| RELATED |
What the ruling didThe 5-4 decision struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment.Second Amendment"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Majority opinionThe Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Justice Antonin Scalia said.Minority opinionJustice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe . . . the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons." D.C. handgun ban struck down Local gun owners hail ruling Ruling no boon for Virginia gun stores |
Customers and employees at a Chesterfield County shooting range hailed yesterday's Supreme Court decision, saying innocent people should be allowed to defend themselves with the same types of weapons an intruder might have.
But a local activist against gun violence said she is concerned about the accessibility of firearms.
Dwayne Lewis, operations manager of Dominion Shooting Range off Midlothian Turnpike in Chesterfield County, said the court's decision levels the playing field.
"What are you going to do if someone kicks in the door or they force their way in, and you're standing there in your underwear with a broomstick in your hand?" he asked.
The court affirmed 5-4 that an individual right to gun ownership exists and allows people to have guns in their home for self-defense. The ruling struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and imperiled similar prohibitions in other cities.
Rahmel O'Connor stopped by the shooting range and squeezed off 50 rounds from two handguns yesterday. The 28-year-old Richmonder said he plans to take a weapon-safety course and then buy a handgun, a decision he made after someone broke into his home earlier this month while he was out.
"I could have been in there at the time," said O'Connor, a pest-control employee who moved to Richmond from New York about two years ago.
He said he wouldn't want to kill an intruder and would rather shoot to wound. People ought to have the right to defend themselves, he said.
"It's the wrong people out there that do have access to the guns," O'Connor said.
June Hazlehurst, vice president of the Richmond chapter of Million Mom March/Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the court's decision was not surprising.
"It was entirely expected. The court we already knew was pretty much going to do this," she said. "It looks at this point that the fight about the Second Amendment has pretty much been taken off the table, for now at least.
"I think lots and lots of gun owners -- and the rest of us, too -- would agree you just don't want access to firearms as easy as it is now."
Eric Zachman, an assistant manager at Dominion, said yesterday's Supreme Court ruling was "a long time coming."
"How can you be a father and not be able to protect your wife and your children?" Zachman asked.
Asked about the dangers of accidental shootings or children finding weapons at home, Zachman said such responsibilities fall to handgun owners and not to the government.
Paul Allen, a retired FBI agent who lives in Chesterfield, visited the shooting range yesterday with his two sons, Frank, 18, and Michael, 16. Both were there to fire handguns for the first time.
Allen, who does consulting work for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said he believes in residents' right to protect themselves in their homes.
"There's no way in the world that you're going to keep bad guys from having guns," Allen said.
Lewis said he doesn't carry his gun all the time, but he keeps one at home.
"You may have it and not need it," he said, "but it's better to have it when you need it."
Contact Reed Williams at (804) 649-6332 or rwilliams@timesdispatch.com.


digg it
Save This Page