House of Delegates Speak

Public Comments for 02/09/2026 Courts of Justice - Civil

HB440 - Driver's licenses; repeals suspension for nonpayment of child support and unsatisfied judgements.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

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

Last Name: Achin Locality: Prince William

This bill is a step in the right direction, and on the same footing as the bill that was repealed some years ago making being a felon equivalent with being voluntarily unemployed or under-employed.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.

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

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.

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

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 !!!!!!

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

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

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

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.

Last Name: Pearson Locality: Prince William, Woodbridge

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

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

Last Name: Nicholls Locality: Chesapeake

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.

HB447 - Local government or board of zoning appeals land use decisions; third-party standing requirements.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

Last Name: Solla-Yates Locality: Charlottesville, VA

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

Last Name: Mester Organization: City of Falls Church Locality: Falls Church

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.

HB593 - Summons for unlawful detainer; legal resources, plain-language overview of process.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: West Organization: United Way of the Virginia Peninsula Locality: James City County

Providing information to both tenants and landlords at the time an unlawful detainer is delivered will have multiple positive outcomes: 1. Landlords will be informed of their rights, responsibilities and available resources to cover the delinquent rent they're owed. 2. Tenants will have a better likelihood of being present and securing any needed representation at the time of the hearing. 3. Landlords and tenants can work more proactively to address the delinquency and potentially eliminate the need for court appearance, and ultimately ease the burden on the already strained justice system. Legislators, law enforcement, and so many others are working to address housing needs in the Commonwealth. This simple, cost-effective step would provide yet another way that Virginia is setting the standard in reducing evictions and addressing homelessness. Children are the highest evicted age group and the largest age group experiencing homelessness. When our parents have every opportunity to maintain housing for their children, we have a better chance of achieving the health, education, and workforce outcomes we are all working towards.

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

Last Name: Phillips Locality: Hampton

I frequently interact with people who are defending against unlawful detainer proceedings. These people, operating under great stress, are often confused by the postings provided to them and are unaware of basic procedural rights provided by Virginia law. In many cases, they benefit greatly from access to legal resources if and when provided. Moreover, when they attempt to defend themselves without legal counsel or other resources, they often do so in a way that confuses (and therefore increases costs for) everyone, including the courts. In my opinion, this proposed addition to § 8.01-126 is a long-overdue improvement. I hope its passage is the first step in a longer process toward a fair system of landlord-tenant law in our Commonwealth.

Last Name: Joseph Organization: United Way of the Virginia Peninsula Locality: Newport News

Allowing clear, plain-language information to accompany an unlawful detainer would significantly expand access to justice for tenants in a way that does not currently exist. Legal jargon and procedural complexity are difficult to navigate under the best of circumstances; when compounded by housing instability and the emotional stress of potential displacement, the burden becomes overwhelming. Providing explanatory resources at the outset ensures that tenants, particularly those appearing in court without legal representation, are equipped with the foundational knowledge necessary to meaningfully participate in their cases. This enables tenants to appear in court informed, prepared, and capable of self-advocacy, a standard of fairness that should be afforded to all individuals navigating the justice system. This legislation offers clear benefits across the system. Courts will operate more efficiently when defendants arrive better prepared, reducing the need for judges to repeatedly explain basic procedures and tenant rights during individual hearings. Property owners and landlords also benefit when tenants have access to accurate information, as informed individuals are better positioned to make timely decisions, engage in productive communication, and develop realistic plans to address arrears. For these reasons, this proposal represents a practical, equitable, and impactful improvement to the eviction process.

Last Name: Niski Organization: Hosuing Development Corporation of Hampton Roads Locality: Newport News

I wholeheartedly support keeping tenants and landlords informed of their rights, responsibilities, and resources ahead of a scheduled court appearance which can ease the burden and stress for all parties and the strain on the legal system.

HB733 - Owner of a servient estate; reasonable rules of use for easement.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB901 - Substantial risk orders; eligible petitioners, court jurisdiction, constr. possession of firearms.

Last Name: terrell Locality: pittsylvania

This bill erodes due process and violate the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Virginians

Last Name: Estes Locality: Mecklenburg

HB901 is yet another example of the left continuing their slow erosion of rights to form a tighter grasp of totalitarian control over the people of VA. The existence of the red flag law to begin with is a complete and utter violation of the our Federal constitutions 4th amendment. Expanding this despicable decree, is an obvious power grab and fear tactic. People have been unjustly murdered by police during red flag raids, as they no idea whats happening or that they were ever implicated by law enforcement - so they react how any law abiding gun owner might when they hear their door being crashed in - they arrive with their legally owned firearm drawn, often times in this case, to their untimely death. You people have zero regard for the rights of human beings in actual reality, its just a grandstand. You don't seek to solve problems, just place a pin on your lapel, like a blue check mark, so that you can flaunt it for your next election. Red flag laws violate the rights of law abiding citizens to have a fair trail or even to have official charges made to them. Instead, any random Karen can simply call in a red flag on their neighbor because they don't like his political sign and claim he is a threat to the neighborhood.

Last Name: Smith Locality: Leesburg

We OPPOSE HB 901, a Red Flag law which unreasonably restricts the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians, denies due process and violates our principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Last Name: Wilson Locality: Midlothian

I am writing in strong opposition to HB901, which significantly expands Virginia’s “substantial risk order” (red flag) framework in ways that erode constitutional protections, undermine due process, and place law-abiding citizens at risk of having fundamental rights suspended without adequate safeguards. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, §13 of the Virginia Constitution recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental civil liberty. HB901 treats this right as a privilege that may be revoked based on speculative assessments and broad discretionary standards rather than clear, objective, and proven wrongdoing. This bill dramatically expands the list of individuals who may petition the court, increasing the likelihood of petitions motivated by misunderstanding, personal conflict, or retaliation rather than genuine, imminent danger. While HB901 includes penalties for false statements, those penalties occur after a citizen’s rights have already been stripped, firearms seized, and reputations damaged—harm that cannot be undone. HB901 further lowers the threshold for state action by requiring judges and magistrates to consider an open-ended list of subjective “risk factors.” This invites inconsistent application and encourages reliance on conjecture instead of concrete evidence. Fundamental rights should never hinge on vague standards or predictive judgments about future behavior. Expanding jurisdiction to juvenile and domestic relations district courts and general district courts raises serious concerns about uniformity, expertise, and procedural rigor. These courts already handle emotionally charged and complex matters, and adding firearm deprivation orders risks rushed decisions with life-altering consequences. The inclusion of minors in this framework is particularly troubling, as it extends punitive, rights-restricting measures into family and juvenile matters where counseling, parental involvement, and support services are more appropriate and effective. HB901 also broadens the concept of “constructive possession,” exposing lawful gun owners to penalties or confiscation based on proximity rather than ownership or misuse. This creates legal uncertainty for families, roommates, and households where firearms are lawfully owned and responsibly stored. Most importantly, there is little evidence that such expansions meaningfully prevent violence. Criminals intent on harm do not comply with court orders, while law-abiding Virginians are left navigating complex legal processes to reclaim rights that should never have been removed absent criminal conviction. Public safety and constitutional rights are not mutually exclusive. Virginia should invest in mental health resources, crisis intervention, and enforcement of existing criminal laws—without sacrificing due process or fundamental liberties. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB901 and stand firm in defense of the constitutional rights of responsible Virginians.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Huber Locality: Newport News

I urge you to oppose HB 901 (Sullivan), which would expand the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged .The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. Thank you for your time!

Last Name: Matassa Locality: Chesterfield

I am against this bill.

Last Name: Flowers Locality: Luray

This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Bethune Locality: Strasburg

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, I respectfully ask you to oppose HB 901. Virginia’s current substantial risk order process is already an extraordinary remedy because it can temporarily strip a person of a constitutional right before any criminal conviction. HB 901 makes that process broader and easier to trigger in ways that increase the risk of mistakes and abuse—especially in emotionally charged disputes—while doing little to address violent offenders who ignore court orders. First, HB 901 dramatically expands who can file a petition for an ex parte emergency substantial risk order, adding a wide range of non–law-enforcement petitioners (including various mental health professionals, certain medical providers, “immediate family or household members,” “intimate partners,” and school administrators/designees). This expansion increases the chance of petitions being filed based on incomplete information, misunderstandings, or personal conflict—yet the consequences are immediate and severe. Second, HB 901 removes an important safeguard by striking language that required an independent law-enforcement investigation to determine grounds before a petition could be filed. Removing that neutral check invites “order first, verify later,” which is the wrong direction for a process that results in firearm prohibitions and government database entries. Third, HB 901 expands the forums for these orders, allowing issuance by general district court and juvenile & domestic relations district court judges (and not just circuit court), increasing the number of venues where these ex parte determinations can occur. More venues and more petitioners, combined with fewer safeguards, means more orders—without evidence that this will reduce crime. If the goal is preventing violence, we should focus on enforcing existing laws, addressing repeat violent offenders, and ensuring robust mental-health and crisis-response pathways—without weakening due process for lawful Virginians. For these reasons, I urge you not to advance HB 901.

Last Name: Jenkins Locality: Tazewell County

HB901 is making a bad law worse. Red flag laws are a blatant attack on Constitutional rights. They essentially make lawful gun owners guilty until proven innocent. Good people have already died because someone with a grudge made a false report, police show up unannounced, at all hours and attempt to take someone’s firearms. This won’t end well for either party. Laws like this are nothing short of tyrannical. Those of you trying to pass these laws should be ashamed of yourselves. You have no place in public service.

Last Name: Eller Locality: Gloucester

Please reject this bill as I believe it removes trust between Doctor and Patient .I find this singles out gun owners unfairly. I also think that the this bill is too open to abuse from some one who may hold a grudge .This will only serve to waste police time and tie up courts unnecessarily

Last Name: Flowers Organization: Self Locality: Luray, Virginia

I urge you to consider withdrawing this well-intended, but dangerously written bill. HB901 expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Foster Locality: BRIDGEWATER

I strongly urge you to vote against HB 901. The infringement of the Second Amendment and due process are fundamental overreach and must Not be Law.

Last Name: Mary LeBlanc Locality: Hardy

I feel this is a further restriction to my second amendment rights and I oppose strongly!

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Roanoke

As a tax payer, voter, and law abiding citizen of this Commonwealth, I request you vote now on HB901.

Last Name: horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Ross Locality: King George

This is one of the top five unconstitutional offenses needed to be heard by the Supreme Court, who based on their ruling in Rahimi, will certainly rule against these laws. Numerous organizations are ready to file against this bill should it become law. Democrat politicians want to rage against illegal aliens not getting due process but then remove due process from actual citizens. The level of hypocrisy and inconsistency here is part of why the left cannot win in fair elections. Fortunately, they cannot win in court either.

Last Name: Sizemore Locality: Isle of Wight

Last Name: Moog Locality: RHOADESVILLE

If someone is too dangerous to have firearms they should be not in public - makes no sense to leave the person free and lock up the guns. The Red Flag law should be repealed in total.

Last Name: Hobert Locality: York County

HB 901 substitutes prediction for proof and prevention for procedure, placing the legislation in substantial constitutional doubt under the U.S. Constitution, recent Supreme Court precedent, and the Virginia Constitution. HB 901will disproportionately affect minorities communities to their disadvantage. Because HB 901 relies on discretionary, predictive risk assessments rather than adjudicated wrongdoing, it carries a meaningful risk of uneven enforcement – an outcome that American legal history shows falling disproportionately on minority communities even when a law is facially neutral. This potential for disparate real-world impact further underscores the need for the strongest constitutional safeguards, clear procedural protections, and transparent oversight before the Commonwealth authorizes deprivation of a fundamental right. Second Amendment conflict: The bill permits temporary firearm bans based on predicted future risk rather than proven wrongdoing, contrary to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun restrictions to reflect the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. No clear Founding-era analogue exists for civil, preventive disarmament without conviction. Fourth Amendment concerns: Risk-based firearm surrender and law-enforcement database entry may function as searches or seizures without traditional warrant safeguards tied to criminal conduct, creating tension with Miller v. United States. Due process deficiencies: Emergency orders issued without prior notice or an adversarial hearing risk violating procedural protections recognized in Mathews v. Eldridge by depriving individuals of a fundamental right before a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Virginia constitutional tension: These same features conflict with Virginia’s guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms and due process of law.

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: DeGennaro Locality: Fairfax

Dear Representatives, Please appose HB901. Such intervention mechanisms are already in place and this will discourage people from seeking mental health as may be legitimately needed. Scencerly, Sal DeGennaro

Last Name: Mahoney Organization: Self Locality: Churchville

Last Name: Vayda Locality: Spotsylvania

I oppose this bill

Last Name: Bingler Locality: Rockbridge

This bill does nothing but further the notion that owning a gun in Virginia is enough of a “risk factor” to permit government overreach and allow for a consistent set of laws to ban commonly used firearms to become reality. A vast majority of Virginians oppose this and interests do not align with any infringing upon the Second Amendment.

Last Name: Scarry Locality: Virginia Beach

Last Name: Geller Locality: Dumfries

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: Welborn Locality: Alexandria

HB 901 is incredibly dangerous, opening the door to strip lawful gun owners of their 2a rights and their ability to defend themselves without due process. By expanding the list of allowed petitioners, individuals can weaponize this to disarm people they have a grudge against. A brother upset at a verbal outburst by their sister, can petition to disarm their sister, with nothing more than allegations of threats and a Facebook post of a new range gun. A disgruntled family member can petition to disarm their blind brother, with allegations and little evidence, preventing the blind gun owner from effectively defending themselves, a constitutionally protected right for all, including marginalized groups like the blind. This is akin to a professor at school petitioning for stripping someone's right to vote because they dont like who theyd vote for and recently registered to vote. This drastically erodes protections for 2a rights by lawful gun owners without due process. Please vote no on this bill.

Last Name: Virts Locality: Lovettsville

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed bill expanding Virginia’s Red Flag law. While I understand the intent to prevent harm, this bill dramatically broadens the categories of individuals who can petition for a Red Flag order—including counselors, medical professionals, intimate partners, and household members. This expansion raises serious concerns about privacy, due process, and the potential for misuse. Allowing such a wide range of petitioners increases the likelihood that the law will be used vindictively or based on subjective impressions rather than credible evidence. The inclusion of “recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition” as possible justification is especially troubling. Exercising a constitutional right should never be treated as evidence of dangerousness. Additionally, this bill risks discouraging people from seeking medical or mental‑health support. If individuals fear that what they share with a counselor or healthcare provider could be used against them in a legal proceeding, they may avoid seeking help altogether. That outcome would undermine public safety, not enhance it. Red Flag laws already carry significant implications for civil liberties. Any expansion must be approached with extreme caution, clear standards of evidence, and strong protections against abuse. This bill does not meet that standard. I urge you to oppose this legislation and instead support measures that protect both public safety and the constitutional rights of law‑abiding Virginians.

Last Name: Hoffman Locality: Woodstock

This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing yet more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals, and the simple act of acquiring a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be reported. This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him - I know I will never mention it if I need counseling. The expanded list of petitioners will simply increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. Why stop there? Let's include neighbors, co-workers and casual acquaintances, and institute a Soviet-style level of secret reporting!

Last Name: Fuller Locality: Chesapeake

I highly object to this bill on the grounds that not only does it create a grevious violation of the 4th amendment (as well as the 2nd Amendment) but it doubles down on these violations by making it easy for people with no police powers or investigation authority whaysoever to wantonly "at will" subject an innocent person to loss or deprivation of rights under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242) which is a federal crime.

Last Name: Markham Locality: Roanoke County

I support the idea of this bill, however I can imagine that it could be abused. Consider the hypothetical case of an abusive partner who uses this to disarm their partner/victim either as a form of harassment in and of itself or in order to make them more vulnerable to assault.

Last Name: guest Locality: Jetersville

I oppose all of these gun bills

Last Name: Meiners Locality: Burke, VA

If you would like to pursue this line of infringement on 2nd amendment, please take the proper course of action. The only legal way to enact and enforce these proposed infringements on the 2nd amendment is to draft and ratify a constitutional amendment to abolish the 2nd amendment. If you are able to accomplish this and it is ratified, I will of course support the voice of America. Then you may re-introduce the subject legislation and you have my full support with the backing of the amended Constitution. "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" DEFINITION OF INFRINGE: "to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)" I will not believe the VA constituency elected officials that do not understand English. No matter how you want to reconcile your actions in your "political mind," you know in your "right mind" that you are indeed wrongly restricting the RIGHT granted to US Citizens by the Constitution.

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Lathrop Organization: Self Locality: Loudoun

VA HB 901 violates both federal and Virginia constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms and fails to satisfy basic due-process requirements. The bill infringes the Second Amendment and Article I, §13 of the Virginia Constitution by imposing broad restrictions on firearm possession by individuals who have not been convicted of a disqualifying offense and who are otherwise law-abiding. Under District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, such core conduct is constitutionally protected and cannot be burdened without a compelling justification and narrow tailoring, which HB 901 lacks. Additionally, HB 901 violates due process by authorizing deprivation of fundamental rights without adequate procedural safeguards. The bill permits restrictions based on vague or predictive standards rather than proven wrongdoing, risks arbitrary enforcement, and fails to provide sufficient notice, meaningful opportunity to be heard, or clear evidentiary thresholds. Because it infringes a fundamental right while denying robust procedural protections, HB 901 is unconstitutional under both the Fourteenth Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.

Last Name: Swatman Locality: Winchester, VA

Please vote no on this bill. This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information that they share won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners including medical personnel, people with n the house hold, counselors, and partners with whom they are intimate will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. Furthermore this bill will includes the lawfull acquisition of a firearm or ammunition as possible evidence to invoke a red flag, however there is no causal connection!

Last Name: Cary Locality: Williamsburg

Why are you expanding this list? Where is Due Process recognized? What penalty do you include for people making false reports as a form of "swatting?"

Last Name: Carter II Organization: The church of Latter Day Saints Locality: Woodbridge

It’s unconstitutional and a huge insult to law abiding citizens that already are dealing with the difficulties cost living which is only getting worst but putting the citizens in more danger plus stress because constant attacks on our civil rights and the constitution. The right to bear arms is not a privilege its a necessity to any living being protect they and others life from unexpected danger.

Last Name: dunwoodie Locality: Fairfax

his bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Blue Locality: Fairfax County

This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition to be Red Flagged. This is an infringement of due process guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. I am therefore registering my opposition to HB901.

Last Name: Bacon Locality: Fairfax

Last Name: Heyse Organization: Myself, Women for Gun Rights, and VCDL Locality: James City County

I oppose this bill. This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Home Locality: Fairfax

Last Name: Dolpp Locality: Axton

By expanding this Red Flag Law to include all medical professionals, school administrators and their designees, family members and even previous intimate partners, you are creating a substantial risk of false accusations and fear of talking to any medical professional. The risk to falsely accuse someone is only a misdemeanor so think about how many times this might be used in a custody battle between divorcing parents to attempt to win custody over their children. Think about teens that disagree with their parents not letting them take the car or go to an event can suddenly turn their parents in for a made up story. There are endless possibilities of this bill being abused. If purchasing a firearm or ammunition is considered a "sign" that someone is at risk, then everyone who follows the 2nd Amendment is at risk. Please vote no. A better idea for the people this bill wants to help is to create more opportunities for mental health across our state.

Last Name: Usener Locality: Stafford

I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Gun Owners of America. This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Somero Locality: Virginia Beach

Bill expands Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Nash Locality: Mechanicsville

Last Name: Bennett Locality: Virginia Beach

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Stone Organization: Gun Owners of America Locality: Fairfax County

HB 901 significantly expands Virginia’s existing substantial risk order framework and further erodes the Second Amendment and due process rights of law abiding citizens. While presented as a procedural adjustment, this bill materially broadens who may initiate firearm prohibitions, lowers practical barriers to ex parte disarmament, and treats lawful firearm ownership itself as evidence of dangerousness. The bill dramatically expands the list of eligible petitioners who may seek an emergency substantial risk order. In addition to law enforcement and prosecutors, petitions may now be filed by family members, intimate partners, school administrators, mental health professionals, and various designees of government agencies. This expansion invites abuse, personal disputes, and politically motivated filings while allowing firearm prohibitions to be imposed without any criminal charge or conviction. HB 901 also broadens the factors a court may consider when issuing an emergency order. Lawful conduct, including recent acquisition or attempted acquisition of firearms or ammunition, may now be cited as evidence of risk. Treating constitutionally protected behavior as a risk factor reverses the presumption of innocence and converts lawful gun ownership into grounds for government intervention. The bill continues to authorize ex parte emergency orders issued without the respondent present, allowing firearm prohibitions to be imposed before due process. Firearms may be seized or surrendered before any adversarial hearing occurs, and the respondent must then affirmatively defend their rights at a later hearing. This structure places the burden on citizens to reclaim constitutional rights that were stripped without prior due process. HB 901 further allows substantial risk orders to be repeatedly extended in 180 day increments with no statutory limit on the number of extensions. This creates the potential for indefinite firearm prohibitions absent a criminal conviction, effectively transforming a temporary civil order into a long term deprivation of constitutional rights. The bill also expands government tracking and data entry by requiring immediate entry of identifying information into statewide law enforcement databases and broadening constructive possession standards. Firearms owned by third parties may be restricted based on proximity or household relationships, placing innocent co owners at risk of losing access to their lawfully owned property. HB 901 weakens due process, expands government discretion, and normalizes preventive disarmament without conviction. It treats the exercise of a fundamental right as a risk factor rather than a protected liberty. For these reasons, HB 901 represents an unjustified expansion of Virginia’s red flag law and should be rejected.

Last Name: Howard Locality: Fredericksburg

HB 901 This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. OPPOSE.

Last Name: Richards Organization: Richards American Defense Company Locality: Williamsburg

OMG LOL I can instantly ban all firearms with this on day one Trump will be pissed lololololol! 901 Enables Instant State Firearm Ban via mutually assured total lawfare. Wow! Maladministrative Results :! w/e maybe some police will enforce this in nova ? Yall do not understand how substantial risk works, I am willing to give a private bespoke lecture on to actually address this problem in an even more old fashioned and prooven way. OK thanks, See you in the future! https://eportal.nspa.nato.int/Codification/CageTool/cage-view/9MY38 https://x.com/devwar https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/huAC887E https://archive.org/details/virus_202601 National Rifle Association #270310451 American Mathematical Society #RCDVRA Virginia Citizens Defense League #76558 rawdod@gmail.com 804-251-0037 3229 Derby Lane Williamsburg Virginia 23185 https://www.facebook.com/devwarops https://github.com/oneman https://www.youtube.com/@devwarops

Last Name: Scott Locality: Fairfax County

Last Name: TORRES Locality: CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

House Bill 901 aims to expand Virginia’s existing “substantial risk order” or **Red Flag law** by broadening who can petition a court to temporarily remove someone’s firearms and by adding new considerations for judges in issuing orders. The bill would allow a wider range of petitioners — including additional medical professionals, family members, and household contacts — to seek emergency orders that suspend an individual’s Second Amendment rights and trigger the seizure of their firearms, all without any criminal conviction. While the bill’s supporters frame these changes as “common-sense” violence prevention, there are serious constitutional and practical concerns with expanding this law. Most fundamentally, Red Flag orders allow government and private parties to petition a judge to strip a citizen of core civil liberties — specifically the right to keep and bear arms — without that person ever having been charged with a crime or afforded traditional due process protections. Critics of red flag laws argue that issuing orders based on allegations of future behavior undermines the foundational legal principle that rights cannot be taken without proof of actual wrongdoing and a fair hearing. Under current practice and as proposed in HB 901, these orders can be issued after ex parte hearings where the affected individual has no notice or ability to present evidence before the order is entered. Due process advocates contend that such procedures risk wrongful deprivation of rights on the basis of weak, subjective, or incomplete information — especially when the expanded petitioners may include individuals with personal biases or grudges. Expanding the pool of petitioners to include more professionals and relatives increases the likelihood of abuse or false claims, as opponents point out. Without rigorous procedural safeguards, this can result in the state unjustly disarming law-abiding citizens who have not committed crimes and who may have no imminent threat of violence. This concern is not merely theoretical. Opponents of similar laws have documented instances where individuals were subjected to orders without clear evidence they posed genuine danger, or where the law was perceived as being applied unevenly or without sufficient due process. Furthermore, there are serious constitutional questions about whether empowering courts to take guns based on predicted future behavior without heightened standards of proof violates the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure, and Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process guarantees. Rather than broadly expanding this law, policymakers should focus on strengthening procedural protections for individuals subject to risk orders — including higher evidentiary standards, guaranteed legal representation, and rapid post-issuance hearings — and invest in proven strategies, such as robust mental health services, crisis intervention teams, and enforcement of existing criminal laws, to address genuine threats to public safety. HB 901’s expansion of Red Flag criteria and petitioners risks eroding constitutional rights, invites misuse, and sets a troubling precedent for deprivation of fundamental liberties before due process has occurred. For these reasons, opposition to broadening Virginia’s Red Flag authority under this bill is justified.

Last Name: Edgar Organization: John Douglas Edgar Locality: Stafford

I STRONGLY OPPOSE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL AS YET ANOTHER INFRINGEMENT ON CITIZEN'S 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!!! This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Bradley Locality: Alexandria

Good afternoon, Thank you for your service to the state and to your constituents. This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be flagged. These expanded types include counselors, medical professionals, immediate family, household members, and intimate partners. It would allow a recent lawful purchase of a firearm or ammunition to be considered evidence that someone might need to be flagged. This bill will discourage people who care about their Constitutional rights from getting medical or counseling help, as they may fear they cannot trust counselors and medical professionals to not share information that they disclose in their meetings. This expanded list will also allow for abuse by scorned intimate partners, estranged family members, roommates, and others. This bill is not data-driven and is being introduced based on vibes or a feeling that it will help reduce gun violence, when in reality it opens the doors to abuse and wrongful termination of peoples' rights. I recently ordered some ammunition to go to the range with. I go through at least 150 rounds of ammunition each time I go to the range so I buy in quantities of several hundred or even upwards of one thousand because it is more cost effective. Anyone who knows anything about guns would know that a big box full of bullets is a totally normal and safe thing to purchase and handle. It's like a big Costco pack of toilet paper. You're not stocking up for some epic battle in the bathroom, it's simply convenient and effective. When it was delivered, it was given to one of my roommates and was not in discrete packaging. I got questioned by some of my roommates because of their ignorance on how bullets work. They were fearful that the package was dangerous and they inquired about my need for so much ammunition. Luckily, I was able to educate them and quell any fears they may have had. But they could have reported me for doing something totally legal, common, and safe and my constitutional rights (both US and Virginia constitutional rights, by the way) could have been jeopardized for no reason. Expanding an already dangerous and unfair law is not what Virginia needs right now. Many people who were previously anti-gun are arming themselves in the face of a federal government that has demonstrated that they will murder you in the street for speaking against them. Laws like this would allow for ICE and other Trump sycophants to abuse the law to report those that are exercising their rights to defend themselves and the freedom of their state and nation. I urge you to not pass this bill. Thank you, Jacob Bradley Alexandria, VA

Last Name: Revilla Locality: Culpeper

This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him or her! The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. Where is the Due Process in this bill??

Last Name: Adam Frederick Gifford Locality: Pulaski

Please consider the negative implications of which this bill might be used maliciously against nonviolent, law-abiding gun owners.

Last Name: Rodriguez Locality: Fredericksburg

Oppose HB 901. Laws already exist to flag people who are LEGITIMATE threats to others and our community. This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Wan Locality: Vienna

While this bill may have good intentions it will only discourage people from seeking the help they need. Especially those at risk of inflicting mass violence upon others. Draft a bill that gets people the help they need, not ones that only make them become their only confidant. That’s the most dangerous thing we can do to them.

Last Name: James Locality: Powhatan

I urge you to oppose this bill. Red Flag laws have too much potential to be used incorrectly by idealogical politicians and angry citizens.

Last Name: Hobert Locality: Williamsburg

HB 901 substitutes prediction for proof and prevention for procedure, placing the legislation in substantial constitutional doubt under the U.S. Constitution, recent Supreme Court precedent, and the Virginia Constitution. HB 901 will disproportionately affect minorities communities to their disadvantage. Because HB 901 relies on discretionary, predictive risk assessments rather than adjudicated wrongdoing, it carries a meaningful risk of uneven enforcement – an outcome that American legal history shows falling disproportionately on minority communities even when a law is facially neutral. This potential for disparate real-world impact further underscores the need for the strongest constitutional safeguards, clear procedural protections, and transparent oversight before the Commonwealth authorizes deprivation of a fundamental right. Second Amendment conflict: The bill permits temporary firearm bans based on predicted future risk rather than proven wrongdoing, contrary to New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires modern gun restrictions to reflect the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. No clear Founding-era analogue exists for civil, preventive disarmament without conviction. Fourth Amendment concerns: Risk-based firearm surrender and law-enforcement database entry may function as searches or seizures without traditional warrant safeguards tied to criminal conduct, creating tension with Miller v. United States. Due process deficiencies: Emergency orders issued without prior notice or an adversarial hearing risk violating procedural protections recognized in Mathews v. Eldridge by depriving individuals of a fundamental right before a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Virginia constitutional tension: These same features conflict with Virginia’s guarantees of the right to keep and bear arms and due process of law.

Last Name: O'Neill Locality: Loudoun

Red Flag laws are arbitrary at best, sinister at worst. Pitting neighbor against neighbor, family against family, and so on is akin to calling everyone a nazi. If everyone is, no one is. Red Flag laws and the expansion of them is not the answer to keeping the Commonwealth and its citizens safe, quite the commonsense opposite. For example, the neighbor holding a grudge of some kind or another and initiates a revenge Red Flag against that particular neighbor just may be the same person who needs his neighbor's help in a time of crisis. This great State that was so instrumental in fighting for and achieving Independence from the world's greatest oppressor is now at a crossroads from within. I urge you to look deep within your heritage and defeat this bill as a violation of our ancestors' legacy.

Last Name: Scott Locality: Prince William

Red flag laws are simply dangerous. In today’s social climate, people are too quick to hate and very often for no reason at all. Putting someone in danger or accused of something they haven’t done simply does not pass any common sense test. Stop the feel-good legislation agenda and do something for people with real problems that cause harm to others.

Last Name: Sauers Locality: Haymarket

I oppose this bill. This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Machen Organization: VCDL member Locality: Mathews County

I urge you to reject HB901! Expansion of the Red Flag law by allowing various counselors, medical professionals, immediate family and household members, as well as intimate partners to petition for someone to be Red Flagged is unacceptable! Law abiding Virginians in the United States of America should be able to purchase firearms and ammunition or visit a counselor or medical health professional without being targeted. This has the potential to be abused by an overzealous person who doesn't understand our Constitutional rights under the second amendment or someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Henao Locality: Alexandria

As a citizen that was born and raised in Virginia, I completely oppose HB901. This bill would discourage people from getting the medical/ counseling help as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him.

Last Name: Mckee Locality: Lynch station

This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. Red flag laws already are unconstitutional. If someone cant legally own a gun then they shouldn't have one. However, if they legally can they should be allowed to. If they are a threat to someone else, and thats proven, then they should be arrested or institutionalized. However removing someone's rights without a court order or a hearing where someone can prove their innocence is unjustified.

Last Name: Whitaker Locality: Fairfax

Last Name: Roberts Locality: Glen Allen

I urge you to oppose passage of Virginia HB 901. This expansion of "Red Flag" laws to a broader group of petitioners may violate the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by infringing on individual rights, authorizing unreasonable searches, and lacking due process, citing Supreme Court rulings such as Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. The bill's standards for seizing firearms meet the historical tradition test or the credible threat standard established by the Court.

Last Name: Rinaldi Locality: Buckingham

I STRONGLY oppose HB901. It discourages mental health treatment and is a danger to citizens of the commonwealth.

Last Name: Wyatt Locality: Chilhowie

Red flag laws are blatantly unconstitutional. They do not provide a due process for the government taking of any property. Also, history supports that when a government takes property it never returns it or it doesn't return it in the condition that it was taken in. There are already two systems in which people can be separated from their firearms without the government seizing them. The first of which is the ECO and TDO system. Just a brief explanation, this is a person is detained for a small amount of time to be evaluated for their mental health. The second system is the protective order system which goes in front of a judge. Obviously many people are more familiar with that. If an individual is to the point where they need a red flag law and acted on them, then they should also meet the criteria for at least one of these two. Another law is not needed. Also the government putting hands on anyone's firearms is a recipe for disaster.

Last Name: Howe Locality: Bedford

I am appalled at this legislature's assault on EVERY Virginia CITIZEN'S 2nd amendment rights. None of the laws this assembly is attempting to pass benefit the people of Virginia. NONE of these proposed laws protect law abiding CITIZENS or prevent criminals from inflicting harm. In fact, many will simply turn these same law abiding CITIZENS into criminals overnight if passed. You people here in OUR government are supposed to be representatives for us, but it's becoming ever more clear, that you are simply fulfilling a party AGENDA that has nothing to do with improving OUR state or safeguarding OUR rights. I urge you to reconsider thee harm you are bringing to Virginia RESIDENTS with your radical agendas. Our state is filled with millions of lawful gun owners that have NEVER broken any laws, but will be considered criminals simply because you refuse to protect our rights and instead attack them.

Last Name: blackley Organization: VCDL Locality: MONTPELIER

AGAINST

Last Name: Sheaffer Locality: Virginia Beach

HB901 expands upon already unconstitutional red flag laws or extreme risk protection orders (ERPO). Specifically this violates the stipulations written in the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments which protects against unlawful searches and seizures, due process for those searches and seizures, and the right to face your accuser. ERPO’s and any expansion thereof must be immediately retracted for the good of a free and democratic society. A society in which it is permitted for the common citizen to revoke another’s constitutionally protected right with no evidence, no obligation to justify their reasons or motives, and no obligation to face the accused is a no-trust based society.

Last Name: Bidwell Locality: Rockbridge County Virginia

I formerly lived in a state that passed one of these "expanded" Red Flag bills. Here is what happened. Individuals who had only a passing acquaintance with the subject of the Red Flag were empowered to trigger one, often for ideological or revenge purposes. Citizens were then dragged through a process where they discovered they had few rights, little transparency to court procedures. And though ultimately vindicated went to considerable legal expense and personal time to eventually regain their rights. Additionally they had no legal recourse against the individuals that prompted the abuse of their Second Amendment rights. Do not make the same mistake in Virginia.

Last Name: Byfield Organization: Knights Branch Farm LLC Locality: West Point

'Red Flag Laws' do nothing except disarm law abiding citizens. They are unconstitutional as applied and as proven, used erroneously for revenge/hatred. If they were really there to help a troubled individual, that person would be given the mental help they need. Kicking in someone's door at 5AM and removing their firearms does nothing to help them. If they wish to harm themself or others they can use knives, hammers, gasoline, vehicles ..... They need help, not their Rights removed. I oppose this bill.

Last Name: Houser Locality: Reston

Strengthening red flag laws will inevitably deter the people most in need of mental health support from seeking that support, for fear of losing their rights. It is therefore likely that red flag laws and the "enhancement" thereof is likely to have the opposite of their intended effect.

Last Name: Cone Locality: King William

This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Weber Organization: National Rifle Association Locality: Fairfax

The NRA opposes this bill primarily because it expands "red flag" laws, allowing more people to petition courts to temporarily suspend a person's Second Amendment rights and seize their firearms based on perceived risk, often via ex parte (one-sided) emergency orders issued without the gun owner present or able to contest the claims upfront. The NRA views this as problematic due to weak, subjective, or "nebulous" standards of evidence, risking due process violations for law-abiding citizens who haven't been charged or convicted of any crime.

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: DiNatale Locality: Winchester

The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge or someone who intends to cause unjust difficulty for an otherwise law-abiding citizen. This will lead to additional burden on courts and law enforcement and has the potentially to cause far more negative and damaging outcomes than it stands to prevent. I sincerely disagree with this proposed legislation.

Last Name: Damon Organization: VCDL, GOA Locality: Henrico

HB 901 This bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge. DO NOT SUPPORT

Last Name: Gedra Locality: Fairfax

The way this bill is written: - A recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged - This bill will discourage someone from seeking / getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him/her. - The expanded list of petitioners (for Red Flag) will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge and no basis of fact.

Last Name: Sinay Locality: Burke

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Dickinson Locality: Purcellville

Last Name: Randy Locality: Staunton

I am steadfastly against this bill. The issue with all bills put forward from the Virginia Democrat delegates related to gun control, is the fact that they in no way affect a criminal's behavior, as criminals and dangerous individuals do not look up current laws to determine what they can do in relation to the law. This being obvious, none of the Democrat gun control measure represent public safety legislation, rather seek to make it incredibly difficult for the average citizen. The question never answered, and often sidestepped by creators of the gun control measures is this: "Why is it so important for lawmakers to ensure the average citizen is unable to provide for their own defense, while at the same time criminals are armed better and removed from the public far less under Democrat legislation??" (i.e., reduced sentences, no-cash bail). The result becomes average citizens are far more likely to become victims without recourse. This has been the end result in every city and state your measures are attempted. So again, why do Democrat politicians *need* the population to be disarmed? Current world events and history do provide an answer, and it's quite unfavorable to the position of the Democrat party.

Last Name: Ott Organization: VCDL Locality: Portsmouth

Please allow our communities to safely practice their constitutional rights to protect themselves, while providing safe guards to to individuals that may need screening due to physical or mental health needs.

Last Name: Vayda Locality: Spotsylvania

I OPPOSE this bill

Last Name: Bandy-Toyo Locality: Centreville

Expanding the list of people that can flag you allows people who don’t have the necessary training to diagnose your mental state to affect your ability to own/carry a firearm. People can suffer from a myriad of mental issues due to their circumstances, individual brain chemistry, diet… This doesn’t mean that a person would be violent and willing to harm others with a gun. In the case that a person does need to seek medical help, they will be less likely to do so because they will feel like that will get them flagged and they will stay at home and get worse. That will not be ideal. Also family members can have grudges and can initiate a flag on someone regardless of evidence(They can just make something up to cause the authorities to be concerned). I don’t support this.

Last Name: Lee Locality: Westmoreland

bill expands the Red Flag law by allowing more categories of people to petition for someone to be Red Flagged. The expanded types of petitioners cover various kinds of counselors and medical professionals. It now also includes immediate family or household members and intimate partners. The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Moroney Locality: North Chesterfield

HB901 adds one wrong to another wrong. There should be no Red Flag laws because proper court and policing powers which involve due process. I call upon those who speak loudly about due process in the border war to repent and realize that red flag laws remove all due process for actual citizens. Red flag laws also encourage women to file spurious charges against men, which has two effects. First, men start avoiding dating and women altogether, which has already happened due to bad laws of divorce and red flagging. Second, WOMEN LOSE THEIR OWN GUN RIGHTS. Women were only able to obtain the right to vote AFTER the gun, the great leveller, was invented. On top of the male/female issue, adding more categories of people who can file false and frivolous charges is evil. We need rule of law, not of men. Red flag laws allow rule by wicked people who are willing to lie. This is not Christiandom. Do you remember all the bad advice that was given Counselors and medical professionals during covid? This red flag law puts that on steroids, eg by pretending that the recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Smith Locality: Lorton

I’m deeply concerned about this bill because it fundamentally erodes trust, trust between patients and medical professionals, and trust within families. Expanding the list of people who can petition for a Red Flag order creates a serious risk of misuse, especially in emotionally charged situations or personal disputes. Even more troubling is the idea that lawfully purchasing a firearm or ammunition could be treated as evidence of dangerousness. That flips the presumption of innocence on its head. Instead of encouraging people to seek counseling or medical help when they need it most, this bill will push them away out of fear that honest conversations could be weaponized against them. Laws meant to promote safety should not do so by undermining due process or discouraging people from getting help.

Last Name: McNichols Locality: pulaski

I urge the Committee not to pass HB901. This bill will have the effect of expanding the frivolous use of "red flag" orders by allowing former intimate partners, angry adult children and other to use the courts and law enforcement to abuse people. The current staus quo with regard to domestic violence protective orders is already rife with abuse. Passing this legislation will add "red flag" orders to the tools already available for perjurors in the court system. Finally, the provisions extending to mental health professionals will serve to further discourage people from seeking mental health treatment.

Last Name: Grano Locality: Leesburg

Expanding the categories of people who can trigger the already unconstitutional Red Flag law must stop. What is preventing people from using this a lawfare against their neighbor or friend. Lawful activity, such as buying ammo and firearms, cannot be used as grounds for this action. It is an assault on due process, and I, for one, do not want to give up more freedoms. This will push people away from getting the help that they need. Mental Health professionals already have the ability to flag potentially harmful people... this removes any accountability to getting people real help. I want you to vote no.

Last Name: Fisher Organization: VCDL and K3 Armory Locality: Midlothian

I am a Virginia resident, a responsible gun owner, and a home-based Federal Firearms Licensee who relies on lawful firearm commerce as a source of income. I strongly oppose HB901 as written. While I support genuine efforts to address mental health crises and prevent violence, this bill expands the Red Flag process in a way that raises serious due-process and public-health concerns. Broadening the list of individuals who can petition for an order—particularly medical professionals and extended personal relationships—will discourage people from seeking counseling or medical care out of fear that confidential discussions could later be used against them. Additionally, treating the lawful purchase of a firearm or ammunition as potential evidence of dangerousness sets a troubling precedent. Law-abiding citizens should not be subjected to increased suspicion for exercising a constitutional right. As a small Virginia FFL dealer, I work daily with customers who are vetted through background checks and comply fully with state and federal law. This bill risks undermining trust between citizens, healthcare providers, and the legal system while opening the door to misuse driven by personal disputes rather than objective evidence. I respectfully urge the committee to reject HB901 or significantly amend it to strengthen due-process protections and avoid unintended harm to both public health and civil liberties.

Last Name: Budowski Locality: Lorton

I strongly urge you not to pass this bill. What you will be doing is preventing more people from seeking the mental or medical help they need. Plus, it allows for vengeful retaliation if someone goes through a bad divorce or breakup. This is a law seeking a problem to fix when one does not exist.

Last Name: Johnson Organization: Everytown USA Locality: Suffolk

I am concerned that the expansion of Red Flag Laws will lead to less people seeking help for mental health and vilify people who see a therapist. Additionally I am concerned with the economic cost of making it easier for people to abuse red flag laws and harass people they have a grudge against. I do not support HR901

Last Name: Gay Locality: Chesterfield

I oppose this bill. Family members can have disputes. That could lead to a notification that is unnecessary and fabricated. Something this serious should be left up to professionals. The family could make a call to a professional if the situation was dire. Leave the law as it exists. Dr. Gregory Gay

Last Name: Axelman Locality: Woodbridge

Dear Delegates, My family and I strongly oppose red flag gun confiscation laws and their expansion. They violate due process and the right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, they deter people from seeking mental health treatment for fear of being punished by having their property taken without cause. Please oppose this bill with all your power. Thank you very much.

Last Name: Calaman Locality: Richmond city

Red Flag laws are a scam and a violation of due process.

Last Name: Arpin Locality: Lexington

I oppose this bill and encourage you to go no farther. If enacted into law, this bill is highly susceptible to abuse, and discourages people from seeking mental health treatment. Thank you for your consideration.

Last Name: Han Locality: Fairfax

Last Name: Petrocelli Locality: City of Richmond

Expanding red flag petitioners to include healthcare providers is entirely inappropriate as they should be concerned with providing treatment and not becoming enforcers of state social policy. Dangerous people should be committed whether not they have guns; taking guns and not containing the person accomplishes nothing.

Last Name: Thompson Locality: Orange County

I VOTE NO!! The recent lawful acquisition of a firearm or ammunition is considered possible evidence that someone might need to be Red Flagged! This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Gosney Locality: Chesterfield

This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he or she shares won't be used against them. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone intending to weaponize the Red Flag law.

Last Name: Shifflett Locality: Virginia Beach

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

Last Name: SMITHKIN Locality: AUGUSTA COUNTY

I am opposed to HB901. This bill will discourage someone from getting medical or counseling help, as the person will not be able to trust that any information he shares won't be used against him. The expanded list of petitioners will greatly increase abuse of the Red Flag law by someone with a grudge.

Last Name: Johnson Organization: VCDL Locality: Woodbridge

Last Name: Olcott Organization: Virginians For Change Locality: Henrico

I support HB901 because those closest to a person can often be the ones who are able to spot causes for concern. We need to enact common sense gun violence prevention laws to reduce the significant number of preventable gun-related deaths in our Commonwealth.

Last Name: CCP Organization: CCP Locality: Arlington

1000% support this bill, it falls inline with our communistic view and any disarment to US citizens will be a big win for us CCP.

Last Name: Pahuja Organization: Virginians for Change Locality: Henrico

This bill will expand risk orders to include family/household members and certain licensed mental health practitioners to the list of those who can petition the courts. We SUPPORT this bill as we acknowledge that those closest to a person can often be the ones who are able to spot causes for concern.

Last Name: Doyle Organization: Virginians for Change and Moms Demand Action Locality: Richmond

Last Name: Lewis Organization: Virginians for Change Locality: Alexandria

✅ Safe Child Access Prevention, HB871, Del. Downey (D): This bill will create penalties for gun owners whose gun is illegally used by a minor. We SUPPORT keeping guns out of the hands of kids. ✅ Expanding ERPO Petitioners, HB901, Del. Sullivan (D): This bill will expand risk orders to include family/household members and certain licensed mental health practitioners to the list of those who can petition the courts. We SUPPORT this bill as we acknowledge that those closest to a person can often be the ones who are able to spot causes for concern. ✅ Security for Firearms Dealers, HB907, Del. Shin (D): This bill will require dealers in firearms to enact certain security measures. We SUPPORT this bill as it should help to deter “smash and grab” incidents. ✅ Virginia Gun Violence Prevention Center, HB969, Del. Price (D): This bill creates a center within the Department of Criminal Justice Services that would gather research, strategies, and best practices for Community Violence Intervention Programs and grant funds for community-based programs. We SUPPORT this bill as CVIs have proven to be incredibly effective in deterring gun violence. ✅ Disarm Hate, HB1015, Del. Tran (D): This bill will not allow anyone convicted of a hate crime to own a gun, We SUPPORT this bill as we believe that hate has no place in our state and want to protect minority communities in our commonwealth. ✅ Firearm Purchaser Licensing, HB1359, Del. Hope (D): This bill will require individuals to obtain a license before buying a firearm. We SUPPORT this bill as it would reduce gun violence by ensuring only eligible, vetted individuals can purchase firearms, and it would also help to prevent impulsive or high-risk purchases.

Last Name: Morgan Locality: Montgomery

I agree with VCDL.

Last Name: Kochard Organization: Virginians for Change Locality: Richmond

I support HB871 because keeping guns out of the hands of kids is vital. I support HB901 as I acknowledge that those closest to a person can often be the ones who are able to spot causes for concern. I support HB907 as it should help to deter “smash and grab” incidents. I support HB969 as CVIs have proven to be incredibly effective in deterring gun violence. I support HB1015 as I believe that hate has no place in our state and want to protect minority communities in our commonwealth. I support HB1359 as it would reduce gun violence by ensuring only eligible, vetted individuals can purchase firearms, and it would also help to prevent impulsive or high-risk purchases.

Last Name: Moulton Locality: Montgomery

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

Last Name: Black Locality: City of Richmond

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.

Last Name: Kyle Locality: Quinton

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

HB1111 - Civil litigation; suspension bonds and irrevocable letters of credit upon appeal.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1235 - Clerks of circuit court; fees, online payment systems.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1327 - Child dependency cases; court procedures, relatives and fictive kin.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1346 - Noncustodial Parent Employment and Child Support Pilot Program; created, report, sunset.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1363 - Family abuse protective orders; other monetary relief.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

Last Name: Schwartz Organization: Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance Locality: Charlottesville, Virginia

We are grateful to the Delegate for bringing this bill. In large part because economic abuse is so commonly found in domestic violence situations, survivors of sexual and domestic violence often find that they do not have the economic self-sufficiency necessary to leave their abusive situations. Or, too commonly, they leave and then find they do not have the ability to financially support themselves and their children if they have them and are left with no choice but to return to their abusive partner. As a result, it is critical that survivors have tools that can help them gain economic security after they leave. Emergency financial assistance, such as that provided for in this bill, helps to break the cycle of economic dependency, which is inextricably linked to domestic violence, thereby enabling survivors to leave abuse situations and not be forced by economic necessity to return. We enthusiastically support this bill and hope you will support it as well!

HB1382 - Members of U.S. Armed Forces, etc.; domicile & residential requirements for annulment, etc.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1406 - Foreign divorce decrees; exercise of power by courts of the Commonwealth, non-domiciled party.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Streater Locality: York

Delegate Thornton, My wife and I oppose HB 901, HB919, HB 1o94, and HB 207. Please vote against these anti-Second Amendment Bills. Donald Streater 108 Paspeheghe Run, Yorktown, VA 23693 757-208-3767

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1479 - Punitive damages; hit and run drivers.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1500 - Civil actions; service of subpoena for certain electronic records.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1506 - Notaries; altered documents name across instruments.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1510 - Actions for personal injury, etc., on behalf of decedent's estate, appeal apptmt. of administrator.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1513 - Qualified self-settled spendthrift trusts; disbursements, powers of trustee.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1516 - Appointment of administrator; property damage claims.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: lance booth Locality: Dumfries

Do not vote for these bills

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

HB1517 - Mandatory sequestration of record; partial sealing, good cause shown exception.

Last Name: Grebas Locality: Chesterfield

Last Name: Horiuchi Locality: Spotsylvania

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

Last Name: Lamb Locality: Chesapeake

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.

Last Name: Stuart Locality: Ferrum, Virginia

Last Name: Crowe Locality: Moneta

Last Name: Truitt Locality: Bumpass

Last Name: turner Locality: clifton forge

Last Name: Giles Locality: Henrico County

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.

End of Comments