abiding citizens less safe while you are Lowering penalties for real crime and turning Law abiding citizens into criminals... These bills are nothing more than a government power grab. What part of "Shall NOT be infringed " do you not Understand??
All bills with the exception of HB 1303 are unconstitutional and I do NOT support them.
I oppose these bills
When did our state government decide that they do not have to follow our Constitution of the United States of America? The 2nd Amendment is an individual right under the Constitution that states clearly that it shall not be infringed on which in simple terms means that no government official or group has the ability to take a person's right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America. This Amendment was so important to our forefathers that it is the second thing they wrote to establish that the government does not have the ability to take your right to defend yourself against all enemies and this includes a tyrannical state government that doesn't understand plain text that our country was founded on. It doesn't matter what others opinions or feelings on the subject of the right to bear arms is because it is my right and not their's that we are talking about at this time. As a society of individuals in our country that have never agreed on things of this nature since the invention of the modern firearm we have to look no farther than our own Constitution to see that this is not a collective right of certain people that agree or disagree with the principle of firearms but infact a Constitutional right of an individual to determine there views of their personal right to bear arms. With the world in the state it is in at our present time this Constitutional right is needed more then ever because we are facing people that think that the can completely ignore the Constitution and its not even on a national level but a state level. This is also a truly sad moment of our state that is the founding place for our country as it exists from the time that we settled in this new land of an unknown world at the time but to disrespect our founding Document that started it all on top of it is the worst thing that could happen in our state for these elected officials to look at the Bill of Rights and say to themselves that those Amendment are not worth following because I have a different opinion, belief or feeling on that Amendment that I am personally going to take the individual right of every person in Virginia just because I don't want to follow these Amendments as they are written. Do you understand how this is being a tyrannical government just like the British were when they were trying to control the entire population at the time that we had the Revolution in this great land to start this great country. When people say that the 2nd Amendment is dated and need to be revised but can see the actual beauty in how our forefathers predicted that this Amendment would be necessary throughout time to even to the year 2026 were we have a government that is looking at this exact Amendment and saying no we don't have to follow that anymore because we have all these people that don't like the fact that a free person of the United States of America can purchase anything that has to do with their ability to not only protect themselves in self defense but also to protect themselves from the tyrannical government that is before us today. I'm sorry but as a person that has no affiliation to a political party or any other organization on this subject in our country I believe in our Constitution and the Amendments that were written in the Bill of Rights to protect myself, my family and my friends from people that think that they know what is best for everyone in our country on the basis that they either think they are smarter, richer or elected.
I oppose every gun-control bill pending before this committee because they are prohibited by both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. The Second Amendment provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that this language protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful purposes such as self-defense, independent of militia service. The Court emphasized that the Amendment protects arms “in common use” by law-abiding citizens and forbids bans on entire classes of such arms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court reaffirmed that this right is fully incorporated against the states, binding Virginia to the same constitutional limits as Congress. Virginia’s Constitution independently protects this right, stating in Article I, Section 13 that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court rejected interest-balancing tests and adopted a text-history-tradition standard: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, it is presumptively protected, and the government must show the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Modern policy goals, crime statistics, or legislative preferences are insufficient. Many pending bills restrict semi-automatic rifles, including AR-style firearms that are owned by millions of Americans and commonly used for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting. Under Heller, arms in common use cannot be banned, and the “dangerous and unusual” exception does not apply. There is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned firearms based on rate of fire, operating mechanism, or cosmetic features, and under Bruen the absence of such historical analogues is dispositive. Other bills ban magazines over ten rounds, which are standard components of many commonly owned handguns and rifles. Because magazines are integral to firearm function, such bans operate as functional prohibitions on protected firearms. There is no Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of limiting ammunition capacity, making these bans unconstitutional under Bruen. Permit-to-purchase schemes likewise unconstitutionally burden a fundamental right by converting it into a government-granted privilege. The right to keep arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them, and fees, training mandates, biometric requirements, and processing delays disproportionately burden citizens and lack historical justification. These schemes invite arbitrary enforcement and indirect suppression of a constitutional right. While public safety is a legitimate concern, the Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional rights cannot be traded away through legislative cost-benefit analysis. Regulations unsupported by historical tradition fail regardless of asserted benefits. For these reasons, the pending gun-control bills before this committee are inconsistent with both the United States and Virginia Constitutions and should be rejected.
Please no more gun bans
These proposed actions would increase the amount of money that is already taken from us in taxes. They make no sense, as we have a 2.3 billion surplus. These actions only hurt Virginians. The democrat party ran on affordability, and these bills do just the opposite. The taxes on firearms, and the banning of them and accessories have already proven to do nothing but punish law abiding citizens. CRIMINALS DONT FOLLOW LAWS! Reducing manditory sentecing for rape and other horrible crimes only make us less safe. Combined with TRYING to disarm us and helping criminals you out us at risk, and rob us of our rights and money. You all should be ashamed of yourselves for being bought off. You all remind me of our flag. You are acting like tyrants. You talk of affordability, yet you are trying to take more of our money. The people will not stand for tour unconstitutional actions. You may have control for the next two years, but your political careers will be destroyed. Tou have become radical tyrants. You hate the other side so much, that you are willing to destroy us. Shame on all of you. The pendulum always swings back, and you are just guaranteeing it will swing so far back that you will wish you never did this. The destruction of our constitution, and your petty attacks are not worth the backlash that will come when the people rise up against what you believe in.
Leave my second amendment rights alone and worry about all the criminals both legal and illegal. Don't screw with law-abiding citizens who work and pay your salary
Hello, I agree and stand with the opinions of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America on these troubling bills. The right to keep and bear ares enshrined as a God given right in both the US (2nd amendment) and Virginia (article 1, section 13) Constitutions. Please do not legislate millions of peaceful, law abiding Virginians into criminals with the stroke of a pen.
I support HB19 because it responsibly extends the law to close the "intimate partner" or "boyfriend" loophole. There is a clear and proven link between domestic violence and gun violence. Domestic abusers are not always married and are prone to extend their violent behavior outside of their partnerships; so HB19 gives law enforcement an essential tool to protect our communities in full.
Please Protect Our 2nd Amendment Rights. Thank You.
Please don’t support any Bills that restrict or infringe on my 2nd Amendment rights.
To whom it may concern, It is important to recognize that criminals, by definition, disregard existing laws and are unlikely to be deterred by the introduction of new legislation. Consequently, the implementation of additional laws often impacts only law-abiding citizens, placing new restrictions or obligations upon those who already comply with legal standards. The focus, therefore, should not be on drafting further statutes but rather on ensuring the consistent and effective enforcement of the laws currently in place. By allocating resources toward upholding existing regulations, society can enhance public safety, maintain fairness, and uphold the integrity of the justice system without unnecessarily burdening responsible citizens. Respectfully, Mr. Jones
You were elected as a protest against the President. You definitely weren't elected to cancel Virginians constitutional rights. I'm sure your big donors outside of Virginia will be happy. But last time you tried this 90 of 95 counties, Cities and Town revolted against you. Plus once your donor lists are published by the influential VCDL and the lawsuits start. The people will find out who you actually serve. Unless you represent Arlington or Fairfax all democratic seats will be in jeopardy for the next election. Finally: You take an oath to honor the constitution when you get the privilege to serve the people. Someone who immediately violates their oath has no honor and can never be trusted with authority. People will remember that when it's time to vote again. I know I will. I used to be a Democrat and donor. But I will never vote for a Democrat again.
HB 19 - In the current status of who can report who; it is wholly unwise to remove firearms for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. Once the court costs, etc. to defend yourself and then waiting to get have weapon returned makes absolutely no sense at all. This is not a FELONY. HB 21-Weapons manufacturers are not the criminal, they only make a tool used for hunting, recreational marksmanship and self defense. Money should be spent on mental health and addiction treatment HB40 - Only criminals will use weapons without serial numbers whether made at home or they will remove serial numbers off illegally bought weapons. This only hurts lawful citizens. HB93 - would remove self defense weapons from others in the family who are lawful and have not committed any criminal activity HB 111 - This is insanity, how will the towing company comply with a chain of custody of a weapon? There is no mention of appropriately storing a gun in a gun vault in a vehicle when traveling, etc. HB 229 - Medical personnel need protecting as much as any other citizen especially in high risk areas like emergency rooms with the potential for violence from drug crazed or mentally ill persons. Trust me, I have been there. HB 626 - This would be nearly impossible to enforce as one travels thru urban universities like VCU HB 702 - This bill is directing funding to the wrong approach to control gun violence. Use the funds for mental and addiction services, gang violence, etc. HB 871 - There is not enough definition on the requirements. Safe and easy access to a firearm for home protection is something most gun owners already employ. HB 969 - This bill requires further definition of gun violence prevention. Again, using the funds for mental health, addiction and gang violence are all necessary HB 1359 - This bill would place undue cost burdens on those who dont have the means to fulfill the costly requirements thus it is in my estimation a class and racial issue and not about guns. Training is something that should be sought out by any gun owner. I urge your consideration on these bills and protect the lawful gun owners in the Commonwealth. Respectfully Please vote no
Please consider this by destroying the constitutional rights of the people of Virginia. You also will eventually come to the repercussions of your decisions, ie court action and loss of tax payer money etc.Now the 2nd amendment to the constitution in short says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ,basically no laws are to go against the constitution and also as per article 6 clause two of the constitution. Thank you and think wisely because your constituents as whole do not want this. Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Amdt2.1Overview of Second Amendment, Right to Bear Arms Amdt2.2Historical Background on Second Amendment Amdt2.3Early Second Amendment Jurisprudence Amdt2.4Heller and Individual Right to Firearms Amdt2.5Post-Heller Issues and Application of Second Amendment to States Amdt2.6Bruen and Concealed-Carry Licenses Amdt2.7Rahimi and Applying the Second Amendment Bruen Standard
Not one of you liberals submitted a bill to address the real evil that is using a gun. So all of these bills are designed to punish legal law abiding gun owners and protect the real criminals. Im78 years old and have owned and bought guns from the age of 15 when I purchased my first gun with money earned from a paper route. NOT ONE OF THE GUNS I'VE OWNED EVER HARMED ANYONE. IT'S AN INANIMATE OBJECT
As a veteran, I am against any so called gun control legislation that has not demonstrably proven to improve public safety while only minimally impacting individuals’ God given rights and liberties. It is unconscionable to think that elected leaders would even think about passing legislation that infringed upon individual rights merely for purposes of “doing something” without having weighed the impact on law abiding citizens and the innumerable sacrifices made to sustain and protect those rights and liberties through the years. Having served myself and also been the victim of illegal firearm use I staunchly support the 2A rights and individuals’ right to self-defense. Each person’s situation and experiences are different and they deserve to exercise their rights and liberties in a way that accommodates those circumstances, experiences, limitations, etc. So called “assault weapons” (a misnomer in itself) may have features and appearances that some persons find scary or intimidating but, to someone possessing that firearm for their own, individual law purposes, most all of those features actually improve the performance or safety related to the use of that same firearm. All semi-automatic firearms, regardless of how they might LOOK to a casual or uninformed observer basically function the same. Stocks, forearm, bipods, scopes, rails, magazines, etc. do not alter the fundamental intended purpose of this “tool.” I certainly understand those who do not appreciate firearms, in general, or who might actually be scared by their existence or appearance. But our 2A and self defense rights should never be indescribably infringed upon merely for these type reasons. There are very good reasons our fore fathers were adamant about including these inalienable rights as foundational principles in our founding documents. These foundational principles are as relevant today as they were at our founding. Anyone who is arrogant enough to think that they have studied and researched and experienced as much as the founding father scholars and thinkers should reconsider their actions carefully before indiscriminately treading upon one of our sacred rights and liberties without certifiable proof of the amount of public safety that would be realized by their actions. Anything less goes against the solemn oath you have sworn to uphold.
I oppose this bill, honor your oath
i OPPOSE any legislation that restricts 2nd amendment rights
I agree with the VCDL on these bills.
I oppose this bill on so many grounds. There is no statistical evidence on how many lives this will save or cost. Yes cost. Un armed people are defenseless. Battery is serious. Taking someone's constitutional rights puts one or both parties at risk should the gun owner need to deafened themselves or another.
Opposite any gun laws. They will not stop any crime. Try enforcing the laws we already.
I support this bill
These sorts of draconian proposals severely restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to effectively defend themselves against threats of violence. None of the proposed measures which have been inflicted on the citizenry of other states have made one iota of difference in crime levels. They HAVE however restricted law-abiding citizens from exercising their Constitutional rights via the 2nd Amendment. Vote now to cease this onslaught on the rights of law-abiding Virginians. Gun violence is perpetrated by CRIMINALS, so focus on the criminal prosecutions. Limiting the rights of law-abiding Virginians is tantamount to fascism. And as always, "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away!". That's what you are saying to Virginians. If I cannot be trusted to defend myself legally, then you cannot be trusted to run the Commonwealth.
These legislations violate many sections of the Virginia Constitution not just the U.S. Constitution. Legislations like these does nothing to prevent, curtail, deter or otherwise stop crimes or acts of violence. These legislations do not hold criminals that cannot legally possess, purchase or own firearms accountable for their possession, use or handling of a firearm. These legislations do not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. Cliché but true rhetoric (Criminals will get guns and magazines and commit crimes regardless of the laws. These legislations are immoral, unethical and down right oppressive and serve no purpose other than to infringe upon rights and deny rights. Reminder: - 18, 19 and 20 year old men and women are entrusted in the operation, use, carry and implementation of the following in the service of our country as Servicemembers, Coast Guardsmen, National Guardsmen and Air National Guardsmen and Reservists as well as law enforcement: Semi-automatic Pistols with high capacity magazines, Semi- Automatic Rifles with 30 round magazines, machine guns, rockets, tanks, missiles, rocket Launchers etc and yet Virginia Legislators want to strip away the rights of civilians of that age group of their right to own and bear arms. That is hypocritical and it undermines the Constitution. Our nation foundation and freedom was earned through the blood and sweat of young 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 year old men from the Revolutionary War for our independence and that of our 17 year old to 20 year old war fighters today standing tall and maintaining our soon to be 250 years of being a Constitutional Republic and our Freedom. Do not allow the stripping of the rights of these military aged men and women that serve and defend our nation, our freedom and our Constitutions. Do not insult them or slap them in the face or turn your backs on them. Fight for them because at some point we have fought and we have sacrificed for you and these young men and women will too. Any legislation that denies and deprives this age group the use, ownership while expecting them to serve in our country and have them carry, operate and use them in the defense of our nation and potentially die, be seriously injured or maimed is diabolical and is disgraceful. Magazine capacity restrictions: (Do not limit or stop the intent of criminals or those intent on committing any act of violence. We have seen the demonstrated and factual extreme actions/tactics that have been used for example: Using a vehicle to run into crowds, Vehicle Born Improvised Explosive Devises (VBIED), Improvised Explosive Devices (IED), mass stabbings, gas attacks and chemical warfare, fire, and more Constitution of Virginia - Article I. Bill of Rights Sections 1,2, 9,10,11. These legislations below, restrict the right to self- defense. Legal gun owners are not committing crimes and do not intend to committ crimes. These legislations are not about accountability for criminals. They are written to suppress and take away the rights of law abiding citizens and ro take away a means of self-defense. These legislations do not create a safer Virginia. HB110, HB1359, HB969, HB871, HB702, HB24, HB21, HB700, HB229, HB217, HB110, HB93, HB19, Example: - HB700: Denies and delays the access to firearms in an emergency situation where a victim of stalking or domestic abuse are in imminent danger. V/R Raymond Carter SFC(Retired)
I strongly oppose this bill
All of these bills are intolerable infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment and the Constitution of Virginia. Supporting these bills is a violation of your oaths of office. In addition, as should be evident, these bills will only affect law-abiding gun owners, the very people least likely to offend. Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. They are unlikely to obey these.
Please do not consider any anti-gun bills. Any potential law that goes against our Constitution is wrong and should not be acknowledged. We shouldn't have to pay for our rights. No innocent person should be penalized for a criminal's actions. A gun's capacity is irrelevant. If a person comments a REAL crime, they should be convected and sentenced accordingly. A right should be lost only through certain major criminal actions, not some fool's option of potential. No manufacturer should be responsible for how their product is used. The one responsible is the one in possession of said product, even if it was stolen. Our last Governor understood this. Our new Governor and her political party desperately needs to. We have seen the failures of worthless states like California, Maryland, New York and others. We don't need to be another one. No law will ever stop a crime. The law should provide proper penalties or real crimes. No law should be made for the sole purpose of controlling and wielding power over the citizens of this State or our country.
I am opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359, I support HB 1300 and HB1303.
My father was born in Romania in 1933 and as a child lived under the fascism of socialism. The first thing the fascist socialists did was to confiscate guns. Nearly 400,000 Jews were slaughtered by the socialists after having been disarmed in Romania. Now socialists have taken power in Virginia by running as "moderates" and immediately showing their true selves once safely elected. Democrats, like their brethren Nazis, seek to disarm and enslave the general population. I oppose any legislation which punishes law-abiding citizens from protecting themself, their family, and their property. I oppose any legislation which punishes a citizen for potentially being robbed, as if the thief is not the problem-- the victim is treated as the criminal. I oppose any legislation which allows accusations to remove the rights of others. If I accuse every member of government of being a child abuser, are you forced to remain away from your child(ren)? I oppose Nazis and Democrats for the same reasons.
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. I support HB 1303 by Delegate Ware. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia.
Disarming the population is not a viable means to promote public safety. It is the duty of the individual to protect themselves from physical harm that may occur by criminal activity. It is not the responsibility of politicians or police. That is why bills like HB 19, HB 21, HB 40, HB 93, HB 229, HB 1359 are unconstitutional and put the general public in more danger as violent criminals will take advantage of unarmed civilians. HB 110 and HB 702 will promote criminal use of firearms as the firearms will be taken away from the registered owners' possession which greatly increases the likelihood the firearm will end up on the black market for resale where violent criminals obtain their weapons. HB 871 will also be ineffective as gun violence prevention means while again adding a monetary burden and serious disadvantage to law a biding citizens in the immediate face of danger. The people of Virginia do not support these policies that waste the time of politicians and money of the tax payer.
I oppose all of these unconstitutional bills.
HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for a “dating relationship” misdemeanor. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. HB 40 (Simon) outlaws unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) forces firearm surrender under protective orders in a way that could disarm innocent family members. HB 110 (Laufer) imposes a civil penalty and towing if a handgun is left in an unattended vehicle. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines made after July 1, 2026. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts firearms on college campuses without lawful cause. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a firearm "turn-in and destroy" program funded by taxpayers. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage requirements and biometric safes in homes with minors. HB 969 (Price) creates a state gun violence prevention agency focused solely on firearms. HB 1359 (Hope) creates a costly permit-to-purchase scheme with fingerprints, training requirements, and a de facto handgun registry. ALL of these bills are Unconstitutional and will cause Lawsuits and MASS NON COMPLIANCE
I oppose all these bills!
As a fellow virginian I am very disappointed in these outrageous bills proposed. They do nothing to stop criminals cause they don't follow rules or laws anyways it just hurts people trying to protect themselves from being hurt or God forbid something worse. I have lived in virginia my whole life and love this state but i also love the 2nd amendment and freedom to bear arms so please take in consideration myself and thousands of other virginian's that love the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia and strike down these outrageous bills. Thank you for your time god bless the 2nd amendment and the state of Virginia!
All these bills are an infringement on our constitutional second amendment rights!
You ran as a middle of the road moderate ticket, and wanted to bring everyone together. all these bills go against that and alienate half of the state. You want bi partisan support? Well to get that you can not be going after law abiding citizens and take away a constitutionally protected right.
Hello, as a true Virginian whose family goes back to the founding of this state, country and fought in the revolutionary war. The anti gun bills being pushed on us are completely unconstitutional. My ancestors would be rolling in their graves right now knowing what you all are trying to do to our personal liberties, freedom and property. All of the anti gun legislation being pushed is not only unconstitutional but against previous Supreme Court rulings. You plan to turn over half of your state into criminals overnight for legally purchased items. So not only are you infringing on the 2nd Amendment but now on our 5th Amendment. 12 months in jail! Sounds like an 8th Amendment violation. True Virginians do not want these unconstitutional laws placed on us. Virginia is where freedom was won and not taken! I urge you all to vote against these unconstitutional bills. We are not California or New York. Our friends in Northern Virginia do not speak for all of Virginia anymore. My kindness regards. True Virginian.
These bills are ill-advised “solutions” in desperate search of largely non-existent problems. The 2nd amendment was quite clear. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly those words. These bills will only make law-abiding citizens less safe. Please actually consider your constituents safety instead of your partisan talking points.
I urge a vote against this, and any gun related bill, that would arguably restrict gun rights, or increase the cost of having,/buying firearms or ammunition, or create any kind of registry of such, of law abiding citizens of Virginia. Most of these bills would do nothing for saving lives, and criminals will not abide by them.
These anti-Second Amendment legislations violate the Second Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution and Virginia Constitution. These bills will not make Virginians safer. but will put us at risk for predatory criminals. Also, the Second Amendment wpuld protect us from a tyranical government. Who protects us from you? Do you so crave power that you must disatm us? Why do you hate fireams?
I oppose these bills. Limiting our right to defend ourselves will not reduce crime or make anyone safer, except violent criminals.
Dear Committee Chair, I am writing to respectfully urge you to OPPOSE these bills. These proposals place unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding citizens while failing to address the root causes of criminal misuse of firearms. Measures such as taxpayer-funded gun turn-in and destruction programs, knife and firearm bans at medical facilities, and magazine capacity restrictions unfairly target responsible gun owners in my community without demonstrable public safety benefits. I ask that you vote “NO” on this legislation and instead support policies that enforce existing laws and address criminal behavior, rather than restricting the rights of lawful citizens. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jan
My family and I hope you will reconsider all of these unconstitutional and tyrannical bills that seek to limit the God given right of citizens to defend themselves. Supporting these unconstitutional. bills as the Governor simultaneously supports the actions of Mr. Petti as a legal firearms owner, is indeed hypocrisy.
Good Morning. I respectfully oppose the following House Bills, which collectively place excessive burdens on law-abiding Virginians while offering little evidence of meaningful reductions in violent crime. These proposals raise serious concerns related to constitutional rights, due process, public safety, and cost. HB 19 (McClure) requires forfeiture of firearm rights for certain misdemeanors involving a broadly defined “dating relationship.” This imposes severe constitutional consequences without felony-level due process protections and relies on vague definitions prone to misuse. HB 21 (Helmer) allows civil lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers for crimes committed with their products. This abandons long-standing liability principles by holding lawful businesses responsible for third-party criminal acts, increasing costs and reducing lawful access without improving public safety. HB 40 (Simon) criminalizes unfinished frames and receivers unless serialized, burdening lawful hobbyists and small manufacturers despite a lack of evidence that such items meaningfully drive crime. HB 93 (Bennett-Parker) mandates firearm surrender under protective orders in ways that may disarm innocent family members who are not accused of wrongdoing, undermining due process and property rights in shared households. HB 110 (Laufer) penalizes and allows towing of vehicles when a handgun is left unattended, even if secured. This may discourage lawful compliance with firearm-restricted locations by eliminating practical storage options. HB 217 (Helmer) bans commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines manufactured after July 1, 2026. Such bans target arms in common lawful use and raise serious constitutional concerns while failing to address criminal misuse of existing firearms. HB 229 (Hernandez) prohibits firearms and many knives in medical facilities, removing lawful self-defense options from patients, visitors, and staff, including permit holders who have already undergone background checks. HB 626 (Callsen) restricts lawful firearm possession on college campuses, treating adult students and faculty as if they forfeit constitutional rights despite documented safety concerns and delayed emergency response times. HB 702 (Cole) establishes a taxpayer-funded firearm turn-in and destroy program with no demonstrated impact on violent crime, diverting resources from proven enforcement and prevention strategies. HB 871 (Downey) mandates specific storage methods and biometric safes in homes with minors, imposing costly, one-size-fits-all requirements that intrude into private homes and may delay access in emergencies. HB 969 (Price) creates a new state agency focused solely on firearms while ignoring broader contributors to violence such as repeat offenders, mental health access, and community-based interventions. HB 1359 (Hope) establishes a costly permit-to-purchase system with fingerprints, training mandates, and a de facto registry, creating delays and barriers to exercising a constitutional right without clear public safety benefits. Conclusion: Taken together, these bills represent a sweeping expansion of government control over lawful firearm ownership. They burden responsible citizens, weaken due process, and prioritize symbolic regulation over effective crime reduction. I urge the General Assembly to reject these measures and focus on enforcing existing laws and addressing violent criminal behavior.
Forum: These Bills are an attack on the lawful Citizen and will not stop the criminal element from doing harm. This has been proven time and time again. The intent of these Bills is to discourage the Citizenry from exercising their rights as protected by the US Constitution and the VA Constitution. These documents are explicit that our rights are being protected and not being given to us by the Govt. It is the Govt responsibility to protect our Bill of Rights and not to subvert them at the Federal and Local level. These bills seek to create a list and registry as forbidden by law. The declaration that all guns that are semi-automatic are "assault weapons" is absurd. The look of a gun does not define it as an assault weapon. These Bills have been stricken down by the highest court(s) in the land time and time again. The only reason for these bills is too attack the lawful citizen and will not do anything to stop the aggressor in his/her intent to do harm. There is significant history that illustrates that an armed populace in society is a peaceful and secure society. I respectfully oppose these Bills that attack the fundamental Bill of Rights that the Federal and State Constitutions protect. V/R, Mr. Charters
I stand with the VCDL and GOA. The proposed bills are tyrannical, these bills make it only harder on law abiding citizens. All gun laws are infringements on the Second Amendment. Just Remembering History” On April 21, 1775, Virginia’s Royal Governor, Lord Dunmore, ordered British marines to seize gunpowder from the Williamsburg powder magazine to prevent a colonial uprising. This "Gunpowder Incident" enraged colonists, leading to militia mobilization under Patrick Henry, forcing a payment for the powder and accelerating Virginia's march toward revolution. “
I oppose these bills because they are unconstitutional!!
I urge you not oppose all of these bills.
All of these bills pushing further gun control only hurt law abiding citizens and punish them for the actions of criminals. Further they aim to disarm potential victims in a lame attempt to establish “common sense” gun control that is anything but. California, Chicago, New York are the model for many of these bills and the evidence is clear that they are not effective and even harmful. If a criminal stole a car and drove it into a crowd of people, you wouldn’t hold the car’s owner responsible. You wouldn’t hold the vehicle’s manufacturer responsible. You wouldn’t pass a law that requires safe storage of vehicles. If someone exhibited a “red flag” you wouldn’t take aware their location driver’s license with no due process or investigation. We don’t do any of that because “common sense” says that it’s ridiculous. The difference between cars and firearms however is there is no Second Amendment for cars, which means that these laws make even less sense and are directly unconstitutional.
All of the aforementioned bills are a substantial attack the God given rights & the 2nd Amendment. These in fact are the opposite of good governance. How does the aforementioned reduce the size & scope of government? How does the aforementioned lead to affordability? There are no statistics that show a benefit to society! Furthermore the aforementioned will only lead to a higher government cost to the citizens while squashing the rights of the citizens!
As a resident of York County I am opposed to the bills listed above and wish for them to be rejected by this committee.
As a Virginian, I am completely opposed to HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, and HB1359. Similar ideas have been tried in the past in other states, and have been proven not to reduce any crime, but only serve to unnecessarily burden law-abiding citizens in the lawful exercise of their Second-Amendment rights. If "common sense" were used to try to reduce violent crime, it would be completely obvious that inanimate objects, can, by themselves, do nothing. The sole responsibility lies in the hands of the person who commits the crime, not in what object they chose to use in the perpetration of the crime. The focus of "public safety" initiatives should be keeping violent criminals off the streets, not limiting citizens of their Constitutionally -protected rights. I do not appreciate my tax dollars being used to advance this agenda, and then being further used to try to defend it in the inevitable litigation of these infringements on Virginian's rights. Thank you for your time.
All Anti-Gun bills are Unconstitutional and Impede Citizens' right to Self Defense. We, the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia OPPOSE any and all of these and will fight each and every one of themthem
As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. Many of the bills proposed have already been declared unconstitutional by multiple Supreme Court decisions. Most others are likely to be struct down in future court proceedings. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Respectfully, Mark Salamone
Unconstitutional. What part of shall not be infringed is misunderstood?
I firmly oppose any laws or policies that infringe upon my Second Amendment rights. I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional protection, and I do not support legislation that restricts law‑abiding citizens from exercising that right. Tucker Ophof Bristow, VA 20136
Stop all bills restricting our Second Amendment rights.
I strongly oppose this bill. HB 19
I am a resident of Ashburn in Loudoun County, Virginia. I respectfully submit the following written testimony in opposition to the bills listed below. HB1359 – Firearm purchase requirements; penalties I oppose HB1359 because it adds additional requirements and penalties that burden law-abiding purchasers without clear evidence of reducing criminal misuse. HB1427 – Limitation on handgun purchases I oppose HB1427 because purchase limits restrict lawful ownership while failing to address how firearms are obtained by those who commit crimes. HB19 – Firearms; purchase after assault & battery of family or household member I oppose HB19 due to due process and proportionality concerns, as it restricts rights prior to full adjudication rather than focusing on enforcement of existing protections. HB21 – Firearm industry members; civil liability standards I oppose HB21 because it expands civil liability in ways that risk penalizing lawful businesses for the actions of third parties without improving public safety. HB217 – Assault firearms and certain ammunition feeding devices I oppose HB217 because it targets lawful ownership based on firearm type rather than criminal misuse and lacks evidence of meaningful public safety benefit. HB229 – Weapons prohibited in certain hospitals I oppose HB229 because blanket prohibitions rely on disarmament rather than appropriate security and enforcement in sensitive facilities. HB24 – Concealed handgun permit reciprocity I oppose HB24 because limiting reciprocity penalizes lawful permit holders without deterring criminal activity, while Virginia’s current framework has functioned effectively. HB40 – Plastic or unserialized firearms I oppose HB40 due to overbroad definitions that risk unintended impacts on lawful ownership and small businesses rather than targeting criminal conduct. HB540 – Carrying firearms in restricted locations I oppose HB540 because expanding restricted locations increases complexity and the risk of unintentional violations by law-abiding citizens. HB700 – Waiting period for firearm purchases I oppose HB700 because mandatory waiting periods delay the exercise of a constitutional right without clear evidence of reducing violent crime. HB871 – Firearm storage requirements in residences I oppose HB871 because it imposes criminal penalties through broad storage mandates that may be difficult to apply consistently and fairly. HB907 – Security requirements for firearms dealers I oppose HB907 because it adds regulatory and penalty burdens on lawful dealers without clear evidence that such measures reduce criminal misuse. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to oppose the bills listed above. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record.
I appose this bill.
My name is Cole Zerrenner, and I am a registered voter residing in Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia. I respectfully submit this written testimony in opposition to the following bills scheduled before the House Public Safety – Firearms Subcommittee: HB19, HB21, HB40, HB93, HB110, HB217, HB229, HB626, HB702, HB871, HB969, HB1300, HB1303, and HB1359. I oppose these bills because, taken individually and collectively, they impose additional restrictions and penalties on law-abiding citizens while failing to meaningfully address criminal misuse of firearms or the underlying causes of violence. Many of these proposals expand prohibitions, create new compliance burdens, or rely on vague standards that raise concerns regarding due process, inconsistent enforcement, and unintended consequences. Several of the bills before the subcommittee emphasize preemptive restrictions or broad prohibitions rather than focusing on enforcement of existing laws, accountability for criminal conduct, or effective mental health interventions. Policies that reduce procedural safeguards or delay the exercise of constitutional rights risk undermining public confidence without clear evidence of improved public safety outcomes. I respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider whether these measures meaningfully target criminal behavior or instead primarily impact responsible Virginians who already comply with the law. Public safety is best served through targeted enforcement, due process protections, and policies that address root causes rather than symbolic or duplicative restrictions. Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the public record and for your consideration of my views. Respectfully submitted, Cole Zerrenner Ashburn, Loudoun County, Virginia
First and foremost, I fully support any comments made by Virginia Citizens Defense League, The NRA, and Gun Owners of America in regard to support for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. As a fellow Virginian, I urge you to please OPPOSE "gun control" bills in your committee. Concepts like an "assault weapons" ban, arbitrary magazine restrictions, "reasonable standards" for firearms businesses, and a "permit to purchase," just to name a few, do nothing to address crime in the Commonwealth. Criminals do not abide by the law, and bills like these only target law-abiding firearm owners and businesses. The General Assembly should instead pursue legislation that holds criminals accountable for their crimes, not legislation that creates new criminals overnight for lawful purchases. A lot of these proposed bills are unconstitutional and may even be a civil rights violation due to the fact that they most certainly will disproportionally have a negative effect on minorities, women, and people of lower income and certainly violating an 18–20 year-old persons 2nd Amendment right to own and bear arms. If they have to work and pay taxes and be held accountable as an adult you can't legally deny them any rights under the constitution. Many of these proposed bills have already successfully been challenged at the U.S. Supreme court in rulings supporting the 2nd amendment. Examples cases- v Heller and v Bruen, so you are intentionally trying to pass bills that will not hold up in court and wasting valuable taxpayer money to pursue these bills. Again, I urge you to OPPOSE gun control in your committee. Thank you for all that you do for Virginia. Sincerely, Chris McDorman
Why I Oppose Each Bill below: HB 19 – Opposition: Punishes a non‑violent misdemeanor unrelated to firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); Hayes (4th Cir. 2009) – proportionality; Bruen (2022) – no historical basis for such a blanket ban. HB 21 – Opposition: Imposes strict liability for third‑party crimes, chilling lawful commerce. Violates: Heller (2008); Printz (1997) – cannot commandeer private actors; Bruen (2022) – no historic analogue. HB 40 – Opposition: Criminalizes already‑lawful homemade components and deprives property without compensation. Violates: Heller (2008); Miller (1939) – regulation must have a reasonable safety link; Bruen (2022); Lucas (1992) – takings. HB 93 – Opposition: Overbroad removal punishes lawful spouses and 18‑20‑year‑olds who may already possess firearms. Violates: Heller (2008); McDonald (2010); Bruen (2022) – age‑restriction lacks history; Carpenter (2018) – vague “if officer believes” standard violates due process. HB 110 – Opposition: Penalizes mere visibility and treats the gun as property that can be seized without due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Jones (2012) – towing = unlawful seizure; Bruen (2022) – no historic precedent. HB 217 – Opposition: Bars weapons in common lawful use and imposes capacity limits without historical support. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Miller v. Bonta (9th Cir. 2021). HB 229 – Opposition: Prevents lawful armed visitors in public medical settings without a narrow justification. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Katz (1967) – potential Fourth‑Amendment search issues. HB 626 – Opposition: Denies adult students the right to self‑defense on public campuses. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Washington v. Davis (1976) – lacks rational basis. HB 702 – Opposition: Authorizes confiscation/destruction of lawfully owned property without compensation or due process. Violates: Heller (2008); Kelo (2005) – takings require just compensation; Bruen (2022) - no historic precedent. HB 871 – Opposition: Expensive, tech‑exclusive requirement makes lawful loaded storage impracticable. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Willowbrook v. Olech (2000) – overinclusive impact on owners with minors. HB 969 – Opposition: Single‑issue agency risks viewpoint discrimination and may enable firearm‑specific regulations lacking constitutional footing. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) – inadequate procedural due process. HB 1359 – Opposition: Creates costly, time‑consuming barriers that effectively deny the right to acquire firearms for lawful purposes. Violates: Heller (2008); Bruen (2022); McDonald (2010); Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1966) – fee structure resembles a poll tax. The Virginia Constitution’s Article I § 16 protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and the state Supreme Court requires any limitation to be narrowly tailored, historically grounded, and consistent with due‑process (§ 13) and takings (§ 14) protections. The bills listed: HB 19, 93, 110, 871 (mandatory surrenders/penalties); HB 21, 40, 1359 (civil‑liability or costly licensing); HB 217, 229, 626, 702 (bans on common‑use firearms or accessories); and HB 969 (a gun‑only state agency)—all impose restrictions without a clear historical analogue, over‑reach permissible regulation, and create undue financial or procedural burdens. Consequently, they conflict with Virginia’s constitutional guarantees.
I SUPPORT HB1303. A right delayed is a right denied. I OPPOSE HB19: Misdemeanors should not remove rights. I OPPOSE HB21: How could a firearm accessory seller reasonably know if they were selling a gun sling to a prohibited person? Should a car parts store be sued if they sold a seat cover for a car used in a bank robbery? I OPPOSE HB40: Even a chunk of aluminum, if sold to the public to become a frame or receiver once completed, must be serialized under this bill. The bill doesn’t grandfather existing homemade firearms. This bill is unconstitutional under Bruen. Homemade guns have been legal since before the United States existed. I OPPOSE HB93: There are multiple problems with the bill as written. If a husband and wife co-own a shotgun for home defense, for example, and the husband gets a protective order issued against him, the wife would no longer have access to that co-owned shotgun. That punishes the wife and needlessly endangers her life. Also, a person 18-20yo can legally possess rifles, shotguns, and handguns. Others right can not be removed because of the actions of another. I OPPOSE HB110: The car owner should not be at fault even if a criminal opens an unlocked car door to steal a firearm. It is the criminal who is solely to blame. I OPPOSE HB217: The U.S. Supreme Court has said in both DC v Heller, and recently in Bruen, that any firearm “in common use” is protected by the 2A. The guns and magazines targeted by this bill are among the most common guns and magazines in the US & VA, making this bill unconstitutional. I OPPOSE HB229: Disarming visitors and guests, including concealed handgun permit holders, at such facilities violates their right to protect themselves in an emergency. A U.S. District Court in the 2nd Circuit has restrained enforcement of just such a law for being unconstitutional under Bruen. I OPPOSE HB626: A solution in search of a problem. Higher education students and staff are adults and have a right to self-defense. I OPPOSE HB702: Destroying what might be perfectly functional, and possibly quite valuable, firearms is a waste of money. The State could offset any costs by selling the firearms to licensed gun dealers through an auction. This program is a “turn in” and not a “give-back” program, the government never owned them. I OPPOSE HB871: Biometric safes are more expensive than non-biometric safes. Biometric safes can be unreliable when being used under stress and they also require batteries to work. There are plenty of other locking mechanisms for safes that are more secure. I OPPOSE HB969: The Center would only be targeting violence committed using firearms and ignoring the root causes of crime, as well as all the other ways violence is inflicted on victims – knives, blunt objects, hands and feet, etc. Half of violent crimes are not committed with a firearm! I OPPOSE HB1359: This bill WILL get innocent people killed, as it will take at least two months before a person can purchase their first firearm. If they are purchasing that firearm for urgent self-defense, that is simply too long. The price to get a permit, is not equitable. Even citizens with CHPs will be limited to one handgun a month. Local law-enforcement will be handed a registry of gun owners. And gun rentals at shooting ranges will not be possible for people who have not yet got their permit or are visiting from out of state or from another country. It is sickening to see this bill even proposed.
This document breaks down my reasoning for supporting these bills.
I SUPPORT THIS BILL
Disarming the law-abiding, tax-paying citizenry of the Commonwealth is going to drive me away from this state. Stop creating unconstitutional efforts that curtail my Rights as an American Citizen. If you want to change the Right, then change the Constitution through the amendment process. Otherwise, focus on what you can really change and fund. Schools and roads. Quit wasting my hard earned money that I spend on local businesses that keep Virginians employed. I am not the only one who will vote with my feet. I left California for a reason...not you're trying to re-create it on the East coast.
Too many people with guns that shouldn’t be with guns. I know lazy gun owners who have had their items stolen. Lazy gun owners might as well be donating their legal firearms to criminals- putting them in dangerous hands should have more severe consequences. Adam T. lost his life protecting someone in a situation that could’ve been avoided if weapons weren’t involved. More strict gun laws will result in fewer cases of gun violence like this.
I support these bills to prevent gun violence in Virginia. Attached is the story of my friend Adam Turck’s tragic death due to gun violence in August 2025, and why the Friends of Adam Turck are choosing to support these five bills. Virginians like Adam have a right to be kind and brave without being killed, and it is the job of the state to guarantee that right.
Its is vital to the safety of the community that these bills be passed. on August 2, 2025 not to far from the capital building, one of my best friends, Adam Turck, was shot and killed on a beautiful Saturday morning trying to help a woman in the middle of a domestic violence altercation. The individual who shot him was a 19 year old boy who illegally had a gun. There were several eye witnesses and 2 recordings of the event that showed that Adam did everything right in remaining calm and attempting to defuse the situation, but that was not enough. Adam was a brave, kind and caring person. He would never be able to leave someone in need, but if these laws had been in place, he may never have had to step in in this situation. His lose has devastated our community and that is why we have come together to make sure these bills get passed. I know that the situations are not unique, as tragic as that is... and something needs to be done. Please vote yes.
HB 110 I SUPPORT this bill. HB 110 prohibits leaving a handgun visible in an unattended vehicle on public property. Simply put, it requires gun owners to store the firearm out of sight—such as in the glove compartment, center console —to prevent it from being readily observable from outside. This requirement is straightforward and not onerous for responsible gun owners. Many already take this basic precaution. HB 110 will help deter gun thefts from vehicles—a major source of stolen firearms entering criminal hands. HB 110 is a reasonable, narrowly tailored measure that promotes public safety without infringing on lawful gun ownership. HB19 I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. HB 93 I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, individuals subject to a protective order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, there is no clear mechanism to ensure these prohibited individuals actually relinquish their guns, leaving survivors at continued risk. HB 93 creates a straightforward enforcement mechanism for laws already on the books. It is targeted, limited in scope, and focused on protecting survivors of domestic violence by reducing the risk of armed abusers. This common-sense measure will help safeguard the Commonwealth’s citizens without creating new prohibitions. HB 21 SUPPORT this bill. HB 21 would require firearm industry members—manufacturers, distributors, importers, and sellers—to implement “reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices” to prevent the sale or distribution of firearms to prohibited persons, straw purchasers (those buying for someone barred from ownership), firearm traffickers, or anyone the seller has reasonable cause to believe poses a substantial risk of gun violence or self-harm. Firearm manufacturers and distributors handle a uniquely dangerous product. Like sellers of any potentially hazardous good, they should maintain reasonable safeguards to protect the public from negligent or reckless business practices that endanger Virginians. HB 1359 I SUPPORT this bill. HB 1359 would require any person who purchases a firearm to present a valid firearms purchaser license issued by the Department of State Police. as we require vehicle owners to obtain and maintain a license before driving a car, we should require gun owners to obtain and maintain a license before possessing a firearm. Attached is information about my friend Adam, who was a victim of gun violence last year.
I am IN SUPPORT of HB19. Currently our law prohibits the ownership of firearms by individuals convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member. This is a fantastic and necessary law but it leaves open the dangerous "boyfriend loophole." HB19 is a targeted, limited expansion of the existing law and closes this loophole by including "intimate partners" in the list of those prohibited from possessing firearms. In an age when many intimate partners co-habitat for years before marriage (if they chose to marry at all), this expansion is absolutely paramount to providing legal safety to victims of domestic abuse. Any submission to the committee which claims HB19 "limits freedoms" is folly. This law only restricts the ownership of firearms to specific individuals who have been CONVICTED OF A VIOLENT CRIME -- against a person who lived with and TRUSTED them. Those individuals deserve limited freedoms as a result of their conviction. On August 2, 2025, my friend, Adam Turck, while deescalating a domestic dispute, became the victim of gun violence. Adam saved a life that day, but tragically lost his own. This occurred on a neighborhood street in Richmond, VA -- in broad day light. The shooter then turned the firearm on himself, ending another life. Had this bill been in effect, there is a strong chance that no lives would have been lost that day. We count on lawmakers such as yourselves to pass effective gun safety laws like HB19 and save these lives BEFORE tragedy strikes. Before we lose our innocent. Before we lose our heroes. This law is designed to save lives. I SUPPORT IT. This law is designed to protect the abused. I SUPPORT IT.
My friend Adam was killed late last year helping save someone from violence committed by their partner. The perpetrator pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot Adam, then turned the gun on himself. Any one of these bills could have played a role in ensuring this did not happen, and saved so many people from devastating loss. I urge you to pass these bills.
As a concerned resident, parent, and active voter, I support this bill to keep Virginians safe from gun violence.
In summary, I support House Bills 19, 93, 110, 201, 691, 696, 702, 871, 901, 909, 969, 1303, and 1359. I oppose House Bills 21, 40, 207, 217, 229, 626, 700, 907, 919. Please refer to my attached document for further explanation.
As a father, I want to raise my child in a world where doing the right thing doesn't put them in danger. My friend Adam did the right thing. He stepped in to help someone who was in a bad situation, and that decision—one he made with clear eyes and a full heart for humanity—cost him his life. While I appreciate that many constituents in this state are opposed to any restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, there are many more who support reasonable efforts to restrict access to firearms and penalize those who are careless with the weapons they own. We cannot say with any certainty that the passing of bills like HB 19 or HB 110 would have prevented Adam's death, but we can they will save others' in the future. And that's worth fighting for.
I SUPPORT this bill. The current law only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law that closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. Attached is the leave-behind of the Friends of Adam Turck, telling his story and advocating for the bills that could have prevented his murder.
I am writing in memory of my friend Adam Turck, who was murdered with a .22 caliber handgun in Shockoe Bottom in August 2025. I support the following bills because I believe they will go a long way toward ensuring that what happened to Adam doesn't happen again. HB110: I SUPPORT this bill. HB 110 prohibits leaving a handgun visible in an unattended vehicle on public property. Simply put, it requires gun owners to store the firearm out of sight—such as in the glove compartment, center console —to prevent it from being readily observable from outside. This requirement is straightforward and not onerous for responsible gun owners. Many already take this basic precaution. Importantly, HB 110 will help deter gun thefts from vehicles—a major source of stolen firearms entering criminal hands. I want to stress that I support this bill, but not the similar bill being considered by the Senate, because it imposes a civil fine instead of a criminal penalty. HB 110 is a reasonable, narrowly tailored measure that promotes public safety without infringing on lawful gun ownership. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB19 I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB38 Under current Virginia law, individuals subject to a protective order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic assault are prohibited from possessing firearms. However, there is no clear mechanism to ensure these prohibited individuals actually relinquish their guns, leaving survivors at continued risk. HB 93 addresses this gap. The bill also notifies the individual that law enforcement may seek a search warrant if there's reason to believe firearms have not been relinquished. HB 93 creates a straightforward enforcement mechanism for laws already on the books. It is targeted, limited in scope, and focused on protecting survivors of domestic violence by reducing the risk of armed abusers. This common-sense measure will help safeguard the Commonwealth’s citizens without creating new prohibitions. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB21 I SUPPORT this bill. HB 21 would require firearm industry members to implement “reasonable procedures, safeguards, and business practices” to prevent the sale or distribution of firearms to prohibited persons, straw purchasers, firearm traffickers, or anyone the seller has reasonable cause to believe poses a substantial risk of gun violence or self-harm. In short, this bill establishes basic standards of responsible conduct and makes it easier to hold the industry accountable for reckless practices that fuel illegal gun trafficking, straw purchases, or other harms in our communities. This is a targeted, common-sense step toward greater accountability and safer communities. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a reasonable restriction—we do not want domestic abusers to have access to firearms, given their known propensity for violence. Nationally, firearms are used in more than half of intimate partner homicides, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
I SUPPORT this bill. HB 110 prohibits leaving a handgun visible in an unattended vehicle on public property. Simply put, it requires gun owners to store the firearm out of sight—such as in the glove compartment, center console —to prevent it from being readily observable from outside. This requirement is straightforward and not onerous for responsible gun owners. Many already take this basic precaution. Importantly, HB 110 will help deter gun thefts from vehicles—a major source of stolen firearms entering criminal hands. Research shows that vehicle thefts account for roughly half of all reported gun thefts nationally in recent years, and stolen guns contribute significantly to firearm-related crimes. In Richmond alone vehicle gun thefts have skyrocketed: from 225 reported in 2017 to over 600 in recent years (e.g., 644 in 2023 and similarly high numbers since). Leaving a handgun in plain view in an unattended vehicle is irresponsible and unnecessarily endangers our community. HB 110 is a reasonable, narrowly tailored measure that promotes public safety without infringing on lawful gun ownership. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
Comments Document
I SUPPORT THIS BILL.
I SUPPORT this bill. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a reasonable restriction—we do not want domestic abusers to have access to firearms, given their known propensity for violence. Nationally, firearms are used in more than half of intimate partner homicides, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
I SUPPORT this bill. In August 2025, my friend Adam Turck witnessed an act of domestic violence in public. He stepped in to deescalate the situation and was shot by the assailant. Adam lost his life by saving another’s. This legislation could have saved him and will save countless others. Under the current law a person that has been convicted of assaulting a family member may not intentionally purchase, own, or transport a gun. HB19 would expand these protections to include intimate partners and close the “Boyfriend Loop”. Marital status should be irrelevant when protecting people from their partners. The link between gun violence and domestic violence is very clear. Each year, between 700 – 900 people are killed in intimate partner violence. Gun violence is involved in over half of these instances. This is common-sense legislature that will help better protect our Commonwealth as a whole. Accordingly, I support this bill.
Comments Document
I support these Bills
Comments Document
I SUPPORT this bill. My friend Adam Turck was shot and killed by someone who had prior pending assault charges against an intimate partner. The person who shot him was arguing with his partner in the street, in broad daylight. This is not someone who should have access to a gun. Under current Virginia law, a person convicted of misdemeanor assault against a family or household member is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This is a reasonable restriction—we do not want domestic abusers to have access to firearms, given their known propensity for control tactics and shame issues that spiral into violence over time. Nationally, firearms are used in more than half of intimate partner homicides, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. However, this protection currently only applies primarily to spouses, ex-spouses, or those with a child in common. It does not fully cover other intimate partners. There is no reasonable basis to treat violence against a dating partner differently from violence against a spouse when it comes to preventing harm from firearms. Anyone intimate with someone who has domestic violence charges may not have the strength to leave immediately, but that does not mean they should put in mortal danger or be killed. Adam gave his life for someone he didn't know, trying to stop a cycle of violence he never was a part of. The woman he saved may have never gotten out of that situation. Both the police and onlookers confirmed if Adam had not stepped in, there is no question she would be dead. Those convicted of domestic assault should be prohibited from possessing firearms, full stop. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. For Virginia. For Richmond. For Adam.
HB 110 – Firearm in unattended vehicle; civil penalties I SUPPORT this bill. HB 110 is a reasonable, narrowly tailored measure that promotes public safety without infringing on lawful gun ownership. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB19 – Purchase, possession, or transportation of firearm; assault and battery of a family or household member or intimate partner; penalties I SUPPORT this bill. HB 19 is a targeted, limited expansion of existing law. It closes the dangerous “boyfriend loophole” by extending the firearm prohibition to misdemeanor convictions for assault and battery against an intimate partner. This common-sense measure will help protect victims and the Commonwealth’s citizens. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB 93 – Firearms; transfers to another person from a prohibited person I SUPPORT this bill. HB 93 creates a straightforward enforcement mechanism for laws already on the books. It is targeted, limited in scope, and focused on protecting survivors of domestic violence by reducing the risk of armed abusers. This common-sense measure will help safeguard the Commonwealth’s citizens without creating new prohibitions. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB21 – Firearm industry members; creates standards of responsible conduct, civil liability (available here) I SUPPORT this bill. This is a targeted, common-sense step toward greater accountability and safer communities. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill. HB 1359 – Firearm purchase requirements; penalties (available here) I SUPPORT this bill. HB 1359 would require any person who purchases a firearm to present a valid firearms purchaser license issued by the Department of State Police. This bill would have three large practical impacts: (i) Prohibit possession of firearms by anyone under age 21; (ii) require regular firearms safety training for all licensed owners to promote responsible handling and storage (iii) create a de facto waiting period: Individuals could not purchase a firearm without first obtaining a license, a process that can take up to 45 days. This would help reduce impulsive purchases that can lead to irreversible harm in our communities. Just as we require vehicle owners to obtain and maintain a license before driving a car, we should require gun owners to obtain and maintain a license before possessing a firearm. This is a targeted, common-sense step toward greater accountability and safer communities. Accordingly, I SUPPORT this bill.
Comments Document
I support these bills.
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 HB19. People in all relationships, not just marriage, deserve to be protected from the increased risk of violence when guns and domestic violence intersect. This bill ensures that intimate partner, or dating relationships, are included in the definition of domestic violence and the firearms prohibitions that already exist are applicable. For example, this bill would include a relationship where a woman cohabitates with her boyfriend but isn't married to him.
As a concerned parent and Virginian, I support these bills.
I strongly oppose this bill.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently proposed bills on gun control. While I understand the intent behind these bills—to enhance public safety—I firmly believe that they will have unintended consequences that infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms", and it is a fundamental part of what makes this country free. These bills being proposed would place unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on responsible gun owners, making it harder for Virginians to exercise their rights in a lawful and safe manner. Rather than focusing on restricting access to firearms, I urge the General Assembly to consider measures that target criminals and illegal activities, such as enforcing stricter penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of crimes, or improving background checks for gun purchases. It is essential to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues and gang-related activity, rather than punishing responsible gun owners who follow the law. Furthermore, these proposed bills could create significant logistical challenges for gun owners, particularly those who rely on their firearms for self-defense, hunting, or recreational activities. The financial burden and potential legal ramifications of complying with these new regulations would be overwhelming for many Virginians. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and to focus on policies that protect both our rights and our communities. I trust that you will make the best decision for all Virginians, and I sincerely hope that you will oppose these bills.
I strongly oppose HB19, which expands firearm restrictions for individuals convicted of assault and battery against intimate partners or cohabitants. The bill's broad definition of "intimate partner" could unfairly penalize individuals based on brief or non-abusive relationships, potentially leading to unjust consequences for people who do not pose a genuine risk. By tying firearm restrictions to misdemeanor offenses, the bill risks criminalizing individuals who have already faced legal consequences for their actions, without clear evidence of ongoing danger. While protecting victims of domestic violence is crucial, This bill risks undermining due process by imposing blanket penalties without consideration of the circumstances. Rather than broad punitive measures, the commonwealth should focus on targeted interventions that support both victims and offenders in addressing the root causes of domestic violence instead of blaming objects for the crimes of people.
We support HB19 because it will expand critical protection for people in domestically violent relationships. This bill includes protecting people who are in non marital relationships.
The Idea of taking away a right, without due process, and for a misdemeanor offense is incompatible with our Commonwealth's idea of civil liberties. Especially when such crimes are not even convictions. This proposal will give vengeful partners the ability to attack their partner in yet another legal avenue whether or not any such danger is unfounded or not by law enforcement. Therefore, I cannot support this bill.
HB110, Del. Laufer (D): This bill will save lives by eliminating provisions allowing any person to store their firearms in their car and preventing firearms from being stolen from cars. I SUPPORT this bill as half of all stolen guns are ones that are stolen from a car, and half of all crimes committed with a gun have a stolen gun used. This is a straightforward way to reduce these crimes and gun violence. HB19, Del. McClure (D): I SUPPORT this bill as it expands critical protections to additional relationship categories. This is a critical step to ensuring that more individuals are protected from domestic violence and gun violence. HB21, Del. Helmer (D): I SUPPORT this bill as industry accountability is a great way to force manufacturers to raise standards of safety. Firearm manufacturers and distributors must be held accountable for reckless behavior and practices that make our communities less safe. HB229, Del. Hernandez (D): I SUPPORT this bill and commonsense restrictions on gun access and believe in protecting the safety of our medical care providers. HB24, Del. Helmer (D): I SUPPORT this bill as visitors wishing to carry concealed handguns in Virginia should meet the same level of safety requirements that we require of our state’s residents. HB40, Del. Simon (D): I SUPPORT this bill as it would make it easier to prosecute and prevent crimes committed by ghost guns. HB626, Del. Callsen (D): I SUPPORT extending the protection of k-12 schools to our institutions of higher education. HB702, Del. Cole (D): I SUPPORT this bill as currently it can be incredibly difficult to find a way to get a gun destroyed that you no longer want or has come into your possession through something like inheritance. The public benefits from the creation of more drop-off point for individuals, of their own free will, to relinquish firearms to be destroyed. HB700, Hayes (D): I SUPPORT this bill as waiting periods provide law enforcement additional time to perform an accurate background check and create a “cooling off” period to prevent acts of violence or suicide attempts. HB93, Bennett-Parker: I SUPPORT this bill, as it strengthens protections for domestic violence survivors. We must establish a clear process to separate a person from their firearms who has been convicted of a domestic violence offense, or who is subject to a protective order.
Adam Turck was shot and killed in August of 2025 when he saw someone in trouble and intervened to help. He was in his early 30's and beloved in both the theater and weightlifting community here in RVA. Lets not make his loss of life be in vain. Gun ownership is already at an all time high, so it makes sense to enact laws that reflect that. These four bills are not trying to take away anyone's guns. They are trying to create deterrents to tragic events like the one that happened to Adam. Please dont be swayed by the ugly rhetoric that I have read in some of the comments. We can enact a few common sense gun safety laws without people fearing that their guns will be taken away. That is an old argument and one that is never going to be realized. So lets move on from that and do what we can to ensure the public safety as much as possible. Thanks for your consideration of: HB 93, HB 702, HB 110, and HB 19
I support HB19 because domestic violence does not only occur in marriages. Including intimate partner and dating relationships — such as cohabitating partners — and applying firearm prohibitions ensures more people receive the protection they deserve.
I support the presented gun laws that will improve the Commonwealth’s safety
The biggest issue with this bill is that it means someone convicted of a misdemeanor gets one of their constitutional rights stripped from them for 3 years. A misdemeanor should never strip someone of their constitutional rights.
In 2021, my elderly stepmother shot through a closed door during an argument with my elderly father, striking him in the back and paralyzing him. My father has spent the past five years in extreme physical agony, unable to walk, paying caretakers out of pocket to hoist him in and out of bed, unable to care for himself. The lack of movement in his life has led to horrific bed sores, which become bone infections, which lead to extended hospital stays and a horrible quality of life. All this because my stepmother was allowed to have a gun. There are countless stories like this of the bullet's aftermath: of the lifelong physical and mental damage that comes from guns. It has been a horrific five years, full of physical pain and mental anguish for our entire family. I wouldn't wish this on anyone. The bills before you now will not only save lives, they will spare whole swaths of our neighborhoods from needing to deal with these horrors. One bullet, lodged in my father's spine, didn't kill him. Instead, it has shattered the life he had, his ability to work and care for himself, and his family. Each bullet we allow in our communities has the ability to do the same. His care has bankrupted him personally, and now he relies on state care and Medicaid, an avoidable burden on taxpayers. There are numerous reasons guns have no place in our society, and I hope my father's story is just one that helps make change. Please support all bills that make guns harder to access, harder to keep. Please do everything you can to keep guns out of the hands of our society. Thank you for the great work you are doing to keep Virginians safe.
This bill ensures that intimate partner, or dating relationships, are included in the definition of domestic violence and firearms prohibitions are applicable. We SUPPORT this bill as it expands critical protections to additional relationship categories. For example, this bill would include a relationship where a woman cohabitates with her boyfriend.
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.
Such bills if passed would provide little benefit to the safety of Virginia citizens. Gun violence is not a major concern in Virginia, and criminals will neither abide nor be limited by such legislation. Instead, many responsible citizens would lose their rights. There is no reason to pass such measures. In addition, many of these bills are not written to an excellent level of clarity and will spur much confusion on what remains legal or illegal.
I support this bill as the data and evidence show that it will reduce harm and deaths from guns. Taking this measure will ensure that guns are used responsibly and only for the intended consequences. Owning a gun is a serious responsibility and measures like this must be put into action as currently they are being misused and causing an epidemic in this country. Guns are the #1 killer of children and teens in the United States. When the impact of an item causes so much harm, measures must be put into place to protect people, especially children.
I support the following bills because guns are the number one cause of death for children in our commonwealth and our nation. HB 110 will help reduce the number of gun thefts from cars, and these thefts are on the rise. Additionally, we need to close the boyfriend loophole from domestic violence offenders (HB19).
This is a 2nd amendment violation. The constitution does not exclude where I can and can't carry a firearm and nether will you.
This is a 2nd amendment violation. The constitution does not exclude where I can and can't carry a firearm and nether will you.
My rights and 2nd amendment shall not be infringed apon! Everyone has a God given right to the 2nd amendment. Every one should have there gun and use it to defend their selves if needed.
I respectfully submit this comment as a concerned Virginia citizen (and member of r/VAGuns) to oppose House Bill 19, which would criminalize the purchase, possession, or transportation of a firearm following a misdemeanor conviction for certain assault and battery offenses. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 13 of the Virginia Constitution protect the right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense and invalidated broad disarmament of law-abiding adults. McDonald v. City of Chicago incorporated that protection against the states. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen directs courts to evaluate firearm restrictions based on historical tradition rather than utilitarian balancing. Under the Bruen framework, the Commonwealth must identify historical analogues to justify disarming individuals based on misdemeanor convictions. HB 19 lacks clear historical tradition for disqualification based solely on non-violent or low-level misdemeanors tied to “intimate partner” definitions. There is no tradition of disarming individuals for such convictions distinct from historically recognized serious crimes. This bill is unconstitutional in proscribing rights beyond historically established prohibitions. While domestic violence is a serious social problem, the extension of firearm prohibitions to certain misdemeanor convictions has not been shown conclusively to reduce violent crime. RAND’s systematic reviews find inconclusive evidence on the effectiveness of broad prohibited-person categories in reducing firearm violence; the strongest evidence supports targeted interventions rather than expansive categorical bans. Federal and state crime data (FBI UCR/NIBRS; CDC WISQARS) show intimate partner violence involves many forms of harm, not all of which correlate with firearm use. Expanding prohibited persons without clear linkage to actual firearm misuse dilutes enforcement priorities and diverts resources from interventions with stronger evidence of effectiveness. HB 19 creates a Class 1 misdemeanor for possession after qualifying convictions and defines “family or household member” and “intimate partner” expansively, including cohabitants within the past 12 months. This could unintentionally penalize lawful co-owners of firearms where one partner is disqualified, creating inconsistent and inequitable outcomes. The statutory text does not address shared property or distinguish between cases where firearms were involved in the underlying offense and those where they were not. Similar measures in other states have generated enforcement challenges, ambiguity in scope, and increased court burdens without public safety benefits. Broad prohibitory schemes carry disparate impacts. Misdemeanor convictions disproportionately affect marginalized communities; layering firearm disabilities on top of existing penalties exacerbates collateral consequences without clear public safety justification. The bill’s blanket three-year prohibition may hinder employment, housing, and civic participation, deepening socioeconomic inequities. HB 19 expands prohibited-person categories in a manner that is constitutionally dubious under Bruen, empirically unsupported as a crime-reduction measure, and statutorily overbroad with inequitable effects. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB 19.
HB 19 expands post-conviction firearm disabilities by adding certain misdemeanor categories. While promoting risk reduction is important, it is not clear that this proposal prevents a category of violent criminal behavior that existing law already does not address. Clear criteria and historical analogues consistent with Bruen improve the likelihood of constitutional durability.
I have serious concerns with this bill as it relates to misdemeanor offenses and the removal of constitutional rights. Traditionally, misdemeanors do not carry penalties that temporary strip citizens of their fundamental rights. This bill proposes removing a person’s Second Amendment rights based on incidents such as a fight, argument, or dating dispute—situations that, while potentially serious, do not rise to the level of felony conduct. If the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, then it must be treated the same as all other constitutional rights. Applying “common sense” requires consistency. If a misdemeanor offense is sufficient to remove the right to keep and bear arms, then logically the same standard should apply to all constitutional rights, including freedom of speech, due process, and voting. Selectively targeting only the Second Amendment sets a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent. If the intent of this legislation is to protect public safety, it should focus on serious criminal conduct and ensure due process, not impose sweeping, temporary penalties on citizens for lower-level offenses. As written, this bill unfairly singles out one constitutional right while leaving others untouched. I urge the committee to amend this bill to ensure equal treatment of all constitutional rights, or reject it entirely if that standard cannot be met.
As a representative of r/VAGuns, a popular online community of Virginia gun owners on the social media platform Reddit, we fully and unanimously endorse this bill and others like it that promote common-sense gun laws. Our community stands united in support of the recent legislation being passed in the General Assembly, which aims to protect and strengthen our neighborhoods while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners. These bills represent practical, balanced measures that help safeguard our community, and r/VAGuns proudly backs these efforts to promote safety and responsibility across Virginia.
Simply unconstitutional. Only a tyrant would agree with this. A waste of time and money for no benefit.
Bill HB19 | McClure | Firearms; purchase, etc., after assault & battery of family or household member or intimate partner needs some work. Crimes of passion happen to the young. Three years is way too long when one year can show the person over reacted. It would be far better for the police to record the offense and advise them to split up. Make a one year fire arm restriction for the second offense - not the first. This may have remove guns from police and court officers as they should not be exempt. What about military personnel? Are they to be sent into combat without a fire arm?
I support this bill because the majority of women killed by an intimate partner are killed with a gun, and 6 million women reported having a gun used on them by an intimate partner.