Revision History: Loitering unhoused persons

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the §15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connected with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying, 
  <blockquote
  "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles; everyone is homeless out there." 
  </blockquote>
  I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected thousands and thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connected with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
- We received more than one complaint saying, "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected thousands and thousands of people.

+ We received more than one complaint saying, 

- 

+ <blockquote

- It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles; everyone is homeless out there." 

- 

+ </blockquote>

- After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected thousands and thousands of people.

  
- I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

  
- <hr>

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

  
- == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

  
- <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

+ <hr>

  
- <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

+ == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

  
- <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

+ <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

  
- <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

+ <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

  
- <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

+ <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

  
- <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

+ <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

  
- <hr>

+ <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

  
- == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ <hr>

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ 

+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connected with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
- We received more than one complaint saying, "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ We received more than one complaint saying, "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected thousands and thousands of people.

  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
- What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

+ What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connected with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

  
- We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ We received more than one complaint saying, "This will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California law on this topic; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926a allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926 allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  We have an amendment for this bill.
  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the t § 15.2-926a allows localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
- I want to note that we have an amendment for this bill.

+ We have an amendment for this bill.

  
  The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==
  
  <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.
  
  <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.
  
  <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).
  
  <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.
  
  <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.
  
  <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
- I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.

+ I want to note that we have an amendment for this bill.

  
- Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

+ The amendment clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.

  
- === Introduction ===

+ Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ === Introduction ===

  
- I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
- What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

+ I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

  
- We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

  
- It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
- After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

  
- I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

  
- <hr>

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

  
- == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

+ <hr>

  
- <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

+ == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

  
- <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

+ <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

  
- <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

+ <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

  
- <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

+ <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

  
- <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

+ <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

  
- <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

+ <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

  
- <hr>

+ <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

  
- == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ <hr>

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
- ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==

+ [https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1093523.PDF Language of the bill as originally introduced.]

  
- === Amendment ===

+ ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==

  
- I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.

+ === Amendment ===

  
- Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

+ I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.

  
- === Introduction ===

+ Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ === Introduction ===

  
- I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
- What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

+ I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

  
- We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

  
- It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
- After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

  
- I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

  
- <hr>

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

  
- == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

+ <hr>

  
- <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

+ == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

  
- <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

+ <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

  
- <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

+ <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

  
- <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

+ <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

  
- <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

+ <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

  
- <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

+ <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

  
- <hr>

+ <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

  
- == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ <hr>

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.
  
  Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
- == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ == Real Examples of Targeted Loitering Ordinances ==

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ <b>Hampton, VA</b> (a proposed anti-sleeping/camping ordinance) — City Council considered a law that would make it unlawful to camp, lay, sleep, or store belongings on public property, with fines up to $2,500 or jail time if enforced.

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ <b>Charlottesville, VA</b> (encampment/camping restrictions) — Council reviewed an ordinance to ban sleeping, camping, and storing personal belongings on public property and allow immediate removal of encampments and items with no notice.

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ <b>California (multiple cities)</b> — After Johnson v. Grants Pass, many cities enacted strict camping bans that penalize sleeping outside or storing belongings on public land, with possible fines and jail time (e.g., Fresno, Indio).

+ 

+ <b>Fremont, CA</b> — Passed one of the Bay Area’s toughest anti-camping laws, banning tents and personal property on public property and even penalizing those who aid people in encampments.

+ 

+ <b>Boulder City, NV</b> — Adopted an ordinance making camping/sleeping/storing personal property in public places a misdemeanor with potential jail time.

+ 

+ <b>Summit, New Jersey</b> — A proposed ordinance would fine or jail people who sleep in public spaces, reflecting similar debates in other municipalities.

+ 

+ <hr>

+ 

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ 

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ 

+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
- I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

+ I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies that this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property. This clarifies that private property is not covered in this bill and that any publicly owned property must be reasonably accessible to the individual: a government building behind barbed-wire fences is now clearly not subject to limitations of this bill.

  
- === Introduction ===

+ Second, the amendment simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

+ === Introduction ===

  
- I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
- What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

+ I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

  
- We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

  
- It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
- After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

  
- I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

  
- <hr>

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

  
- == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

+ <hr>

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
  We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.
  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
- == Background Information on <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i> ==

+ == Background Information on Johnson v. Grants Pass ==

  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.
  
  I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.
  
- We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Franciso or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen, that right now Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

+ We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Francisco or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen that right now, Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
  It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
  <hr>
  
  == Background Information on <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i> ==
  
  The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
  
  In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
- HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative. I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative.

  
- What this bill means is that sleeping, resting, or sheltering in safe, public places cannot be criminalized when it harms no one. It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

  
- After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ What this bill does is simple: it prevents localities from ticketing, arresting, or fining someone just for sleeping, resting, or protecting themselves from the elements in safe public places when they are not causing harm. What that means in practice is instead of helping those in need of shelter and assistance get connecting with resources and support, we push a vulnerable population further to the fringes.

  
- I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ We received more than one complaint saying: "this will turn us into San Franciso or Los Angeles, everyone is homeless out there." I want to remind those who feel that may happen, that right now Virginia law is a lot like California's; we both allow for criminalization of people for homelessness. This bill is a chance to be <b><i>less</i></b> like the states where this crisis has affected ten to hundreds of thousands of people.

  
- <hr>

+ It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

  
- == Background Information on <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i> ==

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

  
- The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

  
- In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ <hr>

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ == Background Information on <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i> ==

+ 

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ 

+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==
  
  === Amendment ===
  
  I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.
  
  === Introduction ===
  
  HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative. I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.
  
  What this bill means is that sleeping, resting, or sheltering in safe, public places cannot be criminalized when it harms no one. It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.
  
  After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.
  
  I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.
  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ <hr>

+ 

+ == Background Information on <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i> ==

+ 

+ The Court ruled that local governments may enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping laws even if no shelter is available. It held that issuing fines or citations for sleeping outside does not violate the Constitution’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

+ 

+ In practical terms, the decision gave cities broader legal authority to criminalize homelessness, even when people have no realistic alternative. That ruling increased pressure on states to step in with humane, balanced policies,like HB1394, to prevent punishment from becoming the default response to poverty.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
- Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.

+ ==House Subcommittee Introduction ==

  
- [[Category:2026 Session]]
+ === Amendment ===

+ 

+ I want to note that we have an amendment that clarifies this bill applies only to publicly owned and accessible property, and simplifies confusing language about perceived status.

+ 

+ === Introduction ===

+ 

+ HB1394 addresses a simple problem: people with nowhere to go are being punished for basic survival. Today, the Code allows life-sustaining localities to create loitering laws that treat the act of survival as a crime, even when someone has no realistic alternative. I imagine most of you found the ice and cold difficult this past week; imagine if you also had the threat of arrest or harassment to handle on top of that. That is the reality our unhoused brothers and sisters face daily.

+ 

+ What this bill means is that sleeping, resting, or sheltering in safe, public places cannot be criminalized when it harms no one. It does not overburden localities, and it preserves their ability to manage safety, while also restoring dignity to our unhoused neighbors.

+ 

+ After <i>Johnson v. Grants Pass</i>, the need for humane state leadership is urgent. We can respond with compassion, common sense, and fairness.

+ 

+ I hope that it is the will of the body to report the bill to the full committee.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

- = HB360 Loitering; unhoused persons =

+ = HB1394 Loitering; unhoused persons =

  
  Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.
  
  [[Category:2026 Session]]

  = HB360 Loitering; unhoused persons =
  
  Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.
  
- [[Category:2026 Sessions]]
+ [[Category:2026 Session]]

- = Loitering unhoused persons =

+ = HB360 Loitering; unhoused persons =

  
  Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.
  
  [[Category:2026 Sessions]]

- == Loitering unhoused persons ==
+ = Loitering unhoused persons =

- 
+ 

- Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.
+ Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Sessions]]

- == Loitering unhoused persons ==
+ = Loitering unhoused persons =

- 
+ 

- Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.
+ Start writing your article here using '''Wikitext'''.

+ 

+ [[Category:2026 Sessions]]