During debate over proposed firearms legislation in Virginia, Delegate Tom Garrett sharply criticized the measure, arguing that the bill would create broad restrictions on firearm possession and could effectively criminalize many lawful gun owners across the state.
Garrett made his remarks on the House floor while addressing fellow lawmakers about the scope of the proposal and its potential impact on residents who own firearms for recreation, hunting, or personal use.
According to Garrett, the language contained in the bill raised serious questions about its practicality and enforceability.
“I literally, Mr. Speaker, wondered if we were being pranked when I read the words in this bill,” Garrett said.
Garrett described provisions in the legislation that he said would restrict where individuals could carry firearms in public spaces.
“You see, this bill would prevent people in Virginia from carrying on any quote, any public street, highway, Alley, et cetera, on or about his person,” Garrett said.
To illustrate his concerns, Garrett referenced a comparison involving overlapping groups of Virginia residents.
He described the concept using the idea of a Venn diagram to explain how different categories of individuals could be affected by the proposed restrictions.
“So Mr. Speaker, the presidential nominee that carried those localities was fond of Venn diagrams in my district,” Garrett said.
“In my district we have these things just for people in Nova called pickup trucks.”
Garrett said many residents in other parts of Virginia commonly own pickup trucks, firearms, or both, and may also use those firearms for recreational shooting or hunting.
“This is a circle representing people in rest of Virginia who own pickup trucks,” Garrett said.
“Now this is a circle representing the people in the rest of Virginia who own pickup trucks who also own firearms.”
Garrett continued by describing a third overlapping group that includes people who participate in recreational shooting or hunting.
“And I just want to add a circle representing the people in the rest of Virginia who own pickup trucks firearms and like to shoot recreationally or hunt,” Garrett said.
“Because you were so kind as to put a carve out in there.”
Garrett argued that when the categories are combined, the bill could affect a large portion of the state’s population.
“That’s this your Venn diagram is one circle,” Garrett said.
Garrett also criticized what he described as political messaging behind the proposal.
“Now I understand that this sort of virtue signaling might win you votes in Nova,” Garrett said.
“But for those of us who live in the real world, which I like to call Rova, this is absolutely positively not something that can be enforced.”
Garrett said the bill’s language could redefine certain commonly owned firearms as assault weapons.
“We’ve literally created a criminal class out of millions, not hyperbolic, of Virginians,” Garrett said.
He cited examples of firearms he believes could fall under the bill’s definitions.
“And defined as an assault weapon, a single shot break action 410, shotgun or a bolt action rifle with an integral magazine, if the barrel is threaded,” Garrett said.
Garrett argued that such features do not increase the lethality of the firearms in question.
“Which enhances lethality, exactly none,” Garrett said.
Garrett also raised concerns about what he described as inconsistencies within the criminal justice system, pointing to instances where other offenses may receive more lenient treatment.
“And while we pardon all kinds of people who are committing crimes and reduce sentences and give judges the discretion to do things like wave off your DUI offense where you might have killed my child had circumstances gone differently,” Garrett said.
“We’re creating criminals out of people who want to drive to their next door neighbor’s farm and their pickup truck.”
Garrett concluded by predicting the measure would face legal challenges if passed.
“If this bill passes, it will be challenged, and it will fail,” Garrett said.
“And it will cost even more taxpayer dollars to try to defend this garbledygook, Mr. Speaker.”
Garrett urged lawmakers to reject the proposal.
“I would urge a no vote on this bill,” Garrett said.
WATCH: