ed
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an open letter that I have sent to Attorney General
Cuccinelli. If he would like to respond and defend himself, I will be
glad to share his response with all 14,000 of you:
Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,
I am very disappointed in your brief filed with the Supreme Court in
reference to DiGiacinto v the Rector and Visitors of George Mason
University, which challenges GMU's gun ban in their library and other
buildings, especially as it applies to a non-student.
Since GMU is a state entity, I understand that the Virginia Attorney
General's office has to defend against this lawsuit.
As a candidate for Attorney General you said at a VCDL meeting on
December 18th, 2008 that GMU's gun ban was indefensible. (A link to
the video and a transcript are at the end of this letter.)
But what is really indefensible is the gratuitous, fear mongering
aimed at gun owners in that brief.
I can understand making your argument that the GMU ban is valid based
on some legal theory, since you are stuck defending GMU. The brief
does some of that, BUT the brief then goes clean off the reservation
into a gratuitous attack on gun owners, with a heavy does of fear
mongering and even squeezes in a Clintonesque "for the children"
emotional argument:
"Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community's
safety is seriously compromised. Unquestionably, the vast majority of
gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless, a rejected student
applicant could walk into the Dean of Admissions office with an openly
visible sidearm to discuss why the university rejected his
application. An expelled student could do the same while he met with
the Dean of Students to discuss his appeal of his expulsion. A
disgruntled ex-boyfriend armed with a large hunting knife mounted on
his side could enter the student residences to speak to his former
girlfriend where she lived. Finally, any person who wishes to enter
Fenwick Library with a sidearm, could not only frighten students and
minors, such as preschoolers, but also expose them to unnecessary
risks, such as an accidental discharge"
That looks like something that Sarah Brady would write!
While you might not feel that you can win his case based on legal
merits, using made up, emotional scenarios to influence the Supreme
Court is unconscionable.
You ran a campaign on putting principles first. But all that fear
mongering in this brief has nothing to do with principles and
everything to do with winning the case AT ALL COSTS.
You were right the first time, Mr. Attorney General: principles DO
matter and that brief has thrown those principles in the trash.
Finally, the argument in the brief that colleges and universities are
"sensitive places" is not tenable. Truly sensitive places would be
guarded like a fortress - higher education schools are not, with the
public having easy access to them.
Here is the brief (the offensive language is on the bottom of page 7
and top of page 8):
http://www.virginia1774.org/RVGMUBrief.pdf
Your statement that GMU's ban is indefensible can be seen and heard by
skipping forward 5 minutes and 30 seconds into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU
Here is a transcript of your comments in the video:
"I heard the college question - you know, ***they don't have the legal
authority to pass the regulations they are passing that trump what the
General Assembly has said.*** Now one way to deal with that is for an
individual to simply challenge it in court and say, 'Hey, I want to go
walk at George Mason and this blocks me, so I have standing.' But,
the problem with doing it at the legislative level is that you have
got to succeed. Because, and I say, and it sounds funny, but if you
don't you end up setting the reverse precedent that the courts will
interpret as meaning taking the side of the university. That's the
danger we have in that area."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL ACTION ITEM
Let's contact the Attorney General's office and POLITELY let him know
that fear mongering against gun owners is not a principle that he
should be standing on. Click here to go to his web mail address:
http://www.vaag.com/ContactUsForm/ContactForm.aspx
Suggested subject: Stick to the law and do not smear gun owners!
Suggested message:
Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,
I am very disappointed that your brief on DiGiacinto v the Rector and
Visitors of George Mason University contains gratuitous fear mongering
against gun owners, even going so far as to say that preschoolers
would be at RISK from gun owners carrying at a public university! I
would expect such a low blow from the Brady Campaign, but not an
Attorney General who ran on principles and being pro-liberty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an open letter that I have sent to Attorney General
Cuccinelli. If he would like to respond and defend himself, I will be
glad to share his response with all 14,000 of you:
Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,
I am very disappointed in your brief filed with the Supreme Court in
reference to DiGiacinto v the Rector and Visitors of George Mason
University, which challenges GMU's gun ban in their library and other
buildings, especially as it applies to a non-student.
Since GMU is a state entity, I understand that the Virginia Attorney
General's office has to defend against this lawsuit.
As a candidate for Attorney General you said at a VCDL meeting on
December 18th, 2008 that GMU's gun ban was indefensible. (A link to
the video and a transcript are at the end of this letter.)
But what is really indefensible is the gratuitous, fear mongering
aimed at gun owners in that brief.
I can understand making your argument that the GMU ban is valid based
on some legal theory, since you are stuck defending GMU. The brief
does some of that, BUT the brief then goes clean off the reservation
into a gratuitous attack on gun owners, with a heavy does of fear
mongering and even squeezes in a Clintonesque "for the children"
emotional argument:
"Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community's
safety is seriously compromised. Unquestionably, the vast majority of
gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless, a rejected student
applicant could walk into the Dean of Admissions office with an openly
visible sidearm to discuss why the university rejected his
application. An expelled student could do the same while he met with
the Dean of Students to discuss his appeal of his expulsion. A
disgruntled ex-boyfriend armed with a large hunting knife mounted on
his side could enter the student residences to speak to his former
girlfriend where she lived. Finally, any person who wishes to enter
Fenwick Library with a sidearm, could not only frighten students and
minors, such as preschoolers, but also expose them to unnecessary
risks, such as an accidental discharge"
That looks like something that Sarah Brady would write!
While you might not feel that you can win his case based on legal
merits, using made up, emotional scenarios to influence the Supreme
Court is unconscionable.
You ran a campaign on putting principles first. But all that fear
mongering in this brief has nothing to do with principles and
everything to do with winning the case AT ALL COSTS.
You were right the first time, Mr. Attorney General: principles DO
matter and that brief has thrown those principles in the trash.
Finally, the argument in the brief that colleges and universities are
"sensitive places" is not tenable. Truly sensitive places would be
guarded like a fortress - higher education schools are not, with the
public having easy access to them.
Here is the brief (the offensive language is on the bottom of page 7
and top of page 8):
http://www.virginia1774.org/RVGMUBrief.pdf
Your statement that GMU's ban is indefensible can be seen and heard by
skipping forward 5 minutes and 30 seconds into this video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU
Here is a transcript of your comments in the video:
"I heard the college question - you know, ***they don't have the legal
authority to pass the regulations they are passing that trump what the
General Assembly has said.*** Now one way to deal with that is for an
individual to simply challenge it in court and say, 'Hey, I want to go
walk at George Mason and this blocks me, so I have standing.' But,
the problem with doing it at the legislative level is that you have
got to succeed. Because, and I say, and it sounds funny, but if you
don't you end up setting the reverse precedent that the courts will
interpret as meaning taking the side of the university. That's the
danger we have in that area."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL ACTION ITEM
Let's contact the Attorney General's office and POLITELY let him know
that fear mongering against gun owners is not a principle that he
should be standing on. Click here to go to his web mail address:
http://www.vaag.com/ContactUsForm/ContactForm.aspx
Suggested subject: Stick to the law and do not smear gun owners!
Suggested message:
Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,
I am very disappointed that your brief on DiGiacinto v the Rector and
Visitors of George Mason University contains gratuitous fear mongering
against gun owners, even going so far as to say that preschoolers
would be at RISK from gun owners carrying at a public university! I
would expect such a low blow from the Brady Campaign, but not an
Attorney General who ran on principles and being pro-liberty.