Virginia Tech to add their gun prohibition to VAC

http://monachuslex.com/?p=107

Virginia Tech Responds to AG Opinion on ‘No Guns’ Policy

Following last week’s opinion by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that state university policies are trumped by state-issued concealed handgun permits while properly promulgated regulations are not, Virginia Tech has announced their intent to transform their ‘no guns’ policy into a regulation.

Click to expand...

ETA: Wonder if it will make students and visitors FEEL safe again this time around...?

Some people never learn, history will repeat itself. We need to give students the ability to defend themselves. Instead VT will continue their indefensible gun free "safe zone".

Just run with it in the comments sections.


"Bwahahahahahahaah!! VA Tech thinks a provision in the obscure VAC would have stopped Cho! Probably like they think repeatedly failing e-mail alert system actually works! Bwahahahahahahaha!!"

"I wonder if Larry Hincker (or whatever the PR man-turned President's name) thinks a blurb in the obscure VAC will make people safer like the other one he crowed about right before Cho shot 54 people, killing 31?"

That sort of thing.

My comment to the article:




TFred

TFred said:

My comment to the article:

Please explain to me (and more importantly to Virginia Tech), how a regulation which directly addresses “any visitor or other third party” can satisfy the exemption which allows them to bypass the process for “regulations that pertain to (i) their academic affairs, (ii) the selection, tenure, promotion and disciplining of faculty and employees, (iii) the selection of students, and (iv) rules of conduct and disciplining of students.”
​

TFred

Click to expand...

Great comment!!

A little tricky to read, though. You kinda have to read through the whole list and put it all together, though. Then notice that their authority does not go beyond school staff and students. I might suggest directly stating it. For example, "Tech doesn't have the authority to pretend to prevent another Cho. They are only authorized to regulate staff and students (provide cite and brief quote of statute or regulation)."

Citizen said:

Great comment!!

A little tricky to read, though. You kinda have to read through the whole list and put it all together, though. Then notice that their authority does not go beyond school staff and students. I might suggest directly stating it. For example, "Tech doesn't have the authority to pretend to prevent another Cho. They are only authorized to regulate staff and students (provide cite and brief quote of statute or regulation)."

Click to expand...

In this particular case, I believe the issue that is going to be critical is whether or not the schools are going to be exempt from the regular, rather onerous, process to amend the VAC.*

It appeared to me from the initial UVA statement that they believed they were, based on the exemption that John quoted in his article. Philip had the VCDL legal folks look at it, and they concluded that since any regulation that only addressed the school communities would be essentially worthless (ETA: that is the scope of their existing policies that are in place now), the schools would not be exempt.

I strongly suspect that the schools will try to change the VAC via the exempt, easier method, and that someone will have to sue them to stop them from doing so.

That's just my gut feeling. It could get rather interesting, and generate a lot of media attention.

TFred

ETA: * I believe that any school or other state body is free to attempt the process to amend the VAC in any manner they may see fit. The process (as outlined in John's article) is complex, time consuming, and has lots of space for public input and review. What is not clear to me is how much influence public comment might have on the ultimate success of the proposed change. Assuming 1) we can defeat an effort to bypass the public input process, and 2) we can summon overwhelming public opinion against any proposed changes, I am still not sure the process can be stopped.

TFred said:

SNIP I strongly suspect that the schools will try to change the VAC via the exempt, easier method, and that someone will have to sue them to stop them from doing so.

That's just my gut feeling. It could get rather interesting, and generate a lot of media attention.

TFred

Click to expand...

I see your point. One angle of counter-attack is to point out that the schools, by their own lights, seriously failed to protect their students by not looking into this sooner.

Or, it highlights its not a problem in the first place, because if it was, the schools would have done something about it sooner. Its been over four years since Cho shot up Tech. Are the schools really trying to say that this so-important action has been negligently neglected, leaving their students in grave danger, for four years?

Active Shooter Training

Recently I attended a government active shooter training. The instructor used many examples (VT, India, ect) and every example had the "Gun Free Zone" in common. The training was basically - recognize gun fire, run and hide - Wait for law enforcement - know this is not a hostage situation - it is a killing situation - and most events are over in less than 3 minutes. At Ft Hood the shooter got off over 200 rounds in less than 3 minutes and had 200 more ready if he wasn't engaged by law enforcement - as individuals cannot carry personal weapons.

This approach is what these decesions are being made from - none of them use or even consider individual protection as a COA.

I should think the proper approach would be a suit for a writ of prohibition, since the proposed rule violates Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, in that it would effectively eliminate the fundamental right to self-defense. Couple that with an alternative count for declaratory action to the effect that implementation of the rule would mean that the U. is undertaking a positive and absolute duty to protect each and every person affected thereby.

Did any of that make sense?

It makes sense to me. At any point in the writ of prohibition would you raise the argument that these agencies including universities only have authority to promulgate such regulations as are necessary for their operationg and argue that control of firearms is not necessary for the operation of a university beyond those limited prohibitions already defined by the General Assembly? Would you leave this to some other court?

user said:

I should think the proper approach would be a suit for a writ of prohibition, since the proposed rule violates Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, in that it would effectively eliminate the fundamental right to self-defense. Couple that with an alternative count for declaratory action to the effect that implementation of the rule would mean that the U. is undertaking a positive and absolute duty to protect each and every person affected thereby.

Did any of that make sense?

Click to expand...

Makes perfect sense.

Get out of my yard and take your dog with you! You (VT) have no right to do that here.

Equal Protection Clause?

user said:

I should think the proper approach would be a suit for a writ of prohibition, since the proposed rule violates Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, in that it would effectively eliminate the fundamental right to self-defense. Couple that with an alternative count for declaratory action to the effect that implementation of the rule would mean that the U. is undertaking a positive and absolute duty to protect each and every person affected thereby.

Did any of that make sense?

Click to expand...

If any proposed VAC regulation expressly exempt cops from the regulation, then it would be a good time to invoke the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment and asset the regulation is unconstitutional.

After all, no reasonable person can declare that cops are better trained to handle guns than non-cops. Cops negligently handle guns, like any other mortal persons. But then, such cops might claim it was an "honest mistake" -- and some courts will actually swallow that.

Citizen said:

I see your point. One angle of counter-attack is to point out that the schools, by their own lights, seriously failed to protect their students by not looking into this sooner.

Or, it highlights its not a problem in the first place, because if it was, the schools would have done something about it sooner. Its been over four years since Cho shot up Tech. Are the schools really trying to say that this so-important action has been negligently neglected, leaving their students in grave danger, for four years?

Click to expand...

Which should somehow be a point of law somewhere. Can a state agency or even the legislature pass a law that that violates (at least limits) a consitutional right for some purpose when that purpose has been shown to have failed miserably?

I mean it's one thing to limit our freedoms for the purpose of providing safety, but when those limitations prove to NOT provide safety, and in fact does the opposite, how can the taking of our rights be defended legally? Given the reasoning and purpose for doing so has proven itself false.

They (VT) have the perfect out. When the next lunatic decides to spill large amounts of blood and bodily fluids in the halls and classrooms of VT, once again it won't be the target rich environment and a low life who saw an opportunity that will be held to light's forefront in the mass media. It will be those gun nuts and far right nut cases and their sick love of guns who are the cause of the problem.

So more "No Gun" signs, more calls for new legislation, more media-served clowns who were present during the slaughter, and more demands that not only Richmond but Washington stop this madness once and for all by implementing tight restrictions on gun purchases, ownership, and the bearing of arms in public.

And then it will happen again followed by, guess what, more calls for government to save us from this nightmare.

One definition of insanity is repeatedly performing the same task in the same manner while expecting different results. These idiots are never going to learn because that is not their prerogative. It isn't that the puppet masters don't know or chose not to know how these things turn out. They know exactly the results they will receive which is exactly their reason for doing what they do; feeding the obvious. Keep this up and the public will demand our rights be struck in the name of "the common good". The folly and lies of promised safety and security will end in the destruction of our liberties.