Something’s should have been looked into before and changed way before now.

I oppose HB150 Given the rise in serious crime across the country and within the Commonwealth in recent years, Virginia’s justice system should be strengthened—not further constrained. HB150 risks limiting the ability of courts and prosecutors to hold dangerous offenders accountable, even after probable cause has already been lawfully established. In recent cases, including the tragic killing of a civilian in Reston, Virginians have seen firsthand the real-world consequences of offenders being released back into communities without timely and effective justice. Criminals—including repeat offenders and individuals unlawfully present in the country—who avoid prosecution due to procedural or resource-driven delays pose a direct and unacceptable public safety risk. Courts and law enforcement agencies across multiple districts are already under severe strain. Just recently, the Commonwealth’s Attorney in Prince William County publicly stated that her office requires additional resources to process evidence and manage an increasing caseload resulting from a significant uptick in criminal activity. These delays are not the result of negligence or indifference, but of capacity limitations within an already overburdened system. HB150 would penalize prosecutors and victims for delays caused by staffing shortages, forensic backlogs, and administrative constraints—factors largely outside their control. Rather than imposing rigid prosecution cutoffs after probable cause has been found, the General Assembly should focus on providing courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement with the resources necessary to process cases efficiently and uphold public safety.

First felonies should only be for heinous crimes . There are to many crimes under this code if you sell Marijuana or commit murder you can be a felon . That makes it absolutely difficult to find employment when having a felony charge . Every person should be able to have a speedy trial and unless it is a heinous crime you should be able to have bond you can afford . If and when sentenced it should be a certain amount of time and that should apply for everyone . How do people who commit robbery get 30 years yet someone who commits murder gets 7 years there should be a guide line for all charges .

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand before you in strong support of Bill HB193, because fairness and truth must guide every decision made in our courtrooms. Let me share with you the story of someone who had made mistakes, but who transformed himself through education, mentorship, and hard work. When he stood before a jury, those jurors had no idea whether parole was even possible. Out of fear and uncertainty, they handed down a sentence far harsher than anyone expected. Not because they were unfair — but because they were uninformed. This bill addresses that gap in knowledge. By ensuring jurors are fully informed about parole eligibility, we empower them to make decisions rooted in facts rather than assumptions. It gives them clarity instead of confusion. Fairness instead of fear. Justice instead of guesswork. HB193 restores transparency, honors the dignity of every person in the courtroom, and strengthens trust in our justice system. People can grow. People can change. And jurors deserve accurate information when deciding a person’s future. I urge you to support HB193 — for the families, for the jurors, and for every person whose life depends on a fair and honest process. Thank you. Leonie May

I, Willie X Brown, strongly support HB193 as it is a fair and justice Amendmemt for individuals to receive Judge compliance and notifications that parole had been abolished in Virginia. Please support this HB193 that all who are eligible receive Fairness and Justice. Thank you, Honorable Lawmakers.

Members of the General Assembly,, I respectfully submit this comment in strong support of HB193 and to recommend a complementary oversight mechanism to address instances of judicial noncompliance with Virginia sentencing law. HB193 is a necessary and measured response to a documented breakdown in compliance following Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000), which required juries to be instructed that parole had been abolished. When legally mandated procedures are not followed, the legitimacy of the resulting sentence is compromised. HB193 does not provide automatic release; it simply allows parole consideration in cases where the sentencing process itself was flawed. That approach reflects fundamental fairness and respect for the rule of law. In addition to supporting HB193, I urge the General Assembly to consider establishing an independent review and notification mechanism for cases in which judges sentence outside Virginia’s sentencing guidelines without articulated reasons, or where patterns of noncompliance are later identified. By way of example, in the case of Sterling Graham, an Alford plea was accepted for an 18-year sentence, after which the presiding judge imposed additional life sentences without documented justification for the departure from the guidelines. That judge was later removed from the bench. However, the individual directly affected by the sentencing irregularity was never notified or provided a mechanism for review. Regardless of the ultimate merits of any single case, this illustrates a serious systemic failure: when judicial misconduct or noncompliance is identified, there is no structured process to review impacted cases or notify affected individuals. Sentencing guidelines exist to promote consistency, proportionality, and public confidence. When those guidelines are disregarded without explanation—and when subsequent findings raise concerns about a judge’s conduct—justice requires more than silent correction at the institutional level. It requires transparency and a pathway for those harmed by such failures to be informed and, where appropriate, seek review. A limited oversight committee or review body would not undermine judicial independence. Instead, it would: Identify patterns of unexplained guideline departures Refer cases for appropriate review where systemic issues are found Ensure affected individuals are notified when judicial noncompliance may have impacted their sentence HB193 reflects the principle that legality in sentencing matters. A complementary oversight and notification mechanism would reinforce that principle and help ensure that when the system fails, those failures are acknowledged and addressed—not buried. For these reasons, I urge the General Assembly to support HB193 and to consider additional safeguards that promote accountability, transparency, and fairness in Virginia’s sentencing system. Respectfully submitted, Tonya Wright Wisdom’s Embrace 757-309-1733

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

My name is Marilyn Jackson, and I am writing in support of HB193. This bill is important because it provides an opportunity for parole consideration to individuals who were sentenced by a jury after the Supreme Court of Virginia’s decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000). During that time, juries were instructed that parole had been abolished, which directly influenced sentencing decisions. As a result, many individuals received significantly longer sentences under the belief that there would be no possibility of early release. HB193 does not guarantee freedom for anyone. It simply allows eligible individuals to be reviewed by the Virginia Parole Board. That review process includes evaluating institutional behavior, rehabilitation efforts, program participation, and overall readiness to safely reenter society. Public safety remains the top priority. For individuals who have demonstrated growth, accountability, and rehabilitation, parole consideration offers hope and incentive to continue positive change. It also allows the Parole Board to make case-by-case decisions based on current risk assessments rather than decades-old assumptions. HB193 represents fairness, accountability, and smart public policy. It recognizes that people can change, that rehabilitation matters, and that careful review by the Parole Board strengthens—not weakens—public safety. I respectfully urge support of HB193.

I ask for you to vote YES for HB193 as it addresses fairness of the process for those who are held under Truth in Sentencing and juries were not informed of the details of the abolishment of parole. I support this bill and wish to see it reported, passed, and signed into Law.

I respectfully submit this testimony in support of HB193 and in recognition of the unfair sentencing exhibited in Mr. Howard’s case. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011, after Virginia had abolished parole. During deliberations, the jury asked the judge about parole eligibility because they sought to understand the true bearing of the sentence they were contemplating. They were not informed that parole had been abolished. At that time, the law barred juries from being told that the accused would be required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Without that essential information, the jury imposed a sentence that was double the recommended guidelines, a decision that translated into years of mandatory prison time. The jurors were left to sentence under a faulty belief that some form of release mechanism remained in place. HB193 addresses this precise problem. It provides a narrow, lawful solution for individuals like Mr. Howard, who were punished during this transition phase without juries being fully informed. This bill does not ensure release, nor does it erase accountability. It simply allows for parole consideration, a structured, earned process based on rehabilitation and behavior. Justice demands transparency in sentencing. When juries were prevented from understanding the real effects of their decisions, fairness was compromised. HB193 offers a balanced approach to correcting that failure while maintaining public safety and accountability. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193. Thank you

I am writing to state that I support HB193. Please feel to contact me , 503 889-889-6606

Letter of Support for HB 193 (Virginia) From a Justice Advocate Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly, I write in firm and unequivocal support of House Bill 193. This legislation is not about excusing crime or reopening questions of guilt. It is about correcting a well-documented and deeply consequential flaw in Virginia’s sentencing history—particularly in jury-sentenced cases where jurors were denied essential information about parole and the real-life consequences of the sentences they imposed. As a justice advocate, I have reviewed transcripts, case records, and sentencing outcomes that make one truth unmistakably clear: many juries imposed extreme sentences without understanding that parole was abolished or severely limited. In some cases, jurors explicitly asked whether parole existed. The response they received—often that parole was “none of their concern”—left them to deliberate in the dark. That matters profoundly. Jurors are ordinary citizens entrusted with extraordinary power. They are asked to weigh punishment, accountability, and fairness—yet they were deprived of information that would have fundamentally altered how they understood the meaning of a “life” or multi-decade sentence. In the specific matter we are advocating around, the trial transcript reflects that the jury directly asked about parole eligibility. Rather than receiving clarity, they were instructed that the question was irrelevant. The jury then proceeded to sentence an individual to what became, in practice, a life sentence without any realistic opportunity for release. This was not an isolated occurrence. It was a feature of an era. HB 193 recognizes what Virginia now acknowledges openly: the sentencing framework of the past produced outcomes that are inconsistent with today’s standards of proportionality, rehabilitation, and justice. The bill does not undermine jury verdicts. It does not erase accountability. Instead, it offers a narrow, carefully structured opportunity for review. Many individuals eligible under HB 193 have served decades, demonstrated rehabilitation, and pose little public safety risk. Denying review under these circumstances elevates procedure over justice. I urge you to support HB 193 and allow Virginia to continue correcting the lasting harm created by outdated sentencing practices. Respectfully, Felecia Blackston-Johnson Justice Advocate Midlothian, Virginia

Letter of Support for HB 193 (Virginia) From a Justice Advocate Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly, I write in firm and unequivocal support of House Bill 193. This legislation is not about excusing crime or reopening questions of guilt. It is about correcting a well-documented and deeply consequential flaw in Virginia’s sentencing history—particularly in jury-sentenced cases where jurors were denied essential information about parole and the real-life consequences of the sentences they imposed. As a justice advocate, I have reviewed transcripts, case records, and sentencing outcomes that make one truth unmistakably clear: many juries imposed extreme sentences without understanding that parole was abolished or severely limited. In some cases, jurors explicitly asked whether parole existed. The response they received—often that parole was “none of their concern”—left them to deliberate in the dark. That matters profoundly. Jurors are ordinary citizens entrusted with extraordinary power. They are asked to weigh punishment, accountability, and fairness—yet they were deprived of information that would have fundamentally altered how they understood the meaning of a “life” or multi-decade sentence. In the specific matter we are advocating around, the trial transcript reflects that the jury directly asked about parole eligibility. Rather than receiving clarity, they were instructed that the question was irrelevant. The jury then proceeded to sentence an individual to what became, in practice, a life sentence without any realistic opportunity for release. This was not an isolated occurrence. It was a feature of an era. HB 193 recognizes what Virginia now acknowledges openly: the sentencing framework of the past produced outcomes that are inconsistent with today’s standards of proportionality, rehabilitation, and justice. The bill does not undermine jury verdicts. It does not erase accountability. Instead, it offers a narrow, carefully structured opportunity for review. Many individuals eligible under HB 193 have served decades, demonstrated rehabilitation, and pose little public safety risk. Denying review under these circumstances elevates procedure over justice. I urge you to support HB 193 and allow Virginia to continue correcting the lasting harm created by outdated sentencing practices. Respectfully, Felecia Blackston-Johnson Justice Advocate Midlothian, Virginia

I submit this testimony in support of HB193 to address a sentencing failure that continues to harm individuals sentenced during Virginia’s parole transition period. Mr. Howard’s case illustrates this failure clearly. Mr. Howard was sentenced in 2011 by a jury after parole had been abolished in Virginia. At trial, the jury explicitly asked the judge for guidance about parole eligibility. They wanted to understand how much time Mr. Howard would actually serve. They were not told. Under Virginia law at the time, juries were prohibited from being informed that parole no longer existed. As a result, the jury sentenced Mr. Howard without knowing that he would be required to serve at least 85 percent of his sentence. The outcome matters. Mr. Howard received a sentence that was double the recommended sentencing guidelines, with 85 percent mandatory time served. That is not a theoretical concern. That is decades of real time. Juries do not sentence in a vacuum. They sentence based on perceived severity, proportionality, and outcome. When jurors believe parole exists, they often impose longer sentences under the assumption that release mechanisms will later balance the punishment. In Mr. Howard’s case, the jury was denied the ability to weigh punishment accurately. Had the jury known that parole was unavailable - and that Mr. Howard would serve nearly the entire sentence imposed - it is reasonable to believe the sentence would have been different. Shorter. Closer to the guidelines. More proportionate. HB193 restores balance by allowing individuals like Mr. Howard to be considered for parole under the principles established in Fishback v. Commonwealth. This is not retroactive punishment relief. It is corrective justice. Fishback recognizes that juries should understand the real consequences of their decisions. When that understanding was legally blocked, the system - not the individual - failed. Allowing parole eligibility for those sentenced during this transition period does not undermine accountability. Mr. Howard remains incarcerated. He must still earn parole through demonstrated rehabilitation, conduct, and review. HB193 simply restores what the jury believed already existed. Justice is not only about the sentence imposed. It is about whether the process that produced it was fair. HB193 acknowledges that fairness was compromised. It gives the Commonwealth a lawful, measured way to correct it. For these reasons, I urge support for HB193.

Statement in Support of HB 193 I am here today in strong support of HB 193 because this bill corrects a quiet but serious injustice that has affected thousands of Virginians for more than two decades. In 2000, the Supreme Court of Virginia made it clear in Fishback v. Commonwealth that juries must be told that parole had been abolished for felony offenses committed after January 1, 1995. That information matters. It goes directly to how a jury understands the real-life consequences of the sentence they impose. Yet for years after that ruling, many individuals were sentenced by juries that were never given this instruction. HB 193 does not undo convictions. It does not guarantee release. What it does is far more measured and responsible: it allows a narrow group of people—those who can prove that their jury was not properly instructed—to be considered for parole after decades of incarceration. This bill applies only to people who have already served long sentences, who remain incarcerated as of July 1, 2026, and who are not convicted of Class 1 felonies or offenses involving minor victims. These exclusions matter. They reflect careful attention to public safety and the seriousness of harm caused by certain crimes. At its core, HB 193 is about fairness and accuracy in sentencing. A jury that believes parole exists may impose a harsher sentence under the assumption that someone could be released early. When parole had already been abolished, that assumption was false. HB 193 simply acknowledges that reality and provides a lawful, structured review process through the Parole Board. The bill also respects public safety. Every eligible individual must still go through a full parole review. The Parole Board retains complete discretion to deny release if someone poses a risk. Nothing in this bill weakens that safeguard. What HB 193 does strengthen is confidence in our justice system. It tells the public that Virginia is willing to confront past procedural failures, even when it is uncomfortable, and that we believe accountability includes the system itself. Many of the people affected by this bill have spent decades incarcerated. They have aged, changed, taken responsibility, completed programs, and built records of stability. Allowing them to be heard—just once—through a parole interview is not leniency. It is justice done carefully and thoughtfully. I urge you to support HB 193, not as an act of sympathy, but as an act of integrity. A system that values truth, fairness, and public safety must be willing to correct its own errors. HB 193 does exactly that. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marilyn Jackson Advocate

Please support HB 193. Expanding parole eligibility only makes sense! The juries involved were not informed that Virginia did not have parole. These many deserve the opportunity (not even a guarantee) to demonstrate that they are rehabilitated and deserve a second chance! Please move this through in the interest of fairness and justice! Thank you!

James Jones is my name. And I support HB193 strongly and request that this HB193 be amended and pass for complete compliance in fairness and justice. Thank you. With sincere regards, James Jones

My name is James Ford. I strongly support HB193, and humbly request that the Lawmakers constitutionally do the same with this Amendment. Thank you. With respect, James Ford

Dear Law Makers, Please pass this amendment for constitutional compliance of HB193. Thank you with a bless and safe week. Sincerely, Larry G. Johnson

Dear LEGISLATORS! Please endorse, support, and pass HB193. Thank you for your LEGISLATIVE Courage. Have a safe and blessed day. Sincerely, Byron Arrington

I, Kevin Jones, hereby strongly support HB193. Please pass this amendment in all do fairness constitutionally. Thank you for your just support and passage of HB193. Sincerely, Mr.K Jones

I support house bill 193 for fair sentencing

On behalf of the Virginia Justice Alliance, I support HB193 because people were sentenced by juries who were never told parole had been abolished. That lack of transparency changed outcomes and continues to keep people incarcerated far beyond what many jurors intended. HB193 does not guarantee release. It allows a fair and limited review for those who meet clear criteria after decades served. Virginia should not defend sentences rooted in misinformation. Justice requires the courage to correct past harm.

I am writing in support of HB193. I feel this particular legislation would provide relief for inmates who were disadvantaged by the unfair parole stipulation.

I SUPPORT HB193 FOR FAIR SENTENCING. THANK YOU.

I, Elizabeth Charity, strongly support HB193, the Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia amendment for court's to come into compliance with the law. Thank you for your just endorsement. Sincerely, Elizabeth Charity

I, Antonie Battle, strongly support HB193! Can you please support and endorse this Bill for Amendment and compliance for justice and fairness. Thank you for supporting this HB193.

I, Keshia Bernette, of Rich Mindz Community org. support HB193 because it is already constitutionally law and should be in compliance to that just Fishback Law. Thank you for supporting this HB193. Sincerely submitted, Keisha Barnette

I support HB193 because it addresses a gap in fairness by allowing parole consideration for individuals whose juries were not properly informed about the abolition of parole at the time of sentencing. This bill does not guarantee release, but it ensures that sentencing outcomes are reviewed in a way that reflects transparency, due process, and justice.

Members of the General Assembly, I respectfully submit this comment in strong support of HB193 and to recommend a complementary oversight mechanism to address instances of judicial noncompliance with Virginia sentencing law. HB193 is a necessary and measured response to a documented breakdown in compliance following Fishback v. Commonwealth (2000), which required juries to be instructed that parole had been abolished. When legally mandated procedures are not followed, the legitimacy of the resulting sentence is compromised. HB193 does not provide automatic release; it simply allows parole consideration in cases where the sentencing process itself was flawed. That approach reflects fundamental fairness and respect for the rule of law. In addition to supporting HB193, I urge the General Assembly to consider establishing an independent review and notification mechanism for cases in which judges sentence outside Virginia’s sentencing guidelines without articulated reasons, or where patterns of noncompliance are later identified. By way of example, in the case of Sterling Graham, an Alford plea was accepted for an 18-year sentence, after which the presiding judge imposed additional life sentences without documented justification for the departure from the guidelines. That judge was later removed from the bench. However, the individual directly affected by the sentencing irregularity was never notified or provided a mechanism for review. Regardless of the ultimate merits of any single case, this illustrates a serious systemic failure: when judicial misconduct or noncompliance is identified, there is no structured process to review impacted cases or notify affected individuals. Sentencing guidelines exist to promote consistency, proportionality, and public confidence. When those guidelines are disregarded without explanation—and when subsequent findings raise concerns about a judge’s conduct—justice requires more than silent correction at the institutional level. It requires transparency and a pathway for those harmed by such failures to be informed and, where appropriate, seek review. A limited oversight committee or review body would not undermine judicial independence. Instead, it would: * Identify patterns of unexplained guideline departures * Refer cases for appropriate review where systemic issues are found * Ensure affected individuals are notified when judicial noncompliance may have impacted their sentence HB193 reflects the principle that legality in sentencing matters. A complementary oversight and notification mechanism would reinforce that principle and help ensure that when the system fails, those failures are acknowledged and addressed—not buried. For these reasons, I urge the General Assembly to support HB193 and to consider additional safeguards that promote accountability, transparency, and fairness in Virginia’s sentencing system. Respectfully submitted, Tonya Wright Wisdom’s Embrace 757-309-1733

I support this bill,H.B. 193. Please vote yes to this important and necessary bill, parole eligibility.

We support this extension of Fishback. It is only fair. Several advocacy clients we know who have done everything possible to rehabilitate themselves would greatly benefit by this law being passed. Juries after 2000 still did not know that parole did not exist. People who were 20 or younger deserve a second chance. This bill doesn't even guarantee that; but it offers them a CHANCE, a path forward. We support HB193.

Hello, I'm a Virginian who was incarcerated for a nonviolent felony offense from 1998 to 2000. I'm now in a professional position serving my local community. At the time of my offense, the abolition of parole was relatively new. I was sentenced under the Youthful Offender Act, which placed me as one of only 50 inmates in Virginia who could still be sentenced with the possibility of parole. I'm living proof that someone can turn their life around after a felony conviction. But this bill is a matter of fairness. HB193 will correct the injustice done not just to the defendants but also to the members of the jury, who were uninformed that parole was no longer a possibility when they made their decisions. Had they known, they might have recommended a different sentence. Given the 26 years that has elapsed, it's time for the Parole Board to have the opportunity to determine if it would be appropriate for these individuals to be considered for early release.

Something’s should have been looked into before and changed way before now.

Supporting HB 193 is essential to uphold justice and ensure that individuals affected by the Fishback parole eligibility law receive fair treatment. Extending this legislation addresses the issues stemming from judicial noncompliance, allowing those who qualify for parole to access the opportunities they deserve. HB 193 reinforces the importance of accountability in the judicial process, ultimately benefiting both individuals and society as a whole.

Please pass the HB193. I support it.

I support the HB193 bill. Please pass the bill.

Prisoners Rights Clinic is in full support of moving this bill forward .

Please support this important Bill HB#193 That would right a wrong and bring justice and a chance for many incarcerated people

Please pass the bill for HP193 Gerald A Anderson Jr

Justice cannot be served when a jury’s decision is based on a lack of information or a fundamental lie. This bill corrects a historical unfairness by granting parole eligibility to those whose juries were never told that parole had been abolished in Virginia. S4JR advocates for HB193 to ensure the integrity of our legal system and to provide a fair hearing for those currently serving sentences that were built on a foundation of misinformation.

I support the HB193 bill

Please pass HB 193. I support this bill

Please pass the HB193 bill . Idella King Anderson

I support the HB193 bill. Please pass it.

I support extending the Fishback parole eligibility law as outlined in this bill.

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support both of the selected Bills HB193 HB194

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility .it is a fair sentencing bill

I support both of the selected Bills

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility.it is a fair sentencing bill

I, Lucretia Brown, support and sponsor HB193. By passing this Bill is in upholding the constitutionality of justice and fairness for those that are under the Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia law. Please pass this Bill. Thank you. HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Marty Haerd, support and ask that HB193 be upheld and passed for all currently incarcerated Fishback applicants eligible for parole hearing. In the name of justice and fairness, thank you.

I, Karim Muhammad, support HB193 and Patroned by Delores L. McQuinn to uphold the constitutional ruling in Fishback vs. Commonwealth of Virginia. In the name of justice and fairness please pass this Bill. Thank you. HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Alexander Campbell, firmly support HB193! Thank you for passing this just and fair Bill of the constitutional law passed for Fishback v Commonwealth of Virginia. Thank you. With Best Regards, HB193 Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I, Artina Taylor, seriously support HB193! I am supporter of Resource Information Help for Disadvantage and Disenfranchised (RIHD). Thank you for passing this Bill. Status: In Committee Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Patrons All PatronsMore info Introduced by: Delores L. McQuinn (Chief Patron) Summary As Introduced Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. Provides that a person is eligible to be considered for parole if such person (i) was sentenced by a jury after the date of the Supreme Court of Virginia decision in Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000), in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, for a felony committed on or after the abolition of parole going into effect on January 1, 1995; (ii) can prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the jury in his case was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished; and (iii) remained incarcerated for the offense on July 1, 2026, and the offense was not one of the following: (a) a Class 1 felony; (b) if the victim was a minor, rape, forcible sodomy, object sexual penetration, or aggravated sexual battery or an attempt to commit any such act; or (c) carnal knowledge. The bill also requires the Parole Board to establish procedures for consideration of parole of persons entitled to it and also provides that any person who is eligible for parole as of July 1, 2026, shall be scheduled for a parole interview no later than July 1, 2027, allowing for extension of time for reasonable cause.

I

I, Willie X Brown, fervently support HB 193 in upholding justice, fairness, and law compliance that those who are Fishback will receive the benefit of the constitution enacted law. "An injustice anywhere is an injustice Everywhere." --Dr.Martin King

HB 193 (Extending parole eligible/ post fishback/ sentence after June 9, 2000. In these turbulent times, it is crucial that you as Virginia lawmakers make things right. By doing so you will be correcting many wrongs to individuals who have made a mistake and find themselves behind bars which could be anyone of us. I am writing to ask you to Vote Yes for HB 193. Lay people are sometimes not aware of changes, but our judges are informed about any changes in criminal justice and they already know what they have to do, be transparent when giving instructions to the jury about the life of an accused individual. Everyone that is committed to prison is not bad people but just need to be reminded they are human beings and they have a responsibility to society. Once they have shown for years they have come back into their real self and demonstrate fundamental change by having the same routine day in and day out. This request is in accordance with the Fishback v. Commonwealth, 260 Va. 104 (2000) in which the Supreme Court held that a jury should be instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished for a felony committed after January 1995, and can prove the preponderance of the evidence that a jury was not instructed on the fact that parole has been abolished, there are individuals that remain behind bars for the same offense on July 2025. Their annual evaluation says a lot about how an individual has changed or not. Thank you. Lorrene Crowell

I support HB193 it's a fair sentencing bill and it's a remedy for injustice that retores public trust.

Discovery discrepancies are rampant throughout several cases that I know of. Please pass this bill to allow for more transparency. Both sides should be able to see and request all evidence both before and after trial so that they can accurately represent their case!

I Jacqueline Graham Support This Bill HB193

HB193 is your opportunity to restore faith in our courts and to demonstrate that Virginia’s leaders will not turn away from those who have suffered under an uneven system. By supporting this legislation, you are standing up for families, for the integrity of our legal process, and for the core values that define our Commonwealth. A VOTE 'YES for HB193 is a vote for justice, compassion, and the promise that no Virginian will be forgotten or left behind. I urge you to lead with courage and empathy, Thank you.

HB193 is necessary for Incarcerated Veterans Inmates with Military PTSD. My son was unjustly sentenced in 2022, and proven InChoate by a Virginia Post Sentencing Attorney. My loved one remains in a Virginia Prison. Please pass this bill for my son and others.

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I am writing in support of HB193 | McQuinn | Parole; exception to limitation on the application of parole statutes. In order for sentencing to be fair and promote equity, all laws, specifically in reference to parole, must be known to jurors as sentences may have been decided upon under the assumption that parole was a later option. The lack of information has dissolved offenders ability to prove rehabilitation and successful re-entry to their communities, which in most cases, is the ultimate goal. I ask that this bill be passed, to restore this opportunity to those who have put forth the efforts needed to be productive citizens upon release. Thank you.

It is time to enact ong overdue reform in our prisons, jails, and courts.

Hello, my name is Ursula Ward. Im writing in support of HB 193. It would mean a great deal to my family and our loved one if this bill were to pass. Our loved on has been incarcerated for many years and this bill will assist / help our loved one to be able to to re-enter into society and be an asset to our future. Thank you in advance, Ursula Ward

Support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB 193 parole eligibility.It is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB193 Parole eligibility. It is a fair sentencing

I support Bill HB 193 Parole eligibility it is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill HB193 Parole eligibility .It's is a fair sentencing bill

I support Bill H B193 Parole eligibility .It's a fair sentencing bill .

I support billHB193 parole eligibility it's a fair sentencing bill

HB193 will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were NOT sentenced until after the 2020 SB793 law deadline (June 9, 2000) due to judicial noncompliance. Thank you.

My family and I support HB 193 because it will remedy sentencing error of the past that remain uncorrected and Thank You

HB193 will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were NOT sentenced until after June 9, 2000. I, McKenna Holloman, support HB193, and I hope you vote “yes” when HB193 comes before your office.

Hello Senator McQuin,, My name is Ursula Ward. Im writing to inform you that I support HB 193. This bill affects my loved one and it would mean a great deal to our family for the possible passage of this bill. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Ursula Ward

As a concerned citizen I support HB193 for it will ensure fairness in the Virginia sentencing process and address judicial noncompliances of the law to which persons who received a jury trial per Fishback vs Commonwealth (269 Va 104, June 9, 2000) were not sentenced until after June 9, 2000.

Any person who has mental health issues should not be held in jail or prison they should be evaluated if receiving ssi they already cannot afford to live on that amount of income . They should not be placed into prison or jail because they do not offer mental health services correctly when being prescribed medication when outside of prison they are not offered the same medication and are given whatever drugs that the jails have not what is actually needed which makes mental health worse on these individuals

LAJC supports HB 438. This bill allows the Court Services Unit (CSU) to divert a juvenile case from formal processing even if a previous case had been diverted. It also clarifies that courts can return a case to the CSU for diversion when appropriate. A second delinquent act by a child is not predictive of future criminality. Diversion programs such as restorative justice hold youth accountable without the costs of formal court processing. Research consistently shows that diversion reduces recidivism compared to formal court processing when holding all other relevant criteria constant. Limiting diversion to a single opportunity can compound existing inequities for youth of color and youth with disabilities, who are disproportionately referred to court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Document

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Chairwoman and Delegates, in past legislative sessions, it has often been the position of law enforcement and many Commonwealth Attorneys that the risk of fentanyl exposure should be a reason to oppose this bill. Sadly, due to rampant misinformation, they have been effective at preventing passage of those bills. Below are links to references from the DEA, several emergency medicine and first responder organizations, and research papers showing that the risk of contact with fentanyl is.1.) almost nonexistent; and 2,) highly unlikely to cause any harm in any real life situation if it did happen. DEA https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/Publications/Final%20STANDARD%20size%20of%20Fentanyl%20Safety%20Recommendations%20for%20First%20Respond....pdf American Council on Medical Toxicology https://www.acmt.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PS_241101_ACMT-Statement-on-Fentanyl-Exposure-Laws.pdf State of MD Opioid Command Center https://stopoverdose.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2023/10/OOCC-Fact-Check-%E2%80%93Accidental-Fentanyl-Exposure.pdf Medical journal articles https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7492952/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395921002061 Thank you. Thomas A. (“Tom”) Jackson Co-lead organizer Virginia Recovery Advocacy Project

My perfectly healthy adult brother in his 30s nearly lost his life due to nitrous oxide use after it resulted in a sudden onset of severe neuropathy, causing him to lose the ability to walk and use his hands. When most people hear of nitrous, they immediately think about cans of whipped cream and the term ‘whippets’. What we’re prohibiting here is far more dangerous. Standard cans of whipped cream only contain approximately 8 grams of nitrous. The canisters that we want off our streets are straight nitrous. They are commonly found in vape shops and typically have over a 500 gram capacity (compared to 8). These are HUGE! Despite clearly labeled dangers, these stores promote heavy use with frequent buyer cards and even use phrases like (3,500 puffs and up), which is clearly not their intended use. Aside from the dangers to the user, there is a tremendous risk to the public as nitrous oxide influence is virtually non-detectable. In situations such as driving under the influence, the more obvious effects of nitrous usually wear off within 5-10 minutes and it generally does not stay in your system longer than one hour. I have personally witnessed nitrous oxide use cause reckless behavior, extreme changes in personality, anger, paranoia, hallucinations, and seizures. I appreciate the many delegates that have thoughtfully taken the time to strengthen the language of this bill, ensuring that this commonsense legislation keeps a very dangerous drug out of the hands of Virginians. Please vote yes for HB648.

I’m here as a parent and constituent. This issue is about consumer protection and correcting a dangerous misconception. Nitrous oxide used in medical and dental settings is administered by licensed professionals, mixed with oxygen, and carefully monitored. Culinary use involves small cartridges used properly in kitchens. But what we are seeing in Virginia is very different. Large nitrous oxide tanks — some containing up to 3,000 grams — are being sold in vape and smoke shops for recreational inhalation without oxygen or safeguards. Brands like Galaxy Gas, Baking Bad, FastGas, and ExoticWhip are widely available. Because these products are legally sold and labeled for culinary use, many consumers assume they are harmless, when in reality they are being misused and causing serious harm. In fact, Amazon and Walmart recently removed these products from retail sales on their platforms from third party sellers, amid pending litigation concerns, showing that even Major retailers recognize the risks surrounding these products. My 29-year-old son legally purchased nitrous oxide. Within a couple of months, he developed neuropathy. Within eight short months, he suffered massive blood clots in his legs and lungs and a three-centimeter clot in the right ventricle of his heart. It took many additional months for him to regain feeling in his feet. I am now hearing the same stories from families across Virginia and across the country — nerve damage, paralysis, hallucination, psychosis, blood clots, and in some cases death — from a product people never realized could be so dangerous. This legislation helps close a consumer loophole and protects Virginians from products that are misleadingly marketed and causing preventable harm. We have the opportunity to prevent more families from experiencing this tragedy. Thank you for your consideration.

Na

Please pass this bill and take these toxic products off the shelves and out of our youths hands.

On our way home from the Delegate hearing last week my son and I drove out of Richmond on Hull Street Road. There are noticeably a high density of vape shops in dis-advantaged areas of Richmond. But as you continue toward the suburbs you still see them every 5 miles. Let’s not kid ourselves……this toxic gas is available on every corner! The chair woman asked why a broader bill this year that doesn’t just include minors? Because grown adults like my son quickly became addicted with serious health issues in a short time! Like 12 other states, this product needs to be pulled from retail and only sold through permitted outlets! There are at least 1400 vape shops per Alexa but going to intestate myself. That number seems low!

Please vote YES on HB648 It is important for the committee to see visual examples of devices that are used to distribute nitrous oxide, as a common comment that has been brought up through this process is that the bill would be limiting distribution of small devices that could inadvertently distribute poisonouse gas such as cans of whipped cream. This is NOT the case at all. These devices are very large and are made for direct consumption of nitrous. Attached is an example of a couple of visuals. The first visual shows how retailers like vape shops encourage regular use with frequent buyer cards as well as warning labels from the manufacturer which directly state this should not be inhaled. The second visual shows a couple of examples of what these cansisters look like with a side by side comparison to a can of paint to put it into perspective.

I strongly support HB648 - prohibition in the State of Virginia of nitrous oxide for distribution to any person, business or organization that is not explicitly for commercial food or medical use. Severe penalties and routine checks should be mandated and implemented for those excluded from this bill. Vape shops and other similar distributors or dispensaries should be closely monitored to ensure compliance. They falsely sell under the pretense of being available for restaurant usage when in fact they market and sell to individuals for recreational usage. Too many people, especially our youth and underprivileged people, are dying or becoming gravely ill as a result. I, and my friends and family, urge our legislators who represent us in Fairfax County, to act immediately to enact legislation that will ban these dangerous products.

I nearly lost my son 6 months ago to nitrous. His use quickly escalated to an ER visit, long term neuropathy, mental health issues and suicide threats! Vape stores are distributing at will! This needs to stop. Who knows where the gas comes from and who produces the tanks. Please stop this chaos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

I oppose this bill: reopening sentences—especially in cases involving violent crimes—could undermine the finality of sentencing and weaken deterrence. We should also consider the emotional impact on victims and their families, since hearings would require notification efforts through the Virginia Department of Corrections and could resurface traumatic memories. Another issue: would giving judges discretion to modify sentences lead to inconsistent outcomes across different courts?

HB853 - I do not agree with the reducing of sentences for violent, especially murder, felons. Their victims and the family of the victims did not have the joy of being with their family members. I do not have much trust in a probation system that cannot even safely monitor sexual offenders. Why do you not focus on making punishments MORE harsh in order to deter crimes. Please get the illegals out of our country. Stop making it a picnic for everyone EXCEPT law biding tax payers.

I am totally against this bill and would like to voice my opposition to this bill passing. The law should be upheld and respected not weakened or avoided. This would make criminals more bold and weaken out justice system.

I think this is a dangerous bill and it threatens the safety and justice of the victims of these said criminals. Victims have a hard enough time putting behind the trauma of these crimes and this will reopen those wounds and add new trauma stress. Please vote NO to this bill.

My name is Abigail Romero and I'm a Senior Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney in Fauquier County. I submit this comment in strong opposition to the proposed legislation that would permit individuals convicted of the most serious violent crimes- including murder, rape, and sexual offenses against children- to seek a reduction in their sentence after serving only a portion of that sentence. I have served as a prosecutor for almost seventeen years. During that time, I have handled serious violent felonies, including murder, and I am one of a small number of prosecutors in my office designated to prosecute sex offenses and crimes against children. I have tried these cases. I have sat with victims of sexual violence, with children who have been abused, and with families whose loved ones were murdered. When I read this bill, these were the people I thought of- the father who broke down recounting how he held his son as he died after being shot in his own driveway, the two little girls who felt like they wouldn't be safe anywhere after being repeatedly sexually abused by their mom's boyfriend in their own home, the mom whose beloved son was senselessly murdered simply because he interrupted a burglary at his home, and many other victims who I have worked with over the years. The trial process in these cases is uniquely grueling for victims and their families. Victims of sexual offenses- particularly children- are often required to relive the most traumatic moments of their lives in a public courtroom, while being subjected to cross-examination, scrutiny, and delay. Families of homicide victims endure years of proceedings with no possibility of true closure, only the hope that, at the conclusion of the case, there will be some sense of finality and accountability. This legislation would undermine that finality. For many victims, the sentence imposed at the conclusion of a trial represents the end of a long and painful chapter. It allows them, finally, to begin healing without the constant fear of having to reengage with the system or confront the person who harmed them. Allowing individuals convicted of the most serious violent offenses to seek early release shatters that expectation and replaces it with uncertainty and fear. Victims would have to accept that the individual who victimized them could seek release far earlier than contemplated at sentencing- and that they may be called upon, once again to participate in a process that reopens old wounds. A process that would likely be conducted with a judge who did not hear any of the evidence presented to the trial court. From a public safety perspective, this proposal is deeply concerning. These are not offenses involving a momentary lapse of judgment or low-level harm. They represent the most serious violations of law and trust, often involving profound violence and lasting trauma. Sentences in these cases are imposed only after careful consideration by judges, informed by evidence, victim impact testimony, statutory mandates, and individualized factors. To allow these sentences to be revisited so early erodes confidence in the justice system and diminishes the gravity of the harm caused. Accountability and compassion are not mutually exclusive, but this legislation strikes the wrong balance. It prioritizes the interests of violent convicted offenders over the lasting and often lifelong impact on victims and their families.

This bill is terrifying. When sentences are imposed, jurors and judges should know that their expectations are being honored. This bill virtually erases the role of the judge who heard the original case and imposed, often with jurors' recommendations, the sentence. More importantly this bill drags families and friends of crime victimd through unnecessary pain and fear.

I am opposed to this bill as it undermines the past decisions of judges and juries and unnecessarily creates a burden on the victims of crime, the Department of Corrections and the entire judicial system. Passage of this bill is a slap in the face to every person and entity just named. There is NO justice in the passage of this bill for anyone, including those convicted.

Dear Chairwoman Watts and other distinguished Delegates, HB853 re-victimizes men, women and children who have already suffered physical, emotional and psychological pain at the hands of criminals. The family members of murder victims, women who have been raped, children who were sexually abused, and other victims who endured trials, sentencing hearing and appeals and heard a judge impose a sentence of X number of years will be betrayed. They will be informed that despite what they heard a judge say in court, the criminal who inflicted such cruelty upon them will be given a "second chance." A "second chance" that the victims do not have the privilege of seeking. The victim will have to go back to that same courtroom where they thought they secured whatever justice our imperfect system deemed appropriate at the time to oppose the criminal's release, probably before a judge who was not the trial judge, who did not hear the evidence, who did not listen to the victim impact statement. Would it not be natural for a woman who was raped or the daughter of a murder victim to feel deceived and betrayed? Why would the victims (or the public) have any trust in such a system? The cost of public trust in the criminal justice system would be sacrificed for what? Because the criminal deserves mercy more than the victim deserves justice? When I read HB 853 I immediately thought of many victims I have had the sad honor to know. For me they are not stories on the news or characters in a true crime podcast. They are human beings who I have spoken to, listened to, and cried with. It breaks my heart to think of the pain this bill will cause them. In my view, an important part of the criminal justice system is a social contract between victims and the rest of society. Victims have a moral, not just a legal, right to justice. Rather than take matters into their own hands, victims delegate that moral right to the community as represented in court by the Commonwealth's Attorney. The victim’s delegation of this natural right to justice imposes the responsibility or duty upon the Commonwealth to treat victims with fairness and compassion. HB853 fails to treat victims with the respect, dignity and fairness the Constitution of Virginia requires. Please treat victims with the fairness and compassion they are entitled to and vote "no" to HB 853. Thank you for your kind consideration. Brian Holohan Roanoke County Commonwealth’s Attorney

Enclosed are comments from Mothers Against Drunk Driving in opposition to HB 853 by Del. Cousins. MADD urges your opposition to this legislation. Thank you, Frank

I strongly oppose this bill as does the far majority of my constitutes.

30 years ago, I received the worst call of my life. One that changed the entire trajectory of my life, who I am as a person, and everything about me 1/18/96, I received a phone call that Roger Vassar II, my boyfriend, my best friend, and the love of my life had been murdered. The devastation and grief that we all suffered through in the days, weeks, months, and even years after his death have been unbearable. Now, his murderer feels like he has “paid his dues” and wants to become a free man. But what does this mean? Have we all suffered enough? Will this bring back the things that Mize took away from Roger in his lifetime? Of course not! Nothing will undo the senseless crime and horrific cold blooded murder that Mize committed that night. So, he does not deserve to be given his life back when Roger will never be given his back! I will never be given back the man I was going to marry. Roger will never be given the chance to have a family. Roger will never be given the chance to finish the degree he was working on or buy the land he was looking at for our home. Mize took that all away from him with a PRE-MEDITATED plan for MURDER. He went as far as to fabricate a homemade silencer for the gun that he used. He cruelly shot Roger at point blank range and Roger had zero chance to even defend himself. Mize has proven that he is a danger to society. I just can’t imagine a world where an evil, dangerous individual would be walking the streets freely Today Roger would be 49 years old, a college graduate, close to retirement age, a husband, a father, a uncle, a brother, a son, a grandson, a cousin, a nephew, a friend, and as of couple weeks ago, even a great uncle. All these things were taken away from him in an instant. The loss is indescribable I can’t describe the emotional and physical torment it would bring knowing we are all going to have to face the possibility of our dear Rogers murderer getting freedom and walking the streets with us. I’m pleading with you to OPPOSE “Second Look” bill – HB 853. We deserve some peace knowing the murderer that took Roger is serving the time that was sentenced to him. Also, it should be noted the following facts from the VA OAG: In the first full year of EESC (fiscal year 2023), 9,638 inmates were released early,~49.8% of those were rearrested within one year of release. The early data from the EESC program signals that offspring of those early releases were rearrested at much higher rates (~35%–50%) for any new crime within about a year, including some very serious offenses. There’s a high chance that Mize is going to be arrested again once he is out of prison. He will also be at reproductive age, making it likely and possible to have a child that will also commit a crime that will also end up in the system. It is safer our family and for the community as a whole for this cold blooded murderer to stay behind bars where he was sentenced and where he belongs for the entirety of his sentence! If individuals choose to commit these heinous crimes, they should not be given the chance to “rehabilitate” and get out of prison. The lives they took, and the families they changed are FOREVER affected. The criminals were given fair trials and a punishment they deserved. They should have to serve it. The death many of them caused is a lifetime, irrevocable sentence a murderer chose for their victim Please OPPOSE “Second Look” bill–HB 853–before the Virginia General Assembly!

Greetings to the House legislators, delegates, and all who are present at this session. I write in strong support of Delegate Cousins’ House Bill 853. I believe this bill is both just and necessary. Rehabilitation should remain a cornerstone of our justice system, and countless incarcerated individuals have demonstrated genuine rehabilitation through consistent effort earning their GEDs, completing state board certified programs, and participating in graduation and reentry focused initiatives. HB 853 offers the Commonwealth an opportunity to take a meaningful second look at individuals serving long sentences who have clearly shown growth, accountability, and readiness to return to society. This bill is not about disregarding accountability; it is about recognizing transformation. It also presents a practical solution to Virginia’s ongoing prison overcrowding and staffing shortages by allowing judicial discretion for those who have proven they are no longer a risk to public safety. As an advocate for prison reform and for the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I support legislation that promotes fairness, rehabilitation, and public safety. I have remained a law-abiding citizen and a committed advocate for reform since my youth, and I firmly believe HB 853 reflects the values of justice, balance, and second chances. I respectfully ask that you reconsider and overturn the prior decision regarding this bill and allow it the thoughtful consideration it deserves. Thank you for the opportunity to make my voice heard and for your time and service.

Greetings to the House legislators, delegates, and all who are present at this session. I write in strong support of Delegate Cousins’ House Bill 853. I believe this bill is both just and necessary. Rehabilitation should remain a cornerstone of our justice system, and countless incarcerated individuals have demonstrated genuine rehabilitation through consistent effort earning their GEDs, completing state board certified programs, and participating in graduation and reentry-focused initiatives. HB 853 offers the Commonwealth an opportunity to take a meaningful second look at individuals serving long sentences who have clearly shown growth, accountability, and readiness to return to society. This bill is not about disregarding accountability; it is about recognizing transformation. It also presents a practical solution to Virginia’s ongoing prison overcrowding and staffing shortages by allowing judicial discretion for those who have proven they are no longer a risk to public safety. As an advocate for prison reform and for the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I support legislation that promotes fairness, rehabilitation, and public safety. I have remained a law-abiding citizen and a committed advocate for reform since my youth, and I firmly believe HB 853 reflects the values of justice, balance, and second chances. I respectfully ask that you reconsider and overturn the prior decision regarding this bill and allow it the thoughtful consideration it deserves. Thank you for the opportunity to make my voice heard and for your time and service.

A felon who has committed a capital crime such as murder can never repay their debt to society. The victim is dead and can never again participate in society why should that felon be allowed to ? On what basis should a felon who has committed a crime serious enough to be convicted of a felony which represents a failure to respect the rules of civil society be allowed to shape that civil society ? This bill is an insult to everyone who respects the law. You should be ashamed of yourself !

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HB 853. This "Second Look" resentencing legislation represents a fundamental shift in Virginia’s justice system that prioritizes the interests of violent offenders over the safety of our communities and the peace of mind of crime victims. HB 853 would allow individuals convicted of serious felonies to petition a court to reduce or change their sentences after 15, 20, or 25 years. This effectively grants a "second bite at the apple" that overturns long-standing Virginia law regarding the finality of criminal sentences. When a judge or jury hands down a sentence, it is based on the gravity of the crime and the need for public safety. Allowing these cases to be reopened decades later undermines the authority of our courts and the stability of our legal system. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of HB 853 is the toll it takes on victims. For many, the conclusion of a trial is the only way they can begin the long process of healing. By allowing offenders to seek resentencing, this bill forces victims back into the courtroom to testify again and relive the most traumatic moments of their lives. No victim should be forced to look over their shoulder every five years wondering if their attacker will be granted a "second look" hearing. While the bill mentions a work group to study victim-notification systems, this is a hollow promise. A "study" provides no immediate or guaranteed protections. It is irresponsible to create a pathway for the early release of violent offenders before robust, meaningful protections for victims are already established and proven. Our legal system is already overburdened. HB 853 would trigger a wave of petitions and hearings, placing an immense strain on our courts, prosecutors, and probation systems. Diverting these limited resources toward re-litigating decades-old crimes is a disservice to taxpayers and a distraction from the pursuit of justice in current, pending cases. Sentencing should be clear, final, and focused on accountability. HB 853 creates a dangerous precedent that suggests sentences are merely "suggestions" rather than firm consequences for violent actions. This bill shifts the focus away from the victims of crime and toward the comfort of those who have committed serious felonies. For the sake of community safety and the rights of victims, I urge you to oppose HB 853. Virginia must maintain a justice system that honors the finality of its sentences and ensures that "life" or "long-term incarceration" remains a meaningful standard for the most serious crimes.

Vote against. Would release criminals early, likely returning them to a life of crime. Reduce the negative perceived consequences to committing a crime. Would double work on each case if it runs through the courts twice.

My name is Scott Duffy. On May 19, 2017, my daughter Kaitlyn Duffy was killed by a drunk, coked-up, and high truck driver — a man driving on his sixth suspended license. Kaitlyn was murdered one week before her senior prom and three weeks before graduating from Great Bridge High School. She graduated with a 4.4 GPA, in the top five percent of her class, and had just been accepted to Virginia Tech, where she planned to study pre-med and become an OB-GYN. That driver received a sentence. My family received a life sentence — one that can never be reduced. It has been nine years, and not a single day has passed without the weight of her death. We lost our daughter. We lost our marriage. We live with permanent physical and mental health consequences. There is no parole, no appeal, no second look for us. The man who killed my daughter was convicted on all five counts. He appealed — and he lost on every single one. Despite that, he has already had 15 years removed from his sentence, including reductions for so-called good behavior. So let’s be clear — we already have a system in place that reduces sentences. This proposed bill goes further. It reopens wounds for families like mine. It forces victims’ families to relive their trauma so offenders can ask for mercy — while our loss remains permanent. This bill tells parents who have buried their children that the suffering of the criminal deserves reconsideration, while the suffering of victims is simply expected to be endured. I respectfully urge you to vote no on this bill. Please allow families like mine to have at least one thing that cannot be taken away — the certainty that justice, once imposed, will not be undone. I pray that none of you ever have to stand where I am today.

Leniency is not rehabilitation. That being said a criminal convicted of a violent felony, murder, rape , kidnapping, 1st degree assault after being found guilty and sentenced is incarcerated in the Penal system to protect society. This proposed legislation seeks to remove the protection afforded citizens by the judicial system. I do not support this.

Do not pass this bill. This is a way for criminals to scheme and try to invent a path to freedom. There may be witnesses or evidence that is long gone if convicted felon has been incarcerated for a long period. Even if shorter time has been served it’s not fair to witnesses to opened their life again to let a felon out. This is another way that politicians are going soft on crime. Do the crime, do the time.

Individuals convicted of violent offenses, particularly if they are repeat offenders, should not be able to effect early release for any reasons. They knew their actions were a violation of law, or should have known at the time of offense. The frequency of recidivism of these individuals is egregiously high and I have no empathy for their situation. This Bill is a travesty and should never be enacted for any reason.

This bill would weaken public safety, and render original sentencing meaningless, not to mention the fact that the poor victims would have to go back to court and revisit all the trauma of the violence done against them. I strongly oppose this bill.

The Sexual Violence Prevention Association (SVPA), a national nonprofit dedicated to preventing sexual violence systemically, endorses HB 853. This bill will provide a second look at sentencing for incarcerating individuals who have served 15+ years, including incarcerated survivors. Please see our full endorsement letter attached.

My name is Seychell Williams, and I am the CEO and Founder of the newly formed The Ruby Grant Project, a re-entry reform initiative dedicated to empowering individuals returning home from incarceration. Through advocacy, mentorship, and strategic partnerships, I work to build pathways that support dignity, opportunity, and long-term success for justice‑impacted people. I am a formerly incarcerated woman who served 5.5 years, and I used that time with intention and purpose. During my incarceration, I committed myself to personal growth, education, and leadership that ultimately shaped the foundation for The Ruby Grant Project and my dedication to re-entry reform. My hope is that lawmakers understand the human impact behind this reform. Families are waiting. Communities are waiting. And people inside who have worked tirelessly to change are waiting. Passing this bill would show that Virginia believes in redemption, accountability, and second chances. Virginia is facing a re-entry crisis. Right now, countless men and women across the state are depending on parole as their only hope of returning home. For many, parole isn’t just a legal process, it’s the single pathway to reunite with their families, rebuild their lives, and contribute back to their communities. When parole becomes inconsistent, delayed, or inaccessible, people are left in limbo. Families suffer, communities lose potential, and individuals who have worked hard to rehabilitate themselves are denied the opportunity to move forward. This crisis isn’t abstract. It’s affecting real people every day, and it demands urgent attention, accountability, and reform. The biggest positive is the bill will bring hope to many that don’t have any hope. I’m hoping the Virginia General Assembly truly recognizes how important it is to pass this bill. For thousands of men and women across the Commonwealth, Second Look legislation isn’t just policy—it’s a lifeline. It offers a fair, evidence‑based opportunity for people who have demonstrated real growth to return home and rebuild their lives. I FULLY SUPPORT THE SECOND LOOK BILL

My name is Seychell Williams, and I am the CEO and Founder of the newly formed The Ruby Grant Project, a re-entry reform initiative dedicated to empowering individuals returning home from incarceration. Through advocacy, mentorship, and strategic partnerships, I work to build pathways that support dignity, opportunity, and long-term success for justice‑impacted people. I am a formerly incarcerated woman who served 5.5 years, and I used that time with intention and purpose. During my incarceration, I committed myself to personal growth, education, and leadership that ultimately shaped the foundation for The Ruby Grant Project and my dedication to re-entry reform. Please read attached document on why I fully support the HB853/SB634.

I ask this honorable committee to not allow this bill to pass because it’s not going to be effective in assisting the men and women incarcerated for release

Hello, writing in support of HB853. My LO was sentenced to Life as a 19yr old. He is now 51. The chance has never been given to demonstrate the intended rehabilitation. Studies show that you can “age out” of crime and chances of recidivism is minimal. However the DOC is holding on to so many of our brothers and sisters. Costing taxpayers literally millions. This month makes 30 years. For a one time felon with an offense at 19. Not even old enough to drink?! Just sharing a brief testimony to put a face/story behind what’s a stake. Someone who never had a chance to even have a family of his own. But doing a bad thing as a teen does not make you a bad person, incapable of change/growth. And he’s demonstrated both.

In support of the bill with no exclusions

Good Morning. My name is Marki Gaines. I am writing today in support of HB853. Not only am I a reform advocate with the Virginia Justice Alliance, I am the victim of a.crime that left me with a part of my finger amputated. As an advocate and victim, I support this bill because there is a necessity for people to have a second chance when they have earned that chance. When an individual is convicted of a crime, what we as a society need to see is genuine growth, remorse, and a willingness to to come home and contribute not only to our society, but to their families. They do this by making the necessary changes that promotes that growth. Once they have done that, and served a specific amount of time, they should be granted the opportunity to have their sentence re-evaluated. In addition, this bill could be an incentive and help establish safer prisons, not only for incarcerated individuals, but for the staff that works there. I urge you as an advocate, a victim, and a Virginia resident to please support HB853.

HB 863 recognizes a fundamental truth: long-term incarceration should include meaningful incentives for rehabilitation and lawful behavior. This bill strengthens public safety by aligning sentencing outcomes with demonstrated growth, accountability, and reduced risk. Rather than relying on blanket rules, HB 863 supports individualized assessment—ensuring that those who have taken responsibility, completed programming, and maintained sustained good conduct can be appropriately reviewed under the law. This approach benefits everyone. It promotes safer institutions, encourages rehabilitation, and allows Virginia to focus resources where they are most needed—while maintaining safeguards and oversight. HB 863 is not about leniency; it is about smart justice. It reinforces responsibility, respects victims, and advances outcomes that are proven to reduce recidivism. I urge the committee to move HB 863 forward.”

To the Members of the Virginia General Assembly, I write in support of House Bill 853, the Second Look sentencing legislation. In 2015, my loved one was sentenced in Virginia to what is effectively a life sentence for a nonviolent offense. He has now spent more than ten and a half years incarcerated and has been a model prisoner, with no disciplinary charges, no threats to staff or others, and full compliance with all institutional rules. Had he accepted a plea agreement, he would have been released more than five years ago, yet he remains incarcerated with little to no meaningful opportunity for review despite clear evidence of rehabilitation. He is now 56 years old and suffers from a serious heart condition, and his health has declined in custody. Our mother has recently been diagnosed with dementia and will soon no longer remember her son. HB 853 does not guarantee release or remove accountability; it simply allows courts to reassess sentences after years of demonstrated growth and change. It restores judicial discretion and recognizes that people are not static and that long sentences may no longer serve justice or public safety. I respectfully urge you to support HB 853. Bonnie Coyne

I strongly support HB 853, which establishes a fair, thoughtful process for sentence modification for individuals who have been incarcerated long term and have demonstrated meaningful rehabilitation. This legislation acknowledges that people are capable of change and that lengthy incarceration, particularly over decades, can significantly alter an individual’s risk profile and readiness to reintegrate into society. HB 853 allows courts to consider critical factors such as demonstrated rehabilitation, age, time served, and an individual’s propensity to reoffend. Extensive research shows that people who have aged while incarcerated present a substantially lower risk to public safety. This bill does not guarantee release; rather, it provides a carefully structured opportunity for judicial review, ensuring that public safety and accountability remain central to the decision-making process. For individuals serving sentences without parole eligibility, HB 853 offers a meaningful path to review where none currently exists. It recognizes rehabilitation, incentivizes positive behavior, and affirms that justice should be both firm and fair. By permitting individualized consideration after a significant period of incarceration, this bill promotes proportionality, strengthens families and communities, and reflects an evidence-based approach to sentencing reform. I urge the General Assembly to support and pass HB 853.

This critical legislation fundamentally acknowledges the enduring human capacity for growth, evolution, and transformation. It operates on the premise that an individual's life trajectory should not be perpetually defined by past transgressions, but rather, that demonstrated rehabilitation and personal development warrant a fair and considered reassessment. HB853 provides a structured and equitable mechanism for individuals who have served extensive periods of incarceration to present evidence of their profound personal growth and readiness for reintegration. It offers a crucial opportunity for comprehensive judicial review, enabling a fair modification of their sentence based on their current character, contributions, and commitment to society, rather than solely on the circumstances of their original conviction. The far reaching benefits of this bill extend directly to the resilience and safety of our communities. By actively encouraging rehabilitation and supporting successful reintegration, HB853 enhances public safety by reducing recidivism and fostering an environment where individuals are empowered to become productive members of society. Moreover, it addresses the silent suffering of families, offering a pathway for healing, rebuilding, and reunification, thereby strengthening the foundational units of our communities. Supporting House Bill 853 represents a commitment to cultivating a justice system that is both robust and humane one that values accountability alongside the profound belief in redemption. It envisions a Virginia where true public safety is achieved not merely through punishment, but through thoughtful judicial review that prioritizes restoration, fairness, and the potential for every individual to contribute positively to our shared future. With over crowding plaguing our prison systems and parole being nonexistent, we need a new approach, that fosters accountability and rewards people for years of growth I support HB853.

I am in full support of both HB 853 and HB 863. HB 853 is incredibly impactful for incarcerated individuals and their loved ones, as it offers hope that demonstrated rehabilitation and good behavior while incarcerated can lead to a meaningful opportunity for sentence review. HB 853 does not guarantee release—it simply restores judicial discretion and ensures that rehabilitation and personal growth are given appropriate weight. HB 863 further promotes fairness by allowing judges to tailor sentences based on individual circumstances, ensuring that justice is balanced, thoughtful, and proportional. Together, these bills reflect a more humane, evidence-based approach to public safety and sentencing.

I am in full support of both HB 853 and HB 863. HB 853 is incredibly impactful for incarcerated individuals and their loved ones, as it offers hope that demonstrated rehabilitation and good behavior while incarcerated can lead to a meaningful opportunity for sentence review. The bill recognizes that people can grow, change, and take responsibility over time, and it allows courts to consider whether a sentence should be modified or run concurrently based on that progress. Long-serving incarcerated individuals who have consistently shown positive behavior, participated in educational or vocational programs, and demonstrated genuine rehabilitation deserve the opportunity for judicial review. HB 853 does not guarantee release—it simply restores judicial discretion and ensures that rehabilitation and personal growth are given appropriate weight. HB 863 further promotes fairness by allowing judges to tailor sentences based on individual circumstances, ensuring that justice is balanced, thoughtful, and proportional. Together, these bills reflect a more humane, evidence-based approach to public safety and sentencing. These are meaningful steps forward for Virginia and represent progress toward a system that values accountability, rehabilitation, and fairness. I strongly support both bills and urge their passage.

I strongly support SB634, HB361, HB26, and HB853. These bills are critically important because they provide retroactive relief, offering meaningful opportunities for those who are newly convicted or recently incarcerated. By allowing past sentences to be reconsidered under updated, fairer standards, these bills promote justice, rehabilitation, and hope for individuals striving to rebuild their lives. Passing these measures will not only benefit those directly affected but also strengthen our communities by encouraging positive reintegration and reducing unnecessary long-term incarceration. I urge the General Assembly to pass these bills promptly. Thank you for considering this crucial step toward fairness and justice.

This bill has been fought for for 5 years. It is a great bill that would allow incarcerated people to have a chance to show they have changed. A judge makes the final decision not an arbitrary board of people who have no idea what a second chance after incarceration looks like. I realize that the VA Commonwealth often has a tainted view of individuals who are incarcerated but you law makers talk and work with formerly incarcerated all of the time. You see the amazing work that people who were incarcerated can do and are doing. It is time to allow others who have served 15 plus years and paid their debt to have the opportunity to come home. You cannot keep saying you believe in second chances while continuing to warehouse people. This is an intelligent bill. it needs to pass

Im the mother of Steven..#1607364: of Staunton Va. and grandma of Ezra 6 yr.old gson that died 2/3/16, my son was charged & sentenced to 20+3 yrs. of 2nd degree murder & child felony neglect. He was 23yrs.old, not in his right mind, immature; brain not fully developed, love struck for a young lady whom he protected from the accidental death of his son. He has suffered for 10yrs. w/o his only child. He went for full custody after knowing he was the father when his boy was 3, gave him his paternal name. Steven has suffered & should be given a sentence modification, let him grieve his lose w/ him mom, siblings & great grandmothers, nieces, nephews & great nephews that love and adore their uncle Steven & want to get to know him, beyond those prison walls. Ty Kathleen Decker..Heartbroken Mom& Grammy

Good Afternoon, the House Of Delegate member of the 79th District, Rae C. Cousin on behalf of the Valley Justice Coalition and other Virginia organizations and statewide organizations, can you support two Bills? The Petition of Modification of Sentences "Second Look Act" (HB853) and Offenses Elimination of Manatory Minimums (HB863). These Bills will provide positive opportunities for re-entry for individuals involved in the Criminal Justice System for them and their families. Please, implement, thank you, Ms Stover

I am a member of the Valley Justice Coalition and we stand strongly in support of this bill. People change, times change. They deserve a second chance, a second look. Please vote YES for HB853 Petition for Modification of Sentence. Thank you.

I am a resident of Arlington, VA (22203), and I am writing to you today to share my support of criminal justice reforms for the Commonwealth of Virginia I know that the Virginia General Assembly has been working on these issues and made substantial progress in recent years, only to see the legislation vetoed by our previous conservative governor. However, November’s elections brought a hopeful change to the Commonwealth. It is my hope that beginning this year that progressive change can become a reality in the Commonwealth. Mass incarceration is a particularly significant problem in Virginia. According to data compiled by the Vera Institute of Justice, in 2015 Virginia had locked up almost 60,000 people, an increase of nearly 300% since 1983.  Virginia ranked first among Southeast states in jail population per capita and third in prison population per capita. I support HB 853 (Remedy for Extreme Sentencing: Second Look) as it will give pathways for the release of offenders serving extreme sentences who are no longer a risk to society or themselves. This is another step towards decreasing the mass incarceration that exists today in the Commonwealth. In addition, I believe the should address the dangerous proliferation of mass surveillance, the way our criminal justice system addresses mental health, access to mental health services for incarcerated individuals, pay parity for public defenders, and reducing burdensome fines and fees. Now, I understand that is a lot of work — but the citizens of this Commonwealth deserve a criminal justice system that serves them, not corporations. In addition, our criminal justice system should focus on corrections over punishments, allowing offenders to make amends for their offenses and return to be productive members of society whenever possible. I urge you to support and promptly pass HB 853 and the other criminal justice reforms listed above during this legislative session.

I oppose this bill. It would let even very dangerous inmates petition for release, such as those guilty of "aggravated murder" or the most serious murders of all, "a Class 1 felony," like killers who tortured and murdered a child. When the death penalty was abolished in Virginia, Virginians were assured that the death penalty wasn't needed, because the worst killers could be given life without parole. But this bill would eliminate life without parole, in all but name. The factors it lays down for releasing an inmate are more favorable to release than those used by most parole boards, and are biased in favor of release. That's unfair. This bill could set dangerous killers free to kill again, and menace the families of their victims.

I strongly support SB634, HB361, HB26, and HB853. These bills are critically important because they provide retroactive relief, offering meaningful opportunities for those who are newly convicted or recently incarcerated. By allowing past sentences to be reconsidered under updated, fairer standards, these bills promote justice, rehabilitation, and hope for individuals striving to rebuild their lives. Passing these measures will not only benefit those directly affected but also strengthen our communities by encouraging positive reintegration and reducing unnecessary long-term incarceration. I urge the General Assembly to pass these bills promptly. Thank you for considering this crucial step toward fairness and justice.

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.

Medical Assistance in dying is a complete distortion. Palliative care and hospice are available for every patient who is in the last stages of life. The reality of this legislation is that patients' will be vulnerable to manipulation both by medical personnel, family, hospital admin. and insurance companies. There is no reason to ask doctors to compromise there Hippocratic Oath by directly aiding in the killing of patients. I have spent a lifetime protecting people from ending their lives. I will not change. It is shameful that you are requesting providers to refer to doctors who will kill them. Not under my watch. Further, many of these patients will be viewed as more valuable for their organs that for their lives. Sad. Very sad. This is simply making people a commodity.

Our ability to keep the human body physically alive has outpaced our ability to ensure the dignity, autonomy, and quality of life for the human inside it. Please support this bill to allow Virginians to retain their autonomy in this important stage of life.

The Virginia Association of Centers for Independent Living (VACIL) is a nonprofit, consumer-directed, statewide association representing Virginia’s 17 Centers for Independent Living (CILs). CILs are nonresidential, cross-disability organizations that are governed and operated by people with disabilities and focused on integration and inclusion in all aspects of community life. Proponents of assisted suicide often refer to it as “death with dignity” or “medical aid-in-dying.” From the disability community’s perspective, there is nothing dignified about assisting someone to die rather than supporting them to live with appropriate medical care, physical supports, and emotional support. Coercion and fraud are real risks when society views death as more acceptable than living with illness or disability. Many people with disabilities are made to feel like a burden or that their lives are less valuable. If coercion occurs, it would be nearly impossible to prove, as the individual most affected would no longer be alive to explain the circumstances. States that allow assisted suicide have not demonstrated effective safeguards to prevent coercion or bias, and it is unlikely such safeguards could ever be fully enforced. While the medical community has made progress in understanding disability, harmful and outdated assumptions about “quality of life” persist. These attitudes often lead to diminished expectations, inadequate care, or discouragement from pursuing treatment. In this context, counseling people with disabilities about assisted suicide is deeply concerning and potentially dangerous. There is a meaningful and ethical alternative: palliative care. Proposed HB 435 would ensure that individuals with serious illness are informed about and connected to palliative care through hospital protocols, public education, and statewide oversight. Palliative care is patient- and family-centered, focuses on relieving pain and distress, and supports physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs. Unlike hospice, it can be provided at any stage of illness and alongside curative or life-prolonging treatment. Palliative care affirms life and supports informed choice without hastening death. At a time when Virginia faces workforce shortages in home- and community-based services, long waitlists, and unequal access to care, legalizing assisted suicide risks offering death instead of fixing broken systems. Public policy should never present death as a solution to inadequate services or supports. Statements like “I could never live like that” often reflect fear, bias, or lack of support—not the lived reality of disability. When people receive appropriate supports, their outlook and experience often change. People with disabilities live worthwhile, dignified lives. Legalizing assisted suicide would reverse decades of progress reflected in the Virginians with Disabilities Act, Medicaid home- and community-based services, fair housing laws, and other policies that promote inclusion and independence. Our focus must remain on improving lives, not ending them. Rather than expanding assisted suicide, Virginia should strengthen Medicaid home- and community-based services, invest in the direct support workforce, and ensure equitable access to palliative care. These investments affirm life, dignity, and true choice. VACIL strongly opposes the legalization of assisted suicide and urges opposition to any effort to legalize it.

The attached document is a formal public comment submitted by the Virginia Association of Centers for Independent Living (VACIL) opposing legislation that would legalize assisted suicide (medical aid in dying). It explains the disability community’s concerns regarding coercion, discrimination, and systemic inequities, and emphasizes the Independent Living philosophy, the value of disabled lives, and the need for stronger investments in home- and community-based services and palliative care as ethical alternatives.

My mother has idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. This incurable disease progresses until a person dies of respiratory failure often triggered by an acute exacerbation of the disease; infection/pneumonia, pulmonary hypertension, or heart failure. Recently, my mother was hospitalized with acute pulmonary failure from a secondary lung infection. Sitting at home one night, she was unable to breathe and not having enough time to wait for an ambulance, my terrified 83-year-old father got her to the ER just in time. Through excellent care she recovered, but as her lung capacity continues to decline, the physical and emotional pain increases especially knowing that a common respiratory virus might kill her next time. My beautiful mother is 82, has always been very active physically and socially, loves to travel, puts her whole big heart into feeding people, volunteering, and advocating for human rights, and has always been a strong independent woman who raised her children to be the same. This disease has already taken much of that away. Medical aid laws allow people the dignity of having control over their own bodies and lives to prevent the extreme suffering and family trauma fatal conditions cause. Currently this is legal in 12 states plus DC and there is pending legislation in 11 more. Legalizing medical aid is the most compassionate thing VA can offer to terminally ill people to help them and their families better prepare and cope with ongoing suffering and impending loss. These laws also protect families by ensuring that the official cause of death is the disease itself. We had a close family friend who was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor causing constant seizures impacting speech, memory, and mobility that prevented her from living independently. She lived in a place where medical aid was legal, and as her symptoms increased in duration and severity, she decided to use this legal option while she was still mentally competent. While it is heartbreaking having a final call or visit to say goodbye for good, it was a gift just having the opportunity to express our love and know the peace this decision brought our friend and her family. Being able to control the circumstances of her own death was what helped her, her family, and her beloved friends manage the stress and trauma surrounding the disease progression and terrifying unknowns. My mother is frustrated that she doesn't have that same option available to her in this state. Our family is facing an undetermined timeline for her disease, and we know that any virus/bacteria we bring in could kill her. The high anxiety we feel likely pales in comparison to what she is going through knowing that there will be progressively more physical and emotional pain as time goes on. While she is not ready now, the day will come when her life is reduced to a few short months and the pain and limitations become needless suffering. Allowing people with terminal diseases the option to protect themselves and their families through medical aid affords dying people autonomy and compassion, improves end-of-life care, and costs states almost nothing to implement. Allowing this gift to our and other families exemplifies a system that respects people by allowing them to assert their values and priorities as death approaches. There will never be enough I can do to thank my mother appropriately for giving me the amazing life I have, my support of this bill at least feels like a step in right direction.

I support this for competent people or power of attorney.

If Democrats are seriously concerned with the violent overreach by the Trump administration, why do they continue to hinder and disarm the people's right to self-defense against a facist, tyrannical government? Would it not make more sense to embolden the people's ability to arm themselves to resist the current administration? Even after the horrific events in Minnesota we continue to hear the same rhetoric against "weapons of war" or "assault rifles". The continued falacy of "Why do you need an AR-15? The government has tanks and drones!" If the ongoing wars in the Middle East or Ukraine have taught us anything it's that you can make do with obsolete or primitive weaponry, but having current weaponry works multitudes better. If the Democrats really want to help the people instead of being yet another faction vying for power, they should urgently drop this platform of gun-control and focus of civil armament. I imagine millions of reluctant leftists, like myself, would gladly vote Democrat if the party would stop trying to take away this basic civil right.

I stand with the Virginia Citizens Defense League on these bills.

At one time minorities could not acquire firearms.. for self defense..Now working class citizens of all races are losing rights ..Discrimination in years past and discrimination now are the same.. The legislation created by the authors causes financial hardship,harm to the citizens .This is affecting your constituents who placed you into office..Do any of you have the fortitude to vote for pro gun bills and against anti gun bills..? That is your challenge..

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

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

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

I am opposed to this bill. The expanded list of persons able to trigger a Red Flag is harmful to Virginians, who will be discouraged to seek counseling and/or medical help in fear that information shared will be used against them. The law greatly increases the ability of someone with a grudge to impart undue harm simply for exercising a constitutionally protected right.

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. This bill will be harmful to law abiding citizens and unreasonably burdensome on enforcement and its funding by our taxes. Reject, Do NOT approve this burden on citizens of VA.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

I urge you 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!

I am against 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

This 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

I oppose this bill

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.

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. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

I oppose all of these gun bills

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.

Do not vote for these bills

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.

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!

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 !!!!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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??

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

AGAINST

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

The 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I OPPOSE this bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

✅ 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.

I agree with VCDL.

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.

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

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the recently proposed bills on gun control. While I understand the intent behind these bills—to enhance public safety—I firmly believe that they will have unintended consequences that infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms", and it is a fundamental part of what makes this country free. These bills being proposed would place unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on responsible gun owners, making it harder for Virginians to exercise their rights in a lawful and safe manner. Rather than focusing on restricting access to firearms, I urge the General Assembly to consider measures that target criminals and illegal activities, such as enforcing stricter penalties for those who use firearms in the commission of crimes, or improving background checks for gun purchases. It is essential to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues and gang-related activity, rather than punishing responsible gun owners who follow the law. Furthermore, these proposed bills could create significant logistical challenges for gun owners, particularly those who rely on their firearms for self-defense, hunting, or recreational activities. The financial burden and potential legal ramifications of complying with these new regulations would be overwhelming for many Virginians. I strongly urge you to reconsider these proposals and to focus on policies that protect both our rights and our communities. I trust that you will make the best decision for all Virginians, and I sincerely hope that you will oppose these bills.

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

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HB 853. This "Second Look" resentencing legislation represents a fundamental shift in Virginia’s justice system that prioritizes the interests of violent offenders over the safety of our communities and the peace of mind of crime victims. HB 853 would allow individuals convicted of serious felonies to petition a court to reduce or change their sentences after 15, 20, or 25 years. This effectively grants a "second bite at the apple" that overturns long-standing Virginia law regarding the finality of criminal sentences. When a judge or jury hands down a sentence, it is based on the gravity of the crime and the need for public safety. Allowing these cases to be reopened decades later undermines the authority of our courts and the stability of our legal system. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of HB 853 is the toll it takes on victims. For many, the conclusion of a trial is the only way they can begin the long process of healing. By allowing offenders to seek resentencing, this bill forces victims back into the courtroom to testify again and relive the most traumatic moments of their lives. No victim should be forced to look over their shoulder every five years wondering if their attacker will be granted a "second look" hearing. While the bill mentions a work group to study victim-notification systems, this is a hollow promise. A "study" provides no immediate or guaranteed protections. It is irresponsible to create a pathway for the early release of violent offenders before robust, meaningful protections for victims are already established and proven. Our legal system is already overburdened. HB 853 would trigger a wave of petitions and hearings, placing an immense strain on our courts, prosecutors, and probation systems. Diverting these limited resources toward re-litigating decades-old crimes is a disservice to taxpayers and a distraction from the pursuit of justice in current, pending cases. Sentencing should be clear, final, and focused on accountability. HB 853 creates a dangerous precedent that suggests sentences are merely "suggestions" rather than firm consequences for violent actions. This bill shifts the focus away from the victims of crime and toward the comfort of those who have committed serious felonies. For the sake of community safety and the rights of victims, I urge you to oppose HB 853. Virginia must maintain a justice system that honors the finality of its sentences and ensures that "life" or "long-term incarceration" remains a meaningful standard for the most serious crimes.

Leniency is not rehabilitation. That being said a criminal convicted of a violent felony, murder, rape , kidnapping, 1st degree assault after being found guilty and sentenced is incarcerated in the Penal system to protect society. This proposed legislation seeks to remove the protection afforded citizens by the judicial system. I do not support this.

VOTE NO on this bill The VSP currently works with vigilantes associated with Alicia's Project to entrap people. One of our members is currently under review for alleged violations of the sex offender re-registry requirements for having unauthorized social media account and for not reporting employment. Those are false, but not before a SWAT Team kicked in his door, detained him for 90 minutes without a warrant or explanation, took his devices, and, many months later, there are no charges. This is on top of the first abuse of VA Code 18.2-374.3 where he and many others were convicted of computer solicitation of children when in fact they were only lawfully acting looking for adults, not children. NOW VSP does not want unauthorized vigilantes and online trolls to interfere with their investigations, but ANY who do are problematic to them and to public safety. Instead, we should focus on requiring police to have a REAL child present in an online sting, and to have a NON-PUBLIC REGISTRY (If we must have one at all) and that would solve many of these problems,

PLEASE VOTE NO. The problem with this bill is that it narrows once more the guardrails under which the police must respect rights of the accused. It is extremely easy to fool a magistrate into allowing for it. One of our members had his house searched many days AFTER no evidence turned up on the flimsy excuse that "a juvenile" had noted that the accused had "showed [said juvenile] pornography' (not even CP), and that became the pretext for police to bust down the door, destroy property, and all to find ZERO evidence of even that vague and specious claim. When the accused demanded an internal review and claimed no such juvenile ever existed, the police command in Fairfax declined to reveal an identity, or to indicate whether or not a now former juvenile existed. But, as all knows, had there been a juvenile, such juvenile would likely have been mentioned at some hearing or trial, even as a potential witness, but that was never mentioned anywhere public at any time. It was a lie. Empowering police to act even more lawlessly protects NO ONE. VOTE NO on this bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

This legislation will allow Drone as a First Responder (DFR) Programs Definition: Drone as a First Responder (DFR) is a public safety drone program in which drones are strategically stationed, often on rooftops, and remotely launched immediately upon receipt of certain 911 calls. DFR missions are limited to specific incident types where aerial information can enhance safety, decision making, and operational outcomes. Overview and Impact: DFR programs across the United States have demonstrated that real time aerial information, provided before ground units arrive, saves lives, improves responder safety, reduces unnecessary deployments, and helps prevent tragic outcomes. DFR has become one of the most effective de escalation tools in modern public safety. The first DFR program launched in Chula Vista, California in 2018. Since then, the program has conducted tens of thousands of missions and publicly shares flight activity and outcomes through an online dashboard. Prior to launch, Chula Vista conducted extensive community outreach, engaged elected officials, published operational policies, and emphasized transparency. DFR is not used for random surveillance. Nationwide, DFR programs consistently return ground units to service before arrival in approximately twenty five percent of responses. This allows agencies to prioritize higher risk calls, improve response efficiency, and better manage staffing shortages. Key Benefits: DFR enhances life safety for the public and responders, provides real time situational awareness, improves decision making with verified information, de escalates incidents involving reported weapons, reduces unnecessary patrol responses, and serves as a force multiplier for understaffed agencies. DFR supports locating suspects and missing persons, assessing fires and hazardous materials incidents, improving safety at large gatherings, and delivering life saving equipment such as AEDs, Narcan, tourniquets, flotation devices, and blood products. Privacy and Civil Rights Protections: DFR programs operate with strong safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties. These include community engagement, transparent policies, mission limitations, and strict data handling requirements. Recording does not begin until arrival on scene unless operationally necessary. Data retention follows applicable state law and body worn camera standards. DFR is not used for random surveillance, intelligence gathering, or monitoring protected speech. Required Guard Rails Prohibited Uses: DFR aircraft may not be weaponized, used for unauthorized surveillance, discriminatory data collection, personal use, wildlife harassment, or any activity that violates constitutional protections or applicable law. Search warrants are required where legally applicable. Commitment: DFR programs operate in compliance with federal, state, and local law and are designed to balance effective emergency response with the protection of individual privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. DFR programs also emphasize training, supervision, auditing, and accountability to ensure responsible use of unmanned aircraft systems. Agencies establish written procedures, conduct regular reviews, and provide ongoing education for operators and supervisors. These measures reinforce public trust, support transparency, and ensure that DFR remains focused on life safety, emergency response, and community benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

After over a decade working in emergency services and frontline response, I now work with fellow survivors who have escaped their traffickers - only to find their freedom was only a state of mind, and a criminal record holds them captive. But this isn't just about one person's record - It’s about the 14 trillion dollar burden that trauma and trafficking leaves on our society while predators continue to profit. It's about the generational trauma that ripples through families and communities. This is about keeping our communities safe by breaking cycles, not perpetuating them. We have the power to start responding instead of reacting, and we owe it to each other to play smarter, think faster, and find justice… together. I'm not arguing that we don't each hold accountability for our actions. I'm arguing that in some cases, our freedom is stripped from us—and in those cases, accountability belongs to the one who stole it. The reality is that Human Trafficking is the second largest criminal empire, second only to the drug trade. Career criminals are smart, they have learned they can profit from trafficking drugs AND humans, and do it all while avoiding charges by requiring the trafficked individual to commit the crime of trafficking the drugs. Criminals receive all the profit and the victims alongside our communities, are taking the fall. This is only one example of the many crimes traffickers force their victims into commiting for the purpose of personal gain. When a parent can't pass a background check, they can't get stable employment. They can't secure safe housing. Their children grow up in poverty and instability—the same conditions that create vulnerability to trafficking in the first place. We know that 75% of children experience trauma transmission from parents with adverse childhood experiences. Criminal records tied to exploitation don't just punish survivors—they punish their children, and their children's children. Recent data shows 21 survivors presented over 100 different criminal code sections connected to their victimization. The list approach simply cannot capture the full scope of coerced criminality. HB1298 shifts to categorical eligibility with the intention to cover all misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies committed as a result of trafficking, while maintaining existing safeguards and accountability. Please support HB1298. Thank you.

House Bill 1298 is an important step toward ensuring justice for survivors of human trafficking in Virginia. Many human trafficking victims are forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation and under current law, are unable to move forward in their healing because these criminal records. Their exploitation and trauma continue to follow them even after exiting trafficking, prohibiting them from truly moving forward into a place of healing and restoration. Criminal records create significant barriers to stable housing, employment, and educational opportunities—not only for survivors themselves, but for their children. These individual barriers compound into broader community impact through increased unemployment and generational cycles of reduced opportunity. Please advance HB 1298 to prevent re-traumatization, to ensure justice, and to promote healing for survivors of human trafficking in Virginia.

I write in strong support of House Bill 1298. As the Director of Virginia's only Human Trafficking Legal Clinic, our office has screened and represented trafficking survivors seeking vacatur relief since 2023. The current narrow scope of qualifying offenses leaves many victims without remedy, perpetuating the collateral consequences of crimes they were compelled to commit. 21 survivors we have screened collectively presented with over 100 criminal offense charges directly resulting from their exploitation—ranging from drug offenses to theft, trespass, and prostitution-related charges. The Rebuttable Presumption is Essential The proposed rebuttable presumption in § 19.2-327.18(F) addresses a critical gap in the current process. Despite presenting compelling evidence—including letters from Assistant United States Attorneys formally attesting to our clients' confirmed victim status—we have faced vigorous Commonwealth opposition to petitions in certain jurisdictions. Trafficking survivors should not face essentially varying evidentiary standards across different jurisdictions, or be required to relitigate their victim status when official documentation already confirms their victimization. The rebuttable presumption provides an appropriate safeguard: it recognizes the weight of official documentation while preserving the Commonwealth's ability to present contrary evidence in truly disputed cases. Without this provision, victims face re-traumatization through protracted litigation over facts already established by law enforcement and federal prosecutors. The rebuttable presumption balances justice for victims with prosecutorial discretion. I urge the subcommittee to advance this legislation.

Shared Hope International is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing, restoring, and bringing justice to survivors of child and youth sex trafficking. HB 1298, if passed, expands the issuance of a writ of vacatur for victims of human trafficking to all non-violent offenses in Virginia — allowing survivors to vacate certain convictions and associated burdens when their criminal conduct was a direct result of being trafficked. Virginia’s current vacatur statute represents an important acknowledgment that survivors of human trafficking should not bear lifelong criminal consequences for acts committed as a direct result of their exploitation. However, in practice, the law remains too narrow and fails to account for the full range of criminalized conduct survivors are compelled to engage in under the control of traffickers. By limiting relief primarily to certain low-level or enumerated offenses, current law leaves many survivors without meaningful access to justice and healing. Traffickers often force survivors to commit acts such as fraud, financial crimes, drug possession and/or distribution, and other offenses as a means of control, profit, or punishment. These offenses are not committed independently or voluntarily; rather, they are survival behaviors driven by violence, threats, psychological manipulation, and the constant risk of retaliation. Yet under current law, survivors convicted of these nonviolent felonies are often categorically excluded from vacatur relief, regardless of the clear causal connection between the trafficking and the offense. This narrow framework creates arbitrary distinctions that undermine the purpose of vacatur statutes. A survivor may obtain relief for an enumerated offense directly connected to their trafficking, while another survivor—coerced into a non-enumerated offense through the same exploitation—remains permanently barred from relief. This inconsistency fails to reflect the realities of trafficking and places undue weight on offense type rather than the survivor’s victimization and lack of meaningful agency at the time of the conduct. The consequences of these exclusions are severe. Survivors with convictions face persistent barriers to housing, employment, education, professional licensure, and family stability. These barriers directly impede long-term recovery and increase vulnerability to re-exploitation. Moreover, overly restrictive eligibility standards deter survivors from even seeking relief. Survivors often carry deep mistrust of systems that previously failed to protect them. When statutes are narrowly drawn or require survivors to fit within rigid offense categories, they reinforce the perception that relief is inaccessible, burdensome, or not intended for people with complex criminal histories—despite those histories being a direct product of trafficking. HB1298 addresses these shortcomings by expanding vacatur eligibility to include all nonviolent offenses when a survivor can demonstrate that the offense was a direct result of being trafficked. By allowing courts to consider the full context of exploitation and coercion, the bill ensures that relief is available to survivors whose experiences do not fit neatly into narrow statutory boxes. We strongly urge this committee to vote favorably upon HB 1298 to protect victims who are compelled to commit crimes and treat them as the victims they are. Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

Summary: Analysis supporting favorable passage of HB1411 with three proposed amendments. This includes: Explanation of the statutory gap in § 19.2-271.6 that HB1411 corrects Fiscal impact modeling showing $15M-$32M net annual savings through mental health diversion Equity data on racial disparities, rural access barriers, and disability unemployment Three recommended amendments:(1) judicial training requirement, (2) annual reporting to General Assembly, (3) authorization for caregiver testimony Implementation safeguards preserving judicial discretion Precedent from Maryland reforms and federal sentencing guidelines 22 supporting references to DOC data, DBHDS treatment costs, and peer-reviewed research Purpose: To provide the Courts of Justice Committee with evidence-based justification of HB1411 along with a fiscally-responsible grounding due to three key areas of improvement in the current statutory construction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Young people under 21 who drink alcohol are more likely to have negative effects on their health, safety, and well-being.” – U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Preventing Underage Drinking with Community Strategies, 2024 House Courts of Justice Committee Members: By way of reintroduction, my name is Kurt Erickson and I serve as President of the Virginia-based nonprofit Washington Regional Alcohol Program or WRAP. In addition to being a three-time winner of Virginia’s prestigious Governor’s Transportation Safety Award, WRAP uses public education, innovative health education programs and advocacy to prevent drunk driving and underage drinking. (WRAP additionally serves as project director of Virginia DMV’s award-winning “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over” campaign.) While family surgery prevents me from being in Richmond today, I am writing to you regarding this year’s underage drinking bill (House Bill 1432, Mehta, D-Chesterfield County) which is up in House Courts today. Succinctly and despite underage drinking not only increasing the chances of dependency later on in life but also leading to short and long-term consequences including risky behaviors -- and with Virginia 9th & 10th graders reporting their first alcohol use at ages 13-14 (Virginia Department of Health, 2023) – HB 1432 proposes the ELIMINATION of the current penalties for underage drinking (fines, driver’s license sanctions and or community service) and replacing such with “written warnings.” WRAP testified in opposition to this bill at this week’s Criminal Law Subcommittee registering its concern regarding the impact of unlawful, underage drinking including the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism-cited risky behaviors and increased risk of many harmful health conditions inc. injuries (motor vehicle crashes, falls or drownings), violence, alcohol poisoning, blackouts, coma and death. As a means of preserving meaningful and enforceable deterrents to underage drinking in Virginia, I urge you to remain tough on underage drinking and oppose either this bill or that language contained in it which lessens the penalties for this unlawful act in Virginia. Thank you, in advance, for your valued consideration in this matter. I may be directly reached via any of the points of contact below should you have any questions. Kurt Gregory Erickson President & CEO Washington Regional Alcohol Program (WRAP) 1660 International Drive, Suite 600 McLean, Virginia 22102 tel 703.893.0461 email kurt@wrap.org http www.wrap.org

I write to you today in support of HB1432 and I appreciate the hard work that Delegate Mehta put into this legislation. It makes sense that legal age gated products have similar consequences when a violation occurs. The same way that a young person should not have their life upturned for decades with a criminal charge for possessing quantities of cannabis allowed for adults; they should also not have to face a criminal record for underage possession of alcohol. This is even more important when considering that adult's 18-20 years of age, who are otherwise considered to be adults in the eyes of the law, except in the case of alcohol, tobacco/nicotine and cannabis products. There is a long standing tradition that many enforcement actions against these product falls mainly on the backs of the poor and minority communities. Today the committee has the ability to begin the process of keeping the punishment in line with the nature of the violation. The opportunity for a written warning and increased penalties for subsequent violations reenforces that behaviors are illegal without limiting a citizens future with a criminal record. We at the Marijuana Policy Project strongly support this legislation and I believe it is in the best interest of the Commonwealth to bring these violations in line with each other. The best way to keep our youth from consuming these products is through a robust education and public service announcements rather than straddling our youth with a criminal record.

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to HB 853. This "Second Look" resentencing legislation represents a fundamental shift in Virginia’s justice system that prioritizes the interests of violent offenders over the safety of our communities and the peace of mind of crime victims. HB 853 would allow individuals convicted of serious felonies to petition a court to reduce or change their sentences after 15, 20, or 25 years. This effectively grants a "second bite at the apple" that overturns long-standing Virginia law regarding the finality of criminal sentences. When a judge or jury hands down a sentence, it is based on the gravity of the crime and the need for public safety. Allowing these cases to be reopened decades later undermines the authority of our courts and the stability of our legal system. Perhaps the most concerning aspect of HB 853 is the toll it takes on victims. For many, the conclusion of a trial is the only way they can begin the long process of healing. By allowing offenders to seek resentencing, this bill forces victims back into the courtroom to testify again and relive the most traumatic moments of their lives. No victim should be forced to look over their shoulder every five years wondering if their attacker will be granted a "second look" hearing. While the bill mentions a work group to study victim-notification systems, this is a hollow promise. A "study" provides no immediate or guaranteed protections. It is irresponsible to create a pathway for the early release of violent offenders before robust, meaningful protections for victims are already established and proven. Our legal system is already overburdened. HB 853 would trigger a wave of petitions and hearings, placing an immense strain on our courts, prosecutors, and probation systems. Diverting these limited resources toward re-litigating decades-old crimes is a disservice to taxpayers and a distraction from the pursuit of justice in current, pending cases. Sentencing should be clear, final, and focused on accountability. HB 853 creates a dangerous precedent that suggests sentences are merely "suggestions" rather than firm consequences for violent actions. This bill shifts the focus away from the victims of crime and toward the comfort of those who have committed serious felonies. For the sake of community safety and the rights of victims, I urge you to oppose HB 853. Virginia must maintain a justice system that honors the finality of its sentences and ensures that "life" or "long-term incarceration" remains a meaningful standard for the most serious crimes.

Leniency is not rehabilitation. That being said a criminal convicted of a violent felony, murder, rape , kidnapping, 1st degree assault after being found guilty and sentenced is incarcerated in the Penal system to protect society. This proposed legislation seeks to remove the protection afforded citizens by the judicial system. I do not support this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not vote for these bills

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

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

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

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