I read one comment in which the poster indicated he felt he had a "right" to walk through the State Parks without being fearful about coming into contact with a person carrying a handgun.  I think this person's comment is at the crux of the issue.  And the problem is (1) that he equates the carrying of defensive weapons with the offensive use of such weapons, and (2) thinks that having a rule, ordinance, statute, or regulation prohibiting the carrying or use of all handguns will eliminate the presence of weapons carried for offensive purposes.

As to the first point, I suggest that state statutes prohibiting brandishing and assault already more than take care of the problem of offensive or criminal use of weapons, and all any further regulation could do is to confuse prosecutions for such crimes.  Where one keeps his handgun in its holster unless and until deadly force be exerted against him, he is an asset in the park because of the inhibition the presence of such people will have on those having criminal intent.  The greater a prospective criminal's degree of uncertainty about his ability to "get away with" the commission of a crime, the less likely he is to commit the crime, and knowledge that persons in the parks may be armed will inhibit criminal behavior.

As to the second point, I need only point to the difference in the crime rates between states which have an enlightened policy towards the ownership, use, and possession of handguns, such as Virginia and South Carolina, and states whose reaction out of fear rather than logic has caused them to try to inhibit crime by reducing the power of citizens to defend themselves.

I would note, finally, that if the parks be made subject to regulation that inhibits the rights of citizens to defend themselves, then, because the operation of the parks is a "proprietary function" rather than a "ministerial function", the Commonwealth will be subject to civil liability for negligently failing to actively protect everyone going into the parks.  Sovereign immunity does not apply in such cases, and the Commonwealth would owe the highest possible duty to such persons as "invitees".  But where an ordinary business is not a "guarantor of the safety" of its invitees, the Commonwealth, by actively precluding citizens' self defense, and thereby relegating such citizens to a semi-custodial role, will have assumed a positive duty to protect all such persons.  And any negligent failure to supply effective protection will be actionable.

I don't think we can either afford to staff the parks with sufficient armies of armed guards (as we do with good results in the courthouses),  or destroy the aesthetic pleasures of being in the parks with the level of security that would be required; the Supreme Court of Virginia has repeatedly stated that it is the citizen's right and duty to protect himself.  If the Commonwealth changes that principle by regulation, we shall have to be prepared either by armies of guards or lots of insurance.

There is a reason, beyond charity, why the Commonwealth offered the families of victims of the VT shootings a million dollars each.  That was a settlement to ward off precisely the same kind of litigation that I warn about here, and for precisely the same reasons.

Daniel L. Hawes, Esq.
Virginia Legal Defense
New Baltimore, VA.