Agencies | Governor
Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of General Services
Board
Department of General Services
chapter
Regulations Banning Concealed Firearms in Offices Occupied by Executive Branch Agencies [1 VAC 30 ‑ 105]
Action Promulgation of new regulation banning concealed firearms in executive branch agency offices
Stage Final
Comment Period Ends 1/25/2017
spacer

63 comments

All comments for this forum
Page of 2       comments per page    
Next     Back to List of Comments
 
12/27/16  2:06 pm
Commenter: Aaron Stevenson

I
 

I reject the Department's assertion that "[a]llowing concealed carry in [state] facilities exposes our state employees and fellow citizens to unnecessary risk." This claim is baseless. Thousands of people all throughout Virginia carry arms as a part of their daily routine. The General Assembly expressly permits citizens to carry concealed throughout the Commonwealth, but DGS takes the meritless position that these citizens become untrustworthy when they enter a state-owned facility.

I also reject the Department's contention that Virginia Code §§ 2.2-1100(B), 2.2-1102(A)(1) and 2.2- 1129(B) provide the necessary authority to promulgate these regulations.


12/28/16  11:04 am
Commenter: Tess Ailshire

You are our REPRESENTATIVES; you work for US
 

Comments opposing this regulation were overwhelmingly opposed.  To take one statement from one court case, a statement that *might* support your position, to negate the OVERWHELMING opposition is the epitome of dismissiveness.  To thank only those in support of your idea is rule-by-minority *at best*.

It is your responsibility and duty to conform with the will of the CITIZENS of Virginia.


1/18/17  10:25 am
Commenter: Mark Eggeman

NO!
 

McAuliff's EO 50 was an over-reach then, and this attempt to side-step the General Assembly under the guise of rule making is a continuation of his contempt for representative government.  


1/18/17  10:47 am
Commenter: Clay H.

Baseless Claim
 

The Department's claim that "allowing concealed carry in state facilities exposes state employees and citizens to unnecessary risk." has no merit or base.  Several thousand people throughout Virginia carry firearms daily and to my knowledge they have not caused any incidents.  The General Assembly expressly permits citizens to carry concealed throughout the Commonwealth, but these citizens suddenly become untrustworthy when they enter a state-owned facility.


1/18/17  10:52 am
Commenter: Richard Cooke

Oppose
 

I find no compelling evidence in the statement "[a]llowing concealed carry in [state] facilities exposes our state employees and fellow citizens to unnecessary risk." There are no facts or statistics to support this claim.
I also find the Department's contention that Virginia Code §§ 2.2-1100(B), 2.2-1102(A)(1) and 2.2- 1129(B) provide the necessary authority to promulgate these regulations.
Persons with a valid concealed carry permit expose no risk as compared to the risk of working in a gun free zone.


1/18/17  10:52 am
Commenter: Gary McDuffie

Reject the ban, follow the constitution!
 

People continue to be driven by false rhetoric.  This is a narrative that is so simple, grade-school children can comprehend it without question, but grown men and women can't seem to grasp the concept.

CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS!  The only people you are hurting with this policy is LAW-ABIDING citizens.  Criminals will continue to ignore this policy and the law-abiding citizen will be at GREATER risk than before, with no way to defend against the crime and agressions of that criminal.

REJECT this policy and allow legal carry of firearms in state facilities.  Allow citizens to exercise the right the US AND VA constitution guarantees and REJECT the overreach of the governor's office in this "Emergency" enactment.

Thank you for your time.


1/18/17  10:57 am
Commenter: Robert White

No new regulations for firearms.
 

The proposed regulations would sever no viable protections and would only serve to infringe on those that choose to exercise their inalienable rights of personal responsibility and self-defense. 

No written rule can stop someone intent on doing harm with a firearm. These rules will force those who must do business with the state to unnecessarily disarm.

Will the governor or his offices take fiscal responsibility for the families of those killed by being defenseless? 


1/18/17  11:06 am
Commenter: Harold Bess

Oppose Regulation
 

I oppose the proposed regulation since it is serves no purpose; is without a valid justification; and infringes on constitutional rights.


1/18/17  11:11 am
Commenter: Jay Pilot

Protect our 2nd ammendment rights!
 
This would do nothing to prevent someone wishing harm on others from carrying out an act of violence. It only hurts the law abiding citizen's. Don't create more "gun free" zones.

1/18/17  11:29 am
Commenter: Kenneth W Hart

I oppose this proposed regulatory action
 

The right to self defense is not limited by location. The civil rights of Virginians are not limited by location. It is imperative that as citizens we do not give up our rights to baseless legislation that does not address any problem.


1/18/17  11:50 am
Commenter: Stevan Porter, Citizen

Opposition to Proposed Rule
 

Banning the possession of weapons by properly permitted concealed carriers will do nothing to make these state spaces safer for employees or members of the public that rely on their services. Criminals or people intent on harm will not honor the regulation regardless -- only law abiding citizens will. This simply creates yet another gun free zone. Such zones are where the vast majority of the "mass violence" episodes take place.

Furthermore, such zones create additional difficulties for those Virginians who carry legally. We must either forego our right to carry completely on any trip that involves state owned facilities or go through the tedious process of securing our weapons and leaving them open to potential theft and later illegal use by criminals.

Please reject this regulation -- it will only hurt the law abiding citizens of Virginia and do nothing to actually accomplish its stated goals.

Thank you.


1/18/17  11:59 am
Commenter: Bryan Dunn

Opposed to this Regulation
 

The wording did not change from initial opportunity to comment.  This is a 'solution' looking for a problem.  Ther eis no need to institute any regulation in this area that limits a citizens freedom to exercise their constitutional rights in the Commonwealth.  As a resident, perhaps it is a good time to remind our representatives that these agencies and our elected representative work FOR us.  Do not institute policies that limit your employer's rights.  Thanks.


1/18/17  12:02 pm
Commenter: Chris Walsh, FriendOrFoe.us

Oppose proposed regulations
 
I oppose the proposed state agency firearm ban. At a minimum, state and federal government are the two places that should be required to follow the provisions in the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 13 of the Constitution of VA. These proposed regulations infringe on the rights of citizens and must be rescinded.

1/18/17  12:09 pm
Commenter: Patrick shipley

Oppose
 

This is not needed.  I should be able to go more places and defend my daily not less. I oppose this new rule.    


1/18/17  12:20 pm
Commenter: Roger Gossett

Let's have some common sense !
 

No restrictions on firearms carry for persons legally allowed !


1/18/17  12:23 pm
Commenter: Nathan May

Opposed
 
I am opposed to this regulation. Every citizen should have the right to defend themselves both visitors and employees in these buildings. Criminals and bad people do not obey regulations and laws.

1/18/17  12:37 pm
Commenter: Alex Euler

Opposed to Regulation
 

Why?  This rule is silly, and arguably creates dangerous situation where law-abiding CHP holders must leave their firearms unattended in their vehicles.  Additionally, over the last year, I've been forced to conduct several meetings off-premise to accomodate firearm owners that refused to meet in my office due to the EO.  I'm completely opposed to this regulation.


1/18/17  12:42 pm
Commenter: Kevin Anderson

Oppose regulation
 

I oppose this regulation because it serves no justifiable purpose. Government  shouldn't get to pick and choose when/where a constitutional right is observed unless justified and agreed upon by its constituents. 


1/18/17  12:53 pm
Commenter: Frederick Wilson

I oppose
 

If an individual passes the requirements to obtain a Conceal Carry Permit, why would this same, vetted, individual be banned from carrying concealed in a state executive building but still be able to carry in a legislative building?


1/18/17  12:55 pm
Commenter: Chris McLean

Oppose the regulation
 

Hello, I oppose this nonsensical regulation on the grounds that it firstly violates the natural rights of Virginians in that it restricts their right to keep and bear arms and secondly that it creates a notional "gun-free zone" which history has shown are among the most dangerous places in America as they are a magnet for the criminally insane and terrorists.


1/18/17  1:01 pm
Commenter: Michael Stephenson

Oppose this regulation
 

This regulation has served no useful purpose. It was enacted as an "emergency" when no such thing existed. Does anyone really think that regulation will stop criminals? All it did was to keep law abiding citizens unarmed where it was enforced.


1/18/17  1:16 pm
Commenter: David Taylor

I strongly oppose
 

I strongly oppose any regulation against what would otherwise be the lawful carry of firearms regardless of the venue and especially on public lands and within state buildings.


1/18/17  1:27 pm
Commenter: Steven Whipple

I Very Strongly Oppose This Regulatory
 
Reject the ban, follow the constitution! People continue to be driven by false rhetoric. This is a narrative that is so simple, grade-school children can comprehend it without question, but grown men and women can't seem to grasp the concept. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS! The only people you are hurting with this policy is LAW-ABIDING citizens. Criminals will continue to ignore this policy and the law-abiding citizen will be at GREATER risk than before, with no way to defend against the crime and agressions of that criminal. REJECT this policy and allow legal carry of firearms in state facilities. Allow citizens to exercise the right the US AND VA constitution guarantees and REJECT the overreach of the governor's office in this "Emergency" enactment. Thank you for your time.

1/18/17  1:52 pm
Commenter: Lee Affholter

Oppose this legislation
 

Banning firearms in government buildings serves no purpose except to make them "defenseless victim zones".  Over 90% of all mass shootings occur in "gun free zones".  Criminals do not follow the law, someone with the intent to do evil will not be stopped because it's illegal to bring a gun into the building.  


1/18/17  2:00 pm
Commenter: Jon Hays

Opposition to Proposed Rule
 

This proposed rule does nothing but make people in the Commonwealth more unsafe.  We have not had a single incident of violence using a legally concealed weapon at any Executive Office EVER. 


1/18/17  2:20 pm
Commenter: R. Ouchna

I strongly oppose this Regulation!
 


1/18/17  2:33 pm
Commenter: David Hicks

Strongly oppose this Regulation
 

No regulation restricting firearms should be taken by the Administrative branch without a specific authorizing statute passed and signed into law that authorizing such Administrative action in order to fulfil the intent of the Law.  


1/18/17  2:40 pm
Commenter: Jeff Haas

Oppose this
 

I oppose this regulation.  This is taking away self defense rights and then trying to justify it after the fact.  The executive order was not needed and because of it more people are defenseless in these areas.


1/18/17  2:44 pm
Commenter: Ron Maurice

Strongly Oppose
 

No regulation restricting firearms should be taken by the Administrative branch without a specific authorizing statute passed and signed into law that authorizing such Administrative action in order to fulfil the intent of the Law.  


1/18/17  2:56 pm
Commenter: T. Ailshire, American Citizen

Strongly Oppose, as did MOST when the preliminary rule was posted
 

Given the overwhelming number of comments opposing this when it was initially proposed, I'm astonished (but not surprised) to see it still being considered.

NO gun owner becomes a raving lunatic when s/he walks through a portal from a street  to a building.  No doorway, Science Fiction notwithstanding, has that power.

DO NOT disarm good people.


1/18/17  3:07 pm
Commenter: Chuck Kubasek

I strongly oppose this proposed regulation
 

Reject the ban, follow the constitution! People continue to be driven by false rhetoric. This is a narrative that is so simple, grade-school children can comprehend it without question, but grown men and women can't seem to grasp the concept. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW LAWS! The only people you are hurting with this policy is LAW-ABIDING citizens. Criminals will continue to ignore this policy and the law-abiding citizen will be at GREATER risk than before, with no way to defend against the crime and aggression of that criminal. REJECT this policy and allow legal carry of firearms in state facilities. Allow citizens to exercise the right the US AND VA constitution guarantees and REJECT the overreach of the governor's office in this "Emergency" enactment.


1/18/17  4:10 pm
Commenter: Rev. John A Hilton

Oppose ban of concealed carry in executive officer buildings.
 
All this does is create more guns free zones giving a false sense of security! Gun free zones only prevent law abiding citizens from carry. Criminals do not follow the law!!

1/18/17  4:29 pm
Commenter: Dan Henry

I oppose this ban
 

It will serve no public safety purpose. It is actively detrimental to public safety by disarming of the public.


1/18/17  5:17 pm
Commenter: Robert Sedaker

I oppose this ban
 

This does NOT act in the interest of greater public safety.  It further strains the relationship between law abiding citizens and the government.

 


1/18/17  5:40 pm
Commenter: Louis Talbot - Citizen

I Oppose the Ban
 

This act is NOT in the interest of greater public safety.  It further strains the relationship between law-abiding citizens and the government.


1/18/17  8:16 pm
Commenter: Michael & Anita Kolodzinski

We strongly oppose this regulation
 

Regulations of this type only give the illusion of safety because the person bent on doing harm will 1) Not stop just because of the regulation 2) maybe pick those areas because he know no one else is armed.  


1/18/17  8:54 pm
Commenter: Roland Corbett

The People's rights should be upheld in gov't buildings
 

The state agency gun ban should be eliminated. The only thing it does is create yet another so-called "gun-free zone", which are statistically the most dangerous places to visit.


1/18/17  9:27 pm
Commenter: Wesley Moy

Proposed ban on firearms in executive offices
 
This ban negatively affects public safety.

1/18/17  9:33 pm
Commenter: John Templin

Opposition to proposed regulations
 

The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right, secured to us and our posterity by the second amendment to the Constitution. Our right to be secure in our persons does not end at some arbitrary line struck across the door of a legislative office. There has never been an issue with anyone legally carrying a firearm in a Virginia government office; this attack on law abiding citizens of the Commonwealth is utterly unwarranted.


1/18/17  9:40 pm
Commenter: Ken Richards

I oppose this ban
 

I oppose this ban.


1/18/17  10:06 pm
Commenter: Alan Rose

Opposed
 

I oppose this. Obviously, reading the comments here and in other firearms related topics that have recently been brought forth, the vast majority of citizens oppose this and all anti-gun proposals. But you are going to do what you want to do anyway, despite the overwhelming will of the people. This government haughtiness is what led to the American revolution. 


1/18/17  10:35 pm
Commenter: Ronald hatfield Jr.

I strongly oppose!!
 

I oppsed this once before, I am still oppose the disarming of an person just because they have business in a government office.It only empowers the criminal that will disregard the signs and laws anyway.


1/18/17  11:34 pm
Commenter: Mark Lennon

I strongly oppose this!
 

1/18/17  11:53 pm
Commenter: Anthony Dalesandro

Violation of 2nd amendment
 

I oppose this as this obviously violates our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. Why are we limiting the rights of law abiding citizens? This is a public safety issue, as in the public cannot provide their own safety. You cannot always rely on law enforcement to be available for immediate protection. Statistically speaking gun-free zones are targets for criminals, and a target is not what citizens should be in a state office.


1/19/17  12:50 am
Commenter: James Scites

This is rediculous
 

This is a clear violation of the second amendment. You are also taking one of the most law abiding groups in the state, concealed handgun permit holders, and endangering them by removing their God given right of self protection. Please end this madness and go back to allowing law abiding citizens of this state to carry inside buildings owned by the state which our tax dollars pay for.


1/19/17  9:32 am
Commenter: David White

Strongly Opposed
 

Shall not be infringed. Pretty plain and simple. Gun free zones are killing zones.


1/19/17  10:13 am
Commenter: Kelly Cobean

Criminals don't obey such laws, why disarm the law-abiding?
 

Ask yourself if the law preventing upstanding citizens from carrying concealed weapons at the Navy Yard prevented Aaron Alexis from murdering 12 and wounding 3 with a shotgun.  The answer is clear. 

Next, ask yourself if allowing lawful concealed carry MIGHT have prevented some of those deaths/injuries.  That answer is also clear. 

Lastly, ask yourself what risk a law-abiding citizen with a permit poses to people in a state building.  The answer is "none".  So why should this law be allowed by the people?  The answer is, it should not.

Criminalizing lawful activities is an act of tyranny and Virginia is such an awesome "free" state that we should be above such restrictions.  No citizen in good standing should be prohibited from self-protection just because they enter a state owned facility.


1/19/17  11:18 am
Commenter: Mark Attanasio

Strongly oppose
 

There has been zero need of any type of regulation like this to date. There is no history of concealed carry in "executive branch" offices being an problem in any locality in the Commonwealth.  This is a regulation for regulation sake, not solving any problem.

This only serves to cause law abiding, concealed carriers to forfeit a right specifically outline in both the US and Commonwealth Constitutions. 

This proposed regulatory action should be rejected and further attempts by the executive branch of the Commonwealth should be harshley rebuked.  The LAW in the Commonwealth does not permit the Executive to pull out his "pen" to try and bypass the will of the people and the Legislature.  The LAW does not have these exclusions in it, it is not within the enumerated powers of the executive branch to create them.


1/19/17  11:34 am
Commenter: David Eubanks

Strongly Oppose
 

Only people who are law abbiding citizens will follow this a criminal will ignore it so why restrict something that serves no purpose.

There has been zero need of any type of regulation like this to date. There is no history of concealed carry in "executive branch" offices being an problem in any locality in the Commonwealth.  This is a regulation for regulation sake, not solving any problem.

This only serves to cause law abiding, concealed carriers to forfeit a right specifically outline in both the US and Commonwealth Constitutions. 

This proposed regulatory action should be rejected and further attempts by the executive branch of the Commonwealth should be harshley rebuked.  The LAW in the Commonwealth does not permit the Executive to pull out his "pen" to try and bypass the will of the people and the Legislature.  The LAW does not have these exclusions in it, it is not within the enumerated powers of the executive branch to create them.