Manassas Park holds lengthy public hearing on draft ordinance to ban firearms in city buildings; council debates enforcement and exemptions

Manassas Park officials opened a public hearing Oct. 7 on a proposed ordinance that would prohibit possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition and related components in city‑owned or city‑controlled buildings.

The city attorney summarized the state legal framework that permitted local ordinances of this type under the recently amended enabling language (cited in staff materials as Va. Code §15.2‑915) and walked the governing body through key policy choices: the geographic scope (city‑owned and city‑controlled buildings only), signage and notice requirements, possible penalty schemes (class‑level misdemeanors or tiered fines) and potential exemptions. The proposed draft does not include a concealed‑carry exemption; the attorney noted the governing body could choose to add one.

The presentation emphasized that signage and public notice are critical to enforcement and that most jurisdictions rely on passive enforcement—investigating and citing violations discovered during other enforcement encounters—rather than installing active screening (metal detectors, wands) at building entrances.

Vice Mayor Moore said he favored a passive approach, describing the measure as a proactive safety step, and cautioned against an immediate plan for metal detectors. “My suggestion was… passive enforcement, when violations are reported,” he said during the council discussion. Several other council members voiced support for a limited ordinance or a tiered penalty structure if the council chooses to proceed.

Public commenters were strongly split. Several speakers representing gun‑rights groups and permit holders urged the council not to restrict concealed‑carry permit holders and argued permit holders increase public safety. Philip Van Cleef of the Virginia Citizens Defense League said, “You never make anybody safer by taking away their ability to protect themselves,” and several nearby residents and veterans argued that permit holders undergo background checks and are law‑abiding.

Other residents and some council members voiced support for the proposed restriction on firearms inside city buildings as a precautionary safety measure in the wake of heightened political‑violence concerns. Speakers asked how the ordinance would be enforced and whether the city would allow exemptions for private security hired by event hosts; the attorney explained the draft exempts private security only when hired by the city.

The governing body did not vote on the ordinance Oct. 7; the public hearing was closed after extensive public comment and council discussion. Staff and councilors flagged multiple policy choices that would need to be resolved before any final adoption: whether to exempt concealed‑carry permit holders, the penalty structure to employ, the sufficiency of signage and whether the city will adopt active screening at selected facilities. If the council moves forward, staff said it will return with ordinance language reflecting the council’s choices and any recommended signage or enforcement protocols.

Why it matters: The proposed ordinance would change how firearms are regulated inside municipal buildings. The measure sits at the intersection of local public‑safety policy and state preemption rules; the council’s choices on exemptions and enforcement will affect staff duties, signage costs, and how police respond to reports of firearms in municipal buildings.

What’s next: No ordinance vote was taken. Staff will bring back revised ordinance language if the governing body directs changes following this hearing.