Attn: GMU Students and Employees

Attn

_____

nova said:

In one of the VA-ALERTs right after the decision for DiGiacinto v. The Rectors and Visitors of George Mason University it stated that students could now carry on campus, outside of buildings and events. While there would be no legal ramifications for doing so, such action could still get a student expelled or an employee fired if caught.

Click to expand...

Question: how do they know who is and who is not a student or faculty?

What issue, under color of law, would permit someone, ANYONE from inquiring about someone else's status on campus and then what would be the legal requisite to oblige them?

These laws and policies are just out-n-out stupid.

Might be time for an OC/Empty holster picnic.

peter nap said:

Might be time for an OC/Empty holster picnic.

Click to expand...

Hmmm .... Student plans on campus picnic, students and staff can carry MT holsters, friends not affiliated with GMU attend OCing.

Don't see that any rule/law is violated.

Thoughts?

nova said:

The question is, are parking decks considered "buildings"...? They pretty much put all the visitor parking in the parking decks other than a handful of short term metered spots at the north end of campus.

Click to expand...

Designated driver!

nova said:

The question is, are parking decks considered "buildings"...? They pretty much put all the visitor parking in the parking decks other than a handful of short term metered spots at the north end of campus.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they would.

Is there no off campus parking from which we could ferry people to a picnic?

peter nap said:

Might be time for an OC/Empty holster picnic.

Click to expand...

Actually, the GMU Chapter of SCCC is planning an Empty Holster protest day on April 4:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=158283160894499&index=1

Their president is a member here on OCDO:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?54458-karolynrgalarza

contact her, and maybe y'all can put something SPECTACULAR together...

Dreamer said:

Actually, the GMU Chapter of SCCC is planning an Empty Holster protest day on April 4:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=158283160894499&index=1

Their president is a member here on OCDO:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?54458-karolynrgalarza

contact her, and maybe y'all can put something SPECTACULAR together...

Click to expand...

Was not aware - excellent suggestion.

Thank you.

How is it that GMU, as a public university, isn't subject to preemption?

nova said:

Our preemption only applies to localities an the agencies thereof. Public universities are state agencies, which aren't preempted. A bill to preempt them failed this legislative session.

Click to expand...

Well, that sucks.

The way it works in Texas is that the same section of the state constitution that gives the Legislature the power to regulate the wearing of arms, gives it solely to the Legislature. No other governmental entity in the state has any authority over firearms unless explicitly granted such by the Legislature.

When campus carry passes this session (passage is pretty much assured), it might set up some interesting showdowns if state colleges and universities try to continue using rules and policies to end-run the law. But, they'll lose.

nova said:

Our preemption only applies to localities an the agencies thereof. Public universities are state agencies, which aren't preempted. A bill to preempt them failed this legislative session.

Click to expand...

The term, "pre-emption" doesn't apply at all in this context. No governmental entity in the Commonwealth can exercise powers greater than those conveyed by law. The "Dillon Rule" doesn't just apply to municipal corporations; it applies to every state agency, including educational institutions. Any "person" who attempts to do something beyond the powers granted by charter or general law (including private corporations, btw) is acting "ultra vires" (literally, "beyond the powers") and that act is legally void.

The reason GMU can't regulate just plain folks walking across the campus is that section 2.3-9.2:3 is specific about what regulations an educational institution may enact. It includes the power to regulate student and employee conduct, but not the power to regulate behavior generally. By the way, as to the regulation of possession of firearms in buildings, I think that's void as well. Virginia law provides that the real estate is the property of the Commonwealth, under the control of the board of visitors. It is not owned by the corporate body of the institution. As such, those buildings are public, governmental structures. The university has no power to regulate the behavior of non-student, non-employee persons within such buildings beyond that granted by general law (e.g., no brandishing, no assaults, etc.).

Of course, this all begs the question whether any regulation of the possession of firearms is permitted, given the language of Article 1, Section 13, of the Virginia Constitution.

user said:

The term, "pre-emption" doesn't apply at all in this context. No governmental entity in the Commonwealth can exercise powers greater than those conveyed by law. The "Dillon Rule" doesn't just apply to municipal corporations; it applies to every state agency, including educational institutions. Any "person" who attempts to do something beyond the powers granted by charter or general law (including private corporations, btw) is acting "ultra vires" (literally, "beyond the powers") and that act is legally void.

The reason GMU can't regulate just plain folks walking across the campus is that section 2.3-9.2:3 is specific about what regulations an educational institution may enact. It includes the power to regulate student and employee conduct, but not the power to regulate behavior generally. By the way, as to the regulation of possession of firearms in buildings, I think that's void as well. Virginia law provides that the real estate is the property of the Commonwealth, under the control of the board of visitors. It is not owned by the corporate body of the institution. As such, those buildings are public, governmental structures. The university has no power to regulate the behavior of non-student, non-employee persons within such buildings beyond that granted by general law (e.g., no brandishing, no assaults, etc.).

Of course, this all begs the question whether any regulation of the possession of firearms is permitted, given the language of Article 1, Section 13, of the Virginia Constitution.

Click to expand...

The misuse of "preemption" dies hard here as it is frequently misunderstood to what the term applies. Thank you for being patient.

Your connecting the dots regarding the public and university buildings is extremely interesting and just might prove fruitful I think. As I see it the recent GMU case does not temper this a bit. The means to effect/allow lawful carry seems to exist within the statutes already. Only problem is getting someone to carry the ball.

KBCraig said:

The way it works in Texas is that the same section of the state constitution that gives the Legislature the power to regulate the wearing of arms, gives it solely to the Legislature. No other governmental entity in the state has any authority over firearms unless explicitly granted such by the Legislature.

Click to expand...

That's how it is in Virginia as well. But the state agencies ignore it. No body other than our general assembly can make laws, but we obviously see where an unelected body (Board of Visitors is appointed by the governor) makes regulations with force of law.

nova said:

That's how it is in Virginia as well. But the state agencies ignore it. No body other than our general assembly can make laws, but we obviously see where an unelected body (Board of Visitors is appointed by the governor) makes regulations with force of law.

Click to expand...

State agencies are not referred to in § 15.2-915, only localities - non-state entities.