Delaware Concealed Carry Forum
State News & Gun News => Delaware News => Topic started by: Paladin4CA on December 27, 2016, 04:52:35 PM
-
A Delaware judge has sided with state environmental officials in a lawsuit challenging a ban on non-hunting firearms in state parks and forests.
Members of the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club and the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association who have concealed-carry permits challenged the ban in a Chancery Court lawsuit last year, saying it violates their constitutional right to carry firearms.
The lawsuit was refiled in Superior Court earlier this year after the Chancery Court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
On Friday, a Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the state, saying the regulations do not violate Delaware's Constitution.
"The regulations do not run afoul of the Delaware Constitution, defendants were not pre-empted by the General Assembly in enacting the regulations, and defendants did not exceed the scope of the authority granted to them by statute in promulgating the regulations" wrote Judge T. Henley Graves.
<snip>
The plaintiffs argued that they should be allowed to carry their guns in parks administered by the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and in forests overseen by the Department of Agriculture.
DNREC regulations state that it is illegal to display, possess or discharge firearms, air rifles, BB guns, sling shots, or archery equipment on any park lands without prior written approval. The agriculture department allows firearms on state forest land only for legal hunting.
Delaware's Constitution, meanwhile, states that a person has the right to keep and bear arms "for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use."
The judge concluded that the state agencies have an important governmental objective of keeping the public safe from the potential harm of firearms in parks and forests.
More at:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-bc-de--guns-state-parks-20161223-story.html
-
It's a scary day when Chicago starts looking towards Delaware as support in their war on firearms.
-
Here is the text of the court decision:
http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=250650
I am not a lawyer, and I have not read the transcripts of the trial. However, the decision has some very strange conclusions drawn by the judge. Such as:
"As for Plaintiffs’ concerns for self defense, the Court observes the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area."
This is so true! Since burglary is against the law, I don't need locks on my doors. Since crime is against the law, we don't need police.
-
The good news is Glasgow park is NOT a state park.
-
Correct, Glasgow is a county park. Which I believe they still have a weapon ban in effect.
-
Correct, Glasgow is a county park. Which I believe they still have a weapon ban in effect.
It's an illegal ban and unenforceable. The county officers are aware.
-
I just received this from the Republican Cacus.
NEWS:
Legislators Wade into Court Case Challenging Firearms Restrictions in State Parks, Forests
A bipartisan coalition of more than two dozen Delaware legislators is backing two sportsmen's organizations seeking the elimination of regulations restricting firearms in state parks and forests.
The 26 lawmakers have all signed an Amicus Curiae ("friend of the court") brief in support of ongoing legal action stemming from a lawsuit filed by the Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club and the Delaware State Sportsmen's Association against the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and the Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA).
Delawareans with concealed carry permits are barred from carrying their personal sidearms in any state park, like Cape Henlopen (above).
At issue are regulations promulgated by the two agencies that prohibit visitors to state parks and state forests from carrying firearms not being used for hunting. Those rules bar thousands of Delawareans with concealed carry weapons permits from carrying their sidearms in those venues.
Ruling in late December, a Superior Court judge upheld the agencies' authority and let the regulations stand. That decision is now under appeal in the Delaware Supreme Court.
The lawmakers' 17-page brief notes that Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware State Constitution protects the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state" -- protections even more substantial than those included in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Among other things, the brief argues that the authority of DNREC and the DDA flows directly from the legislature, which did not grant either the ability to regulate firearms. As such, the document maintains that both agencies have overstepped their mandates.
Among those signing the brief were members of the House Republican Caucus: State Reps. Steve Smyk, Rich Collins, Kevin Hensley, Ruth Briggs King, Ron Gray, Mike Ramone, Jeff Spiegelman, Deborah Hudson, Joe Miro, Danny Short, Bobby Outten, Dave Wilson, Harvey Kenton, Charlie Postles and Lyndon Yearick.
There are some fighting for us.
-
Nice, maybe there is some hope yet!
-
Anyone know when this will be heard by the State Supreme Court?
-
Delaware State Law
Title 9, Part I, Chapter 3, Subchapter II. County Governments
County Firearms Preemption
§ 330. General powers and duties.
(c) The county governments shall enact no law or regulation prohibiting, restricting or licensing the
ownership, transfer, possession or transportation of firearms or components of firearms or ammunition
except that the discharge of a firearm may be regulated; provided any law, ordinance or regulation
incorporates the justification defenses as found in Title 11 of the Delaware Code.
-
Here is a link to the text of the brief. It's 50 pages long but the last 25 pages are the "certification of participation" statements from each member of the legislature that have signed on to the brief. There are both Republicans and Democrats that have signed on to the brief.
http://dssa.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/011-EXH-B-TO-MOTION-OF-MEMBERS-OF-DGA-TO-FILE-AMICUS-BRIEF-U0173467xAD8F3.pdf (http://dssa.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/011-EXH-B-TO-MOTION-OF-MEMBERS-OF-DGA-TO-FILE-AMICUS-BRIEF-U0173467xAD8F3.pdf)
Edit: This is a very interesting read. There is a ton of good information contained in the brief. It's very well put together.
-
Looks like the Delaware Supreme Court will be hearing the appeal in Dover on September 15th.
http://courts.delaware.gov/Forms/Download.aspx?id=97188 (http://courts.delaware.gov/Forms/Download.aspx?id=97188)
-
Whatever happened to the concept of a speedy trial, or other court hearings. Left town with the two party system???
-
It's my understanding that the right to a speedy and public trial is for Criminal cases.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial" its all in the sixth amendment
-
I knew the answer to that and I thought someone would post it. But that does not make it right. Nearly all legal proceedings take far too long, and the little guy that can't afford the delays, gets killed. The legal system is sick, the political system in DE is broken, how do we change it when over half the state wants gimme stuff????
-
The Delaware Supreme Court heard arguments today for the lawsuit against the prohibition of carrying forearms in state parks and forests. Decision expected within 90 days.
http://www.wboc.com/story/36358864/del-supreme-court-weighs-gun-ban-in-state-parks-forests (http://www.wboc.com/story/36358864/del-supreme-court-weighs-gun-ban-in-state-parks-forests)
-
Hard to say what will happen here. The court usually will side with government officials but in 2014 did unanimously affirm the right to open carry a firearm in public as a fundimental right.
-
Here is an article that gives a little more info on the arguments presented to the Delaware Supreme Court.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article173076101.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article173076101.html)
-
Brilliant logic from deputy AG Durstein (excerpted from article below)
[Justice] Valihura also pressed Durstein about an individual's right to carry a gun for self-defense, which he argued is less acute in a park tent or cabin than in a person's home. Durstein said the trade-off for banning guns is a commitment by the state to provide law enforcement in state parks.
"Your own regs state that camping is at your own risk, state forests are a public use area and there are no after-hours, nighttime or weekend security," Valihura noted.
Here's the paragraph from State Forest Regs (http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title3/400/402.shtml)
7.5 Camping is at your own risk. State Forests are a public use area and there is no after-hours, nighttime or weekend security. Law enforcement is provided by the Delaware State Police and DNREC should the need arise.
Paraphrased as "When seconds count, police are hours away (if they can find you at all).
-
Like it has been said: "Don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is"
Hopefully the court will use logic and the constitution to render a decision. Some people including judges just can't get past their aversion to guns and self defense.
-
If anyone is interested, the oral arguments and all briefing for this case is available on the Delaware Supreme Court's website.
-
"As for Plaintiffs’ concerns for self defense, the Court observes the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area."
Very interesting statement from the Judge... Apparently the facts of this ridiculous concept either are not known to the Judge or are being ignored for political reasons. The facts are that 84% of Mass Shooting Events (an event where 4 or more people were killed excluding the killer) occurred in a Gun-Free-Zone. A gun free zone is considered to be a defined area or building where citizens are prohibited from possessing firearms by force of law or by policy of the property owner. Which brings up another interesting concept - Since "the people" supposedly own the State Parks how do we legally separate ourselves from the right of self-defense on a property that we all are supposedly a part owner? We get to pay for the property and it's improvements and maintenance, but we cannot choose to protect ourselves while we are on it? Gun Free Zones should be renamed "Gun Free Killing Zones"
-
Have I missed something. I heard in a news broadcast that the final word would not be given until sometime in the next 90 days?
-
Have I missed something. I heard in a news broadcast that the final word would not be given until sometime in the next 90 days?
It is 90 days. This is an old thread with updates on the Supreme Court appeal