Fairfax City officials on Sept. 30 discussed proposed amendments to Chapter 54 of the City Code that would expand the city’s existing ban on firearms inside city buildings and parks to include city-permitted events and adjacent public rights-of-way. The city attorney and police department presented legal limits, enforcement logistics and data, and council voted to schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance for Oct. 14 and to take action at a later meeting.

The proposed change would add language to the current ordinance to prohibit the “possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components… at city buildings or facilities, on public property, or at permitted public events,” according to staff presentation materials introduced by City Attorney Brian Lubkerman. Lubkerman told the council that local regulation must stay within the enabling authority granted by the General Assembly and cited the state statutory authority discussed during the original 2021 ordinance presentations.

Why it matters: The amendments would bring Fairfax City’s rules closer to those used by surrounding jurisdictions, including an explicit ban at city-permitted events and a possible increase in penalties for violations. City officials said the revisions are intended to reduce the chance of firearm-related incidents at public gatherings, but they also stressed practical constraints — especially the legal requirement to post clear signage where the prohibition applies and limits on citing violations where notice is lacking.

Staff and police presentation

Brian Lubkerman, the city attorney, summarized the technical structure of the existing ordinance enacted in 2021 and the narrow scope localities have to regulate firearms under state law. He noted the statute that serves as the enabling authority for local restrictions and said the proposed amendments aim to match Fairfax County’s language by inserting a prohibition for city-permitted events and by clarifying certain exemptions and signage requirements.

Police Chief Raul Pedroso told council the department reviewed 10 years of incidents at locations the ordinance would cover and found three incidents involving firearms: an unconfirmed reported confrontation in a park, an evening discharge at a rented city facility and a recent Rock the Block event in which officers identified and removed a concealed handgun from a permit holder. Pedroso said the Rock the Block case resulted in a class 4 summons under the current ordinance and that the department took possession of the firearm for safekeeping.

“We verified he was [a] concealed carry permit holder. He basically gave up his firearm,” Pedroso said of the Rock the Block incident, adding that the case remains pending in court.

Pedroso summarized operational implications: average response time to incidents mentioning guns citywide is roughly five minutes over the three-year window the department analyzed, and response times are shorter — about three minutes — for incidents at known event locations where officers are more likely to be stationed. He told council that the department already increases event staffing and uses intelligence, cameras and license-plate readers to reduce risk at large gatherings.

Policy choices and practical limits

Lubkerman and the police captains emphasized two recurring operational issues: (1) signage and public notice and (2) the difference between signage and physical screening. Lubkerman referenced court precedent discussed during earlier litigation over firearms signage and said clear, reasonably placed signage is required to put the public on notice. He and Pedroso warned that a prohibition without effective notice would be difficult to enforce and that some events might require additional measures — such as funneling entrances or temporary barriers — to place people on legal notice.

Captain Natalie Heinze reviewed national studies the department examined and said the research uses different definitions and reaches mixed conclusions about the deterrent effect of gun-free zones. She told council those studies were inconclusive and that the department wanted the discussion grounded in local operational realities and data.

Council questions and staff follow-up

Council members pressed staff on specific implementation questions. Among the council requests and staff responses:
- City Hall grounds: Lubkerman said the current ordinance covers city buildings and parks as defined in the code; designating City Hall property as a park would be a separate local action if council wants the prohibition to apply to the exterior grounds. He said that change would not be handled as part of the present ordinance amendment.
- Leased space and common areas: Lubkerman said the prohibition applies only to space used by the governmental entity; common hallways and privately owned areas in leased buildings would not automatically be covered unless the private owner bans firearms. If a city office uses only a portion of a leased building, the prohibition applies to the area used for governmental purposes.
- Signage and operations planning: Staff said that, if the council adopted the amendment to cover city-permitted events, staff would need to review every city-permitted event to prepare a signage and notice plan; they recommended a short delayed effective date if council adopts the ordinance so staff can implement signage and public education.
- Penalty level: The current ordinance carries a class 4 misdemeanor penalty (fine up to $250). Staff said neighboring jurisdictions use a class 1 misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and a higher fine) for similar ordinances, but they also told council that the severity of the penalty does not change officers’ ability to investigate when they reasonably suspect an offense; it may, however, affect deterrence and public messaging.

Chief Pedroso and Captain Jay Tolan said neighboring jurisdictions that adopted similar event prohibitions have reported few arrests tied only to the ordinance; Alexandria reported four park-related incidents in recent years, most of which involved other criminal charges. Pedroso emphasized that signage and staffing are the practical levers the city can use to make the ban effective.

Direct quotes

“We rely on intelligence. We staff events. We use technology and equipment,” Chief Raul Pedroso said, describing the department’s event-security approach. Captain Natalie Heinze warned that national studies define “active shooter” differently and reach mixed conclusions, so local data and operational planning should guide council choices.

Next steps and public hearing

After questions and discussion, council voted to defer the public hearing that would have been held that evening and to schedule the public hearing on Oct. 14, with council indicating it will take action at a subsequent meeting (the council indicated Oct. 28 as a likely decision date). Councilmembers asked staff for additional information to be published before the hearing, including clearer signage guidance, an event-by-event map showing where the prohibition would apply at city-permitted events, and more granular response-time data (for example, median times and the interval from incident start to 9-1-1 call), so the public and council have more information ahead of the hearing.

The council’s motion to defer the hearing was made and seconded on the record and passed unanimously. The staff presentation, police data and the schedule for the Oct. 14 public hearing were the principal outcomes of the work session.

What was not decided

Council did not change the ordinance language at the Sept. 30 work session and did not adopt new penalties or new exemptions. Staff said they would return with targeted follow-up information and with a signage/operations plan if council moves forward after the public hearing.