Virginia Supreme Court Upholds GMU's Unlawful Gun Ban

Mr. Y said:

Mostly for Peter Nap, but anyone subscribing to the "cuccinelli is still our friend" camp (not lumping you in that camp P/N, nor excluding )

What exactly do you expect him to say that will somehow explain to your satisfaction his defense of GMU after lying about it? what would anyone hope to gain by letting him try to "explain it away"?

Click to expand...

Well, let me reverse engineer those questions.

what would anyone hope to gain by letting him try to "explain it away"?

While he does talk to me on occasion, more before the election than after, he doesn't ask my permission nor requires it, so it's not a matter of "letting" him do anything.

What exactly do you expect him to say that will somehow explain to your satisfaction his defense of GMU after lying about it?

I already know what he's going to say but HE needs to say it.

sad day... I surely thought it would have passed.
:shocker:

Strong preemption required

nova said:

Well, now I know that I'll do my time there and leave in June.

Does VCDL's 2011 agenda include preempting state agencies?

Click to expand...

Language like this from 2007 would do the job. Question is, do the members have the stomach to stand up to the collegiate bullies and others who would certainly oppose?

Senator Vogel has a bill

t33j said:

Haven't seen anything yet. IMO that and the state/national park/forest things are the 2 biggest things left to deal with in Virginia other than CHPs.

Click to expand...

Senator Vogel has a bill, SB 2050 -- it is being sent to the Rules Committee (to die?).

Repeater said:

Senator Vogel has a bill, SB 2050 -- it is being sent to the Rules Committee (to die?).

Click to expand...

Good catch Repeater! I hadn't seen that yet.

I think we can work with that. I'm not sure why the Department of Mental Health and the Department of Whatever Development are excluded, but it's workable.

Gun owners would need to visit Rules Committee members beforehand

peter nap said:

Good catch Repeater! I hadn't seen that yet.

Click to expand...

How many of these Senators are "friends" of gun owners, you think?

Rules Committee

Membership: Whipple (Chairman), Colgan, Saslaw, Houck, Miller, Y.B., Howell, Marsh, Lucas, Ticer, Puller, Locke, Wampler, Quayle, Norment, Edwards, Puckett, Newman

Read: Nut Houses.

wylde007 said:

Read: Nut Houses.

Click to expand...

Yep....loony bins

Supreme Court adopts the Cuccinelli "Human Shield" argument

Throughout the decision, the court notes that elementary children frequently visit the campus and will attend various activities during the year. The court concludes that the protection of children from risks that are "reasonably foreseeable" renders the entire campus as a "sensitive place" thus:

It was stipulated at trial that GMU has 30,000 students enrolled ranging from age 16 to senior citizens, and that over 350 members of the incoming freshman class would be under the age of 18. Also approximately 50,000 elementary and high school students attend summer camps at GMU and approximately 130 children attend the child study center preschool there. All of these individuals use GMU’s buildings and attend events on campus. The fact that GMU is a school and that its buildings are owned by the government indicates that GMU is a “sensitive place.”

Moreover, parents who send their children to a university have a reasonable expectation that the university will maintain a campus free of foreseeable harm.

Click to expand...

Using children as an excuse to deprive adults of their natural right of self-defense and the RKBA is a craven, cowardly way out. The court has now adopted the Cuccinelli Human Shield defense:



Well, it seems this is now a bi-partisan defense.

Well!

wylde007 said:

Read: Nut Houses.

Click to expand...

Well ... well! That's that's insensitive.

Repeater said:

How many of these Senators are "friends" of gun owners, you think?

Rules Committee

Membership: Whipple (Chairman), Colgan, Saslaw, Houck, Miller, Y.B., Howell, Marsh, Lucas, Ticer, Puller, Locke, Wampler, Quayle, Norment, Edwards, Puckett, Newman

Click to expand...

Steve Newman is my senator and a reliably friendly vote to those who cherish firearms and self defense. I'll give him a ringle dingle tomorrow and make sure I stop by on Monday.

Screwed by the Cooch, part 9

Thanks again Cooch.

wylde007 said:

No. Not yet, at least.

Also no parking lot bill. Yet.

I hope both of those things change. And soon.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Lives are literally at stake. We shouldn't neglect these issues because they may not be convenient.

I'm going to be likely finishing school here in Virginia, and it would be nice to add the ability to defend myself at school to the list of benefits I shall accrue from doing so.

Repeater said:

Throughout the decision, the court notes that elementary children frequently visit the campus and will attend various activities during the year. The court concludes that the protection of children from risks that are "reasonably foreseeable" renders the entire campus as a "sensitive place" thus:

It was stipulated at trial that GMU has 30,000 students enrolled ranging from age 16 to senior citizens, and that over 350 members of the incoming freshman class would be under the age of 18. Also approximately 50,000 elementary and high school students attend summer camps at GMU and approximately 130 children attend the child study center preschool there. All of these individuals use GMU’s buildings and attend events on campus. The fact that GMU is a school and that its buildings are owned by the government indicates that GMU is a “sensitive place.”

Moreover, parents who send their children to a university have a reasonable expectation that the university will maintain a campus free of foreseeable harm.

Click to expand...

Using children as an excuse to deprive adults of their natural right of self-defense and the RKBA is a craven, cowardly way out.

Click to expand...

It also remains ridiculous to pretend that banning guns on school property is an even remotely efficacious way of "maintaining a campus free of foreseeable harm". Virginia Tech has disproved that notion outright, and further has arguably has created a "foreseeable harm" in the very continuance of the current policies and means of "maintaining" a safe campus, which are provably, inarguably incapable of preventing a such an incident.

Thundar said:

Thanks again Cooch.

Click to expand...

The wrong question was asked to get the desired answer. So instead of blaming the guy who wouldn't take advice on how to proceed, you blame the guy whose elected position requires him to defend the lawsuit. You want him to tank a case because it suits your desires instead of realizing that that it not what he was elected to do. Just because we believe something is right doesn't mean it will fly in the world of legalese. We would have lost the McDonald v Chicago case if the Supremes had been limited to Gura's argument on the bans constitutionality. I don't think if that was the case you'd say screwed by Gura would you.

Cite to authority that the AG is required to defend all state agencies all the time?

Il Cuce stated the ban was indefensible. He then changed his mind after being elected. His legal brief - HIS brief had every Brady Campaign bit in it. Nothing was left out. That's an enemy of gun owners no matter how you look at it.

GASP! You're (67GT390FB) willing to stand with a man that has less than a 100% perfect image with 100% of the people, 100% of the time?

Some look to his voting record and see no shift in his direction, even with the George Mason missing puzzle piece. I will look for the awaited explanation from him and meanwhile will not keelhaul him across the barbs and barnacles. It is easier to keep the vehicle of open conversation in good repair than it is to overhaul it when it completely breaks down.

Are we going to be guilty of eating our own when they appear to be injured? I would hope for a little less animosity and more restraint.

Everything is still the same. We started out not being able to go in the buildings while carrying - we are still there. We could carry on the grounds - we still can. Employees are subject to employer's work place policies throughout the state. The legal, adult student's have suffered the most. Now we need to work to reverse this decision elsewhere.

Correction of this rests now in the hands of the GA, to fix it or not. IMO, this is where the obligation has rested all along. One other possible consideration would be to amend this by executive order, but our Governor has been less than pro-active to that regard.

I sense that there are things going on that may effect this, deep within the hold of the ship of state. We shall see.

Thank you for the perspective Grapeshot!

Edited because it's just not worth the effort!