Virginia Supreme Court Upholds GMU's Unlawful Gun Ban

TFred · Jan 14, 2011

I am the first to admit that I don't fully understand the job of AG. What I think I understand is that the AG is the lawyer, and the State is his client.

As with any client, the lawyer is obligated to represent the client as they wish. The lawyer doesn't get to tell the client what position they will hold.

Perhaps this is much the same situation here.

One thing I have definitely learned over the past couple of years is that the AG's office has virtually no authority whatsoever. In McDonnell's 2007 opinion, he wrote that existing law already protected CHP applicants' information from public disclosure. We all know how much good that has done. NONE AT ALL!!

I am very anxious to hear what the AG will say now that he is able to speak.

TFred

Mr. Y · Jan 14, 2011

Actually the majority of gun owners who know about Il Cuce know that
1: He promised not to defend GMU
2: He has the legal discretion to not represent GMU
3: He betrayed gun owners by lying to get elected.
4: The legal arguments made by his henchmen were well beyond what any reasonable gun owner would consider acceptable.

Il Cuce tipped his anti gun hand with the way out in left field Greason opinion. He then went after went out of his way to punk gun owners with the GMU case.

Grapeshot · Jan 14, 2011

Mr. Y said:
Actually the majority of gun owners who know about Il Cuce know that
1: He promised not to defend GMU
2: He has the legal discretion to not represent GMU
3: He betrayed gun owners by lying to get elected.
4: The legal arguments made by his henchmen were well beyond what any reasonable gun owner would consider acceptable.

Il Cuce tipped his anti gun hand with the way out in left field Greason opinion. He then went after went out of his way to punk gun owners with the GMU case.

Are you stating your opinion or selling something?

This is not an argument - nobody is here to "win" a verdict. No one is happy with the results of the George Mason decision - before it ever was heard, legal councilors on this very site predicted accurately that we would NOT like the final outcome based on the way the defendant's attorney drew the case - THAT is the problem.

Whether Ken Cuccenelli works as the state's attorney (he does) or whether he had an opportunity to step out of the picture seems superfluous to me. The case was doomed from the beginning. That he stood and took the heat from his fair weather supporters without attacking us in his own defense, says reams about the man.

You go and figuratively lynch him before the facts are in and let me know how that works out for [strike]you[/strike] us. Real problem that I see is that when any hope of a working relationship with him is destroyed by a few, it damages us all.

Personal opinion, you've said your piece now give it a rest. Continued hammering at it makes it into a campaign. Ultimately, you may be right - I don't anticipate it will work out that way.

Meanwhile, all we look like is a group of children that didn't get their way .......... and we are feeding the dark side a special treat, ground and chopped conservatives.

Repeater · Jan 14, 2011

Repeater said:
Senator Vogel has a bill, SB 2050 -- it is being sent to the Rules Committee (to die?).

Senator Vogel's bill does not include preemption for educational institutions with the language that Delegate Cole included in his bill from 2007:

§ 23-9.2:2.1. Regulation of firearms by educational institutions.

A. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no board of visitors or other governing body of a public institution of higher education shall adopt or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy, and no appointee, employee, or agent of the institution shall take any administrative action governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authority.

B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the board of visitors or other governing body of a public institution of higher education from adopting workplace rules relating to the terms and conditions of employment of the workforce.

C. Nothing in this section shall prohibit a law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101, from acting within the scope of his duties.

D. Any rule, regulation, or policy adopted by a board of visitors or governing body of a state institution of higher education prior to July 1, 2007, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage, or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof, other than those rules, regulations, or policies expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

Perhaps the Senator could consider including such language.

Mr. Y · Jan 14, 2011

Dale,
Honestly, are you reading from a script?

Why are you so hell bent on ignoring the AG's bad political behavior? What "facts" are not in here? Tell us.

Not in dispute:
Il Cuce says he will not defend GMU gun ban at a pubic meeting.
he issues the dubious Greason opinion
takes up the GMU case with the language we all know offended everyone here.

He lied to us. It's on Youtube!

The thing about trying to play nice with politicians who go off the reservation is that once they do it, thew will continue to do it. They will know that you might jump up and down once or twice but ultimately at election time since you are making nice with them you have no place to go. If you aren't willing to punish Cuccinelli electorally for his bad behavior in office then he owns you. He has given you nothing and still has your support.

That undercuts all of us who want an AG who stands up for principle and the constitution and specifically the right to keep and bear arms.

Grapeshot said:
"This is not an argument - nobody is here to "win" a verdict. No one is happy with the results of the George Mason decision - before it ever was heard, legal councilors on this very site predicted accurately that we would NOT like the final outcome based on the way the defendant's attorney drew the case - THAT is the problem."

Dale, I think there are several people on this board who proclaim to support the right to keep and bear arms who are actually enjoying playing the "pile on" card with a bunch of childish "ha ha, you didn't win" remarks.

The thing about internet lawyering is it's frequently wrong. Gura was pilloried by NRA stand ins while Heller was working through the courts. After he won there was turnabouts all around from those who previously were on internet bulletin boards crying foul.

Forums are tough to mine for actual activism though. A trip through the comments lodged in support of the NPS ban repeal proves this. Many of the loudest boasters here aren't able to show they even logged a comment in support of VCDL's petition.

Grapeshot said:
"Whether Ken Cuccenelli works as the state's attorney (he does) or whether he had an opportunity to step out of the picture seems superfluous to me. The case was doomed from the beginning. That he stood and took the heat from his fair weather supporters without attacking us in his own defense, says reams about the man.

You go and figuratively lynch him before the facts are in and let me know how that works out for you us. Real problem that I see is that when any hope of a working relationship with him is destroyed by a few, it damages us all."

Dale, what facts are we in need of here? Facts. Not the excuses of a politician who has betrayed a substantial portion of his base. He's already lied to us, what do you really, honestly think the chances are that he will suddenly be overcome with the better angels of his nature to come out and tell us the truth ? There's no evidence to support that any explanation he would give for his shameful defense of GMU would be credible.

Working relationship? Really? You are really seriously saying there is any relationship between the AG and gun owners other than adversarial? What proof do you offer to support this?

I will not allow your AG apologist propaganda to go unchallenged. I don't know your intentions or motivations but if we do not unite to work against the truth challenged AG we have now he could end up in higher elected office and guess what?

He'll do us again.

However, if he has to pay a political price for what he has done he will darn well think twice about screwing gun owners again.

Please tell us how your "let's wait for facts to come out and come together in a big gun owner group hug with Ken" approach helps gun owners advance the right to keep and bear arms and protect us from Ken acting against us in the future.

mpd8488 · Jan 14, 2011

jmelvin said:
Of course I would think that if one understands the precedent here, a university could easily move to ban the possession of alchohol in any form because it is a sensitive place. Try that one on for size, kiddos.

That's the way I'm reading it as well. I certainly hope this is not the case because school administrators could undermine all individual rights on campus.

Forget banning alcohol (and tobacco), that's small potatoes. They will want to get rid of those pesky student groups that undermine school authority such as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus and Students for a Sensible Drug Policy. Since a college is a sensitive place, the administrators need the ability to control what kinds of groups can meet to ensure a safe learning environment. And so much for those pesky independent publications that have the gall to criticize the school administration. Those protests on campus that bring all kinds of media attention? Such gatherings undermine the learning environment. And forget privacy. Since it's a sensitive place, dorm rooms and students can be seized and searched by school officials and R.A.s at the tiniest hint of suspicion. And forget the fact that due process protections generally hold on university campuses. The administration needs to be able to take quick and decisive action when disciplining students. It's for their own good after all.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong. Hopefully some more learned legal minds can shed some light on this.

67GT390FB · Jan 14, 2011

Mr. Y said:
Dale,
Honestly, are you reading from a script?

Why are you so hell bent on ignoring the AG's bad political behavior? What "facts" are not in here? Tell us.

Not in dispute:
Il Cuce says he will not defend GMU gun ban at a pubic meeting.
he issues the dubious Greason opinion
takes up the GMU case with the language we all know offended everyone here.

He lied to us. It's on Youtube!

The thing about trying to play nice with politicians who go off the reservation is that once they do it, thew will continue to do it. They will know that you might jump up and down once or twice but ultimately at election time since you are making nice with them you have no place to go. If you aren't willing to punish Cuccinelli electorally for his bad behavior in office then he owns you. He has given you nothing and still has your support.

That undercuts all of us who want an AG who stands up for principle and the constitution and specifically the right to keep and bear arms.

"This is not an argument - nobody is here to "win" a verdict. No one is happy with the results of the George Mason decision - before it ever was heard, legal councilors on this very site predicted accurately that we would NOT like the final outcome based on the way the defendant's attorney drew the case - THAT is the problem."

Dale, I think there are several people on this board who proclaim to support the right to keep and bear arms who are actually enjoying playing the "pile on" card with a bunch of childish "ha ha, you didn't win" remarks.

The thing about internet lawyering is it's frequently wrong. Gura was pilloried by NRA stand ins while Heller was working through the courts. After he won there was turnabouts all around from those who previously were on internet bulletin boards crying foul.

Forums are tough to mine for actual activism though. A trip through the comments lodged in support of the NPS ban repeal proves this. Many of the loudest boasters here aren't able to show they even logged a comment in support of VCDL's petition.

"Whether Ken Cuccenelli works as the state's attorney (he does) or whether he had an opportunity to step out of the picture seems superfluous to me. The case was doomed from the beginning. That he stood and took the heat from his fair weather supporters without attacking us in his own defense, says reams about the man.

You go and figuratively lynch him before the facts are in and let me know how that works out for you us. Real problem that I see is that when any hope of a working relationship with him is destroyed by a few, it damages us all."

Dale, what facts are we in need of here? Facts. Not the excuses of a politician who has betrayed a substantial portion of his base. He's already lied to us, what do you really, honestly think the chances are that he will suddenly be overcome with the better angels of his nature to come out and tell us the truth ? There's no evidence to support that any explanation he would give for his shameful defense of GMU would be credible.

Working relationship? Really? You are really seriously saying there is any relationship between the AG and gun owners other than adversarial? What proof do you offer to support this?

I will not allow your AG apologist propaganda to go unchallenged. I don't know your intentions or motivations but if we do not unite to work against the truth challenged AG we have now he could end up in higher elected office and guess what?

He'll do us again.

However, if he has to pay a political price for what he has done he will darn well think twice about screwing gun owners again.

Please tell us how your "let's wait for facts to come out and come together in a big gun owner group hug with Ken" approach helps gun owners advance the right to keep and bear arms and protect us from Ken acting against us in the future.

I'll ask you exactly the same questions you asked Dale. What exactly do you think will do us as gun owners, any good out of your approach? The man is elected and sitting in office for about three more years. I'm sure he's quaking in his boots over what you'll do to him and his political future. And speaking of Dale reading from scripts prompts me to ask you to hire better writers for your own. For now I'll take Twains advice and just let you keep on speaking.

Mr. Y · Jan 14, 2011

One thing is for sure, he's definitely got your support so he has no fear of your vote being lost, your money spent to support another candidate or any other action against him. So as far as your concerned Cuccinelli is on solid political ground.

"And speaking of Dale reading from scripts prompts me to ask you to hire better writers for --you own--. For now I'll take Twains advice and just let you keep on speaking."

Epic!

crazydude6030 · Jan 14, 2011

I for one will give Cuccinelli a pass on this issue. He was my rep for a number of years. I found him to be very gun friendly and he never once mislead me while he was my rep. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I see no pattern that would suggest that his is playing with gun owners. Until I see such a pattern that overwhelmingly suggest that he is playing me for my vote I will continue to support him.

peter nap · Jan 14, 2011

Mr. Y said:
Actually the majority of gun owners who know about Il Cuce know that
1: He promised not to defend GMU
2: He has the legal discretion to not represent GMU
3: He betrayed gun owners by lying to get elected.
4: The legal arguments made by his henchmen were well beyond what any reasonable gun owner would consider acceptable.

Il Cuce tipped his anti gun hand with the way out in left field Greason opinion. He then went after went out of his way to punk gun owners with the GMU case.

Edited because Grapeshot said it better.

Repeater · Jan 14, 2011

Eugene Volokh & Patrick J. Charles provide Analysis

Analysis is here:

I think the “sensitive places” analysis in the opinion is rather on the conclusory side, but that’s partly because the Court’s reference in Heller to “sensitive places” was so cursory and ill-defined. A better analysis, I think, would focus on the government’s extra power as proprietor to restrict even constitutionally protected behavior on its property; ...

Patrick J. Charles seems critical ... of the Appellant:

The Appellant’s historical analysis is particularly odd seeing that DiGaicinto used his amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller (Appellant is the Founder of Virginia 1774) as being akin to a published historical work by quoting full portions of the brief and citing to it at passim. Not to mention, taking either brief at historical face value is troubling based on the conclusions as to what constitutes a constitutional militia, and that somehow carrying a handgun in public concourses is intimately related to a “well-regulated militia.” There is plenty of historical evidence showing that the individual exercise in arms does not effectuate a militia, particularly a constitutional one.

IanB · Jan 14, 2011

So, this now means Ken can speak to VCDL about the case and explain himself, right?

Also, I will be recording the speech by Chap Petersen's opponent at the next VCDL meeting. We have just learned how important it is to film these professional liars when they speak to us.

peter nap · Jan 14, 2011

nakedshoplifter said:
So, this now means Ken can speak to VCDL about the case and explain himself, right?

Also, I will be recording the speech by Chap Petersen's opponent at the next VCDL meeting. We have just learned how important it is to film these professional liars when they speak to us.

Yes it does and I agree 100%. Audio is good but video and audio is always better....and ask questions to make the statements more specific.

t33j · Jan 14, 2011

I think the “sensitive places” analysis in the opinion is rather on the conclusory side, but that’s partly because the Court’s reference in Heller to “sensitive places” was so cursory and ill-defined. A better analysis, I think, would focus on the government’s extra power as proprietor to restrict even constitutionally protected behavior on its property; ...

If there is ANY place where constitutionally protected behaviors should not be restricted, it is on The Peoples' property.

Repeater · Jan 14, 2011

David Codrea weighs in

t33j said:
If there is ANY place where constitutionally protected behaviors should not be restricted, it is on The Peoples' property.

Sensitive Places

See, that's what "shall not be infringed" means. And that's what oaths by robed traitors mean.

Speaking of "sensitive places"...

Grapeshot · Jan 14, 2011

Deleted by Grapeshot - double postimg

Grapeshot · Jan 14, 2011

First Mr. [strike]Why[/strike] Y for as long as you have been on this forum, it would behoove you and be more polite to learn to use the quote function. If I have trouble separating my words from yours, I can only imagine the chagrin others are suffering.
Your posts, made up of about 50% of my thoughts, appear falsely under your name.

We also are instructed to speak to the subject, the crux of the matter, NOT to personal insults or ad hominum attacks. To suggest that I am reading from a script or prepared party line is insulting. I speak honestly from the heart and direct my thoughts/words to facts in evidence not those assumed.

You think Cuccinneli broke a "promise" to gun owners. Maybe he had a reason to change tactics on this one - I don't know and neither do you. You would seem to think that being loud and unpleasant, insistent and repetitively demanding answers NOW is a genuinely good way to go. I see it as a very damaging and destructive means - one from which you cannot withdraw without carrying the scars. Maybe you would throw him under the bus and cause him to not be reelected if you could, and then get a new AG like who ? Saslaw maybe? Think and choose your responses according to the best outcome that you can project. Maybe you're an all or nothing person - I am not.

Your remark about internet lawyers could not be further from the truth. The prediction/projection of the outcome was delineated by highly respected professional attorneys well recognized in this area of practice - at least one offer his services, w/o charge I believe. He was rejected. The analysis of the tactics and methods as posted above by Repeater is consistent with and supports that forecast also.

Now I admit that you may be more learned than I and have superior cognitive ability. Might not it be wise though to anticipate various potential conclusions and select the most practical method(s) to achieve the best ones that can be actually obtained?

Has Ken Cuccinelli been granted a free pass and is he assured of my future vote - no; but neither has he lost it. I am disappointed that there are a few that would seem to think that insults, insistence and anger will sway my thinking. So I imagine it is with Ken Cuccinelli.

I do not intend to contribute to a pedometric thread of repeating the same discourse ad naiuseum. PM me if you wish, but be aware the same rules apply as on postings. I'd also be happy to sit down and talk with you over coffee.

peter nap · Jan 14, 2011

Grapeshot said:
First Mr. [strike]Why[/strike] Y for as long as you have been on this forum, it would behoove you and be more polite to learn to use the quote function. If I have trouble separating my words from yours, I can only imagine the chagrin others are suffering.
Your posts, made up of about 50% of my thoughts, appear falsely under your name.

We also are instructed to speak to the subject, the crux of the matter, NOT to personal insults or ad hominum attacks. To suggest that I am reading from a script or prepared party line is insulting. I speak honestly from the heart and direct my thoughts/words to facts in evidence not those assumed.

You think Cuccinneli broke a "promise" to gun owners. Maybe he had a reason to change tactics on this one - I don't know and neither do you. You would seem to think that being loud and unpleasant, insistent and repetitively demanding answers NOW is a genuinely good way to go. I see it as a very damaging and destructive means - one from which you cannot withdraw without carrying the scars. Maybe you would throw him under the bus and cause him to not be reelected if you could, and then get a new AG like who ? Saslaw maybe? Think and choose you responses according to the best outcome that you can project. Maybe you're an all or nothing person - I am not.

Your remark about internet lawyers could not be further from the truth. The prediction/projection of the outcome was delineated by highly respected professional attorneys well recognized in this area of practice - at least one offer his services, w/o charge I believe. He was rejected. The analysis of the tactics and methods as posted above by Repeater is consistent with and supports that forecast also.

Now I admit that you may be more learned than I and have superior cognitive ability. Might not it be wise though to anticipate various potential conclusions and select the most practical method(s) to achieve the best ones that can be actually obtained?

Has Ken Cuccinelli been granted a free pass and is he assured of my future vote - no; but neither has he lost it. I am disappointed that there are a few that would seem to think that insults, insistence and anger will sway my thinking. So I imagine it is with Ken Cuccinelli.

I do not intend to contribute to a pedometric thread of repeating the same discourse ad naiuseum. PM me if you wish, but be aware the same rules apply as on postings. I'd also be happy to sit down and talk with you over coffee.

Bravo!
That was so well stated Grapeshot, I removed my humble and crude response to Mr. Y.
You are an intellectual 44 Magnum opposing a .22 short

curtiswr · Jan 14, 2011

Mr. Y said:
One thing is for sure, he's definitely got your support so he has no fear of your vote being lost, your money spent to support another candidate or any other action against him. So as far as your concerned Cuccinelli is on solid political ground.

"And speaking of Dale reading from scripts prompts me to ask you to hire better writers for --you own--. For now I'll take Twains advice and just let you keep on speaking."

Epic!

It's funny that you point out his missing a letter on a word, but at the same time you incorrectly use the possessive form of "your" instead of the proper contraction for "you are." Or are you saying that he, in fact, is in possession of a concerned Cuccinelli on solid ground?

Would that meet your definition of epic as well?

nuc65 · Jan 14, 2011

Grapeshot said:
GASP! You're (67GT390FB) willing to stand with a man that has less than a 100% perfect image with 100% of the people, 100% of the time?

Some look to his voting record and see no shift in his direction, even with the George Mason missing puzzle piece. I will look for the awaited explanation from him and meanwhile will not keelhaul him across the barbs and barnacles. It is easier to keep the vehicle of open conversation in good repair than it is to overhaul it when it completely breaks down.

Are we going to be guilty of eating our own when they appear to be injured? I would hope for a little less animosity and more restraint.

Everything is still the same. We started out not being able to go in the buildings while carrying - we are still there. We could carry on the grounds - we still can. Employees are subject to employer's work place policies throughout the state. The legal, adult student's have suffered the most. Now we need to work to reverse this decision elsewhere.

Correction of this rests now in the hands of the GA, to fix it or not. IMO, this is where the obligation has rested all along. One other possible consideration would be to amend this by executive order, but our Governor has been less than pro-active to that regard.

I sense that there are things going on that may effect this, deep within the hold of the ship of state. We shall see.

+1

Virginia Supreme Court Upholds GMU's Unlawful Gun Ban

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Legendary Warrior

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Activist Member