The Need To Respond To A Threat With A Firearm Is Diminished When Firearms Are Prohibited In The Area
BY Herschel Smith7 years, 10 months ago
A Delaware Superior Court judge upheld a ban on carrying firearms in state parks and forests for purposes other than hunting.
The challenge to the rule was brought by multiple plaintiffs, including the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club – a 1,200 member organization in southern Delaware. In a civil complaint, they argued the administrative codes are “inconsistent with and pre-empted by” both state law and the state constitution.
The rifle club noted its members often like to camp at Trap Pond State Park or rent a cottage at Seashore State Park during nearby shooting competitions yet they are unable to do so because of the ban. Plaintiffs also argued a need exists to carry firearms for protection.
“A deprivation of constitutional rights can constitute irreparable harm,” the civil complaint stated.
Superior Court Judge T. Henley Graves said in his Dec. 23 ruling the regulations do not run “afoul” of the Delaware Constitution, nor did they contradict state law passed by the General Assembly.
“As for plaintiffs’ concerns for self-defense, the Court observes the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area,” Graves said in the ruling.
The rules in question state it is “unlawful to display, possess or discharge firearms of any description, air rifles, B.B. guns, sling shots, or archery equipment upon lands or waters administered by the Division, except with prior written approval of the Director.”
[ … ]
DNREC Secretary David Small told the Associated Press he was pleased with the ruling.
“We do not believe that the unrestricted ability to carry weapons is consistent with our mission to provide every visitor with safe, enjoyable recreational experiences,” Small said in a prepared statement.
As Thomas Sowell recently observed, “The fatal fallacy of gun-control laws in general is the assumption that such laws actually control guns. Criminals who disobey other laws are not likely to be stopped by gun-control laws. What such laws actually do is increase the number of disarmed and defenseless victims.”
So the assumption on the part of the judge is that black bears won’t attack any camper or hiker in the park (or perhaps see this report if you want something closer to Delaware). After all, it’s not as if Delaware has an issue with black bears. And I’m also certain that Coyotes aren’t ensconced in Delaware now.
People are always peaceful, criminals check the laws before putting that weapon in the car, and laws actually control the decisions people make. And judges always write decisions that come right out of the land of fairy tales. Good Lord. What do these eggheads learn in their “schools?” I seriously wonder if this guy has ever been more than 100 yards from a coffee and pastry shop.
Here is what I recommend that Judge T. Henley Graves do about this issue. Get yourself a tent, backpack and some camping gear and go hiking and camping in the state parks in the area. You know, overnight. Multiple nights. With no weapon, and no protection from anyone or anything. No cabin walls, no cell phone. And take your wife and children with you too.
Report back to me on whether you trust the laws to keep bears, Coyotes and criminals away from you overnight. If not, you’re a liar and hypocrite.
On January 4, 2017 at 9:47 am, Fred said:
Perhaps Judge Graves would like to spend a long weekend in the gun free utopia of south Chiraq. Diminished need is a flat out lie from a sitting judge. He should be disbarred at least.
On January 4, 2017 at 4:26 pm, GenEarly said:
These judges and gun control states/cities exist for only 1 reason…….Overwhelming Support for them. Sucks to live there and I don’t and wouldn’t either.
On January 4, 2017 at 8:06 pm, Duke Norfolk said:
Ah yes, the magic of No Gun zones. These people really are blindly stupid.