Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 75

Thread: DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Vistors of George Mason University

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

    Post imported post

    An appeal has been granted by the Virginia Supreme Court in the case of DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University.


    Appeal Granted





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    An appeal has been granted by the Virginia Supreme Court in the case of DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University.


    Appeal Granted






  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    A remnder:

    There is a "DONATE" button at www.virginia1774.com . While $500.00 appeal bond is not much, it never hurts to help out.

    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

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Islamabad, Pakistan
    Posts
    621

    Post imported post

    Just kicked in $20.00 via gunpal. It's not much but I hope it helps.

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    An appeal has been granted by the Virginia Supreme Court in the case of DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University.
    VP,

    Congratulations on this.I'm really hoping they say the University is bared from enforcing the policy.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Shawn wrote:
    Virginiaplanter wrote:
    An appeal has been granted by the Virginia Supreme Court in the case of DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University.
    VP,

    Congratulations on this.I'm really hoping they say the University is bared from enforcing the policy.
    It's a good sign they didn't deny the appeal...it means there's still hope.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    $25

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848

    Post imported post

    $25
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, SC
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post

    I sent $5. Sorry I'm poor.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    For those who haven't been following this, here's a good (long) read:

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



  11. #11
    Regular Member ChinChin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Loudoun County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    683

    Post imported post

    Awesome! I'll be following this progress with great interest.
    The problem with the internet is nobody can really tell when you’re serious and when you’re being sarcastic. –Abraham Lincoln

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA and Bethel Park, PA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    Is this case going to be argued by an experienced appellate advocate? If so, who? If not, why not?



    [/quote]

  13. #13
    Regular Member fairfax1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fairfax, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    246

    Post imported post

    Excellent. I so want to see GMU loose this case.

    Is the AG's office representing GMU at all?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    fairfax1 wrote:
    Excellent. I so want to see GMU loose this case.

    Is the AG's office representing GMU at all?
    I don't know, but I wouldn't think so considering he answered on the VCDL survey he would support campus carry.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    fairfax1 wrote:
    Excellent. I so want to see GMU loose this case.

    Is the AG's office representing GMU at all?
    I don't know, but I wouldn't think so considering he answered on the VCDL survey he would support campus carry.
    And yet the AG is the attorney of record for the Commonwealth, and thus for the agencies of the Commonwealth. In other words, unless GMU elects not to utilize the AG's office someone from there will be representing them. I'm too lazy to go back and look to see who represented GMU up to this point, which might be a "clue" for further appearances.

    Supporting campus carry and fulfilling the duties of the office can be mutually exclusive.

    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Will VCDL's stance on this change now that it is going to the VA Supreme Court?

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    nova wrote:
    Will VCDL's stance on this change now that it is going to the VA Supreme Court?
    I think that's something you'd have to ask the board Nova. Trying to predict their stance on issues is difficult these days.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    nova wrote:
    Will VCDL's stance on this change now that it is going to the VA Supreme Court?
    I think that's something you'd have to ask the board Nova. Trying to predict their stance on issues is difficult these days.
    I know Philip posts here so I was just hoping maybe he'd share his opinion with us if he sees this thread. If not, I'm sure it will be brought up at the next Annandale meeting.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA and Bethel Park, PA
    Posts
    26

    Post imported post

    William E. Thro of Christoper Newport University is the person that filed the brief for GMU in the Supreme Court. (Although the AG was listed on the brief.)

  20. #20
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    I think you guys will like the NRA brief....to bad they don't file one like this in the other 43 states that have a rkba provision.

    http://www.virginia1774.org/DiGiacin..._NRAAmicus.pdf

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Post imported post


    "Maniacs intent on killing as many people as possible are likely to choose a target-rich environment where victimswill be unable to defend themselves. Allowing law-abiding individuals to choose an effective means of self-defense, and publicizing this change to the regulation, could make this kind of tragedy less likely."

    Sounds like NRA has been reading OCDO. . . .

  22. #22
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    STATEMENT OF PARTIES’ CONSENT TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

    All parties have consented in writing to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Rudolph DiGiacinto consented on behalf of the appellant. Steve McCullough, Senior Appellate Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General, consented on behalf of the appellee. This brief is filed in support of appellant in that it seeks reversal of the judgment below.
    That's an interesting paragraph. Do the parties have the ability to reject a brief like this?

    TFred


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

    Post imported post

    Shawn wrote:
    I think you guys will like the NRA brief....to bad they don't file one like this in the other 43 states that have a rkba provision.

    http://www.virginia1774.org/DiGiacin..._NRAAmicus.pdf
    thanks for bumping this up.

    The Heller Court stated in dicta that “forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings” is a “presumptively lawful regulatory measure.” 128 S. Ct. at 2817. This reference was unnecessary to the holding of the case, and “cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights.” United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803, 805 (7th Cir. 2009), reh’g granted by United States v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, 2010 WL 1267262 (7th Cir. Feb. 22, 2010). Moreover, it is clear that college buildings are not the kind of specialized government buildings, such as the Governor’s mansion or the state legislative chambers, to which the dictum refers. Nor is a college campus a school full of young children as the reference to schools presumably refers. Defendant’s Opening Brief describes in 21 detail the minors that may be present on campus, yet provides no evidence that this regulation is necessary to protect them. See Def. Open. Br. 9. Defendant states that freshmen under the age of eighteen, elementary and high school summer campers, and minor children with their families, are often present in campus buildings and at special events. See id. at 9-10. Nowhere does Defendant explain why children are more likely to be present (or guns likely to be more dangerous) in these locations relative to areas like the public streets, sidewalks, and lawns of campus, where guns are currently allowed. Presumably, to get into these buildings and events, the children would have had to traverse some of the open areas of campus. This kind of loose decision to regulate one area but not another may suffice in most contexts, but not when strict scrutiny is used to evaluate the infringement of a fundamental right.5
    The bolded lines are what we've been saying all along. Colleges aren't K-12 schools, these aren't "government buildings" anymore than the DMV or ABC stores are, and people/guns are no more dangerous carrying in classrooms and dining halls than they are at Walmart or McDonalds.

    For example, persons with a Concealed Handgun Permit could be exempted.
    I didn't like this line, because I don't like special exemptions for permit holders. However, I'd still support it because it is still better than the current regulation, and wouldn't be much different than the rule at the General Assembly Bldg. (though the two aren't near the same, the GAB has metal detectors, GMU doesn't, and won't, nor they should).



  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of the NRA's brief, but I did not care at all for this part from page 23:

    Intent to menace can be inferred from the circumstances, as demonstrated by the examples given in Defendant’s Opening Brief.
    See id.A rejected student applicant or expelled student who wears a visible sidearm to meet with a dean could be removed from the premises immediately, because it is reasonable to presume that he is carrying for the purpose of intimidating the dean. By contrast, it would not be reasonable to presume that a man waiting for his girlfriend in a building lobby, or quietly doing research in the library, has any intent to intimidate others or commit an act of violence.
    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.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    US
    Posts
    3,156

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of the NRA's brief, but I did not care at all for this part from page 23:

    Intent to menace can be inferred from the circumstances, as demonstrated by the examples given in Defendant’s Opening Brief. See id.A rejected student applicant or expelled student who wears a visible sidearm to meet with a dean could be removed from the premises immediately, because it is reasonable to presume that he is carrying for the purpose of intimidating the dean. By contrast, it would not be reasonable to presume that a man waiting for his girlfriend in a building lobby, or quietly doing research in the library, has any intent to intimidate others or commit an act of violence.
    Yeah, that's a load of crap. Isn't it already established in case law that simply carrying a firearm is not RAS?

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
  •