Virginia Regulatory Town Hall View Comments

Department of Forestry

Department of Forestry

Virginia State Forest Regulations [4 VAC 10 ‑ 30]

Previous Comment Next Comment Back to List of Comments

11/28/08 3:56 pm

Commenter: Doug

Why render law abiding citizens defenseless?

We citizens that lawfully carry firearms - whether concealed or not - should be allowed to continue the practice, as long as we do so lawfully.

We gun owners recognize the inherent difficulty for law enforcement in providing protection for such varied and scattered areas as the State Parks. However, despite what one other person here has said - ie:

"The laws are designed to protect the population as a whole and not the need to statisfy a few individual who feel the need to carry a gun everywhere."

"Why would there be a need to carry a handgun in the state forest unless you have ill intentions? ... I feel that I have a RIGHT to enjoy the woods without the fear of walking upon someone carrying a handgun. I have a RIGHT to except my safety be a priority to those in charge of our state and federal land. "

This post reflects an irrational fear as well as a naieve (dare I say woeful) ignorance of case law in the United States, especially since the rate of crime amongst concealed carry permit holders who have generally undergone background checks and training is a fraction of the rate among the general public.

The courts have held that the individual is responsible for their own protection, not the state. I would suggest this person research the following cases in force since 1856:

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989 (1989)

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)

Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985)

Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965)

Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974)

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)

Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)

Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)

Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)

Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978)

Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)

Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)

Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)

And I would also suggest he finds appeasement of his seemingly irrational fear of armed law abiding citizens with the realization that there are people all around him with lawfully carried firearms every single day, and yet they pass by without molesting or threatening him in many public places.

CommentID: 4655