Oral Arguments Monday, November 1, 2010

[skidmark]

Thanks for the link.

While the Commonwealth's argument sounds like it was a bit scattered, it was coherent enough to put to rest any notion that Cuccinelli was not "in it to win it" in this case.

Not that I'm actually so in support of him that I would defend him out of hand, but Cuccinelli was in this one only by name, as the AG is the office that defends the Commonwealth against all comers.

There is/was good strategic reason for the AG himself not to appear before the VA Supreme Court to argue a weak and (probably, hopefully) losing case. Send the henchmen - love how http://www.gunleaders.com/ used that term - in to take the hit for the team. As I said before, it sounded like some serious flailing around trying to catch hold of ant branch still available, and some obvious abandoning of what were their strongest arguments at previous hearings.

I'll not be holding my breath for any decision, but I'm feeling more positive than negative about the outcome.

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

Not that I'm actually so in support of him that I would defend him out of hand, but Cuccinelli was in this one only by name, as the AG is the office that defends the Commonwealth against all comers.

There is/was good strategic reason for the AG himself not to appear before the VA Supreme Court to argue a weak and (probably, hopefully) losing case. Send the henchmen - love how http://www.gunleaders.com/ used that term - in to take the hit for the team. As I said before, it sounded like some serious flailing around trying to catch hold of ant branch still available, and some obvious abandoning of what were their strongest arguments at previous hearings.

I'll not be holding my breath for any decision, but I'm feeling more positive than negative about the outcome.

stay safe.

+1 to this not so new line of reasoning and desired conclusion.

 

[The Donkey]

Not that I'm actually so in support of him that I would defend him out of hand, but Cuccinelli was in this one only by name, as the AG is the office that defends the Commonwealth against all comers.

There is/was good strategic reason for the AG himself not to appear before the VA Supreme Court to argue a weak and (probably, hopefully) losing case. Send the henchmen - love how http://www.gunleaders.com/ used that term - in to take the hit for the team. As I said before, it sounded like some serious flailing around trying to catch hold of ant branch still available, and some obvious abandoning of what were their strongest arguments at previous hearings.

I'll not be holding my breath for any decision, but I'm feeling more positive than negative about the outcome.

stay safe.

Well . . .

Cuccinelli also "sent the henchman" to argue regarding the Constitutionality of the Health Care Law. Don't think that was because he was expecting them to "take a hit for the team."

I wonder who they sent ... I think it may have been one of my former law clerks.

 

[skidmark]

I wonder who they sent ... I think it may have been one of my former law clerks.

From the Argument Docket:

Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, Attorney General; Charles E. James, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General; E. Duncan Getchell, Jr., State Solicitor General; Wesley G. Russell, Jr., Deputy Attorney General; Stephen R. McCullough, Senior Appellate Counsel; David G. Drummey, Assistant Attorney General

Recognize anybody?

 

[The Donkey]

Recognize anybody?

Yes. He's on there. Which one did the argument?

 

[skidmark]

Have no idea who was speaking for the losing team. Everything you got from me about it is second-hand, as noted by the cites/links provided.

stay safe.

 

[markand]

VA supreme court says George Mason gun ban is constitutional!

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/v...rge-mason-u-s-gun-ban-is-constitutional/29693

Virginia Supreme Court Says George Mason U.’s Gun Ban Is Constitutional

January 13, 2011, 12:40 pm

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that George Mason University’s ban on guns in buildings and at events on the campus does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, the Associated Press reported. “Regulations restricting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings,” the ruling said, “are presumptively legal.” The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling.

 

[Grapeshot]

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/v...rge-mason-u-s-gun-ban-is-constitutional/29693

Virginia Supreme Court Says George Mason U.’s Gun Ban Is Constitutional

January 13, 2011, 12:40 pm

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that George Mason University’s ban on guns in buildings and at events on the campus does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, the Associated Press reported. “Regulations restricting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings,” the ruling said, “are presumptively legal.” The decision upheld a lower court’s ruling.

New thread on Va. forum
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Supreme-Court-Upholds-GMU-s-Unlawful-Gun-Ban

 

[ocholsteroc]

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that George Mason University’s ban on guns in buildings and at events on the campus does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment,

IT DOES! :banghead::banghead: