VCDL ACTION ITEM - at bottom of first post

imported post

VCDL President wrote:

peter nap wrote

You're not going to catch any flak from me. I agree 100%. While the wording does concern me, it doesn't enrage me as much as it apparently does VCDL.

Cuccinelli didn't write that. One of the assistant AG's did. Cuccinelli approved it but I wonder if he even noticed the offending wording?

Damned if I'm ready to condemn Cuccinelli who has been a good friend to gun owners and Virginians as a whole, while sending a letter of thanks to McDonnell for half assed gestures from the Governors office.

My response to McDonnell got deleted here in record time (About 30 seconds) Let's see how long this lasts.

Click to expand...

Well, your post is still here 45 minutes later - so that is a good sign.

What would you consider a "full-assed" gesture by McDonnell, if repealing the restaurant ban and improving vehicle carry are half-assed?

Click to expand...

The Restaurant ban was old news. It had been repeatedly passed by the GA and Vetoed by Saint Tim. Vetoing it would have set the stage for a stormy term of biblical proportions.

The vehicle carry was a little surprising, but it appears to be a bone thrown for future brownie points. It didn't really draw much fire from the State Police who are the loudest voice in those things and was only a baby step above the locked container bill which would have been practically unenforceable anyway. (Lots of time to slam the lid before pulling over)

VDOF would go a long way in my opinion.

When and if, he intercedes in VDOF...I'll thank him.

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

Regarding Cuccinelli I'm in agreement that as GMU's legal representative in Commonwealth government, he (or his staff) has an obligation to to his client (GMU) to make the arguments that they want to pursue. If that means making ludicrous statements about gun owners, oh well.

Click to expand...

Ends justifies the means? The anti-gunners use that philosophy all the time.

imported post

If as AG he (orhis office)is to represent the interests of his clients in court(state departments, agencies, etc.) then his job entails making the arguments they seek, which may include the ludicrous statements. If you don't want the possibility that you'll have to make ludicrous arguments on behalf of your client, don't take on the client (i.e., don't run for the AG job).

If I misunderstand the role of the AG as legal representative of the state and its agencies then please correct me. Further if the AG is given lattitude in the means in which he may pursue a case (perhaps even against the wishes of the client) then the statement made is inexcusable.

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

If as AG he (orhis office)is to represent the interests of his clients in court (state departments, agencies, etc.) then his job entails making the arguments they seek, which may include the ludicrous statements. If you don't want the possibility that you'll have to make ludicrous arguments on behalf of your client, don't take on the client (i.e., don't run for the AG job).

If I misunderstand the role of the AG as legal representative of the state and its agencies then please correct me. Further if the AG is given lattitude in the means in which he may pursue a case (perhaps even against the wishes of the client) then the statement made is inexcusable.

Click to expand...

He swore to uphold the Constitution and he is also supposed to protect the interest of the citizens of Virginia.

imported post

Understood. How then do you represent the interests of a state agency that is bent on ignoring such? I suppose the greater obligation is then to the Constitution (we know that it is).

It is my perception that the whole reason Mr. Cuccinelli is being taken to task by some is because of some of the wording he used when representing a state agency bent on ignoring the Constitution. This is non-sensical, when, if his greater obligation as AGis to the Constitution, he should be taken to task for representing position of the state agency, which seeks to violate the Constitution. The wording used is only peripheral at that point.

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

Understood. How then do you represent the interests of a state agency that is bent on ignoring such? I suppose the greater obligation is then to the Constitution (we know that it is).

It is my perception that the whole reason Mr. Cuccinelli is being taken to task by some is because of some of the wording he used when representing a state agency bent on ignoring the Constitution. This is non-sensical, when, if his greater obligation as AGis to the Constitution, he should be taken to task for representing position of the state agency, which seeks to violate the Constitution. The wording used is only peripheral at that point.

Click to expand...

This case could give anyone a headache. Yes, he has an obligation to represent the state but not to make arguments that are contrary to statuary law or the Constitution.

It's a little like a private attorney arguing that a woman had such nice legs, his client had no choice but to rape her. A stupid and illegal argument.

The AG has the power and obligation to determine if a State Agency was right or wrong and then represent them to mitigate the damages but within the confines of the Constitution.

He also has an obligation to represent the Citizens...but in this case, which Citizens. I;ve heard rumors that not every Virginian feels the case has any merit.

We need to remember that despite the idiotic language, he inherited this case.

The one thing I think ALL or at least MOST gun owners will agree on, is that the statements were uncalled for and do nor reflect constitutional law.

To put it bluntly....a stupid damn thing to say!

imported post

jmelvin wrote:

If as AG he (orhis office)is to represent the interests of his clients in court (state departments, agencies, etc.) then his job entails making the arguments they seek, which may include the ludicrous statements. If you don't want the possibility that you'll have to make ludicrous arguments on behalf of your client, don't take on the client (i.e., don't run for the AG job).

If I misunderstand the role of the AG as legal representative of the state and its agencies then please correct me. Further if the AG is given lattitude in the means in which he may pursue a case (perhaps even against the wishes of the client) then the statement made is inexcusable.

Click to expand...

Any argument that the Attorney General makes should be supported by evidence or the facts.

Both the Mims brief and the Cuccinelli brief make this claim:

Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community's safety is seriously compromised.

Click to expand...

That is a categorical statement. The responsible thing to do is supply evidence substantiating that claim, with footnotes. The AG did not do this; instead, he provided a parade of horribles -- a hoplophobic fantasy of the worst that could possibly happen if there were no policy. There problem is, his doing so insults the good name of every Virginia gun owner.

That is irresponsible. There are more repsonsible ways of representing a state client than sacrificing Virginia gun owners in this manner.

imported post

Here's a thought... I'm unsure of its validity, but for what it's worth...

Maybe the AG realizes that the case for GMU is weak and, well, to be frank, the arguments made in this latest brief are utterly ridiculous. Almost laughable.

Maybe he knows this, and realizes that they are going to lose anyway.

He's already been hammered in the press for his other positions, imagine the uproar we would see if he submitted a brief that drastically changed course, and that essentially argued for the other side.

So maybe he just let the assistant go ahead with his futile brief.

Just some thoughts.

TFred

imported post

vt357 wrote:

I'm sure I'll catch some flak for this, but I'm not ready to throw Cuccinelli under the bus yet. What was said in the brief was absolutely unacceptable. However, although his name was on the brief, it was signed and probably written by Duncan Gretchell, the state solicitor general.

And I know we think gun rights are the end-all-be-all, but he's been extremely busy focusing on a couple of big issues right now. Both the Obamacare lawsuit and the global warming investigation at UVA have been getting major press. That combined with that stupid state seal fiasco, Cuccinelli has been super busy. The Obamacare issue directly impacts every person in this state (in the country for that matter) and is an issue of national importance.

As much as the GMU ban sucks and is unconstitutional, it's not the biggest fish in the pond right now. This doesn't mean that I haven't contacted him about my concerns, but I think it's still possible that he isn't involved much more than being a name on paper. That possibility is still unacceptable, but it's not directly traitorous as everyone is assuming..

There you go, flame on.

Click to expand...

Hell, no. Your underlying message is he's fighting stuff on principle when it suits his purposes, but has no problem flipping people off when it's their principles. And that he is great at lip service. That's been my impression all along.

And, oh, by the way, the citizens of Virginia are the state; he has a responsibility to represent them, not the bureaucracy.

imported post

I've tended to think of the same possibility TFred. It is a shame, however, that his office did not take a stand against GMU's position.

Excellent point Tess regarding the people being the state and not the bureaucracy. Apparently I even neglected it. Thanks for bringing me 'round. (Of, for, by)

Pardon my thought process VCDL Pres., clearly I completely neglected that "the state" is "the people", not "the servants".

imported post

The Attorney General's authority is provided under Chapter 5, Title 2.2 , of the Code of Virginia.

Section 2.2-507(C) provides specifically:Section 2.2-510 then provides: Taken together, this would seems to suggest that the current Attorney General, in determining that the disputed policy in fact is contrary to law, and could not in good conscience defend the indefensible, could have stepped aside, thereby allowing Special Counsel to take over.

imported post

Here's the guy who signed the brief... he's certainly had an interesting career...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Duncan_Getchell

TFred

imported post

TFred wrote:

Here's the guy who signed the brief... he's certainly had an interesting career...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Duncan_Getchell

TFred

Click to expand...

That's interesting, but the key question is still, who wrote the inflammatory language that appears in both briefs from the AG office? Getchell wasn't involved with the Mims brief.

The only names that appear in both briefs are:

Stephen R. McCullough
David G. Drummey

imported post

So, do we evenknow if Kenhad anything to do with the writing of these briefs, or if he personally approved them? I certainlydon't like the fact that something like this would come out of the AG's office at all, but I don't thinkweneed to bepersonallybeating-up on Cuccinelli until we are sure of the extent of the role, if any, he had in this debacle.

Ken was one of the strongest, pro-gunallies we had in the State Senate. Ihave seen him valiantlyargue for good gun bills on the floor of the Senate, and he has always helped fight against proposedgun bans in "sensitive places," such as local government buildings, libraries, and community centers.When I put this track recordwith whatI, also, personally witnessed him sayat the previously mentioned VCDL meeting,I can't believe that the "for the children" brief could possible have been written by the same man. I could be wrong, and I willfeel extremely disappointed and betrayed if I am, but I am not yet convinced that Cuccinelli had anything to do with the writing of these briefs.

In any case, it is a shame that Ken has yet to make any kind of personalstatement or rebuttal regarding PVC's open letter. If he had nothing to do with it, he should say so, but, if he did write the brief, then he should be man enough to admit it. Silence is not helping him in any way.

imported post

VApatriot wrote:

So, do we evenknow if Kenhad anything to do with the writing of these briefs, or if he personally approved them? I certainlydon't like the fact that something like this would come out of the AG's office at all, but I don't thinkweneed to bepersonallybeating-up on Cuccinelli until we are sure of the extent of the role, if any, he had in this debacle.

Click to expand...

He's the AG. It came out of the AG's office. He's 100% responsible by definition:banghead::banghead:

imported post

VApatriot wrote:

So, do we evenknow if Kenhad anything to do with the writing of these briefs, or if he personally approved them? I certainlydon't like the fact that something like this would come out of the AG's office at all, but I don't thinkweneed to bepersonallybeating-up on Cuccinelli until we are sure of the extent of the role, if any, he had in this debacle.

Ken was one of the strongest, pro-gunallies we had in the State Senate. Ihave seen him valiantlyargue for good gun bills on the floor of the Senate, and he has always helped fight against proposedgun bans in "sensitive places," such as local government buildings, libraries, and community centers.When I put this track recordwith whatI, also, personally witnessed him sayat the previously mentioned VCDL meeting,I can't believe that the "for the children" brief could possible have been written by the same man. I could be wrong, and I willfeel extremely disappointed and betrayed if I am, but I am not yet convinced that Cuccinelli had anything to do with the writing of these briefs.

In any case, it is a shame that Ken has yet to make any kind of personalstatement or rebuttal regarding PVC's open letter. If he had nothing to do with it, he should say so, but, if he did write the brief, then he should be man enough to admit it. Silence is not helping him in any way.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way. It will certainly get his attention. Besides, he is ultimately responsible so if he doesn't know.. perhaps he'll know now.

imported post

Ken just posted this on his facebook page....

Ken Cuccinelli: All, look, this is a tough situation, as I am the lawyer for all of the state agencies - including our public universities. The case is not a new one, and as long as it goes on, I have my hands very much tied behind my back re my ability to comment about underlying aspects of the case. I have to ask that you all wait out the case (approx. end of the year?), at which time I'd be more than happy to talk in detail about the matter.38 minutes ago

imported post

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

Ken just posted this on his facebook page....

Ken Cuccinelli: All, look, this is a tough situation, as I am the lawyer for all of the state agencies - including our public universities. The case is not a new one, and as long as it goes on, I have my hands very much tied behind my back re my ability to comment about underlying aspects of the case. I have to ask that you all wait out the case (approx. end of the year?), at which time I'd be more than happy to talk in detail about the matter.38 minutes ago

Click to expand...

Just saw that. He was responding to my wall post.

imported post

hunter45 wrote:

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

Ken just posted this on his facebook page....

Ken Cuccinelli: All, look, this is a tough situation, as I am the lawyer for all of the state agencies - including our public universities. The case is not a new one, and as long as it goes on, I have my hands very much tied behind my back re my ability to comment about underlying aspects of the case. I have to ask that you all wait out the case (approx. end of the year?), at which time I'd be more than happy to talk in detail about the matter.38 minutes ago

Click to expand...

Just saw that. He was responding to my wall post.

Click to expand...

Sounds fair to me!

imported post

peter nap wrote:

hunter45 wrote:

DonTreadOnMe wrote:

Ken just posted this on his facebook page....

Ken Cuccinelli: All, look, this is a tough situation, as I am the lawyer for all of the state agencies - including our public universities. The case is not a new one, and as long as it goes on, I have my hands very much tied behind my back re my ability to comment about underlying aspects of the case. I have to ask that you all wait out the case (approx. end of the year?), at which time I'd be more than happy to talk in detail about the matter.38 minutes ago

Click to expand...

Just saw that. He was responding to my wall post.

Click to expand...

Sounds fair to me!

Click to expand...

Bullpuckey. He's commented on other cases. What makes this different?