Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delegate’s floor remarks on Lt. Col. Brandon Shaw prompt debate over campus weapons policies
Summary
During the morning hour Delegate Garrett delivered extended remarks in memory of Lt. Col. Brandon Shaw and criticized recent campus weapons and criminal‑justice policies, linking them to the ODU shooting and prompting responses from colleagues about bill language and carve‑outs for ROTC and university police.
Delegate Garrett (Buckingham) used a point of personal privilege on March 14 to ask the House to adjourn in memory of Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shaw and to deliver an extended speech that connected the death to recent policy choices on campus weapons and criminal justice.
Garrett named the accused in the Old Dominion University case and said the defendant, "Mohamed Jalloh, the murderer of American hero and son of Stanton, Virginia, Brandon Shaw," had been released early and that policies championed by some in the chamber contributed to the outcome. "He wouldn't have been able to murder colonel Shaw if he hadn't been released early, a policy championed by people on 1 side of this chamber," Garrett said. He also criticized university policies on what weapons students may carry and argued such policies left personnel disarmed.
Several members responded on the floor. Delegate Carlson (Malbomar) disputed the implication that the campus‑weapons bill lacked exceptions, saying the bill contains carve‑outs for ROTC, university‑sanctioned events and university police; Carlson urged colleagues to "read the bill" and expressed sympathy for the family. Garrett’s remarks included assertions about the accused’s criminal history, deportation, and whether the governor had called the shooting "terrorism." Those are factual claims recorded on the floor but were not resolved in the morning hour.
The exchange illustrates how ceremonial floor moments can become forums for policy debate: Garrett framed his remarks as both a memorial and a critique of recent legislation; Carlson and others pushed back on factual and legal characterizations and on whether bill language would have affected the incident. The House did not take any formal legislative action on campus weapons or criminal‑justice policy during the morning hour; the adjournment in memory of Shaw was agreed to as a memorial gesture.
The House’s morning session continued with additional points of personal privilege and procedural business.
