Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: AG's office delares that state agency "lacks the authority" to provide regulations ..

  1. #1
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    AG's office delares that state agency "lacks the authority" to provide regulations ..

    This is really ironic. The regulations involve gay adoptions. With the GMU debacle in mind, read the following:
    Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) has weighed in against proposed rules that would require private and faith-based groups, such as Catholic Charities and Jewish Family Services, to allow gay parents to adopt children.

    Cuccinelli’s office said in a memo dated Tuesday that the proposal to be considered by the State Board of Social Services as early as next week “does not comport with applicable state law and public policy.”

    “Therefore the State Board lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language,’’ wrote Allen Wilson, senior assistant attorney general to the Virginia Department of Social Services.

    In December 2009, the attorney general’s office, then headed by Bill Mims, a former Republican legislator and now a Supreme Court justice, advised that the state board had the authority to repeal the existing regulation and put into place the new one. Cuccinelli’s office is now revising and amending that advice.
    So! Cuccinelli has expressly taken steps to undue the damage (in the opinion of some, at least) that Bill Mims created. So, why didn't he do the same thing regarding campus carry? Mims created enormous damage there with his GMU briefs.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Well, for one thing these are proposed regulations and the AG's office has some duty to review them for possible constitutional and legal conflicts. The others are existing regs which are presumed to meet constitutional and legal muster because no objectio was raised during the time they were being proposed and supposedly reviewed.

    In other words, bureauracracy.

    stay safe.

    ETA: Oh, the proposed regs deal with a protected class, while gun owners do not enjoy that status.
    Last edited by skidmark; 04-13-2011 at 05:12 PM.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    In the GMU case did the AG argue that the school had the authority to issue the regulations restricting the carryng of firearms and / or only that the regulations neither violated the Virginia Constitution and US Constitution provisions providing the protection of the existing right to arms?

    If the GMU case only addressed the Constitutional provisions and did not address the school's authority to issue the regulations to begin with then we have a separate case altogether.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Well, for one thing these are proposed regulations and the AG's office has some duty to review them for possible constitutional and legal conflicts. The others are existing regs which are presumed to meet constitutional and legal muster because no objectio was raised during the time they were being proposed and supposedly reviewed.

    In other words, bureauracracy.

    stay safe.

    ETA: Oh, the proposed regs deal with a protected class, while gun owners do not enjoy that status.
    And I'm wondering if SCOTUS will ever accord protected status to American gun owners. Certainly there is abundant evidence of discrimination against gun owners.

    If Heller and McDonald are dead-letters within the Fourth Circuit, then some other protection is required.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    In the GMU case did the AG argue that the school had the authority to issue the regulations restricting the carryng of firearms and / or only that the regulations neither violated the Virginia Constitution and US Constitution provisions providing the protection of the existing right to arms?

    If the GMU case only addressed the Constitutional provisions and did not address the school's authority to issue the regulations to begin with then we have a separate case altogether.
    If I recall, first Mims, then Cuccinelli argued that GMu's regs "neither violated the Virginia Constitution and US Constitution provisions providing the protection of the existing right to arms."

    Virginia Planter can weigh in on this point. Actually, I would appreciate his viewpoint.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,848
    Carry On.

    Ed

    VirginiaOpenCarry.Org (Coins, Shirts and Patches)
    - - - -
    For VA Open Carry Cards send a S.A.2S.E. to: Ed's OC cards, Box 16143, Wash DC 20041-6143 (they are free but some folks enclose a couple bucks too)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •