Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopewell council narrows proposed firearms ban to city buildings after hours of public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment and council debate, Hopewell city council agreed to remove parks from a proposed ordinance that would prohibit firearms in city buildings and directed staff to publish a revised draft for a vote in two weeks.
Councilors in Hopewell on Tuesday moved to strip parks from a proposed ordinance that would bar firearms from certain city property and directed staff to circulate a revised draft for formal action at the council’s next meeting.
The discussion followed an extended public-comment period in which dozens of residents and outside advocates urged opposing positions. “This ordinance will inadvertently put vulnerable individuals and law-abiding citizens at a greater risk,” Amanda Barnett, a Ward 4 resident who works at the city library, told the council, arguing that removing firearms from parks and public spaces would leave people unprotected. Opponents including Brandon Howard and Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, warned the council that similar local bans have faced legal challenges and could cost the city in litigation.
Vice Mayor Joyner, who introduced the ordinance, said it was never intended to include parks and that she had prepared a substitute draft that would apply only to city buildings. “I am only interested in city buildings,” Joyner said in explaining a revised text; she cited the Virginia Beach mass-shooting as rationale for measures to protect municipal staff and sensitive public-service locations. The city attorney confirmed that a substitute that removes parks is available and that state law permits localities to adopt ordinances within the scope being considered.
Council debate focused on the ordinance’s scope and implementation. Members discussed signage and an event-permit process that would allow approved gun-safety or training classes in city facilities; some raised civil‑liberties concerns and the risk of costly litigation if the city overreaches. Several residents asked for clearer definitions (for example, what counts as a park or whether some plazas qualify), and speakers warned that vague language could chill visitors and local businesses.
Councilors voted in favor of removing parks from the draft and asked staff to publish the revised ordinance in the agenda packet for the meeting in two weeks so the council and the public can review exact language prior to a vote.
What’s next: staff will post the substitute ordinance with parks removed and the city will take a final vote at the next scheduled council meeting.
