Manassas Park holds public hearing on proposed ban of firearms in city buildings; debate centers on exemptions and enforcement

Manassas Park held a lengthy public hearing on Oct. 7 about a proposed amendment to Chapter 26 of the city code (a draft new section 26-10) that would prohibit the possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components inside city-owned or city-controlled buildings.

City staff explained the legal framework that allows certain local prohibitions following a 2020 change to the state enabling language (transcript reference to "15.2915") and reviewed how surrounding localities have implemented similar ordinances. The draft ordinance under discussion covers building interiors under city ownership or control; it would not extend to parking lots. Staff also described options for enforcement and penalties — the draft showed a possible Class 1 misdemeanor but allowed the governing body to choose a tiered or single-penalty approach.

Council debate focused on two central choices: whether to exempt concealed-carry permit holders and whether enforcement should be passive (rely on reports and existing policing) or active (screening, magnetometers, or other means). One council member who moved the item said the measure is a proactive public-safety step, citing a national uptick in threats to elected officials and saying, “We’ve seen an, significant increase in in violence, particularly for elected officials in this country within the last, few months.” That council member said the proposed ordinance is not intended to “take away anyone’s guns” but to keep firearms out of public spaces where they said it is inappropriate.

Public comment ran for more than an hour and included both opposition and support. Opponents told the council there is no documented local problem to address, argued the ordinance could penalize law-abiding citizens and asked the council to exempt concealed-carry permit holders. Local commenters with firearms-instruction credentials and members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League emphasized training and background checks for permit holders. Supporters urged a proactive policy to protect elected officials and the public, and some council members signaled support for tiered penalties or limited exemptions.

Staff and council discussed operational details: signage to give reasonable notice at building entrances, how an exemption for private security would apply only when security is hired by the city, and the likely reliance on passive enforcement in the near term. Staff warned that while many nearby localities have adopted similar prohibitions, empirical citation rates under those ordinances have been low.

The hearing was closed without immediate final action. Council will retain the draft and may return with specific penalty and exemption language for a future meeting.

Next steps: staff and council members said they would refine penalty levels, consider whether to include a concealed-carry exemption, and discuss signage and passive enforcement procedures before any ordinance vote.