TFred
Regular Member
imported post
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of our members has just forwarded to me an email he received from the Attorney General's office. The email addresses a previous VA-ALERT ("Et tu, Cuccinelli") from a couple of weeks ago.
In that alert I pointed out that the Attorney General's defense of the GMU gun ban went overboard by drifting away from using legal arguments and into gratuitous, emotion-laden, fabricated scenarios - such as a child in the GMU library possibly getting hit by an accidental discharge caused by a gun owner.
I had heard earlier through the grapevine that the Attorney General wasn't going to respond to VCDL's complaint until after the litigation between GMU and Rudy DiGiacinto was over, so I was surprised to receive the email below, which is included in its entirety.
In the response, which VCDL promised to release as soon as we got one, the Attorney General says his office is "...zealously representing our client, George Mason University..."
Boy, that's an understatement! It's like an attorney publicly slandering his best friend in order to win an otherwise indefensible case. Gun owners were painted as dangerous, unstable, and irresponsible people who put the public at risk.
If the Attorney General feels he has a duty to defend GMU, fine. But why did that defense HAVE to include impugning gun owners?
In defending himself for saying at a VCDL meeting that GMU did not have the legal authority to ban guns, Cuccinelli says, "I understand how my misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General Assembly."
Cuccinelli's comments about the GMU gun ban can be seen at 5 minutes and 30 seconds into
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU
With all respect to the Attorney General, this is NOT, nor has it ever been, about local preemption (which I agree doesn't apply, as GMU is not a locality). Two of Cuccinelli's predecessors, Bob McDonnell and Jerry Kilgore, wrote Attorney General opinions on State Parks saying that the agency did not have the power to regulate carry, transport, and possession of firearms because the General Assembly has preempted the entire field of firearms and has not given State Parks any such authority.
I think the situation is clear: GMU, which is just another state agency, also has no special firearms regulatory dispensation, and would similarly not be able to control firearms beyond state law.
Finally, in the email below, Cuccinelli writes, "As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters."
Once the case has been heard, VCDL will be happy to invite the Attorney General to present the policy implications at a VCDL meeting. This is an important issue for gun owners statewide and we will need to know exactly where we stand.
-----------
Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Cuccinelli. Please find a note that the attorney general asked me to share with you:
Dear friend:
My office recently filed a brief in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, a case that has been ongoing since November 2008. My friends at the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other Second Amendment supporters have taken issue with that brief and – based on the language used in it – have challenged my longstanding commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.
The Office of the Attorney General files briefs like this on a regular basis, defending our clients (agencies, colleges, and universities of the commonwealth) in litigation in both state and federal courts. As a matter of process, I don’t wordsmith each and every brief filed by my staff, nor did I in this case. However, I have reviewed the brief and the legal arguments contained therein, and acknowledge that the OAG is zealously representing our client, GeorgeMason University. So long as a Virginia law is validly enacted and not apparently repugnant to the Constitution, I have a duty to defend it.
If the 2005 pre-emption law that I had strongly supported as a state senator had been applicable to state government entities (as I incorrectly recalled in 2008) and not merely to local government entities, then there would be no DiGiacinto case. I understand how my misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General Assembly.
I, and the Office of the Attorney General, defend the rule of law. In this case, we are defending a validly enacted regulation, and we must do so zealously with every legal argument available to us. While I may not always agree with a particular policy position, I will defend Virginia laws and regulations as well as the constitutions of Virginiaand the United States. To do otherwise would validate my opponent’s accusations during the campaign that I would bend the law to suit my personal views. I have not. I have issued legal opinions that are contrary to my policy views because they are based on the law as it is and not the law as I might like it to be. Laws, and not politics, dictate legal outcomes.
As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters.
Sincerely,
Ken
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One of our members has just forwarded to me an email he received from the Attorney General's office. The email addresses a previous VA-ALERT ("Et tu, Cuccinelli") from a couple of weeks ago.
In that alert I pointed out that the Attorney General's defense of the GMU gun ban went overboard by drifting away from using legal arguments and into gratuitous, emotion-laden, fabricated scenarios - such as a child in the GMU library possibly getting hit by an accidental discharge caused by a gun owner.
I had heard earlier through the grapevine that the Attorney General wasn't going to respond to VCDL's complaint until after the litigation between GMU and Rudy DiGiacinto was over, so I was surprised to receive the email below, which is included in its entirety.
In the response, which VCDL promised to release as soon as we got one, the Attorney General says his office is "...zealously representing our client, George Mason University..."
Boy, that's an understatement! It's like an attorney publicly slandering his best friend in order to win an otherwise indefensible case. Gun owners were painted as dangerous, unstable, and irresponsible people who put the public at risk.
If the Attorney General feels he has a duty to defend GMU, fine. But why did that defense HAVE to include impugning gun owners?
In defending himself for saying at a VCDL meeting that GMU did not have the legal authority to ban guns, Cuccinelli says, "I understand how my misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General Assembly."
Cuccinelli's comments about the GMU gun ban can be seen at 5 minutes and 30 seconds into
http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU
With all respect to the Attorney General, this is NOT, nor has it ever been, about local preemption (which I agree doesn't apply, as GMU is not a locality). Two of Cuccinelli's predecessors, Bob McDonnell and Jerry Kilgore, wrote Attorney General opinions on State Parks saying that the agency did not have the power to regulate carry, transport, and possession of firearms because the General Assembly has preempted the entire field of firearms and has not given State Parks any such authority.
I think the situation is clear: GMU, which is just another state agency, also has no special firearms regulatory dispensation, and would similarly not be able to control firearms beyond state law.
Finally, in the email below, Cuccinelli writes, "As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters."
Once the case has been heard, VCDL will be happy to invite the Attorney General to present the policy implications at a VCDL meeting. This is an important issue for gun owners statewide and we will need to know exactly where we stand.
-----------
Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Cuccinelli. Please find a note that the attorney general asked me to share with you:
Dear friend:
My office recently filed a brief in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, a case that has been ongoing since November 2008. My friends at the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other Second Amendment supporters have taken issue with that brief and – based on the language used in it – have challenged my longstanding commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.
The Office of the Attorney General files briefs like this on a regular basis, defending our clients (agencies, colleges, and universities of the commonwealth) in litigation in both state and federal courts. As a matter of process, I don’t wordsmith each and every brief filed by my staff, nor did I in this case. However, I have reviewed the brief and the legal arguments contained therein, and acknowledge that the OAG is zealously representing our client, GeorgeMason University. So long as a Virginia law is validly enacted and not apparently repugnant to the Constitution, I have a duty to defend it.
If the 2005 pre-emption law that I had strongly supported as a state senator had been applicable to state government entities (as I incorrectly recalled in 2008) and not merely to local government entities, then there would be no DiGiacinto case. I understand how my misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General Assembly.
I, and the Office of the Attorney General, defend the rule of law. In this case, we are defending a validly enacted regulation, and we must do so zealously with every legal argument available to us. While I may not always agree with a particular policy position, I will defend Virginia laws and regulations as well as the constitutions of Virginiaand the United States. To do otherwise would validate my opponent’s accusations during the campaign that I would bend the law to suit my personal views. I have not. I have issued legal opinions that are contrary to my policy views because they are based on the law as it is and not the law as I might like it to be. Laws, and not politics, dictate legal outcomes.
As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters.
Sincerely,
Ken
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************