Public Comments

Hello, hope everyone that is reading or listen is have a day they deserve. As a trans man I say this something weird cause locker rooms are used in gyms and schools. Who can say that a person is trans unless they're just starting out in the HRT journey. You really can't unless you search them, and many time I know every trans person that not confident will be changed behind the curtains of the showers in the back of the locker room.

SB 4 is unconstitutional and dangerous. A 30‑foot restriction directly infringes upon the First Amendment right to record law enforcement, which federal courts have repeatedly upheld.

At that distance, phones can’t capture clear audio or video details, even with zoom. The video of George Floyd’s murder, which was filmed from 10 feet away, would have been illegal under this bill. The difference between 10 feet and 30 feet is the difference between evidence and unusable footage.

ICE and Border Patrol have a documented history of violating people’s rights and even killing civilians. Those abuses were only exposed because bystanders were close enough to record what actually happened. That transparency was critical because federal officials have repeatedly tried to deny, downplay, or even lie about these incidents until the video evidence proved otherwise.

This bill doesn’t improve safety; it reduces transparency and public accountability while enabling misconduct. If it passes, it will face immediate legal challenges for violating clearly established case law that allow recording as long as a person is not physically interfering.

Lawmakers must reject this bill and uphold the constitutional protections they swore an oath to defend.

I am opposed to any law preventing the public from filming police and their abuses of our rights. Cameras are everywhere now, and that is how we know what they are really up to. This bill is an attempt to violate the rights of West Virginians, and cover up police brutality. I will vote out any of my representatives who vote for this bill or attempt to violate my rights.

• Defining "harassment" so broadly as "to willfully engage in a course of conduct directed at a first responder which intentionally causes substantial emotional distress in that first responder and serves no legitimate purpose." seems to be intentionally vague. If you define harassment as this, you must define also what constitutes as "substantial emotional distress" and what constitutes a "legitimate purpose". Both definitions should be recorded or referenced specifically in this bill or its amendments. Observation of a law enforcement officer in a public space is a legitimate purpose.
• 25ft seems too far a distance to require people to be to accurately record and document a law enforcement interaction, something they are guaranteed to be able to do as part of their constitutional rights. This means I would consider this bill itself to be a violation.
• Defining the starting target of the 25ft distance as a moving entity as a first responder seems unreasonable and nearly impossible to enforce for several reasons:
  • How are individuals meant to measure a distance of 25ft to be able to comply to this?
    • If an individual cannot reliably know the exact distance they are from the first responder, it is impossible for them to comply with this requirement. Equally - it seems impossible for law enforcement to enforce this when everyone is capable of saying they did not know and had no way of knowing that they were closer than 25ft.
    • Law Enforcement will equally be unable to tell when someone is under, on or over 25ft from them reliably to know when it is appropriate to charge someone or act on this.
  • How are individuals responsible for staying 25ft away when the target is moveable and can come closer to them without any way to discern the distance between individuals and the target point (first responder)?
  • If 25 of space must be kept in a radius, first responders should be equipped with a device such as a laser point measure that they activate when the 25 ft distance must be maintained that provides a clear guideline for where the 25ft distance starts. This bill should specify these dispensations being conditions required for the bill to pass.

I am a West Virginia retail liquor license holder and small business owner. I respectfully ask the committee to slow down consideration of SB 928.

According to the fiscal analysis prepared by the West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Administration, the bill could result in approximately $1.2 million in annual state revenue loss based on current product sales.

Under the proposed tax structure, sales of these products would need to increase by more than three times current volume in order for the state to recover the same level of tax revenue. That assumption deserves further review before structural changes are made to the state’s alcohol regulatory system.

West Virginia’s current system generates strong and reliable revenue for the state while maintaining clear product classifications between beer, wine, and distilled spirits. Creating a new category for low-proof spirit products risks weakening that structure and could lead to unintended consequences for both state revenue and existing license holders who invested under the current framework.

This issue deserves broader stakeholder discussion and economic analysis before moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

1. Barth, R. P. (2009). Privatization and performance based contracting in child welfare: Recent trends and implications. Child Welfare, 88(3).
2. Wulczyn, F., Chen, L., & Hislop, K. (2015). Foster Care Dynamics and System Performance. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
3. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2010). Child Welfare: Lessons Learned from Nebraska’s Privatization of Child Welfare Services.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS).
5. Zlotnik, J. L., DePanfilis, D., Daining, C., & Lane, M. (2005). Factors influencing retention of child welfare staff. Child Welfare League of America.

Dear Committee on the Judiciary,

As West Virginia Socially Necessary Service (SNS) providers who deliver critical in-home family preservation, supervised visitation, parenting education, and reunification support every day, we write in strong opposition to HB 4964. We appreciate the Senate’s recent passage of SB 937 on March 3, but we respectfully urge the House to reject this companion legislation and the Lead Agency model it promotes.

We live the child welfare crisis in the homes of the families we serve. While we support thoughtful reform, the fundamental principle must remain: First, do no harm. Implementing an unproven Lead Agency structure risks destabilizing the very grassroots services that keep children safe and families together.

Key concerns that remain unaddressed include:

• Financial survival of local providers — Smaller SNS agencies forced into subcontracting under a large Lead Agency face unsustainable margins and potential closure.
• Conflicts of interest — Lead Agencies would control referrals and oversight of their own competitors, undermining fairness and access to care.
• Workforce and resource diversion — Adding another administrative layer does nothing to solve our severe frontline staffing shortages and pulls dollars away from direct family interventions.
• Fiscal and judicial risks — The true cost of this bureaucracy is unknown, and court-ordered services must not be delayed or overridden by private entities.

We stand ready to collaborate on real solutions that strengthen frontline workers and community-based services. However, we cannot support legislation that experiments with our state’s most vulnerable children and families.

We respectfully request that HB 4964 be tabled or defeated. We also ask for public hearings that include direct input from SNS providers before any further action on this model.

Thank you for your service to West Virginia’s children and families. I am available to testify or provide additional information at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

I support West Virginia Senate Bill 963, which aims to strengthen due process protections in domestic violence protective order cases, especially regarding firearm possession. As someone who has personally experienced the flaws in the current system, I had a domestic protection order filed against me simply because my ex girlfriend worked at Walmart, and my routine shopping there was twisted into an accusation of harassment. This highlights how vague and easily abused these orders can be, often granted by family court magistrates as a precautionary measure to avoid liability if they deny one and something tragic occurs, public outrage could force them to resign. While I support this bill for attempting to add safeguards like requiring evidence and hearings before seizing firearms, I worry it may not fully address the root issues, as courts could still err on the side of caution and strip people of their guns without sufficient justification.

That said, I believe lawmakers should consider further improvements in future legislation to make the system fairer. One key change could be eliminating the requirement to confiscate ammunition alongside firearms ammunition is bulky and heavy, creating unnecessary burdens for law enforcement, and without the guns themselves, it's essentially useless for causing harm. People should be allowed to keep their ammunition in these situations, as it poses no real threat on its own. It's also worth noting that many women strategically file for domestic protection orders against men right before hunting season, using them as a form of punishment to prevent hunting, even when the men have done nothing wrong. This tactic ruins lives and demonstrates how the system can be weaponized for personal vendettas rather than genuine safety concerns.

Ultimately, just because someone has a domestic protection order against them doesn't automatically mean they are violent or dangerous some individuals certainly should lose access to firearms for valid reasons, but others should not, particularly when the petitioners themselves, or their friends and family, have made actual threats against the respondent. In those cases, disarming the person who is genuinely fearful for their safety turns the order into a one way street that endangers the wrong party. Domestic protection orders should function as a two way mechanism to protect everyone involved, but right now, the entire section of code governing them is in dire need of a complete overhaul. The family court system in West Virginia is fundamentally broken, and I urge lawmakers to prioritize fixing it in the years ahead to ensure justice, fairness, and true protection for all residents. Thank you for considering my perspective as a West Virginia resident who has seen these issues firsthand.

1. Veterans deserve all thats owed to them

Help out our Veterans 4

• Gghjjj

I oppose. I am living proof that 15 years behind bars for murder is enough. Please take into consideration that a lot of people are convicted of crimes that occurred while they were intoxicated/ under the influence of drugs. I know I was. I had never committed an act of violence against anyone until that night. I received therapy while at Lakin and it made me see why I turn to drugs when under stressful situations. I served 16 years and since I've been released I haven't had a single parole violation.

The president is right. the democrats are crazy and getting worse.they forgot the  meaning of right and wrong  .they hate trump..I wouldn't turn my back on any of them.