Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 62

Thread: GMU's Regulation Held to Be Constitutional

  1. #1
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    The Opinion by the Judge was Issued Orally.

    http://www.virginia1774.org/GMULawsuit.html


    15. July 31, 2009: The Judge issued an oral opinion on the entire case on the merits. A transcript of the opinion has been ordered and will be posted hopefully within the next 6 days as it must be transcribed. The following is the essence of the decision:
    1) That the U.S. Const. amends. II & XIV and Va. Const. Art. I, § 13 are self-executing constitutional provisions.That Virginian's since the founding of Jamestown have had the right to keep and bear arms is unquestioned by Mr. DiGiacinto's expertise in the matter. 2) That GMU under the Strict Scruitny standard has the burden of proving a compelling state interest and the regulation must be narrowly tailored. That GMU has met its burden and its regulation is narrowly tailored. The judge cited Justice Scalia's remark's from Heller that schools and "sensitive" places etc. can be ruled off-limits also citing to Nordyke v. King, 563 F 3d. 439, 459 (9th Cir. 2009). 3) The judge also noted ACLU v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2005) from GMU's brief that Universities are not open to the public. 4) That count's II & III and the authority of the University to issue the regulation are barred by sovereign immunity. 5). That as stated in GMU's brief citing Peyton v. Williams, 206 Va. 595, 600 145 S.E. 2d 147, 151 (1965) that two intervening sessions of the General Assembly have occurred and that therefore the General Assembly has acquiesced to GMU's regulation. 6) Mr. DiGiacinto noted and gave to the court the 9th circuit's Order Vacating Nordyke v. King. The judge said it probably would not change the opinion. The Opinion by the judge will become final when the parties meet again on August 14, 2009 for the sole purpose of Signing an Order consistent with the opinion.

    ----

    This was written from memory and the transcript will be more accurate. To sum it up, the Second Amendment was Incorporated against Virginia and Va. Const. Art. I, § 13 was held to be self-executing and despite Virginia's clear history, the regulation passed the Strict Scrutiny standard and that Universities are not Open to the public and they may deny access to any non student.


  2. #2
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    If the strict scrutiny standard is upheld , that is a really good thing for Virginia.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitableand let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come . PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    So, when's the appeal?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    If GMU is not open to the public, then maybe they can quit using the Patriot Center (maintained with MY TUITION DOLLARS) to make profits from holding PUBLIC EVENTS there...

    Since GMU is now "private", and they deny me my right to self defense, when do I get my own personal bodyguard? Is GMU going to personally guarantee my safety?

    Since GMU was built on a public land grant, how can they say they aren't open to the public? How can they continue to be funded by the state if they can deny access to the public?

    So many questions, so little common sense from the gooberment. :X
    ---------------

    virginiaplanter I want to thank you for your exceptional work, I don't believe anyone could have done a better job...and I learned a lot about VA history too over the past several months.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Louisa County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    821

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    The judge cited Justice Scalia's remark's from Heller that schools and "sensitive" places etc. can be ruled off-limits also citing to Nordyke v. King, 563 F 3d. 439, 459 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Guess we all knew THAT one would perpetually bite us in our collective butts.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    So many questions, so little common sense from the gooberment. :X
    ---------------

    virginiaplanter I want to thank you for your exceptional work, I don't believe anyone could have done a better job...and I learned a lot about VA history too over the past several months.
    Here, here!

    Another round of thanks for what you have done, and for the education you provided to us.

    I'm really curious/upset by the judge's ruling that if the GA holds 2 successive sessions without "dealing with" a VAC regulation that is contrary to the GA's reservation of rights that the VAC stands as having acquiesced to the regulation. That seems to say that it is the duty of the GA to know about and review each and every VAC regulation published, or alternatively that it would be the duty of the Commonwealth Attorney to perform that function on behalf of the GA. Option #1 seems to bepatently offensive to the function of the GA, and option #2 violates the separation of powers doctrine.

    I am hoping that there is more to the judge's ruling that "universities are not open to the public" than the mere assertion of such. For one thing, university libraries serve as government document repositories - unless this decision intends to overturn that practice. If the decision is meant - as an intended or unintended consequence - to eliminate the function of university libraries as document repositories the Commonwealth will go broke building, staffing, supplying and operating separate facilities. I will need to research for the details, but this ruling may also mean that state universities will stand to lose massive amounts of federal grant funding. Wonder if GMU would be upset if a few complaints were filed that resulted in budget slashing?

    Finally, the decision that GMU meets the strict scrutiny standard via a narrowly tailored compelling reason is, IMHO, hogwash. "Schools" as Heller used the term, are different from "universities". Lumping them together via the aggregate that both are educational facilities is going beyond even the abilities of Stretch Armstrong (you youngsters go google that, OK?).

    If an appeal is contemplated, please let us know. I, for one, will be privileged to contribute towards that effort.

    stay safe.

    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    The judge cited Justice Scalia's remark's from Heller that schools and "sensitive" places etc. can be ruled off-limits also citing to Nordyke v. King, 563 F 3d. 439, 459 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Guess we all knew THAT one would perpetually bite us in our collective butts.
    Scalia, like most conservatives, is weak on RKABA and other individual rights. You just knew that would come back to bite us, and will continue to do so.

    I hold that my "compelling individual interest" trumps the "compelling state interest", but I don't have a court system to back me up.

    V-planter: great job carrying this fight for us, you are owed more than a few beers.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Hogwash decision.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    In an add on to my previous post, I just got a "GMU Alert" message saying 911 service is out.

    This happens countless times, almost every month.

    GMU denies us the right to self defense and also makes it even more difficult to get help in a life or death situation. Nice.:X

  10. #10
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    The judge cited Justice Scalia's remark's from Heller that schools and "sensitive" places etc. can be ruled off-limits also citing to Nordyke v. King, 563 F 3d. 439, 459 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Guess we all knew THAT one would perpetually bite us in our collective butts.
    This shouldn't be much of an issue once the principle is defined. Courts are sensitive areas for instance, but are well protected and cannot be entered with a weapon. Schools and such, especially public universities are not so and thus cannot be logically be an exclusion zone.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
    Posts
    113

    Post imported post

    Glock27Bill wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    The judge cited Justice Scalia's remark's from Heller that schools and "sensitive" places etc. can be ruled off-limits also citing to Nordyke v. King, 563 F 3d. 439, 459 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Guess we all knew THAT one would perpetually bite us in our collective butts.
    That "sensitive places" bit was probably necessary to get Kennedy's vote on Heller. I really don't think Scalia wanted to include it, but the alternative was not getting the correct decision at all.

    Unless we can pick up another conservative justice (so at least 4 years), we can probably expect more weasel words in any good decisions we do get.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    RVA, ,
    Posts
    279

    Post imported post

    Wait, State Public Universities are not open to the public!!???

    I guess VCU has alot of fences to put up.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    Just because some land doesn't have a fence around it doesn't mean it's open to the public.

    I've got mixed opinions on this. When push comes to shove, though, I think I'd disagree that a public university's real estate isn't open to the public. The school administration should still be able to ban individuals from the property in appropriate circumstances (carrying a gun not being one of those circumstances, of course).

    ~ Boyd

  14. #14
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    Double tap

  15. #15
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    So is there going to be an appeal? There appears to be more than one hole in this decision....

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    So is there going to be an appeal? There appears to be more than one hole in this decision....
    Big enough to drive a truck through.........sideways.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    An appeal in this case is desired. As I have been through this process before including arguing before a panel of the Virgina Supreme Court, I have a good handle on what needs to be done. Paying for it is a different story.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    I was also wondering what effect this is going to have OCing on other campuses. I've OCed a number of times at VA Tech without incident..... If they stop you all they can do is ask you to leave IIAC. Unless they have no firearms posted at the entrances to campus.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    An appeal in this case is desired. As I have been through this process before including arguing before a panel of the Virgina Supreme Court, I have a good handle on what needs to be done. Paying for it is a different story.
    I cannot afford more than $100.00 at this time, but more importantly I cannot afford to let this matter go by. Let me know when you want the funds.

    I have a feelinga fair chunck of change will be collected if and when you say the word.

    stay safe.

    skidmark


    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    I was also wondering what effect this is going to have OCing on other campuses. I've OCed a number of times at VA Tech without incident..... If they stop you all they can do is ask you to leave IIAC. Unless they have no firearms posted at the entrances to campus.
    I'm not sure it has any effect, GMU and VCU are the only public universities with any gun ban in VAC. I don't believe VT, ODU, etc. can legally enforce their policy against the public.

  21. #21
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    It seems to me that, with this ruling, public universities are recognized as having the ability to prohibit someone from being present on their campuses because they are armed. I suppose that would take the form of a trespassing charge.

    ~ Boyd

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,606

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    Neplusultra wrote:
    I was also wondering what effect this is going to have OCing on other campuses. I've OCed a number of times at VA Tech without incident..... If they stop you all they can do is ask you to leave IIAC. Unless they have no firearms posted at the entrances to campus.
    I'm not sure it has any effect, GMU and VCU are the only public universities with any gun ban in VAC. I don't believe VT, ODU, etc. can legally enforce their policy against the public.
    And the difference in their position/status is .................?

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    WAIT WAIT WAIT
    ---------
    8VAC35-60-20. Possession of weapons prohibited.
    Possession or carrying of any weapon by any person, except a police officer, is prohibited on university property in academic buildings, administrative office buildings, student residence buildings, dining facilities, or while attending sporting, entertainment or educational events. Entry upon the aforementioned university property in violation of this prohibition is expressly forbidden.
    Statutory Authority
    § 23-91.29 of the Code of Virginia.
    Historical Notes
    Derived from Virginia Register Volume 24, Issue 1, eff. August 28, 2007; amended, Virginia Register Volume 25, Issue 5, eff. November 10, 2008.
    ----------------

    So...only a "police officer" is allowed to carry a weapon, eh? Last year I spent a lot of time in Student Union Building 1 (which houses the cash office) and often watched the armored car (Dunbar IIRC) guys come in to collect the money. Like most armored car employees, they were armed, specifically revolvers (appeared to be S&W M10 4" Heavy bbl). I can only assume there is an armored car that services the Chevy Chase bank in the Johnson Center building as well.

    Armored Car drivers are NOT police officers, or any other type of LEO for that matter.

    Somebody better bring this to GMU's attention, as THERE ARE PEOPLE WITH GUNS ON GMU'S CAMPUS WHO ARE NOT COPS!!!!:what::what:OH NO!!!!

  24. #24
    Regular Member Virginiaplanter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    402

    Post imported post

    Here is the Transcript of the Opinion.

    The following transcript has some typographical errors and refers to Justice Scalia as "Guliae" and cites where people cannot currently carry as if they can carry there. The July 31, 2009 Opinion.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    252

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    An appeal in this case is desired. As I have been through this process before including arguing before a panel of the Virgina Supreme Court, I have a good handle on what needs to be done. Paying for it is a different story.
    Set up a donation page! I'll chip in $5, I'm sure there are plenty of others who will give more.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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