Dozens of residents oppose proposed Hopewell ordinance to restrict firearms in city buildings; council removes parks language for revision

A contentious public comment period at Wednesday’s Hopewell City Council meeting focused on a proposed ordinance that would prohibit firearms in certain city properties.

Vice mayor Joyner introduced the ordinance as a measure aimed at staff safety in government buildings; she and the city attorney said the proposed text was modeled on ordinances adopted by other localities. After public comment, Joyner submitted a substitute draft that would remove parks from the prohibition and confine the restriction to city buildings.

Dozens of residents signed up to speak and the room filled with opponents of a broader ban. Several speakers, including Brandon Howard and Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, argued the ordinance would be unconstitutional and warned the city could face litigation and legal fees if it enacted a prohibition. “If you pass this before those suits settle, you’re gonna have a third lawsuit by me and my organization,” Brandon Howard said.

Other commenters described personal experiences of crime and argued armed, law‑abiding citizens make them safer in parks and public spaces; still other speakers — a smaller group — said government buildings can be legitimate places to restrict firearms to protect staff. Arguments about whether parks and small plazas would be covered by the proposed language prompted calls from councilors to tighten wording and clarify exemptions for permitted events and for educational classes such as armed‑safety courses.

Councilors ultimately voted to remove parks from the version being considered and to bring a revised ordinance back at the next meeting; the vote was taken after extended debate about statutory authority, the Dillon rule and whether the city has express state law authority to adopt such ordinances. Several councilors said they supported measures to protect city employees while others said they opposed restricting citizens’ constitutional rights.

No final ordinance was adopted at the meeting; staff said a revised draft will be published with the packet ahead of the next council meeting so the public can review amendments.

Notable on the public record: multiple speakers warned of lawsuits (two suits in other Virginia localities were cited), several public‑safety anecdotes were offered on both sides of the issue, and councilors requested clearer language on covered locations, transportation of firearms on city property, and permitting for instructor‑led firearm safety classes.