From The Martinsville (VA) Bulletin ~ Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban, four local law enforcement officials do not think gun bans deter crime.
“I think it’s absolutely insane to think that we can take away a citizen’s right to (have guns) and that is somehow going to make this country a safer place to live,” said Martinsville Police Chief Mike Rogers. “We live in a very violent society with a lot of mean and crazy people who don’t mind robbing and killing people, whether it’s with their hands, a gun, a knife or a baseball bat.”
Rogers said “I hope and pray” the Supreme Court will strike down the district’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. The ban, which has been called the strictest in the nation, is being challenged by a Washington resident.
Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the case on Tuesday. It has drawn attention nationwide because the court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, since it was ratified in 1791, The Associated Press has reported.
If the court upholds the ban, it could lead to more areas attempting to impose similar bans, said Martinsville Commonwealth’s Attorney Joan Ziglar.
Rogers said he opposes the ban because from his point of view, it only hurts law-abiding citizens who own handguns for protection or for sport shooting.
“Anyone who’s fighting to eliminate guns, I don’t care what kind they are, has obviously never experiened someone kicking down the front door of their home at 2 o’clock in the morning,” he said. “Ain’t no need getting out of bed and running to get the broom handle. If someone is breaking into your house, they don’t have water pistols with them.”
Outlawing handguns only makes things easier on criminals, Rogers said, because those who are intent on breaking the law won’t worry about whether a gun is legal or not.
Henry County Sheriff Lane Perry agreed that criminals will find ways to get guns.
“The people who are going to participate in crimes, they’re not going to worry about your restrictions for access,” Perry said. “They’re going to get what they want.”
He said that when localities begin doing things such as banning handguns, it makes it difficult for residents to know whether they are abiding by the law from one place to another. For instance, his office often receives calls from people wondering whether their concealed weapons are allowed in other areas, he said.
“It needs to be a consistent regulation across the board,” Perry said.
He added that whatever the court decides, he will continue to stress the importance of keeping guns safeguarded and out of reach of children.
Two local prosecutors said they expect the court to strike down the handgun ban.
“I think the court will be pro Second Amendment” and strike the ban, Ziglar said.
Randy Smith, assistant commonwealth’s attorney in Henry County, agreed that he expects the court will strike the handgun ban.
The court may say some regulation of handguns is possible, “but a total ban without exception is probably not going to stand up,” Smith said.
For instance, he said the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean you can yell “Fire” in a crowded theater. “Also, there are restrictions on the First Amendment in terms of place, time” and other factors, he said.
In Virginia, localities cannot enact a ban such as that in Washington, D.C., Smith said. However, the state code bans certain weapons, such as some assault rifles, and it has more regulations on firearms than many people imagine, he said.
For instance, mufflers and silencers must be registered, illegal aliens and those who have been acquitted of a charge by reason of insanity cannot have firearms, machine guns must be registered and it is illegal to hunt when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Smith said.
By banning guns, he said, it means “criminals have guns and good people don’t have guns.” He said Great Britain, which bans guns, has one of the highest rates of violent crimes in the world.
“Home invasions are commonplace” because criminals know residents are not armed to protect themselves, he added.
Ziglar said she is torn on the issue.
On one hand, “I believe in the Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. At the same time, I believe people who are property owners in neighborhoods bombarded by gunfire ... deserve to have a neighborhood that is safe to live in,” she said. “In an effort to have safe neighborhoods you have to have a balance in constitutional rights.”
If Washington, D.C., overstepped that balance with its ban, the court will advise it of that, she said.
Ziglar is not concerned about law-abiding people having guns.
“Most law-abiding citizens do have guns and don’t cause any problems with guns. They don’t shoot back when there are drive-by shootings and they shoot the wrong house. They run for cover,” she said.
But criminals are not going to follow the law, so making the law more strict will not affect the people it is designed to target, Ziglar added.
Both Rogers and Perry said they will be watching for the court’s decision.
“I think either way, it’s going to have an impact on citizen safety,” Rogers said.