Judge Turns Down Request for Injunction on Roanoke, VA’s Gun Law

Every gun control law in the nation needs to be challenged. While that doesn’t seem to be dissuading many people from passing such laws, it’s still important that they be challenged because we don’t know how many people just didn’t bother introducing regulations knowing they’d never survive in court.

But we shouldn’t expect to win all the battles on that front, either. Some judges are open to gun control no matter what and there have been some doors left open by the Supreme Court that will let those judges rule as they do.

That doesn’t mean the challenges can’t continue, which is likely what will happen in Roanoke, where gun rights advocates received a setback.

A Roanoke judge dismissed a request Monday to strike down a city ordinance barring guns in public buildings and parks, at least while a lawsuit that challenges the local law is pending.

In an order filed in Roanoke Circuit Court, Judge David Carson denied a motion for a temporary injunction sought by several gun advocacy groups and individuals, who contend the ordinance violates their constitutional right to bear arms.

Carson, who voiced his opinion at an October hearing and made it official with his written order, will rule later on the underlying lawsuit.

In 2021, the Roanoke City Council passed an ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to have a gun — whether concealed pursuant to an individual permit or carried openly — in city-owned buildings and parks. Offenses are punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Virginia’s General Assembly allowed localities to impose such rules in 2020; at least a dozen, including Roanoke and Blacksburg, have done so.

The core issue here is the inclusion of city parks.

The Supreme Court did say in Bruen that guns could be constitutionally barred at “sensitive places” such as schools or courthouses, but public parks are a different matter. The the Court didn’t talk about them, I think we can easily make the case that public parks are completely different.

For one thing, a courthouse can, in theory, be secured so that no one except law enforcement or courthouse security guards will have a firearm. People can be reasonably comfortable knowing that they’re about as safe as they can be considering.

But parks? By definition, they’re not buildings that can be easily secured. Anyone can walk into a park and they can do so with any firearm they want.

The only people who won’t, however, are law-abiding citizens, meaning criminals will have a target-rich environment. They’ll likely pick parks to hunt for targets specifically knowing that regular folks won’t be armed.

So, the law that’s meant to make places like parks safer will, in fact, make them more dangerous.

Well freaking done, you bunch of knobs.

Hopefully, this legal challenge will finally get to a judge who says, “No, you’re going too far here. That’s not what the Supreme Court was talking about.” Hopefully, they get to one soon, because by refusing to issue the injunction, this particular judge is making it pretty clear where he’s leaning on the issue.