A judge in Roanoke, Virginia has denied a request for an injunction against the city's ban on firearms in parks and public buildings, which was adopted three years ago. 

According to the Roanoke Rambler, Roanoke Circuit Judge David Carson concluded that keeping the ordinance in place while the lawsuit continues will not irreparably harm the rights of the plaintiffs, which includes the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, and several Roanoke residents. 

Gilbert Ambler, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued in a Roanoke circuit courtroom last week that Virginia’s constitution protects an individual right to bear arms and that parks shouldn’t be considered an exempt “sensitive place” in keeping with the nation’s history. (A month after the lawsuit was fired, Roanoke rescinded part of the law that banned guns at permitted events such as parades and festivals.)

Ambler said gun owners face potential criminal misdemeanor charges for carrying guns in parks; a police spokeswoman said earlier this year that nobody had been charged with violating the law.

It shouldn't matter how many people have been charged with violating the misdemeanor ordinance. The issue isn't how often the law is being enforced. It's the law itself that's the problem. 

As the Roanoke Rambler reports, the city not only hired one of Virginia's best-known law firms to defend the ordinance but also reached out to the gun control group Brady for legal assistance. The attorneys working for Roanoke argued that city parks and buildings should be considered valid "sensitive places" in part because children are often present. 

“This case cannot be viewed as an abstraction,” said Erin Ashwell, a partner at McGuireWoods, noting that Highland Park Elementary School was letting out that hour and children were crossing the street to the public park. “It is constitutional to ban guns in parks.”

She noted that judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment have changed significantly since May —  “nearly every day” Carson said to courtroom chuckles. 

Carson noted that circuit court judges often deal with divorces, automobile crashes and other everyday issues compared to weighty constitutional questions. But in denying the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, Carson said he could not conclude that the city’s ordinance passed in March 2021 resulted in “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs. “I can’t say no harm,” he added.

Carson also determined that voiding the city’s law could have a possible “if not probable” adverse effect to the health and safety of citizens. 

The judge gets it backward. Violent criminals aren't going to be deterred from carrying just because of a misdemeanor ordinance, and it's not like the city has police officers regularly stationed at parks to screen every citizen who enters. Parks in the city are "sensitive places" in name only. 

There are no metal detectors or special security measures in place at the parks, so even if a gun is brought illegally onto the grounds it's unlikely to be discovered unless it's discharged. If the gun is used in a criminal act, then the carrier is probably going to face more serious charges than a simple misdemeanor. 

The law is worthless in terms of preventing violent crime. Its only utility is in preventing lawful gun owners from legally carrying, like the mom or dad who'd like to have their carry gun with them to protect themselves and their kids from harm. 

I'm not sure what it would take for Carson to conclude that irreparable harm is being done by keeping the ordinance in place. Does a concealed carry licensee abiding by the city's edict have to be assaulted in a park to demonstrate the dangers of preventing lawful gun owners from legally carrying in a public place? Maybe a concealed carry holder has to be arrested for violating the ordinance before the judge would decide that irreparable harm is being done. Either way, that's setting the bar far too high. 

Carson's decision can always be appealed, and the lawsuit itself is still moving forward toward a trial. For now, though, Roanoke's parks will remain "gun-free zones"; putting residents and visitors at risk while providing violent predators with target-rich hunting grounds.