Law enforcement officials across Delaware say they oppose a bill introduced in the House of Representatives last month that would limit the authority of state agencies to regulate firearms possession in public settings.
House Bill 357, which was written with help from the National Rifle Association, is described as an attempt to rescind gun ownership bans imposed by the state’s collection of public housing authorities on their residents.
But, in a letter to Rep. John Atkins, D-Millsboro, and Sen. Joe Booth, R-Georgetown, the bill’s lead sponsors, Gov. Jack Markell noted that, as written, the legislation would prevent any state agency or entity from regulating guns on premises under its purview without a specific enabling law passed by the General Assembly.
This would include school buses, dormitories at state universities, mental health facilities and daycare centers, the governor wrote.
Neither Atkins nor Booth returned calls for comment on the bill.
Proponents of the measure say such bans violate the Second Amendment and, in the case of public housing, limit the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in areas where crime is high.
Lewis D. Schiliro, secretary of the Department of Safety and Homeland Security, said the bill is not good for public safety.
“We all know the NRA is a very powerful lobby, and they have a particular viewpoint and there are many that share that viewpoint. What we represent is public safety, and we are constantly balancing that against individual rights; we see that in search and seizure issues,” he said.
“We are always going to take the position or advocate for the greater good, and possessing a weapon in crowded environments and urban environments, absent a fair amount of proficiency, is not going to lead to good outcomes.”
Schiliro, who oversees the Delaware State Police and Capitol Police, said more guns and gun owners can be dangerous in a public housing complex, especially since the law doesn’t require training for those who buy guns, only those who apply for concealed weapons permits.
“I spent 25 years in the FBI, 23 of which were in New York City. I spent a lot of time enforcing the law in large public housing projects; I have a fair amount of experience with the issue,” he said. “When you’re going to use a firearm for purposes of self defense in a crowded or urban environment, it does require a certain proficiency; a proficiency in terms of training with the firearm and a proficiency in terms of judgmental shooting.”
Law enforcement officials in various communities also expressed concern over the proposal.
Georgetown Police Chief William Topping said he understands the Second Amendment argument, but is swayed by the reaction of his officers on the ground.
“I understand why they want to go forward with this legislation, but as a law enforcement executive in my town, my officers have come to me and said, ‘Chief, do you see what they’re getting ready to do? This is crazy,’” he said. “I don’t think it’s a wise idea.”
Topping, whose department polices two public housing complexes, supports giving state agencies the authority to institute bans on firearm possession when necessary.
“Obviously the Second Amendment applies to everybody, but on that same note there are certain venues where I don’t think people should have immediate access to firearms,” he said. “I think that certain agencies ought to be able to regulate that.”
Dover Police Chief Jeffrey Horvath agreed, arguing that in situations where the state is the landlord, the state can make the rules.
“If they want to set those rules, they should be able to set those rules,” he said. “They are providing the home, you don’t have to live there, and if that’s a rule they want to put in because of the safety of themselves, the children in the area and other residents, they should be able to implement that rule.”
Schiliro also disagrees with the portion of HB 357 that would require an act of the legislature to instate a gun ban in a government facility.
The agencies themselves are in the best position to know if a ban is necessary or not, he said.
“You have to keep it to the people who are more familiar with the particular venue or institution in order to provide safety for the greater number,” he said. “It could create a patchwork of different regulations as to when it is or is not appropriate; it’s difficult enough as it is now.”
Smyrna Police Chief Richard H. Baldwin said he knows granting that kind of authority to a state agency, or even a private landlord, could run afoul of the Constitution, but he believes it’s a necessary compromise.
“I think it’s legitimate for those that have control over public housing to decide what is appropriate and inappropriate for their housing developments,” he said. “I wouldn’t be opposed to any landlord saying, ‘I don’t want my tenants to have weapons.’ I realize that might provoke some constitutional challenges. But we’re going the wrong way with this legislation.”
Those chiefs who oppose the legislation also appreciate the fact that, by definition, criminals don’t follow the law.
But, they said that doesn’t mean a gun ban doesn’t do some good in keeping weapons out of the hands of criminals.
“The NRA has stated, and I’m not necessarily an NRA proponent, guns don’t commit crimes, people commit crimes,” Topping said. “But on the other side of that coin, if there’s a handgun readily available in a [public] housing development, it may elevate a crime that wouldn’t be elevated if the gun wasn’t there.
“From a law enforcement perspective, I think the less guns my officers have to deal with out there, the better off they are.”
Email Doug Denison at doug.denison@doverpost.com.
