Opposition to HB440 -- As a supplement to my prior comments, please note that the bill summary refers to "certain unsatisfied judgments." Those judgments are unsatisfied judgments arising from motor vehicle accidents! There is a very good reason to suspend the driver's license of someone who has made no arrangement to pay a judgment arising from their negligent driving while uninsured. Liability for a motor vehicle accident judgment is far different from unpaid child support. Also, the substitute is far different from the original bill in that it repeals an entire statutory scheme for trying to ensure that uninsured drivers are financially responsible. The impact statement relates to the original bill, not the substitute. Making it harder to collect damages from uninsured drivers will increase costs for everyone else. Repeal of the entire existing statutory structure of Article 13 (§§ 46.2-417 through 46.2-429) of Chapter 3 of Title 46.2 is likely to have profound unintended consequences for the DMV.

The challenge for one legislator is to vote no on the gun bills..Leave the groupthink system of failure..Stop discriminating against the citizens who placed you in office...Northern Virginia has the highest taxes ..Yet the counties are still in debt..due to failed programs such as the ones you support..

This bill proposes a repeal of the statute that allows a driver’s license to be suspended for unpaid civil judgments against uninsured motorist Pursuant to 46.2-417. The issuance of a driver's license in the Commonwealth is a privilege not a right. A privilege that is disrespected when one drives without insurance which is the law. Not only is it disrespectful to drive without insurance there is negligence involved causing damage to innocent law-abiding citizens of the Commonwealth. I am respectively requesting that you oppose house bill for 440. The ability of a creditor to suspend a driver's license of someone who is driving in the Commonwealth without the required insurance maintains accountability. If we do not report the judgments to the Department of Motor vehicle, there is no mechanism for the Commonwealth to track or monitor insurance coverage and the maintenance of financial responsibility requirements of SR-22. Without this accountability, we jeopardize the ability to ensure affordable automobile insurance. Without the checks and balances of the department of motor vehicles requiring SR22 and holding individuals responsible for damages there is a great risk that insurance premiums will increase for all who try to be compliant and responsible. Please review the fiscal impact statement for this bill The real victim will be acknowledge when it hits your house and your family is hit by an uninsured driver.

I write to OPPOSE HB440. Please do not repeal Va Code § 46.2-417. Please preserve the ability of a judgment creditor to request suspension of the driver's license of a person who has failed to pay a judgment arising from a motor vehicle accident. This judgment enforcement tool has existed for more than 35 years and is the most effective tool for collecting damages owed by uninsured drivers. One of my clients is a group self-insurance pool that provides coverage to many local political subdivisions across Virginia, including cities, counties, towns, schools, and public service authorities. I represent this client in subrogation cases. Members of the pool suffer many different types of damage due to the negligence of uninsured drivers --damage to fire hydrants, guardrails, traffic lights, and many other types of infrastructure, and damage to patrol cars, school buses, city buses, etc. After the group self-insurance pool pays the member's claim, it can, through subrogation, pursue the responsible driver for the damages. Having handled such subrogation cases for many years, I can say that the most useful tool in collecting what is owed in such cases is the ability to request suspension of a driver's license. We only request a suspension if a driver fails to set up a reasonable payment plan. If we suspend and the driver later makes an acceptable payment arrangement with us, we will send a letter to the DMV consenting to restoration of the license. It is best to work with drivers to negotiate payment arrangements because we understand that a driver's ability to pay often hinges on being able to drive. BUT, without the ability to suspend a license, it can be much more difficult, if not impossible, to collect the judgment. Again, please preserve this longstanding tool that helps judgment creditors recover for damages caused by negligent, uninsured drivers. Please oppose HB440.

Legislators,Do you acknowledge that the proposed tax on billionaires in California is a failure? Many billionaires have fled due to democrat fiscal chaos..Virginia will be just like California..A debt ridden, crime infested society all due in part to a poorly run state government ..This does not have to be this way..If you do the right thing..

The politicians arrived at the general assembly..The corrupt power and groupthink was and is..We cant ban guns but make so many laws that it would be difficult to own one. Also there mad at Youngkin because of the vetoes last year. This critique is true .The challenge is for one or more of the gun banners to step up and leave the groupthink..And vote against the bills ..Vote with gun owners..Stop discriminating against the gun class..liberal,conservative..Lafave vs Fairfax is at the supreme Court level..it will nullify the bad gun laws..

I demand NO FASCIST GUN CONTROL TYRANNY be passed. NONE. Everything you're contemplating banning is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will be thrown out in court. Stop having temper tantrums because you WON'T get your way. NO ANTI-GUN BILLS

This bill is a step in the right direction, and on the same footing as the bill that was repealed some years ago making being a felon equivalent with being voluntarily unemployed or under-employed. How can a person earn the money if he (mostly 'hes) cannot go to work legally? Garnishment is already a severe enough penalty to make certain parents take care of their obligations.

I urge you as a 2nd Amendment advocate, your constituent and American voter, to vote 'NO' on all these bill, which attack our US Constitution and most of all our Liberty! I thank you Sir

This law will be abused by angry people who only want to harm someone they dont like. Make the penalty for abusing this order by mandatory jail time if found abusing it.

I am in opposition to any and all gun control bills on docket in Virginia. It is my belief that they are unconstitutional, and violate both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Do not vote for these bills

This new found power by the left to limit anything and everything to do with firearms is insane! It's not protecting or helping a single person and the only people it is burdening are law abiding citizens. Why not focus on catching bad guys, enforcing the 100's of current gun laws on the books and leave law abiding citizens alone !!!!!!

Anything that prohibits or restricts our 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court if your bills do so restrict. If your bills prohibited the lawful purchase or possession of any type of firearm or related accessories and or our ability to personally construct and use for lawful purposes a firearm or related accessory it is unconstitutional . If you violate the 5th amendment takings clause you are also sponsoring an unconstitutional bill. You know this and still you act in an unconstitutional manner please cease and desist

The recent passage of HB217 and related gun control measures in the Virginia House, including bans on so-called "assault firearms" and large-capacity magazines, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. These laws, which criminalize the sale, manufacture, and transfer of commonly owned firearms, ignore the Constitution's clear protections and the Founding Fathers' intent. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." James Madison, the amendment's primary drafter, emphasized in Federalist No. 46 that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny, arguing that the federal government would be restrained by "the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith that "what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." The Founders viewed the right to bear arms as essential for self-defense, hunting, and resisting oppression—not limited to outdated muskets, but evolving with technology. Supreme Court precedents affirm this. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and struck down D.C.'s handgun ban. Justice Scalia noted that it safeguards "arms in common use at the time," which today includes semi-automatic rifles like those targeted by HB217. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extended this to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) invalidated restrictive carry laws, requiring gun regulations to align with historical traditions—something Virginia's broad bans fail to do, as they prohibit weapons millions of Americans own without incident. These measures won't reduce crime—criminals ignore laws—but they disarm the innocent. Virginia's Founders, like Patrick Henry, warned against disarming the people: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." Lawmakers should repeal these unconstitutional infringements and uphold our heritage of freedom.

I’m speaking against HB 919 HB 207 HB 1094 HB 217

I strongly oppose these ANTI 2nd amendment bills being passed due to our right to keep and bear arms! If these laws were passed it would violate the 2nd amendment.

Only for work and grocery store. If a person doesn't pay child support, they shouldn't be out for a night on the town. Pay for your kids and not expect to offload responsibilities.

I have been a practicing attorney in Virginia since 1995 and have extensive experience in consumer debt collection. I urge the subcommittee/committee members to vote against HB 444 as currently written. While I appreciate the goal of protecting consumers in the collection process, the proposed adoption of the Uniform Act is an unfortunate attempt to have a one-size-fits-all approach to varying types of consumer debt for which all the requirements do not necessarily make sense or apply. In addition, it conflicts with not only longstanding existing court rules and procedures in Virginia but also is inconsistent with similar consumer protections already in place under the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and related federal regulations such as Regulation F. This is a crucial issue because federal courts have held that attorney debt collectors can be held liable for violating the FDCPA even if the debt collector actions were taken to comply with inconsistent provisions of state law. Here are just a few examples of specific issues: 1) the FCDPA already requires disclosure of initial debt balance in a 30-day "Validation Notice." There is no need to provide similar and in some cases conflicting information later in the collection process that can cause confusion for the consumer. 2) the proposed legislation would require significant additional case-specific information to be included on the Complaint (in addition to generic information to be provided on a separate notice prepared by the state). In GDC practice, there is no space (and not enough space) to include that information on the Warrant in Debt, thus basically converting GDC debt collection to a more formal pleadings practice similar to a Circuit Court Complaint. 3) It would require listing on the Warrant in Debt the consumer's address listed in the creditor's records. However, the address on the Warrant in Debt must be the address for service of process, which can be different from the last known address in the creditor's records (e.g., due to the consumer moving). 4) It would require listing the "outstanding balance" on the Complaint but that term is defined as the debt owed "at the time of default". The Complaint must instead list the current balance being sued for, which is often different from the amount due at default due to, for instance, subsequent creditor-imposed late fees and other collection costs allowed by contract, subsequent consumer payments applied to the debt balance, or subsequent principal debt continuing to accrue atter the initial default (such as monthly HOA/Condo dues that continue to accrue when the consumer remains the lot/unit owner). 5) It would require listing the creditor's account number on the Warrant in Debt but not all creditors use an account number. 6) Several of the generic disclosures that would be required to be included on a separate state-prepared form would not be applicable to all debt collection cases or circumstances, and thus can cause confusion to the consumer and expose the attorney debt collector to potential FDCPA claims. 7) the legislation exempts from applicability debt that is "secured by real or personal property" but there are often some amounts included in the total debt balance that are not secured by the deed of trust or other recorded lien. This exemption should instead read "secured in whole or in part by real or personal property." Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I’m Eshaan Kawlra with the Pew Charitable Trusts, and I’m testifying in support of HB 444. Our research on debt collection lawsuits shows that consumers around the country often don’t understand who is suing them or what they’re being sued for, especially when lawsuits are brought by third-parties (which happens in roughly half of all cases filed in Virginia). HB 444 provides a simple fix to alleviate this confusion, making it more likely that consumers can resolve their cases if they are inaccurate or enter a payment plan they can afford. Further, HB 444 recognizes that most consumers don’t have lawyers, and puts the onus on courts to review plaintiff documentation to ensure filings are sufficient before entering default judgments.

Please see the Uniform Law Commission's attached support letter for HB 444. Thank you for your consideration of the bill.

I am a lawyer who lives in Mechanicsville (Hanover County) and practices in the City of Richmond. My comments to HB444 are constructive, offered only to avoid confusion or correct errors (either as to Virginia law or transcription of the Model Act). I suggest the following edits: Line 66: “before default” should be changed to “the date of default” REASON: This change conforms to the Model Act. Line 78: “charge of” should be changed to “charge off” REASON: typo Line 78: “before default” should be changed to “after default” REASON: This change conforms to the Model Act. Line 81: Add “a copy of” to the end of the line, so that it reads “shall attach to the complaint or amended complaint a copy of” REASON: This avoids the issue of requiring “original” documents in an age when photocopies, scans, and electronic documents are ubiquitous. Line 98: “at least 20 years” should be changed to “at least 10 years” REASON: This change is needed to reflect current Virginia law. Line 124: “at least 20 years” should be changed to “at least 10 years” REASON: This change is needed to reflect current Virginia law. Finally, Lines 59-60 are confusing. These lines require a complaint to state “Each name and address of the consumer in the records of the creditor at the time of charge off…” Does this mean the complaint must state every name variation it has in its file, plus all old addresses? “Record” has an extremely broad definition, so if a creditor pulls a credit report, does that credit report become a record of the creditor, thus requiring the creditor to regurgitate all aliases and married names and all past addresses and potential addresses of the consumer? Much confusion could be avoided by requiring only the full name and last known address of the consumer as reflected in the creditor’s records. Thank you for your consideration.

Comments Document

See attached Memo of Support. This trade association representing over 600 members in the greater credit industry supports HB 444.

🚨BREAKING: Governor Ron DeSantis says he will allow Florida voters to vote to ABOLISH PROPERTY TAXES. Do it EVERYWHERE! "If you own your home, to truly OWN it, you have to own it FREE and CLEAR of the government - you shouldn't have to pay rent to the government!" "We're gonna place a question on the BALLOT that is gonna allow Floridians to vote themselves relief from property tax." "Your personal home, we really believe, should not be subject to tax. It's an unrealized gain." "People say, 'that can't be done.' My question is, why can't it be done? [Broward] County, Florida. 1.9 million people. NO net population growth over the last 5 years, but the budget has increased 60%!" Democrats and Socialists are taxing us to death and destroying our country. Virginia will suffer just like Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, Washington State, Colorado, and California.

The challenge for one legislator is to vote no on the gun bills..Leave the groupthink system of failure..Stop discriminating against the citizens who placed you in office...Northern Virginia has the highest taxes ..Yet the counties are still in debt..due to failed programs such as the ones you support..

My name is Lisa Hotelling and I am affiliated with the registered student organization YIMBY at Mason at George Mason University. This bill is a huge step forward in preventing the voices of the loud, affluent minority from killing off perfectly good projects that will draw in more people, more growth, and more affordable places to live. If we let these complaints fester, we would never have these proven benefits and be stuck in the same cities, towns, and outdated infrastructure until the end of time. Anything that any governing body does always has the chance of creating some sort of negative externalities, however small, and we need governments to be able to build the things the people need (but a tiny handful of people don't want). Support HB447!

My name is Evan Ramee, and I speak on behalf of the GMU Registered Student Organization YIMBY at Mason. Our current system of zoning law is effectively an autocracy. Landowners can use undue influence in the form of lawsuits to delay or kill anything that they dislike. Arlington's Expanding Housing Options development system is a high profile example of this. Democratically elected County Board members unanimously to enact the bill, only for a vocal and affluent minority to undermine it. These lawsuits represent an autocratic rule in a democratic system. Allowing this is unacceptable. All citizens, regardless of wealth or home ownership, deseve an equal influence in shaping their local land use law. End the unjust rule of the pocketbook, and enact HB 447.

Several times in the last few years, we have seen localities work to define their own zoning codes in a more expansive way to allow for more density and diversity of housing types in what used to be restrictive codes. As these have been put in place by elected and administrative officials through prescribed process and seeking to meet the needs of their constituents searching for more affordable and increasingly scarce housing, they have been sued by those who only tangentially have claimed some harm or slight administrative misstep. They often rely on a vague claim of traffic/infrastructure or financial harm, even when studies show these to be largely untrue. This bill provides needed relief to empower local governments to serve the many and not be unnecessarily burdened by the few. These lawsuits spend taxpayer dollars to defend, gum up administrative processes causing development to stall and face rising costs to implement, often resulting in canceled projects and missed opportunities for housing and economic development. This is sensible legislation that provides a clearer definition for judicial officials to work from and allows for localities to meet their growth needs and help us battle the dire housing shortage. I urge your support for this bill.

Legislators,Do you acknowledge that the proposed tax on billionaires in California is a failure? Many billionaires have fled due to democrat fiscal chaos..Virginia will be just like California..A debt ridden, crime infested society all due in part to a poorly run state government ..This does not have to be this way..If you do the right thing..

The politicians arrived at the general assembly..The corrupt power and groupthink was and is..We cant ban guns but make so many laws that it would be difficult to own one. Also there mad at Youngkin because of the vetoes last year. This critique is true .The challenge is for one or more of the gun banners to step up and leave the groupthink..And vote against the bills ..Vote with gun owners..Stop discriminating against the gun class..liberal,conservative..Lafave vs Fairfax is at the supreme Court level..it will nullify the bad gun laws..

I demand NO FASCIST GUN CONTROL TYRANNY be passed. NONE. Everything you're contemplating banning is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will be thrown out in court. Stop having temper tantrums because you WON'T get your way. NO ANTI-GUN BILLS

I urge you as a 2nd Amendment advocate, your constituent and American voter, to vote 'NO' on all these bill, which attack our US Constitution and most of all our Liberty! I thank you Sir

This law will be abused by angry people who only want to harm someone they dont like. Make the penalty for abusing this order by mandatory jail time if found abusing it.

I am in opposition to any and all gun control bills on docket in Virginia. It is my belief that they are unconstitutional, and violate both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Do not vote for these bills

This new found power by the left to limit anything and everything to do with firearms is insane! It's not protecting or helping a single person and the only people it is burdening are law abiding citizens. Why not focus on catching bad guys, enforcing the 100's of current gun laws on the books and leave law abiding citizens alone !!!!!!

Anything that prohibits or restricts our 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court if your bills do so restrict. If your bills prohibited the lawful purchase or possession of any type of firearm or related accessories and or our ability to personally construct and use for lawful purposes a firearm or related accessory it is unconstitutional . If you violate the 5th amendment takings clause you are also sponsoring an unconstitutional bill. You know this and still you act in an unconstitutional manner please cease and desist

The recent passage of HB217 and related gun control measures in the Virginia House, including bans on so-called "assault firearms" and large-capacity magazines, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. These laws, which criminalize the sale, manufacture, and transfer of commonly owned firearms, ignore the Constitution's clear protections and the Founding Fathers' intent. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." James Madison, the amendment's primary drafter, emphasized in Federalist No. 46 that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny, arguing that the federal government would be restrained by "the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith that "what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." The Founders viewed the right to bear arms as essential for self-defense, hunting, and resisting oppression—not limited to outdated muskets, but evolving with technology. Supreme Court precedents affirm this. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and struck down D.C.'s handgun ban. Justice Scalia noted that it safeguards "arms in common use at the time," which today includes semi-automatic rifles like those targeted by HB217. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extended this to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) invalidated restrictive carry laws, requiring gun regulations to align with historical traditions—something Virginia's broad bans fail to do, as they prohibit weapons millions of Americans own without incident. These measures won't reduce crime—criminals ignore laws—but they disarm the innocent. Virginia's Founders, like Patrick Henry, warned against disarming the people: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." Lawmakers should repeal these unconstitutional infringements and uphold our heritage of freedom.

I strongly oppose these ANTI 2nd amendment bills being passed due to our right to keep and bear arms! If these laws were passed it would violate the 2nd amendment.

Speaking on my own behalf and not the Charlottesville Planning Commission, though I would note that I was an individually named defendant in White v Charlottesville et al which successfully overturned the Charlottesville zoning code for a time, creating a tremendous burden on the public and some small anxiety for me personally. I understand Delegate Simon is working on updated language to introduce reasonable standing guidance for locality wide rezonings like we are increasingly seeing. It is best practice to be comprehensive and accurate in regulating land use and the current litigation free for all is a powerful financial and procedural disincentive to properly maintain code to meet changing public needs. There is a necessary bias to avoid the most litigious areas. It is increasingly understood that every zoning action will likely face a lawsuit, which may explain all of the sheds and fence requests we have seen in Charlottesville in recent years. Please do what you can to support the ability of localities to maintain good code. If we cannot maintain good code, we should not have it. Thank you, Lyle Solla-Yates Charlottesville, Virginia

The City of Falls Church supports HB447 to clarify third-party standing in litigation. This is consistent with the City Council's Adopted Legislative Positions.

The challenge for one legislator is to vote no on the gun bills..Leave the groupthink system of failure..Stop discriminating against the citizens who placed you in office...Northern Virginia has the highest taxes ..Yet the counties are still in debt..due to failed programs such as the ones you support..

Legislators,Do you acknowledge that the proposed tax on billionaires in California is a failure? Many billionaires have fled due to democrat fiscal chaos..Virginia will be just like California..A debt ridden, crime infested society all due in part to a poorly run state government ..This does not have to be this way..If you do the right thing..

The politicians arrived at the general assembly..The corrupt power and groupthink was and is..We cant ban guns but make so many laws that it would be difficult to own one. Also there mad at Youngkin because of the vetoes last year. This critique is true .The challenge is for one or more of the gun banners to step up and leave the groupthink..And vote against the bills ..Vote with gun owners..Stop discriminating against the gun class..liberal,conservative..Lafave vs Fairfax is at the supreme Court level..it will nullify the bad gun laws..

I demand NO FASCIST GUN CONTROL TYRANNY be passed. NONE. Everything you're contemplating banning is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and will be thrown out in court. Stop having temper tantrums because you WON'T get your way. NO ANTI-GUN BILLS

I urge you as a 2nd Amendment advocate, your constituent and American voter, to vote 'NO' on all these bill, which attack our US Constitution and most of all our Liberty! I thank you Sir

This law will be abused by angry people who only want to harm someone they dont like. Make the penalty for abusing this order by mandatory jail time if found abusing it.

I am in opposition to any and all gun control bills on docket in Virginia. It is my belief that they are unconstitutional, and violate both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Do not vote for these bills

This new found power by the left to limit anything and everything to do with firearms is insane! It's not protecting or helping a single person and the only people it is burdening are law abiding citizens. Why not focus on catching bad guys, enforcing the 100's of current gun laws on the books and leave law abiding citizens alone !!!!!!

Anything that prohibits or restricts our 2nd amendment rights is unconstitutional and should be challenged in court if your bills do so restrict. If your bills prohibited the lawful purchase or possession of any type of firearm or related accessories and or our ability to personally construct and use for lawful purposes a firearm or related accessory it is unconstitutional . If you violate the 5th amendment takings clause you are also sponsoring an unconstitutional bill. You know this and still you act in an unconstitutional manner please cease and desist

The recent passage of HB217 and related gun control measures in the Virginia House, including bans on so-called "assault firearms" and large-capacity magazines, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians. These laws, which criminalize the sale, manufacture, and transfer of commonly owned firearms, ignore the Constitution's clear protections and the Founding Fathers' intent. The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." James Madison, the amendment's primary drafter, emphasized in Federalist No. 46 that an armed citizenry serves as a bulwark against tyranny, arguing that the federal government would be restrained by "the advantage of being armed which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith that "what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." The Founders viewed the right to bear arms as essential for self-defense, hunting, and resisting oppression—not limited to outdated muskets, but evolving with technology. Supreme Court precedents affirm this. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and struck down D.C.'s handgun ban. Justice Scalia noted that it safeguards "arms in common use at the time," which today includes semi-automatic rifles like those targeted by HB217. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extended this to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Most recently, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) invalidated restrictive carry laws, requiring gun regulations to align with historical traditions—something Virginia's broad bans fail to do, as they prohibit weapons millions of Americans own without incident. These measures won't reduce crime—criminals ignore laws—but they disarm the innocent. Virginia's Founders, like Patrick Henry, warned against disarming the people: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." Lawmakers should repeal these unconstitutional infringements and uphold our heritage of freedom.

I strongly oppose these ANTI 2nd amendment bills being passed due to our right to keep and bear arms! If these laws were passed it would violate the 2nd amendment.

Thank you for allowing me to testify here today in support of HB1401 on behalf of the County. HB1401 proposes a small but important technical change to VA Code on Eminent Domain. A bill passed last year made various amendments to this code, including the requirements for conveying information to property owners in the event of a Certificate of Take; with the intent of ensuring the property owners were fairly and clearly informed of property impacts. The issue is that one of the provisions requires the information to be presented in a “plat, drawing or plan” and following a strict literal interpretation of the law requires a condemnor to provide the information in only one of these document formats. Each format is best suited to convey different property and project information and when putting it into a different document type, makes the information more difficult to understand. This creates instances where following the letter of the law conflicts with the intent of the law. In addition, this adds complications in the recordation of plats because they contain information typically included. HB1401 simply clarifies that the condemnor may provide the information in one or more plat, drawing, or plans, and removes a technical barrier in the process while preserving the intent of the code. Thank you for your consideration.

Please oppose HB 1426. Not allowing General District court judgments to be extended if not paid in 10 years will have several consequences that will hurt low-income consumers, presumably the folks this bill is attempting to protect. Creditors will have no choice but to be much more aggressive in collections rather than working with consumers on payment plans that may stretch beyond 10 years. Creditors will also file many more actions in Circuit Court where they can have more time to collect. Circuit Court fees are more expensive and those costs will be passed to the debtor consumer at judgment. Additionally Circuit Courts are more formal and more difficult for pro se debtor to successfully navigate and defend a claim. Finally, Circuit Court clerks will be overwhelmed as creditors file more and more cases in Circuit court to allow for longer collection period.

As an attorney who formerly clerked in Chesterfield Circuit Court and now represents creditors, I encourage legislators to talk to the circuit court judges and clerks in your district about this bill. Last year the jurisdictional limit for General District Court was raised to $50,000 to reduce the caseload burden on circuit courts. This bill will drive debt collection actions out of General District Court and into Circuit Court, which has never had to deal with these low balance cases before. The jurisdictional minimum in Circuit Court is $4,500 so it would potentially be malpractice to file those clams in a General District Court where liens are no longer available. Tens of thousands of lower balance debts will bog down the Circuit Court which is not structurally set up like a General District Court to administer justice quickly in routine matters. This bill will take resources away from more complex criminal and business cases that the Circuit Court is well equipped to handle, and delay justice for all litigants.

As an Attorney, this bill is going to force much harsher collection action against consumers by cutting the enforcement period in half. Further, this will alter the lending practices of many small businesses who would otherwise lend to subprime customers- the lending will tighten significantly and consumers will receive less access to credit, especially subprime consumers.

This bill is intended to address the problem of stale judgments catching debtors off guard. Other states have satisfactorily addressed the problem by allowing the creditor to renew judgment by.filing a new formal suit. Debtor is served by the sheriff, etc. Attorneys often prefer this remedy rather that being forced to foreclose a lien on a debtor’s house (before the 10 year statute of limitations expires ).

As an attorney, I do not understand this proposal to give a general district court judgment less dignity than a circuit court judgment. This is especially inexplicable to me after the legislature just recently increased the jurisdictional limit for general district court, to encourage more cases to be filed in the general district courts. This bill undermines that effort and will force us to go back to filing cases in the circuit courts, which costs our clients more money in filing and legal fees. This bill is bad for the small businesses I represent as an attorney.

Opposition to HB1426 As a supplement to my prior comments, treating judgments of the general district courts with less dignity than judgments of the circuit courts will drive many more cases to circuit court. The general jurisdictional limit of GDC was not long ago increased to $50,000, allowing more collection actions to be filed in GDC. However, if a judgment in general district court essentially evaporates after 10 years, then many, many more actions will be filed in circuit court instead.

As a lawyer, I oppose this bill because limiting the life of a general district court judgment to 10 years, with no ability to extend it, is unfair to judgment creditors, many of which are small businesses that provided services for which they were not paid. The cumulative effect of statutes that protect more and more debtor assets from the effect of judgments is to make judgments harder to collect, requiring more time to collect them. Last year, for instance, the General Assembly passed the Medical Debt Protection Act, which will prohibit ALL garnishment of medical debt beginning in July. This year, the GA is considering a bill that will protect other debtors from bank garnishments by exempting a large amount in their accounts. Many other exemptions and protections already exist for debtors who, for whatever reason, did not pay their bills. If a creditor has a judgment against a self-employed debtor no longer concerned about wage or bank garnishment, collection options are extremely limited. Due to restrictions on enforcement of liens against real property and, in the case of medical debt, even the placement of liens on personal property, a judgment may not be paid until the debtor voluntarily sells or refinances a home. Limiting the ability of a creditor to extend the judgment beyond 10 years eliminates even that slim chance of recovery and further reduces the value of judgments. A big difference exists between legislation that protects debtors against unfair credit practices, unfair trade practices, misleading debt collectors, etc. and legislation that amounts to little more than helping debtors evade their creditors and just debts. Judgment creditors often are NOT big lenders and debt buyers but instead are your constituent business owners who provide services to other of your constituents.