Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Second line of defense The University should seek to upgrade its firearms policy.....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    192

    Second line of defense The University should seek to upgrade its firearms policy.....

    Typical drivel...nice responses at the link.

    Carried concealed there today, didn't have to play weird games with where to put my legally carried gun or worry about breaking some manufactured "regulations", just went about my business...just want to say thanks Atty General Cuccinelli.

    I'd love to take some of the people who write this stuff shooting one day. They might possibly learn something....nah....


    http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2011/08...ne-of-defense/

    Second line of defense
    The University should seek to upgrade its firearms policy to a legally-enforceable regulation

    BY MANAGING BOARD on August 26, 2011
    Virginia Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli issued a written opinion July 1 in which he asserted the University’s current firearms policy does not provide it with the legal authority to prevent concealed carry permit holders from bringing guns into on-Grounds buildings. This came as a surprise to many who believed the matter of on-campus gun control was settled earlier this year when the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld George Mason University’s prohibition against firearms in university-owned facilities and at university-hosted events.

    The crucial distinction between the restrictions present at George Mason and the University is that only the former’s is a “regulation” that is statutorily equivalent to state law. This is significant because Virginia Code provides that “[t]he granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law[.]” Since the University merely has an administrative “policy” dealing with firearms, Cuccinelli concluded that concealed carry permit holders retain their special status even once they enter on-Grounds facilities. Given that both the U.S. and Virginia Supreme Courts have deemed it legally permissible to bar concealed firearms in on-campus buildings, however, and that there are a variety of legitimate reasons to restrict the proliferation of firearms in collegiate settings, the University should begin working to transform its firearms policy into a regulation that will carry the full force of law.

    There is no controversy surrounding the University’s authority to create a regulation that would bar all firearms, whether concealed or not, from on-Grounds buildings. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court pointedly stated “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” The Supreme Court of Virginia used this ruling in its affirmation of George Mason’s firearms prohibition, noting “the fact that GMU is a school and that its buildings are owned by the government indicates that GMU is a ‘sensitive place.’”

    Moreover, there is a compelling case to be made for prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms into university buildings. Most obviously, guns are extraordinarily dangerous, and even if the individuals carrying them harbor no malicious intent it remains possible for accidents to happen or for the weapons to end up in the wrong hands. Even granting the possibility that a determined and murderous individual could disregard the prohibition and wreak havoc, it makes sense for the University to promulgate a gun control regulation that can protect against gun-related mishaps involving non-criminal individuals.

    To do so, the administration must navigate a more complicated review process than it normally would when simply issuing a policy. A regulation has to comply with the Virginia Register Form, Style and Procedure Manual if it is to be enshrined in the Virginia Administrative Code, and this involves posting the proposed rule for a 60-day public comment period. In addition, all regulations are subject to both gubernatorial and legislative review. This could create delays and controversy for the University since neither Gov. Bob McDonnell nor the Republican-controlled House of Delegates likely will acquiesce to a regulation that limits individuals’ ability to carry firearms.

    These potential complications should not discourage the University from establishing a legally-enforceable regulation that would prohibit concealed carry permit holders from taking their guns into on-Grounds facilities. The University’s existing policy is exactly along these lines and has not been a major source of discontent among students, faculty, staff or visitors. It only came under fire after Republican State Sen. Emmet W. Hanger, Jr. issued what was likely a politically-motivated request for Cuccinelli to clarify the legal force of the University’s firearms policy. In response to this attack on institutional autonomy, the administration and the Board of Visitors should reassert their authority and issue a regulation that will continue to promote a safe and tranquil environment for those in the University community."

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Most obviously, guns are extraordinarily dangerous, and even if the individuals carrying them harbor no malicious intent it remains possible for accidents to happen or for the weapons to end up in the wrong hands. Even granting the possibility that a determined and murderous individual could disregard the prohibition and wreak havoc, it makes sense for the University to promulgate a gun control regulation that can protect against gun-related mishaps involving non-criminal individuals.
    "Something" may happen! Oh teh noes!

    But they allow cops to carry, and cops seem to shoot themselves and their co-workers more often than the rest of the lawful gun-carrying population does. Unless they extend the prohibition to cops it's all a sham.

    And yes, I left a comment to that effect.

    As for the deamonizing of guns - why aren't they willing to ban knives, pencils, scissors, rolled-up newspapers, hair curlers or any of a zillion other "extraordinarily dangerous" items? Better yet, how about wrapping everybody in bubblewrap over their plate armor,
    because it remains possible for accidents to happen or for [those objects] to end up in the wrong hands.
    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Ugh. They pushed my pet peeve button, the "presumptively lawful" statement. I had to leave a comment.

    TFred


    For people who are supposed to be smart, you all sure are not so much.

    What you want is for people to not come on campus and shoot other people.

    Regulations forbidding the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens do not even come close to accomplishing that desire. In fact, if you take even 10 minutes to discover the one common factor among virtually all mass shootings, you will find the exact opposite, such rules actually facilitate this undesired behavior.

    It is also quite disingenuous to quote from Heller:

    “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.”

    ...but then LEAVE OUT the equally critical part of the point, the footnote to that sentence which states:

    "26. We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

    Note the word PRESUMPTIVELY. That means that Scalia specifically stated that Heller DID NOT address whether such laws were Constitutional. Or not. The issue was simply not considered at all.

    After Heller and McDonald have a few years to influence lower court decisions, we could very well find ourselves reading new opinions that do indeed severely restrict such laws which today are merely "presumptively lawful."

    The sad thing about such dangerous opinions and policies that you support is that while you might "feel" safer in the short term, they most assuredly will end up getting real people killed.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Repeater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,519

    Current controversy -- an example?

    The Board of Health has released its DRAFT reg proposal for abortion facilities in the Commonwealth. The press and the blogs are sympathizing with ... guess who?

    Here is the draft.

    I like that the format requires a statement of "Need" for the proposal, as well as its "legal basis" -- any University wishing to ban, in effect, self-protection would have to do the same.

    Now, would gun owners have the sympathy of the media and blogs?

Posting Permissions

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