Over a barrel

By Alicia Rimel
The News Virginian
For Roland Fuller, the right to keep a gun in his home is about protection.
For 12 years, he commuted from just outside Washington, D.C., to the southeast section of the city repossessing vehicles for General Motors Acceptance Corporation.
He remembers several close calls with bullets aimed straight for him – thankfully, they missed.
“If somebody ever broke into the house, and I didn’t know who it was, I’d be glad to have it for self-defense,” the 65-year-old Staunton man said Thursday during a break from shooting .22-caliber firearms at the Hite Hollow Shooting Range near Augusta Springs.
Fuller is among gun-rights proponents hailing the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a 30-year-old ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.
At issue was whether the Second Amendment provides for a right for individuals or militias to bear arms. The amendment reads: “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.”
The 5-4 high court ruling struck down the D.C. ban as unconstitutional and held that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. Gun-rights opponents say the law throws into flux gun control laws across the country.
“The thing, now, of interest to us is – it’s an individual right – but that doesn’t tell us much,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in Washington. “The court left a lot unsaid. The court said it’s just about guns in the home. The vast majority would agree with them, but what this means for the rest of the gun control laws is less clear.”
Virginians are permitted to carry guns, provided the owners are licensed and the weapons are registered.
“The question is – is it a very narrow decision?” Horwitz said. “Or will there be future litigation to make it a larger issue? It is one of those things where we say, ‘OK, so we lost this battle, but what does this mean for the larger efforts?’ That is far from clear.”
Anti-gun groups question the ease with which a criminal can obtain a handgun, as well as Virginia’s prosecution process. Fuel to the debate was added by last year’s Virginia Tech massacre. Student Seung-Hui Cho legally purchased the weapons he used during his rampage on April 16, 2007, when he killed 32 people before turning a gun on himself.
Gun opponents argued that Cho’s case demonstrated the need for more laws. Gun backers countered that had other Tech students been permitted to carry weapons – the campus is a gun-free zone – they might have been able to stop Cho. They also argue that gun crimes overwhelmingly are committed with illegally obtained weapons.
The solution, Fuller argued, is simple: “Prosecute the people that use them” illegally.
Horwitz said the issue is more complex.
“We do need to prosecute people who have broken the law,” Horwitz said. “The problem is that we don’t have the right laws in place. I agree we need to enforce, but we have to have the right regulatory process in place. When we’ve got the process right, and the tools to do it, that will work. But Virginia doesn’t.”