• 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.

GMU's Regulation Held to Be Constitutional

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
imported post

The Opinion by the Judge was Issued Orally.

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


[align=left]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: [/align] [align=left]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.

[/align][align=left]----[/align][align=left]
[/align][align=left]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.
[/align]
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
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. :)
 

Glock27Bill

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
821
Location
Louisa County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
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.
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
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
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Elkad

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
115
Location
Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
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.
 

essayons

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
278
Location
RVA, ,
imported post

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

I guess VCU has alot of fences to put up.
 

TexasNative

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
856
Location
Austin, TX
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
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
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
 

Virginiaplanter

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
402
Location
, ,
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.
 

Neplusultra

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2007
Messages
2,224
Location
Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

nova

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2007
Messages
3,149
Location
US
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.
 
Top