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 Emergency/NOIRA
Comment Period Ends 1/27/2016
spacer
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
12/15/15  1:51 pm
Commenter: Branson Murrill

Do not make state agencies gun-free zones.
 

First, please extended the comment period for another 30 days. This is too important to slip by public notice during the holiday rush.

This proposed regulation will have the opposite of the intended effect by playing into the hands of terrorists, violent criminals, and the criminally insane.  We have had no shootings in state agencies and this prohibition on those with a concealed handgun permit, some of whom have active and ongoing threats to their lives, is entirely without any justification and needlessly and recklessly endangers innocent lives.

Disarming good citizens (who are the only ones likely to obey the prohibition) does not make them safer.

This is another example in the trend of abuse of Executive power, and we should not tolerate this in Virginia.If the General Assembly wanted the Governor to have such power, they would have granted it to him explicitly, as is required constitutionally.

This proposed regulation endangers state employees, law abiding citizens, and the innocent by making state buildings a safe zone for terrorists, criminals, and the criminally insane to conduct their evil actions. If parking lots are included in the ban, then citizens will be disarmed to and from their residences and everywhere in between. All but two of the public massacres since 1950 had been committed by criminals and terrorists in "gun-free zones",쳌 which is exactly what this regulation creates

This regulations should not be approved and the emergency regulation should be withdrawn.

 

CommentID: 44243