To whom it may concern:

Re: Executive Action to Prevent Gun Violence

This proposed regulation is based on dated and misinformation and will arguably yield the opposite of the intended effect by playing into the hands of terrorists, violent criminals, and the criminally insane. To date, state and local law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and other agencies have done a superb job at protecting and maintaining the safety of the 60,000 workers that enter state government building across the Commonwealth.

This regulations should not be approved and the emergency regulation withdrawn.

Please extended the comment period for another 30 days based on the following research and recommendations:

1.) The heavily cited “40%” figure lacks the validity to be the foundational framework to justify alterations to current Virginia law.  Simply put, this research is incomplete and provides more questions than answers.

2.) Closer review of “criminal conduct” was conducted by Professors James Wright and Peter Rossi, for a landmark study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.  This research univocally identifies that armed citizen as possibly the most effective deterrent to crime in the nation. Wright and Rossi questioned over 1,800 felons serving time in prisons across the nation and found:

• 81% agreed the "smart criminal" will try to find out if a potential victim is armed.
• 74% felt that burglars avoided occupied dwellings for fear of being shot.
• 80% of "handgun predators" had encountered armed citizens.
• 40% did not commit a specific crime for fear that the victim was armed.
• 34% of "handgun predators" were scared off or shot at by armed victims.
• 57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police.

3.) The lack of statistical significant research that is supported by relevant facts instead of an emotional appeal laced with biases to limit law abiding citizen’s legal rights.  Research presented by Prof. Gary Kleck supports this view with his examination and review by stating: "Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one's targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence."

4.) Off-duty police officers are prevented from carrying.
 

5.) Bans in rest stops send a very uninviting message to, and endanger the lives of, interstate travelers.
 

6.) If parking lots are included in the ban, then citizens will be disarmed to and from their residences and everywhere in between forcing law abiding gun owners to seek other legal solutions such as parking on the streets (where permitted), taking up valuable parking spaces at nearby stores or other legal locations.

7.) Other unforeseeable consequences

Regards,

John H. Bennett