The slew of new "taxes" as well as the attack on firearm's enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment will solidify my moving out of state once passed. It's become very clear that we are fundamentally opposed to each others views and ways of life. However, rather than adopt a live and let live approach like myself, you seek to undermine and impose your views on me. How dare you, how dare you single out citizens and residents of this great commonwealth and demand they pay additional "taxes" on things like firearms and ammunition when they already pay the state sales tax. What's troubling is you will lie and state a myriad of reasons why these additional taxes exist, but the reality is you're just trying to inconvenience and restrict gun owners. You just don't have the integrity to come out and say it. Good riddance.

I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.

Opposition to HOUSE BILL NO. 207 $500 Firearm Suppressor Tax A. Suppressors Are Protected Arms or Accessories Suppressors are lawfully owned, heavily regulated under federal law, and increasingly recognized as safety devices that reduce hearing damage and noise pollution. Courts have acknowledged that arms “in common use” are protected, and suppressor ownership has grown dramatically nationwide. Under Bruen, the question is not whether suppressors are popular with policymakers, but whether restrictions align with historical tradition. They do not. B. The Tax Is Analogous to the Unconstitutional NFA Poll Tax The $500 per-unit tax is especially troubling when viewed in historical context. The federal National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed a $200 tax (equivalent to several thousand dollars today) explicitly to discourage ownership. HB 207 repeats this same logic—using cost as a deterrent. This approach conflicts with: Heller’s rejection of bans on commonly possessed arms Long-standing doctrine prohibiting financial barriers to constitutional rights C. No Public Safety Justification Suppressors are almost never used in violent crime. Studies cited by firearm-rights organizations and federal crime data show suppressor misuse is statistically negligible. Taxing a safety-enhancing accessory while exempting government users again demonstrates civilian disfavor, not crime prevention. This bill, and the other anti-gun proposed Bills share a fatal flaw: they attempt to accomplish indirectly—through taxation—what the Constitution forbids directly. Under Heller, McDonald, and especially Bruen, these measures are constitutionally vulnerable, historically unsupported, regressive in effect, and unlikely to achieve their stated goals. The Virginia General Assembly should reject HB 207 in defense of: 1) Constitutional fidelity 2) Equal treatment of fundamental rights 3) Evidence-based public policy Firearm policy disagreements cannot override constitutional guarantees. Rights do not become privileges simply because they are politically disfavored. Adoption of HOUSE BILL NO. 207 opens the Commonwealth of Virginia to legal action that would inflict an undue and unecessary burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth.

These bills are as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment at their core. Many bills related to firearms this legislative session at least use the cover of safety to cover their anti-gun intention, these bills HB 207, SB 763, HB 919 and HB 1094 do no such thing. They just financially punish law abiding Virginians for using firearms to hunt, target shoot and protect their families. The result of these bills is that law-abiding Virginians will simple go to another state to make a firearm related purchase, and no one will come to Virginia to make a purchaser. The result, at a minimum, will be: 1. reducing state and local sales tax revenue 2. impacting small independent firearm business by reducing their revenue with the potential for staff reductions or closure I do not support this bill nor do the 200+ active members, 2000+ inactive members of Northern Virginia's largest hunting association - The National Sportsman Association.

As a Virginia resident and voter, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose HB207 and HB 919. The ATF has already removed the $200 tax stamp at the Federal level so why do ya'll think you can impose a $500 tax on something that is helpful to shooters and hunters. The felons and law breakers do use suppressors in their acts of crime so why are you punishing the lawful people of VA. Ya'll are suppose to be helping Virginians not suppressing them! As far as the addition taxes ya'll want to impose on gun owners that is despicable!!!! What are you going to do with the extra money gained from this? Ya'll have yet to tell us what is the plan for the excess funds VA will be raking in about the 2.1B surplus we have every year and this will make VA the highest taxed state in the US. Don't ya'lll see what is happening in CA and NY where business and people are leaving because of the excess taxes being imposed?

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.

We do not need further prohibition on suppressors. Suppressors will allow people to excercise their 2nd amendment rights without being a nuisance to their neighbors. Europe already encourages their use for that very reason, why should we move in the opposite direction?

I do not support this bill. Suppressors should be more accessible to hunters and recreational shooters to help protect their hearing and decrease noise complaints. As an avid hunter I want to use suppressors to protect my hearing and that of my children that hunt with me. I can hear better without earplugs to help me identify the type and location of animals in the field. I do not have to worry as much about damaging my hearing when hunting with a suppressor. Adding tax would reduce the ability of people to purchase suppressors and protect their hearing. I also believe that suppressors would reduce noise complaints. While suppressors do not make firearms silent, they do help reduce the intesity of the sound and likelihood a property owne calls to complain.

As a Virginia resident and voter, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose HB207 and HB 1094. These bills are punitive and will hurt law abiding Virginians financially and make it more difficult for them to carry out their constitutional right to bear arms. I hope you will reconsider and not impose these financial constraints and limitations on law abiding citizens.

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.

This is a "sin" tax, plain and simple. Suppressors do not eliminate the noise a firearm makes, regardless of how much Hollywood wants you to believe it. They merely reduce the noise to a "safe" level. As a disabled veteran who suffers from hearing-related issues due to noise-related damage incurred during annual firearms training/qualification and overseas while serving this country, I think suppressors should be used by everyone. This tax will only hurt "working-class" Virginians, as it may preclude them from being able to exercise their Second Amendment right. I strongly urge you not to support this bill.

Hello committee, I am writing to you as a constituent to express my strong opposition to House Bill 207, which proposes a $500 excise tax on the retail sale of firearm suppressors. While I understand the intent behind legislative efforts to address public safety, this specific proposal is fundamentally unjust and creates a significant inequity for the citizens of the Commonwealth. The primary issue with a $500 state tax - which would be imposed on top of existing federal costs - is that it creates a wealth-based barrier to safety equipment. For many working-class Virginians, this tax could double the cost of a suppressor, effectively ensuring that only the wealthy can afford to protect their hearing while hunting or at the range. Legislation should never be designed to make health and safety a luxury item available only to those with significant disposable income, yet HB207 does exactly that by pricing out lower-income individuals who wish to be responsible, law-abiding gun owners. Furthermore, it is important to recognize that suppressors are essential hearing protection devices, not the "silent" tools often depicted in fiction. They are designed to reduce muzzle blast to levels that prevent permanent, irreversible ear damage for the user and reduce noise pollution for the surrounding community. In many parts of the world i.e. Europe, these devices are encouraged as a matter of public health and neighborly courtesy. Demonizing a piece of safety equipment to be taxed undermines the goal of promoting responsible firearm ownership and ignores the legitimate health benefits they provide. By imposing a punitive tax, HB207 penalizes Virginians for choosing a safer way to exercise their rights. Finally, firearm suppressors are already among the most strictly regulated items in the country under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Owners must already submit to ATF background checks, fingerprinting, and registration in a federal database. Adding a further $500 Virginia tax does nothing to enhance this already rigorous vetting process; it serves only as a financial penalty that disproportionately affects the poor. I implore you to reconsider this proposal and rescind or oppose HB207. I ask that you advocate for policies that prioritize the health and safety of all your constituents, regardless of their socioeconomic status, rather than implementing a tax that is inherently inequitable and serves as a barrier to safety.

I respectfully submit this comment as a Virginia citizen and (parenthetically) a member of the r/VAGuns subreddit, in principled opposition to HB207. I oppose HB207 as introduced. The Virginia Constitution (Art. I, §13) and the Second Amendment protect the individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense.District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago affirm that government may not impose burdens that meaningfully impede that right. While taxation generally falls within state power, the Supreme Court has recognized in First Amendment contexts that a tax targeted at a fundamental constitutional right can constitute an impermissible burden. In Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, the Court invalidated a use tax on ink and paper consumed by publishers because it singled out press activity and thereby burdened freedom of the press. By analogy, a targeted state excise tax that functions to discourage acquisition of a constitutionally protected arm accessory risks imposing a burden on the right to keep and bear arms. NYSRPA v. Bruen requires that regulations affecting exercise of constitutional rights align with historical tradition; there is no historical tradition of imposing excise taxes to chill exercise of fundamental rights. HB207 imposes a $500 excise tax on each suppressor retail sale, with exemptions only for law-enforcement officers and agencies. Suppressors (sound moderators) are used by civilians for hearing protection and safety in lawful shooting sports and range use. Credible evidence (CDC WISQARS, RAND firearm policy reviews) shows no material link between lawful suppressor ownership and violent crime. There is no empirical foundation demonstrating that a suppressor tax advances public safety. This bill adds a high, item-specific excise tax on a particular firearm accessory without articulating a compelling, evidence-based public safety purpose. The tax creates a financial barrier to acquisition of a lawful accessory already subject to federal regulation under the National Firearms Act, layering costs without improving enforcement of existing criminal prohibitions. It is redundant with general sales and use tax systems and risks deterring lawful conduct. A $500 per-item tax is a significant cost added to lawful acquisition of a suppressor, disproportionately impacting lower- and middle-income Virginians who seek suppressors for hearing protection and safety. Such a tax raises equity concerns relative to other consumer goods subject only to general taxation mechanisms. Imposing financial deterrents on constitutional rights raises serious equity issues when unaccompanied by demonstrable public benefit. HB207 seeks to impose a targeted excise tax on firearm suppressors that will increase the cost of acquiring a lawfully protected arm accessory without evidence of public safety benefit. Analogous Supreme Court precedent Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. underscores that taxation singling out rights-related activity can impermissibly burden constitutional guarantees. HB207 lacks grounding in Bruen’s historical-tradition framework and risks deterring the exercise of a fundamental right. I respectfully urge the Committee to oppose HB207.

I am a life long Democrat who believes that there needs to be discussion around gun control. That said, I oppose this bill. I think that putting a price tag on something to act as a barrier to entry does nothing but separate the haves from the have nots. Suppressors are used as hearing protection against home intruders so that you do not cause permanent damage to yourself while defending your home. And now that there is a real threat of a masked federal government thugs breaking into your home to search it, it is imperative that we allow people access to all the tools and safety precautions that they need to protect themselves and their families.

I’m a lifelong resident of Virginia and I am writing in strong opposition to this proposed tax. Firearms suppressors are an important and valuable tool for hearing protection used by sportsmen and hunters alike. They work to greatly reduce (though not completely eliminate) the volume of noise produced by firearms helping to protect hearing for the user and those around them. For any outdoor recreational shooting and hunting purposes this would reduced the nuisance these activities have on the broader community. In addition suppressors are some of the most highly regulated firearm accessories requiring paperwork and fingerprinting to the ATF for approval. This is already an effective tool in keeping suppressors in the hands of law abiding citizens only. What suppressors are not are movie level silencing of firearms and do not in any way make a firearm more dangerous. A suppressor tax would NOT have a meaningful impact on public safety. A suppressor tax of this value would be a prohibitive additional cost to most Virginians, being anywhere between a 50% to 100% effective tax rate on some suppressors. This will so greatly reduce the demand for suppressors by keeping them out of the hands of law abiding working class sportsmen that any revenue generated is negligible. In short this bill would if anything do more harm to public safety by keeping these hearing safety devices out of the hands of the average Virginian and do nothing to generate any real revenue for the state.

Firearm suppressors are hearing protection devices with a net public health benefit. Many Virginians have no option but to use indoor shooting ranges to practice using their firearms and thus be responsible gun owners. The concussive blasts from using firearms in indoor ranges, or being next to someone using a particularly loud firearm, can cause permanent hearing and brain damage. The concussive blasts and noise level are elevated in indoor ranges. In November, the New York Times published an article titled “Target Shooting Could Be Causing Brain Injuries. We Measured the Danger.” This article discusses these dangers which can be mitigated by using suppressors. While suppressors can reduce the dangerous impacts of excessively loud firearm discharges, they cannot and do not silence them. Suppressed firearms can still be so loud as to cause permanent hearing damage without additional hearing protection that would not be sufficient alone. This bill would harm Virginians, both firearms users and those around them, while doing nothing but implementing a regressive, classist tax on a constitutionally protected right.

I submit this comment in opposition to HB207. The bill creates a new $500 excise tax per retail sale of any firearm suppressor, collected from dealers on sales in the Commonwealth beginning July 1, 2026. Proceeds are deposited in the general fund; government agency and duty use law enforcement purchases are exempt. 1) Ill targeted taxation HB207 taxes a safety accessory at the point of sale without any showing that suppressor purchases impose public costs commensurate with the levy. By design, suppressors reduce noise externalities and hearing injury risk; taxing them like a vice item inverts standard Pigouvian logic and discourages adoption of equipment that mitigates harms. The bill itself identifies no public cost rationale, dedicates all receipts to the general fund, and offers no earmark for violence reduction, enforcement, or health costs that would justify a transaction specific charge. 2) Regressive and distortionary effects A flat $500 add on is inherently regressive. For many lawful purchasers, the tax rivals or exceeds the price of an entry level suppressor, suppressing demand among lower income buyers while leaving higher income buyers relatively unaffected. That outcome creates the very racial and economic disparity in access that broad firearm taxes have historically produced, with no evidence of deterrence against criminal misuse. HB207 further exempts institutional purchasers but not individual citizens who bear the direct safety benefits, compounding inequity. 3) Duplicative burden atop existing regimes HB207 adds a Commonwealth level charge “in addition to all other taxes and fees of every kind now imposed by law,” explicitly declining the standard dealer discount under § 58.1 622. Even without debating federal regimes, the text confirms this levy stacks over current Virginia sales/use taxes. That combination escalates the final transaction price without targeting unlawful conduct or addressing a defined enforcement gap. 4) No credible public safety return The tax is not tied to any empirical finding that suppressor sales drive violent crime. The bill contains no mechanism to reduce trafficking, straw purchasing, or prohibited person possession. As written, it functions solely as a revenue measure levied on lawful retail sales—not on misuse—while leaving criminal behavior already covered by existing statutes. In fiscal policy terms, HB207 is a narrow base / high rate design with weak nexus to the stated public safety purpose. 5) Administrative complexity with minimal benefit By creating a new Chapter 6.3 and directing the Department of Taxation to administer the suppressor tax “in accordance with Chapter 6, mutatis mutandis,” the bill adds collection, remittance, and compliance layers for dealers and the Department without evidence that incremental revenue will exceed administrative and compliance costs. If revenue were intended to offset identifiable costs, HB207 would earmark funds; it does not. Conclusion HB207 is a textbook example of a symbolic tax that burdens lawful transactions, skews access toward wealthier buyers and provides no measurable public safety benefit. Because it is non recurring and tied only to retail sales, it will not deter unlawful possession or misuse. I respectfully urge the Committee to reject HB207. Respectfully submitted.

I am writing to formally oppose HB207. This bill imposes a targeted and punitive tax on a constitutionally protected item that is lawfully owned and commonly used by responsible Virginians for hearing protection, safety, and lawful sporting and self-defense purposes. Singling out firearm suppressors for special taxation is not a neutral revenue measure—it is a policy designed to discourage the exercise of a constitutional right. Suppressors are not “luxury items” nor are they tools of criminal misuse as often portrayed. They are regulated safety devices intended to reduce permanent hearing damage and noise pollution. Criminal misuse of suppressors is exceedingly rare, and existing federal and state laws already provide severe penalties for illegal possession or use.Notably, recent federal action eliminated the longstanding national stamp tax on suppressors, recognizing that such taxes functioned as an improper financial barrier on the exercise of a fundamental right. For Virginia to now re-impose a similar financial burden at the state level directly contradicts that direction and undermines uniformity in constitutional protections. This proposal also raises serious constitutional concerns. Courts have repeatedly held that the government may not impose special taxes or fees on the exercise of fundamental rights. Just as poll taxes were deemed unconstitutional because they conditioned a right on the ability to pay, HB207 conditions the Second Amendment on an individual’s financial means. This is especially troubling for minorities, working-class residents, and first-generation Americans who already face disproportionate regulatory and economic barriers. Virginia’s own history and identity are rooted in resistance to unjust taxation and government overreach. The principle of no taxation without representation is not merely a slogan—it is foundational to the Commonwealth’s and the nation’s origin. Imposing a targeted tax on lawful behavior that harms no one violates both the spirit and the letter of that principle. HB207 does nothing to address violent crime, does nothing to improve public safety, and does nothing to punish criminal misuse. Instead, it penalizes compliance, discourages lawful ownership, and exposes the Commonwealth to unnecessary constitutional litigation.

I am deeply opposed to this bill. Last year the federal government finally recognized the many public benefits and merits of firearm suppressors by making them more readily available to members of the public engaged in shooting sports, reducing the previous $200 federal stamp tax on suppressors to $0. Now the sponsors of HB 207 want not only to reverse that salutary policy decision at the state level, but, indeed, to subvert it by imposing a $500 tax for the purchase of a suppressor. Such a law would be flawed in both practical and legal terms. First, suppressors benefit both shooters and non-shooters by reducing the report from firearms. Such sound reduction prevents hearing loss and eliminates sound disturbance to people in the near vicinity of gunfire. For just this reason, most western European countries have long mandated the use of suppressors by shooters. HB 207 would thwart the beneficial goal of such sound reduction by making the purchase of suppressors cost-prohibitive for most shooters. Second, there is an utter absence of data suggesting that suppressors lead to any increase in crime, or that there is even a statistically significant - or, indeed, any - correlation between the use of suppressors and crime. There is no apparent public policy goal that would be advanced by imposing the arduous tax burden on the purchase of suppressors represented by HB 207. Third, the imposition of a special tax on suppressors by a state government likely would be deemed unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's commerce-clause jurisprudence. Congress has now spoken on the question of whether such a special tax should be imposed on suppressors by reducing the federal stamp tax to $0. As suppressors are goods that are bought and sold in interstate commerce, any effort by the Commonwealth to impose such a tax would be subject to legal challenge as a commerce-clause violation. If HB 207 is enacted, it will be an open invitation to waste taxpayer funds on litigation that the Commonwealth is very likely to lose. Clearly, HB 207 represents a regressive measure that would serve no public need or good, and which, on the contrary, would generate problems unnecessarily in the form of hearing loss, noise pollution, and the squandering of public funds. It is, in reality, a "solution" in search of a problem, and problem there is none. The House Finance Committee should promptly kill this ill-advised bill.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to House Bill 207, which proposes a $500 excise tax on the retail sale of firearm suppressors. This legislation represents a punitive financial barrier to the exercise of Second Amendment rights and a direct burden on law-abiding Virginians seeking to protect their hearing and be responsible neighbors. Firearm suppressors are, first and foremost, safety devices. They are designed to muffle the report of a firearm to levels that help prevent permanent hearing loss for shooters, hunters, and those nearby. By imposing a massive $500 tax—which effectively doubles or triples the cost of most suppressors—the state is making essential safety equipment inaccessible to all but the wealthiest citizens. This is an arbitrary and discriminatory barrier that penalizes law-abiding individuals for prioritizing safety and noise mitigation. Furthermore, this bill targets a specific class of citizens who are already among the most heavily vetted and law-abiding. Under federal law (the National Firearms Act), individuals must already undergo an intensive background check, submit fingerprints, and pay a $200 federal tax to own a suppressor. HB 207 adds a redundant and excessive state tax that serves no purpose other than to discourage the lawful acquisition of these tools. Like the restrictions in HB 217, this tax will have zero impact on criminal behavior. Criminals who use firearms or prohibited items do not pay excise taxes or follow retail regulations. Consequently, this bill will only disadvantage law-abiding Virginians while doing nothing to address actual gun crime or public safety. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot impose "unjustifiable" burdens on the exercise of that right. A $500 tax on a safety accessory is not a revenue measure; it is a clear attempt to use the power of taxation to centralize control and limit a constitutionally protected activity. It is unreasonable for the Commonwealth to treat hearing protection as a luxury to be taxed out of reach for the average citizen. I urge you to stand with law-abiding gun owners and prioritize the safety and rights of your constituents. Please reject this unnecessary and punitive tax. I respectfully ask that you vote NO on HB 207. Sincerely, Nick Granda-Stone, House District #58 (Henrico County)

This is abject lunacy and is nothing more than performative. Firearm suppressors are not used as Hollywood would have ones believe and they are merely used as a form of PPE for those around the firearm. The danger of a hunter having to supress their hearing and risking potential issue is greater than any "public "safety" this would be attempting.

The slew of new "taxes" as well as the attack on firearm's enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment will solidify my moving out of state once passed. It's become very clear that we are fundamentally opposed to each others views and ways of life. However, rather than adopt a live and let live approach like myself, you seek to undermine and impose your views on me. How dare you, how dare you single out citizens and residents of this great commonwealth and demand they pay additional "taxes" on things like firearms and ammunition when they already pay the state sales tax. What's troubling is you will lie and state a myriad of reasons why these additional taxes exist, but the reality is you're just trying to inconvenience and restrict gun owners. You just don't have the integrity to come out and say it. Good riddance.

I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.

Opposition to HOUSE BILL NO. 919 Retail Firearm and Ammunition Tax (11%) HB 919 expands a constitutional defect by directly taxing retail purchasers, effectively penalizing individual Virginians for exercising their rights. A. Direct Consumer Taxation Is More Constitutionally Suspect This bill taxes the point of exercise of the Second Amendment itself. Under Heller, firearms and ammunition are not accessories—they are essential. A right that cannot be practically exercised is no right at all. Courts have repeatedly recognized that: Ammunition is protected under the Second Amendment (see Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)) Excessive costs imposed by law can amount to a de facto ban An 11% tax—on top of existing federal excise taxes and state sales taxes—substantially increases the cost of lawful ownership. B. Selective Exemptions Undermine the State’s Rationale The exemption for law-enforcement officers and low-volume sellers reveals that the tax is not genuinely about violence prevention, but about discouraging civilian ownership. Under equal-protection principles and Bruen, selective exemptions weaken any claim of historical consistency. Pro-Second Amendment groups have emphasized that civilian gun ownership has declined in many high-tax jurisdictions without corresponding reductions in violent crime, including cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, undermining the public-safety justification. C. Revenue Earmarking Does Not Cure Constitutional Violations Directing funds to a “Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund” does not legitimize an unconstitutional tax. The Supreme Court has never allowed the government to violate a right so long as the proceeds are used for a well-intentioned purpose. The Virginia General Assembly should reject HB 919 in defense of: 1) Constitutional fidelity 2) Equal treatment of fundamental rights 3) Evidence-based public policy Firearm policy disagreements cannot override constitutional guarantees. Rights do not become privileges simply because they are politically disfavored. Adoption of HOUSE BILL NO. 919 opens the Commonwealth of Virginia to legal action that would inflict an undue and unecessary burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth.

These bills are as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment at their core. Many bills related to firearms this legislative session at least use the cover of safety to cover their anti-gun intention, these bills HB 207, SB 763, HB 919 and HB 1094 do no such thing. They just financially punish law abiding Virginians for using firearms to hunt, target shoot and protect their families. The result of these bills is that law-abiding Virginians will simple go to another state to make a firearm related purchase, and no one will come to Virginia to make a purchaser. The result, at a minimum, will be: 1. reducing state and local sales tax revenue 2. impacting small independent firearm business by reducing their revenue with the potential for staff reductions or closure I do not support this bill nor do the 200+ active members, 2000+ inactive members of Northern Virginia's largest hunting association - The National Sportsman Association.

As a Virginia resident and voter, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose HB207 and HB 919. The ATF has already removed the $200 tax stamp at the Federal level so why do ya'll think you can impose a $500 tax on something that is helpful to shooters and hunters. The felons and law breakers do use suppressors in their acts of crime so why are you punishing the lawful people of VA. Ya'll are suppose to be helping Virginians not suppressing them! As far as the addition taxes ya'll want to impose on gun owners that is despicable!!!! What are you going to do with the extra money gained from this? Ya'll have yet to tell us what is the plan for the excess funds VA will be raking in about the 2.1B surplus we have every year and this will make VA the highest taxed state in the US. Don't ya'lll see what is happening in CA and NY where business and people are leaving because of the excess taxes being imposed?

As the Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic States for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), I respectfully urge you to oppose House Bill 919 (HB 919) – discriminatory legislation that would establish an 11% excise tax rate for firearms and ammunition manufacturers, intended to provide funding for the “Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund” which will likely result in the financial burden falling upon law abiding sportsmen and women. Virginia’s sportsmen and women are already the backbone of the funding structure for conservation efforts that benefit wildlife and their habitat throughout the Commonwealth, as well as the citizenry at large. The passage of financially discriminatory legislation like HB 919, will likely result in an unintended and consequential diminishment of the state’s conservation funding.

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.

Strongly Oppose HB919. Stop the grift. Tax, tax, tax! GET OUT OF MY POCKET!

I strongly oppose this bill.

I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.

The slew of new "taxes" as well as the attack on firearm's enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment will solidify my moving out of state once passed. It's become very clear that we are fundamentally opposed to each others views and ways of life. However, rather than adopt a live and let live approach like myself, you seek to undermine and impose your views on me. How dare you, how dare you single out citizens and residents of this great commonwealth and demand they pay additional "taxes" on things like firearms and ammunition when they already pay the state sales tax. What's troubling is you will lie and state a myriad of reasons why these additional taxes exist, but the reality is you're just trying to inconvenience and restrict gun owners. You just don't have the integrity to come out and say it. Good riddance.

I am 41 years old and despite never being in the military, being exposed to excessively loud noises throughout my life, and having no genetic preconditions for hearing loss, I have tinnitus. It started to creep up within the first year I began training with a pistol for the purpose of self-defense after being jumped and attacked no less than 5 times in the 2 years prior to buying that pistol. When I went to the range, I wore ear plugs AND ear muffs (the latter costing nearly $300 in an attempt to get the best of the best) and STILL I realized quickly that, despite being in a quiet room, I was hearing loud ringing. This combination is capable of reducing the concussive noise of a gunshot only minimally. My doctor says there's really no possible other source other than my exposure to firearms. My exposure that was only a tiny fraction of what soldiers are subjected to, what shooting sports enthusiasts are subjected to, and so forth. Had I been able to afford a suppressor and $200 NFA tax at the time, I would have been able to reduce the decibel output of my pistol by up to 35 dB. Combine that with my hearing protection, and I would have NEVER come to have tinnitus from shooting sports AND everyone else in the range with me would have been subjected to far less noise as well. A suppressor should be easily accessible, taxed only at the prevailing consumer goods sales tax, and require no government approval so that there are no barriers to protecting the hearing of a shooter and those around them while exercising one's 2nd amendment rights. It seems as if a $500 tax on suppressors is a retaliatory action not grounded in any kind of premise of safety or health. It would limit once again access to what is fundamentally a hearing protection device to wealthy VA residents. Is this the message Democrats want to send: "We want guns to be as loud as possible and if you are keen to be respectful to your own hearing and others, we will force you to pay $500!" That doesn't land well with anyone. It fundamentally makes no sense, especially since in Europe, South Africa, and other parts of the world you can simply walk into a store, buy a suppressor (you're encouraged to do so), and walk out in as much time as it takes to drink a cup of coffee. This tax obviously solves nothing, will not raise revenue fairly and justly, and will likely cost VA more to defend than it rakes in as suppressors are already commonly $1,000 or more. Anti-2A laws do not reduce crime in the same way anti-reproductive rights laws do not reduce abortions... in both instances the result is worse. Stop infringing on Constitutional rights and start focusing on what matters.

The Second Amendment protects an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The US Supreme Court has made clear that this right is not second-class and may not be burdened through indirect means that would be impermissible if applied to other enumerated rights. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) – Recognized an individual right to possess arms “in common use” for lawful purposes, including self-defense. McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) – Incorporated the Second Amendment against the states. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) – Rejected interest-balancing and held that firearm regulations must be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Under Bruen, modern firearm regulations—including taxation schemes—must be justified by a well-established historical analogue from the Founding or Reconstruction eras. Revenue-raising measures that single out constitutionally protected conduct fail this test. Opposition to HOUSE BILL NO. 1094: Firearm and Ammunition Manufacturer Excise Tax (11%) HB 1094 imposes a targeted excise tax on firearms and ammunition manufacturers based solely on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court has long rejected the idea that governments may tax fundamental rights out of reach: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943): “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution.” Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966): Poll taxes are unconstitutional because wealth or payment cannot condition the exercise of a fundamental right. Just as a state could not impose a special tax on printing presses or church collections, it may not impose a punitive, industry-specific tax on arms and ammunition—the means necessary to exercise the Second Amendment. There is no historical tradition of special excise taxes on firearms or ammunition at the Founding era designed to discourage ownership or fund social programs. General sales taxes that applied neutrally across goods are not comparable. HB 1094 is: 1) Targeted, not general 2) Punitive, not neutral 3) Behavior-modifying, not revenue-incidental Courts applying Bruen have increasingly scrutinized firearm taxes in California, Illinois, and New York, with multiple challenges arguing that these laws are modern inventions lacking historical support. Pro-gun organizations consistently note that firearm and ammunition taxes disproportionately burden low-income citizens, particularly those living in high-crime areas who rely most on lawful self-defense. Law enforcement exemptions underscore the inequity: the state acknowledges firearms are necessary for safety—but only if the government is the user. Adoption of HOUSE BILL NO. 1094 opens the Commonwealth of Virginia to legal action that would inflict an undue and unecessary burden on the citizens of the Commonwealth.

These bills are as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment at their core. Many bills related to firearms this legislative session at least use the cover of safety to cover their anti-gun intention, these bills HB 207, SB 763, HB 919 and HB 1094 do no such thing. They just financially punish law abiding Virginians for using firearms to hunt, target shoot and protect their families. The result of these bills is that law-abiding Virginians will simple go to another state to make a firearm related purchase, and no one will come to Virginia to make a purchaser. The result, at a minimum, will be: 1. reducing state and local sales tax revenue 2. impacting small independent firearm business by reducing their revenue with the potential for staff reductions or closure I do not support this bill nor do the 200+ active members, 2000+ inactive members of Northern Virginia's largest hunting association - The National Sportsman Association.

As the Assistant Manager, Mid-Atlantic States for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), I respectfully urge you to oppose House Bill 1094 (HB 1094) – discriminatory legislation that would establish an 11% excise tax rate for firearms and ammunition manufacturers, intended to provide funding for the “Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund” which will likely result in the financial burden falling upon law abiding sportsmen and women. Virginia’s sportsmen and women are already the backbone of the funding structure for conservation efforts that benefit wildlife and their habitat throughout the Commonwealth, as well as the citizenry at large. The passage of financially discriminatory legislation like HB 1094, will likely result in an unintended and consequential diminishment of the state’s conservation funding.

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.

Oppose.

As a Virginia resident and voter, I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose HB207 and HB 1094. These bills are punitive and will hurt law abiding Virginians financially and make it more difficult for them to carry out their constitutional right to bear arms. I hope you will reconsider and not impose these financial constraints and limitations on law abiding citizens.

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 am a sworn law enforcement officer in the Commonwealth of Virginia, a gun owner, and a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. I respectfully oppose House Bill 1094, which would impose an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition, directing revenue to the Virginia Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention Fund. Democrats campaigned in recent elections on a message of affordability for everyday Virginians, promising policies that reduce financial burdens. An 11 percent tax on firearms and ammunition—on top of existing taxes—is precisely the opposite of affordability. This proposal makes it more expensive for Virginians to engage in constitutionally protected activities, disproportionately harming middle- and lower-income residents who rely on affordable ammunition for training, self-defense, and lawful recreation. The right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on wealth. Supreme Court precedent establishes that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and laws imposing substantial financial burdens risk chilling its exercise. By sharply increasing the cost of firearms and ammunition, HB 1094 penalizes lawful gun ownership and interferes with Virginians’ ability to exercise a right recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and incorporated in McDonald v. Chicago. Targeted taxation on constitutionally protected conduct is inconsistent with civil rights principles. Public safety is best served when citizens can train regularly and maintain proficiency. Ammunition and firearms are essential for lawful self-defense and hunting traditions deeply rooted in Virginia’s culture. A steep excise tax undermines those traditions by making common purchases significantly more costly, without evidence that it reduces crime or enhances public safety. HB 1094 also creates perverse incentives. Responsible gun owners contribute to public safety by training and understanding firearms. Making lawful ownership more expensive encourages purchasing outside Virginia or unregulated acquisition, undermining compliance with background checks and safety measures. Revenue may fund intervention programs, but evidence does not show that taxing lawful owners deters violent crime; offenders rarely comply with tax regimes. Affordability is about reducing barriers, not erecting them. This bill contradicts stated affordability goals, placing an undue burden on Virginians who seek to exercise constitutionally protected rights responsibly. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the members of this committee to oppose House Bill 1094. It is regressive, punitive, and inconsistent with principles of affordability, constitutional rights, and effective public safety policy.

As a lifelong resident of Virginia, I am writing to voice my opposition to HB1094. An 11% tax on firearms and ammunition is an exceptionally punitive fee for Virginians to pay in addition to existing local sales tax. Firearms proficiency is a perishable skill and requires consistent practice and training to retain competency. This additional tax would substantially impact the ability for average Virginians as well as law enforcement to be able to afford to maintain a regular cadence of training and proficiency. In addition this will drive Virginians to purchase their ammunition in neighboring states that do not have this tax taking revenue away from local Virginian businesses. The impact of this bill would be an overall net negative for Virginians and this bill should not be passed.

This bill adds an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Is there any other constitutional right that has a tax like this levied on it? No tax on book publishers exercising their First Amendment right? This is a "sin" tax, plain and simple. Owning a firearm is not a sin; it is protected under the Second Amendment. Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. This tax will only hurt "working-class" Virginians, as it may price them out of being able to exercise their God-given right to self-defense. I strongly urge you not to support this bill.

The slew of new "taxes" as well as the attack on firearm's enthusiasts and the 2nd amendment will solidify my moving out of state once passed. It's become very clear that we are fundamentally opposed to each others views and ways of life. However, rather than adopt a live and let live approach like myself, you seek to undermine and impose your views on me. How dare you, how dare you single out citizens and residents of this great commonwealth and demand they pay additional "taxes" on things like firearms and ammunition when they already pay the state sales tax. What's troubling is you will lie and state a myriad of reasons why these additional taxes exist, but the reality is you're just trying to inconvenience and restrict gun owners. You just don't have the integrity to come out and say it. Good riddance.

Abjectly opposed to ANY new taxes for ANY reason. We have an overabundance of money in this state as it is and are taxed enough.