• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How Cuccinelli's opinion on UVA's gun ban relates to the GMU decision

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
As regards GMU, the decision handed down in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, 281 Va. 127, 704 S.E.2d 365 (2011) January 13, 2011 does in fact state that the insides of the buildings are in fact sensitive areas. Further, those with CHPs are still not permitted to carry inside the buildings at GMU or VCU as their regulations (Va Administrative Code) has the force of law. However, it seems that the AGs opinion strengthens the fact that carry on the grounds outside the buildings should not be sanctioned by any reading of the applicable VAC.

As has been noted elsewhere, the General Assembly is keeping an eye on the issue of just how much authority the Boards of Visitors can exert over citizens of the Commonwealth who are not directly connected to the colleges/universities by enrollment or employment. That same General Assembly is also contemplating whether and how much of a jumble of state agency policies ought to be allowed with regards to the control of firearms. Some think that agencies that do not have a direct tie to issues regarding firearms (Dept. of Corrections/Juvenile Justice. Game & Inland Fisheries) may soon be told to take their noses out of the matter.

stay safe.
 

ocholsteroc

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
1,317
Location
Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
So now that those with CHPs are free to carry into university buildings at the vast majority of Virginia public universities, can universities like GMU really claim that they're sensitive areas? Especially since everyone except employees and students are free to carry there.


State agency preemption in 2012!

What happen???????? Was I a sleep? college carry legal in 2012?
 
Last edited:

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
What happen???????? Was I a sleep? college carry legal in 2012?

Go here http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...rmits-(BUT-NOT-OC)-Trump-UVA-‘No-Guns’-Policy and read. College/University carry inside the buildings is legal for those with CHPs in 2011 (no waiting, no line - come on in!) except at GMU and VCU. Carry OC or CC is legal outside for all, but we already knew that.

BTW - none of this applies if you are student, staff or faculty and get caught.

stay safe.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
As regards GMU, the decision handed down in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, 281 Va. 127, 704 S.E.2d 365 (2011) January 13, 2011 does in fact state that the insides of the buildings are in fact sensitive areas.

The point I was getting at was that GMU claims their buildings are sensitive areas, when all other public universites aside from VCU are not. How does GMU's buildings differ from Virginia Tech's? JMU's? ODU's? Aside from the fact GMU got their ban put into VAC, absolutely nothing. GMU's defense claimed that they are no different from any other school in VA, where guns are banned for the most part (K-12). This new opinion by the AG says otherwise.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Yeah, well...

All this nonsense could be eliminated if the courts were to take Article 1, section 13 of the Virginia Constitution seriously and apply it as written. I'd even be in favor of amending it to allow the legislature to regulate possession of weapons by crazy people, noncitizens, and convicted felons having a demonstrated proclivity to violent crime. Beyond that, the right to self-defense is more important than eliminating all threats to public safety (many of which are effectively eliminated by intelligent preparation on the part of people who are determined to defend themselves).

I have also always been of the opinion that administrative regulations should be limited in their effect to regulating the administrative agencies. Only the elected legislature should have any power to regulate the behavior of citizens.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
All this nonsense could be eliminated if the courts were to take Article 1, section 13 of the Virginia Constitution seriously and apply it as written. I'd even be in favor of amending it to allow the legislature to regulate possession of weapons by crazy people, noncitizens, and convicted felons having a demonstrated proclivity to violent crime.

non-citizens?

I believe the RKBA is a pre-existing human right that flows from the natural law right to self defence.

I believe that the 2A applies to all that are in this country legally.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
non-citizens?

I believe the RKBA is a pre-existing human right that flows from the natural law right to self defence.

I believe that the 2A applies to all that are in this country legally.

Fine; what I'm saying is that it is a subject where "reasonable regulation" could apply. The legislature may well decide that everyone should be armed; it is, at present, an area in which regulation by statute now exists in violation of the Virginia Constitution. I'd just like the written Constitution to square with reality, and to treat the Constitution as if it were really the rule we're following. The game is just no fun if the biggest, strongest players can just make the rules up as we go along.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
.... I'd just like the written Constitution to square with reality, and to treat the Constitution as if it were really the rule we're following. The game is just no fun if the biggest, strongest players can just make the rules up as we go along.

You have that first clause backwards - reality needs to square with the Constitution. Otherwise it's a carpenter making a cut and then using the cut to see if his square matches. One may show an error, but it's important to recognize which one is the standard the other is being compared to.

And I always looked up to attorneys as bastions of pedantic absolutism (when I agreed with what they were pedantically proclaiming as being absolute).

stay safe.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
A goal for us during the next legislative session!

Properly worded, yep! Another Stanton bill.........:question:

This is a major priority!!!!

It directly benefits all Virginians who hold dear the RKBA and believe that the right to self-defense should not be compromised.

Will be pushing hard to see this flying at the top of the mast head for the next legislative session. The work begins now, no waiting for the session to begin.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
This is a major priority!!!!

It directly benefits all Virginians who hold dear the RKBA and believe that the right to self-defense should not be compromised.

Will be pushing hard to see this flying at the top of the mast head for the next legislative session. The work begins now, no waiting for the session to begin.
This alone will be enough to motivate Marsh to live to 110. We've all seen it... he's a man on a mission, a deluded mission, but to his mind, a mission nonetheless.

TFred
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I'd just like the written Constitution to square with reality, and to treat the Constitution as if it were really the rule we're following. The game is just no fun if the biggest, strongest players can just make the rules up as we go along.

You speak of the difference between a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. +1000 User. Personally I would just like reality to square with the constitution, with alot less power in the hands of the biggest strongest players.

We see this sort of Rex Lex attitude from all 3 branches of Federal and Commonwealth Government, with players in each branch of government making themselves king.

Eventually we need to get back to our Lex Rex roots with government officials that are bound by the Federal and Commonwealth Constitutions or we will wake up in democracy hell.
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
This alone will be enough to motivate Marsh to live to 110. We've all seen it... he's a man on a mission, a deluded mission, but to his mind, a mission nonetheless.

TFred

There are ways to neutralize his influence - it is on that that there remains much work.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
Dan Casey and Larry Hincker

All this nonsense could be eliminated if the courts were to take Article 1, section 13 of the Virginia Constitution seriously and apply it as written. I'd even be in favor of amending it to allow the legislature to regulate possession of weapons by crazy people, noncitizens, and convicted felons having a demonstrated proclivity to violent crime. Beyond that, the right to self-defense is more important than eliminating all threats to public safety (many of which are effectively eliminated by intelligent preparation on the part of people who are determined to defend themselves).

I have also always been of the opinion that administrative regulations should be limited in their effect to regulating the administrative agencies. Only the elected legislature should have any power to regulate the behavior of citizens.

Dan Casey discusses this topic, comments on various commenters.

He then adds this:
Larry Hincker told me today that Tech believes that the “policy” is binding upon students and universities employees, even if it may not be on visitors.

Thus, they could be kicked out of school or dismissed for violating the university policy, which they agree to abide by as a condition of attending school or working there.
 

paramedic70002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
1,440
Location
Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
This regulation v policy among VA universities issue BEGS for a legislative fix no matter what side of the fence you're on.

Also the OC v CC issue. If we had a law passed that said, "OC is legal because it's not illegal" would that help? /sarcasm!
 
Top