Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: JMU Board of Visitors moves forward on weapons ban regulation

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    JMU Board of Visitors moves forward on weapons ban regulation

    During a Friday April 15th 2012 meeting, the Board of Visitors of James Madison University, located in Harrisonburg, Virginia, voted to promulgate a regulation banning weapons on campus.

    While the exact text of the proposed regulation has not yet been released ... Read More

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    This is getting to be epidemic!

  3. #3
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    This is getting to be epidemic!
    Yes it is. Did you see the three legislative solutions I proposed at the end of the article?

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Administrator View Post
    Yes it is. Did you see the three legislative solutions I proposed at the end of the article?
    Yes I did John. As usual, all well thought out. Now the tough part begins.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    Oh, that the folks like Holly Adams were as boisterous as the professional victims Goddard and Haas. Maybe hearing the public hearing the other side could be effective to deter the nimrods who jeopardize students' lives.

    Is it enough to hope that for now that at least the victim's lawsuit is not throttled to $100k so the universities see some dire financial consequence?

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    Oh, that the folks like Holly Adams were as boisterous as the professional victims Goddard and Haas. Maybe hearing the public hearing the other side could be effective to deter the nimrods who jeopardize students' lives.

    Is it enough to hope that for now that at least the victim's lawsuit is not throttled to $100k so the universities see some dire financial consequence?
    I think to get any real legislation through, the SCCC people need to get students registered to vote, then vocal about wanting it.

    To be honest, the JMU SCCC people are the only ones that have impressed me so far.
    I just don't think this will go very far being pushed by non academia alone.

  7. #7
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    1) Remove the generalized prohibition in 18.2-308(o)
    I don't see where 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.

    O. The granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law or is prohibited by the owner of private property.
    TFred

  8. #8
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I don't see where 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.
    Exactly ... And since properly promulgated regulations have the force and effect of LAW, any regulation that is passed automatically trumps concealed carry. AND ... since administrative agencies are not covered by preemption, there is nothing to stop them ... AND ... Commonwealth-operated colleges and universities have fast-track regulatory authority under the VAPA. The deck is well and truly stacked against us. We need to start unravelling the threads one at a time!


    John

  9. #9
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    I don't see where 18.2-308(o) prohibits anything. The plain text meaning I understand it to say is simply that the possession of a CHP does not give you the authority to ignore either a) existing laws or b) the wishes of a private property owner. It is the "otherwise prohibited by law" or the "prohibited by owner" that do the prohibiting, this paragraph just clearly states that a CHP does not override those already existing prohibitions.



    TFred
    18.2-308(O) was a "Governor's Recommendation" of George Allen. So, what was his intent?

    As he is running for U.S. Senate, perhaps someone should ask him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •