I regret that I will be unable to attend the public hearing scheduled on the
subject matter of this proposed regulation.  I ask, therefore, that you take
the following into consideration.

I note in the description you published, you acknowledge that the Second
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits any
interference with the right of citizens to own and possess firearms (a legal
point that I would say has yet to be established with respect to state
agencies).  And then proceed to describe a regulation that does precisely
that which is prohibited.

I take the position that Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, upon which the text of the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution was modeled, does prohibit any interference with the
lawful carrying of firearms, whether openly or concealed, by the Department.
The general grant of authority upon which you premise your proposed
regulation, Va. Code Section 10.1-1101, does not authorize acts in violation
of the Constitution of Virginia.

The Department does not have the authority to prohibit the ownership, use,
or possession of firearms.  The statute you cited relates only to the power
to "promulgate regulations necessary or incidental to the performance of
duties or execution of powers conferred under this chapter...".  There is no
rational way to understand how regulation of the mere possession of firearms
relates to management of forest resources as described in that chapter of
the Code, nor is there any code section in the said chapter as to which the
regulation of possession of firearms would either be necessary or
incidental.

Moreover, the Department is a "locality" within the definition specified in
Va. Code section 15.2-915, which further states that, without a specific
grant of authority to regulate the possession of firearms, no agency or
department of the Commonwealth may do so.  That is a clear statutory
prohibition.

Thus, enactment of the current regulation was an ultra vires act, taken
without the authority to do so, and thus legally void.  Any person detained
or interfered with on account of his possession of a weapon would have
grounds for a lawsuit against every person, personally, who acted beyond the
scope of his lawful authority in attempting to enforce such a regulation.
(When one is engaged in acts beyond the scope of his authority as an agent
of the Sovereign, sovereign immunity does not apply.)

Finally, anyone who chooses to take legal action merely to challenge the
regulation would be entitled to damages and his legal fees, also pursuant to
Va. Code section 15.2-915.

I suggest to you that this is an opportunity to bring the documentation into
line with reality.  The regulations need to reflect the state of the law.
Any attempt to exceed the grant of authority actually conveyed (and note
that the Constitution creates limits upon the legislature's ability to grant
authority) would constitute an act for which individuals in the Department
may be personally liable.  The Dillon Rule applies to all creatures of the
Commonwealth, including agencies and departments; it is not limited to
municipal corporations.  The Department simply does not have the authority
to regulate the ownership or possession of firearms, period.  That is the
state of the law, which I suggest the regulations must reflect.