http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/032011/03082011/611821
1) Most sophomore students are 18-19-20 year olds who are, in Virginia, still prohibited many "adult" activities because of their tender and immature years - things such as (legally) drinking, or carrying a concealed handgun.
2) MWC prohibits the possession of firearms on its campii.
3) Heller and McDonald shattered the notion that the government can prohibit the most effective means of self defense in the home.
4) There are 5 cases where SCOTUS has ruled that the state has no duty to protect an individual.
5) Possession, ownership, and the (open) carying of firearms are all legal activities in Virginia for a person between the ages of 18 and 21.
6) Both Heller and McDonald acknowleged that a handgun is the most effective and common means of self defense.
7) In Virginia it is a felony to, by commission or omission, cause a child to suffer an injury.
7a) In Virginia a person over the age of 18 may legally be treated as a "child" if they are found to be incompetent. The court has a wide latitude for considering incompetence under the rubric of "unable to substantially care for self".
7b) It is posited that a person who is substantially unable to or legally prohibitted from providing for the protection of their self may be considered incompetent.
Not that the victim or her attorneys would choose the tack of injecting a Second Amendment issue into the lawsuit. However, as an intellectual exercise I'm interested in how Virginia OCDO constitutional scholars would view the road I am pointing towards.
stay safe.
The University of Mary Washington had no reason to believe a student who was raped on campus in 2008 was in imminent danger, according to the state Attorney General's Office.
Nor did the university have a legal obligation to protect the student, who was a sophomore at the time of the crime, the office claims.
For those reasons, the Attorney General's Office has asked that a $10 million lawsuit against UMW be dismissed.
The suit filed on behalf of the rape victim accuses UMW of negligence and claims the attacker's actions were "reasonably foreseeable" by university officials.
A hearing is scheduled for March 28 in Fredericksburg Circuit Court.
In a written response to the lawsuit, the Attorney General's Office says the plaintiff's allegations "paint a picture of a young woman who endured a heinous assault."
"The person who committed the assault should be brought to justice," the response continues. "But the Commonwealth of Virginia cannot be held liable in this case because it did not violate a legal duty it owed to anyone.
The Attorney General's Office disagrees, noting that the Virginia Supreme Court does not consider it a special relationship when adults agree to care for another's child.
"It is difficult to imagine that an adult entrusted with the care of a minor child has an inferior duty than a university has to an adult student," the Attorney General's Office wrote.
1) Most sophomore students are 18-19-20 year olds who are, in Virginia, still prohibited many "adult" activities because of their tender and immature years - things such as (legally) drinking, or carrying a concealed handgun.
2) MWC prohibits the possession of firearms on its campii.
3) Heller and McDonald shattered the notion that the government can prohibit the most effective means of self defense in the home.
4) There are 5 cases where SCOTUS has ruled that the state has no duty to protect an individual.
5) Possession, ownership, and the (open) carying of firearms are all legal activities in Virginia for a person between the ages of 18 and 21.
6) Both Heller and McDonald acknowleged that a handgun is the most effective and common means of self defense.
7) In Virginia it is a felony to, by commission or omission, cause a child to suffer an injury.
7a) In Virginia a person over the age of 18 may legally be treated as a "child" if they are found to be incompetent. The court has a wide latitude for considering incompetence under the rubric of "unable to substantially care for self".
7b) It is posited that a person who is substantially unable to or legally prohibitted from providing for the protection of their self may be considered incompetent.
Not that the victim or her attorneys would choose the tack of injecting a Second Amendment issue into the lawsuit. However, as an intellectual exercise I'm interested in how Virginia OCDO constitutional scholars would view the road I am pointing towards.
stay safe.