Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Cuccinelli supports GMU gun ban

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Orange County, Va
    Posts
    54

    Cuccinelli supports GMU gun ban

    Looks like no one has posted this.

    http://fairfaxcity.patch.com/articles/guns

  2. #2
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    You probably didn't follow this all the way back, but this is just a local news media article about a re-published web copy of a VA-ALERT notice that came out a few days ago.

    Nothing new here. It's my impression that Cuccinelli is going to explain that his role as AG required him to represent the interest of his client, GMU. I would be a little surprised if he has changed his position on the matter. I could be wrong.

    ETA: I do expect we are going to be in for a lesson in political double-speak...

    TFred
    Last edited by TFred; 11-17-2011 at 12:39 PM.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    You probably didn't follow this all the way back, but this is just a local news media article about a re-published web copy of a VA-ALERT notice that came out a few days ago.

    Nothing new here. It's my impression that Cuccinelli is going to explain that his role as AG required him to represent the interest of his client, GMU. I would be a little surprised if he has changed his position on the matter. I could be wrong.

    ETA: I do expect we are going to be in for a lesson in political double-speak...

    TFred
    I will be at the meeting tonight and I have questions for him. I really want to know what makes a college any different from the many places we are already allowed to carry.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    If you get the chance.....

    Ask why State Employees are prohibited? They may not carry in office or vehicle (per Va. Administrative Code). There are enough Victim Disarmerment Zones already. A local state office I know of just reviewed their Active Shooter Plan. Their options were to shelter in place and pray. We should not infringe on State workers rights.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Looks like the Huffpo has picked up on this too. I think it is a poor choice of words rather than a true change of view. But of course the liberal anti-gunners are going to take it and run.

    This is going to be the elephant in the room tonight. He already knows what he is going to say, which is going to address most everyone's first round of questions.

    Sure wish I could be there... hope someone is going to tape it!

    TFred

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Looks like the Huffpo has picked up on this too. I think it is a poor choice of words rather than a true change of view. But of course the liberal anti-gunners are going to take it and run.

    This is going to be the elephant in the room tonight. He already knows what he is going to say, which is going to address most everyone's first round of questions.

    Sure wish I could be there... hope someone is going to tape it!

    TFred
    There were several people taping it including a gentleman from Fox 5 news. Hopefully they will post it here or the VCDL site.

    Cuccinelli did a decent job of explaining his reasoning for the defense of the GMU ban. He admitted to making a legal mistake when he initial said the ban was indefensible. He said he incorrectly applied a law that banned localities from making gun laws. He did not realize at the time that that law did not apply to public colleges which have their own administrative code. He then went on to explain that the opinion of the AG is not his personal opinion and he did call the GMU ban crazy. I am sure I missed something but that is the gist of it.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    There were several people taping it including a gentleman from Fox 5 news. Hopefully they will post it here or the VCDL site.

    Cuccinelli did a decent job of explaining his reasoning for the defense of the GMU ban. He admitted to making a legal mistake when he initial said the ban was indefensible. He said he incorrectly applied a law that banned localities from making gun laws. He did not realize at the time that that law did not apply to public colleges which have their own administrative code. He then went on to explain that the opinion of the AG is not his personal opinion and he did call the GMU ban crazy. I am sure I missed something but that is the gist of it.
    Interesting.

    I haven't heard much about GMU, but similarly, to hear CBS 6 tell it, Cuch is recommending that Virginia Tech create a gun ban regulation, they made it sound like he was , in fact, endorsing it

  8. #8
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    There were several people taping it including a gentleman from Fox 5 news. Hopefully they will post it here or the VCDL site.

    Cuccinelli did a decent job of explaining his reasoning for the defense of the GMU ban. He admitted to making a legal mistake when he initial said the ban was indefensible. He said he incorrectly applied a law that banned localities from making gun laws. He did not realize at the time that that law did not apply to public colleges which have their own administrative code. He then went on to explain that the opinion of the AG is not his personal opinion and he did call the GMU ban crazy. I am sure I missed something but that is the gist of it.
    What he is saying is that he initially thought that 15.2-915 applied to Colleges and Universities, but in fact, it does not.

    TFred

  9. #9
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
    Interesting.

    I haven't heard much about GMU, but similarly, to hear CBS 6 tell it, Cuch is recommending that Virginia Tech create a gun ban regulation, they made it sound like he was , in fact, endorsing it
    From their liberal anti-gun point of view, that is what they took from his opinion. He basically said, if you want to do this legally, you must change your policy to a regulation.

    They all assume that everyone of course wants to do this, so that is the only point to be taken. Of course, they completely ignore the fact that he suggested that the whole idea is stupid and dangerous. See quote below.

    TFred

    Quote from AG's Opinion:

    In reviewing the legality of the policies, I express no opinion about their wisdom. It certainly can be argued that such policies are ineffectual because persons who wish to perpetrate violence will ignore them, and that the net effect of such policies is to leave defenseless the law-abiding citizens who follow these policies. The task at hand, however, is not to evaluate the desirability of such policies. Instead, the role of the Office is to assess the lawfulness of these policies in light of the law as it presently exists in Virginia.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Screwed by the Cooch

    COOCH Is an epic FAIL for gun rights.
    His primary duty is to uphold the Virginia Constitution. .
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    therein lies the rub

    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    COOCH Is an epic FAIL for gun rights.
    His primary duty is to uphold the Virginia Constitution. .
    that is certainly his duty and in his oath of office he swore to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and Virginia. Here's where the problem is as I see it; in his view, upholding the constitution means to support/represent the state government and its various agencies and departments.

    The problem with this view is that there is a failure to separate his job as the attorney general from his duty as a citizen sworn to uphold the constitution. While it is clearly true that his job as the attorney general is to represent the state, his oath to uphold the constitution should properly be viewed as a duty to ensure that the provisions of the constitution are observed, even in cases where the government's various agents or policies suppress individual liberty.

    The source of my angst with his position is that in my view, the constitution is the people's constitution, not the government's. The constitution was written FOR the people (to save guard their freedom), not for the government (to enhance government power). Hence, in cases wherein the government usurps powers not granted to it by the people, his duty (to uphold the constitution) is to represent the people against the government.

    I reject the notion that his job, or duty if you will, is to steadfastly side with the government no matter what it is doing by saying something along the lines of "its my job, I have to it". The reason that position is without merit is that the constitution is written to protect the citizens from the government, therefore, "upholding" the constitution would not allow for the attorney general to facilitate and abet any violation of the citizen's rights by the government.

    My basic presupposition is therefore diametrically opposed to his and it is doubtful that either of us is likely to change. Mr. Cuccinelli is likely to garner more support for his view since he is a highly respected politician and a notably savvy lawyer and as such more likely knows whereof he speaks. Nevertheless, this fundamental difference does not deter me from subscribing to the train of thought that enhances individual liberty and limits government power.

    My lack of command of our mother tongue limits my ability to succinctly articulate my views, but I hope that anyone reading this understands my point of view.

    my two cents worth,
    roN

  12. #12
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 6L6GC View Post
    that is certainly his duty and in his oath of office he swore to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and Virginia. Here's where the problem is as I see it; in his view, upholding the constitution means to support/represent the state government and its various agencies and departments.

    The problem with this view is that there is a failure to separate his job as the attorney general from his duty as a citizen sworn to uphold the constitution. While it is clearly true that his job as the attorney general is to represent the state, his oath to uphold the constitution should properly be viewed as a duty to ensure that the provisions of the constitution are observed, even in cases where the government's various agents or policies suppress individual liberty.

    The source of my angst with his position is that in my view, the constitution is the people's constitution, not the government's. The constitution was written FOR the people (to save guard their freedom), not for the government (to enhance government power). Hence, in cases wherein the government usurps powers not granted to it by the people, his duty (to uphold the constitution) is to represent the people against the government.

    I reject the notion that his job, or duty if you will, is to steadfastly side with the government no matter what it is doing by saying something along the lines of "its my job, I have to it". The reason that position is without merit is that the constitution is written to protect the citizens from the government, therefore, "upholding" the constitution would not allow for the attorney general to facilitate and abet any violation of the citizen's rights by the government.

    My basic presupposition is therefore diametrically opposed to his and it is doubtful that either of us is likely to change. Mr. Cuccinelli is likely to garner more support for his view since he is a highly respected politician and a notably savvy lawyer and as such more likely knows whereof he speaks. Nevertheless, this fundamental difference does not deter me from subscribing to the train of thought that enhances individual liberty and limits government power.

    My lack of command of our mother tongue limits my ability to succinctly articulate my views, but I hope that anyone reading this understands my point of view.

    my two cents worth,
    roN
    Did you watch the video?

    http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/s...ng-Nov-17-2011

    Your assumptions are simply incorrect. You may wish his job was a different job, but it is what it is.

    TFred

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    care to elaborate?

    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    Did you watch the video?

    http://forums.opencarry.org/forums/s...ng-Nov-17-2011

    Your assumptions are simply incorrect. You may wish his job was a different job, but it is what it is.

    TFred
    what specifically that I said about his "job" is incorrect? In your view, is his job and his duty always the same thing?
    roN

  14. #14
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by 6L6GC View Post
    that is certainly his duty and in his oath of office he swore to uphold the constitution of the U.S. and Virginia. Here's where the problem is as I see it; in his view, upholding the constitution means to support/represent the state government and its various agencies and departments.

    The problem with this view is that there is a failure to separate his job as the attorney general from his duty as a citizen sworn to uphold the constitution. While it is clearly true that his job as the attorney general is to represent the state, his oath to uphold the constitution should properly be viewed as a duty to ensure that the provisions of the constitution are observed, even in cases where the government's various agents or policies suppress individual liberty.

    The source of my angst with his position is that in my view, the constitution is the people's constitution, not the government's. The constitution was written FOR the people (to save guard their freedom), not for the government (to enhance government power). Hence, in cases wherein the government usurps powers not granted to it by the people, his duty (to uphold the constitution) is to represent the people against the government.

    I reject the notion that his job, or duty if you will, is to steadfastly side with the government no matter what it is doing by saying something along the lines of "its my job, I have to it". The reason that position is without merit is that the constitution is written to protect the citizens from the government, therefore, "upholding" the constitution would not allow for the attorney general to facilitate and abet any violation of the citizen's rights by the government.

    My basic presupposition is therefore diametrically opposed to his and it is doubtful that either of us is likely to change. Mr. Cuccinelli is likely to garner more support for his view since he is a highly respected politician and a notably savvy lawyer and as such more likely knows whereof he speaks. Nevertheless, this fundamental difference does not deter me from subscribing to the train of thought that enhances individual liberty and limits government power.

    My lack of command of our mother tongue limits my ability to succinctly articulate my views, but I hope that anyone reading this understands my point of view.

    my two cents worth,
    roN
    The "job" of the AG is to provide his clients (state agencies, GA, Governor, etc.), but not individual citizens, with legal advice as they request it. His legal advice, as he stated in the video, is to determine as best he can, the constitutionality of his clients' issue. If the issue violates the constitution, he must say so, which would be in the best interest of the client. He clearly stated that his duty is to do that even if the result is at odds with his personal view. He also stated that what his office provides to its clients are opinions, not directives. The clients are free to ignore those opinions (the bane of any lawyer) if they choose. If the client proceeds contrary to the AG's advice and steps on the citizens' constitutional right, then we citizen(s) may excercise our right of redress.

    The AG is elected to preclude having an appointed puppet who will blindly support the regime, and thus be accountable to the voters for his performance.

    In the GMU case, he did offer his personal opinion of their intent, but they ignored it.

    Would/could the AG petition for an injunction to preclude a client from infringing on constitutional rights? It would seem that this would be a conflict of interest.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  15. #15
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by 6L6GC View Post
    what specifically that I said about his "job" is incorrect? In your view, is his job and his duty always the same thing?
    roN
    No, they probably aren't. However, if he did his "duty" instead of his "job" in those particular cases (such as you claim this one is), he would certainly be fired at the request (whatever process would be used to remove him from office) of his political opponents, and replaced by someone absolutely much worse for gun rights than Cuccinelli is.

    Politics is an ugly game. You can't ever have the whole cake. You have to fight for as much as you can get, and then accept it. The AG you describe would never stand a chance to be elected. Where does that leave you? On the outside, always complaining.

    TFred

  16. #16
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    No, they probably aren't. However, if he did his "duty" instead of his "job" in those particular cases (such as you claim this one is), he would certainly be fired at the request (whatever process would be used to remove him from office) of his political opponents, and replaced by someone absolutely much worse for gun rights than Cuccinelli is.

    Politics is an ugly game. You can't ever have the whole cake. You have to fight for as much as you can get, and then accept it. The AG you describe would never stand a chance to be elected. Where does that leave you? On the outside, always complaining.

    TFred
    Probably by impeachment or recall; both are messy, neither is very productive.

    If history has taught us anything, it's that "constitutionality" is an extremely complex concept.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

Posting Permissions

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