• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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:

jmelvin

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,195
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

Repeater

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
2,498
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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.
 

ed

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
4,841
Location
Loudoun County - Dulles Airport, Virginia, USA
Postcard Sent!

http://blogs.roanoke.com/politics/2011/04/13/lawmaker-seeks-to-ban-guns-in-churches/




mceachinchurch.jpg
 
Top