Actually, no. Absent a permit, or being a law enforcement officer, or being in your own home, carrying a concealed weapon is illegal in Virginia, forbidden by Va Code § 182.2-308.
Ok…assume the student has acquired the requisite concealed carry permit (which does not look too hard to obtain).
Then, in my view, the University may not legally forbid students or teachers who possess a current concealed carry permit from carrying on campus.
I know that they do, in the same way that they do impose a non-discrimination policy for sexual orientation. But by the same reasoning, they cannot.
So we have another example of a situation where the law is ignored by the Commonwealth. Do they enforce this anywhere else other than the gay rights arena?
This is ripe for a challenge under Romer. It’s animus plain and simple, and that don’t pass even the rational basis test, according to Justice Kennedy at least.
Your link has a clear listing of places where concealed carry is permitted. By Bricker’s analysis, universities cannot add another place (the university itself) to that list. By Bricker’s other analysis, universities must add another place (the university itself) to that list.
At what point on the graph do “must” and “cannot” meet?
And if the “same reasoning” reached the opposite conclusion (that the Universities CAN legally forbid students and teachers from carrying on campus), then Universities could legally have anti-discrimination policies for sexual orientation? Correct?
“It is my opinion that the safe operation of the campus allows regulation of, or under limited circumstances, prohibition of, firearms by any persons attending events on campus, visiting dormitories or classroom buildings, attending specific events as invitees, or under any circumstance permitted by law. The universal prohibition of firearms by properly permitted persons other than students, faculty, administration, or employees, however, is not allowed under law.”
“Accordingly, it is my opinion that the governing boards of Virginia’s public colleges and universities may not impose a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals. Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, it is my opinion that colleges and universities may regulate the conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus.”
From the Attorney General of Virginia.
Now, the way I read the prior AG opinion is that the University can ban firearms for students, faculty, administration, and employees (but not general citizens), despite the GA’s stance on concealled permits. Because the GA gave them the authority to “”[t]o establish rules and regulations for the conduct of students while attending such institution" and “[t]o establish rules and regulations for the employment of professors, teachers, instructors, and all other employees and provide for their dismissal for failure to abide by such rules and regulations”, the Universities can prohibit the carrying of weapons by those people. I seems to me, that Cuccinelli’s opinion flies directly in the face of prior AG opinions. While the 05 opinion does not allow them to regulate non-students, etc., it does allow it when dealing with the people it was empowered to regulate.
I’ll also point you to DiGiancinto v. George Mason University, where GMU’s rule against having firearms was challenged in court by the very same reasoning. The court rejected it in a very very brief opinion, saying: “That were the University subject to a Declaratory Judgment action, the University has the requisite delegated authority to adopt the regulation pursuant to Virginia Code §23-91.29”
So, now that you’ve had a bit of time, and we both have a bit more information, what do you think? Do you admit you were wrong about Cuccinelli’s opinion being only for student discipline? And, given the prior AG opinion and the GMU case, that the Universities are granted the authority and can so regulate?
I’ll simply point out that that news story was dated April 13, 2005. It includes this quote: “Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General’s Office resolve the matter.” Lo’ and behold, in January of 2006, the AG did resolve the matter… in favor of the Universities. And then in 2009, the Court I cited above did the same.
There is no Bricker’s "other analysis. There is only Steve MB’s continued and obstinate refusal to stop repeating the inaccurate statement.
Yes, and no.
Yes, given the multitude of reactions to Cuccinelli’s letter, especially by Cuccinelli himself, it seems clear that he intended it to apply across the board, not just to student discipline issues. I don’t think my original reading was crazy, but it appears clear now that it simply wasn’t correct.
No. The GMU case is a county circuit court opinion, not controlling precedent, and makes no mention whatsoever of the Dillon Rule. In the Prince William parking case I mentioned above, the circuit court sided with the county, and the parker won after an appeal to the appellate court. (In Virginia, the general district court is one of limited jurisdiction with appeals de novo as a matter of right; the county circuit court is of general jurisdiction but does not make precedent, and the appellate route is to the Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court.)
And the AG’s opinion… well, if I have conceded above that an AG opinion is wrong, why must I regard another AG opinion as right?
Fair enough. I think your original reading was unsupported by the clear text of the letter.
It makes no mention of the Dillon rule because the legislature had previously granted the power to the Universities, so the Dillon rule doesn’t apply.
Eberth dealt with a muncipality, not a University. More importantly, Eberth dealt with the minutiae of the very specific grant of power (what is a “lot” for the purposes of the statute). That isn’t an issue with either the guns nor the anti-discrimination cases. Simply put, Eberth has nothing to do with the issue we’re discussing (outside of the general Dillon rule crap).
So you agree that the older AG opinion is in clear conflict with Cooch’s?
Sorry - I missed the date of the story for the simple reason that today’s date was more prominently placed on the top of the webpage. Totally my fault, but for understandable reasons.
Not a worry. If it’s any consolation, I had pulled up that exact page while I was looking at this issue, and it wasn’t until I found the AG opinion that I went back and checked the date.
Yes.
Isn’t it a tad bit suspicious that Cooch never mentioned the prior AG opinion then? His “reasoning” for his position flies directly in the face of the prior AG’s opinion on the power of universities. That seems to me to be the kind of thing an honest person would come forward with, as well as an attorney offering advice to his constitutents would mention in his advice to them. to use some of your language, Cooch has, by AG fiat, changed what the law is as to university powers to handle their affairs. And he did so without mentioning it in the least.
Earlier in the thread, you decried the exact same thing Cooch has done, changing the law by AG fiat. I had asked, without response, why you insisted that those who think the universities have to get the legislature to change the law. I also wondered why you castigated evil liberals for condemning Cooch’s actions when you thought he was just following the law. As we have learned, he’s not “just following the law”, he’s changed it.
When the '05 opinion by the AG came down, many gun-rights groups were upset. And they tried to pass legislation to make sure that it would get overturned and allow students, employees, and others to carry weapons on campus and at campus events. Guess what? They failed. The legislature didn’t change the law. I find it a bit … troubling … that you have been so very quick to attack liberals for not following the process, yet, it seems to me, that’s precisely what Cooch is doing.
Um… what?!?
Either the AG can make law or he can’t. Earlier in the thread, there was much discussion about how the AG’s opinion is merely an opinion, utterly meaningless until confirmed by the courts.
Now it seems that the AG has great power indeed.
I agree that his failure to mention the previous AG opinion was a material omission. He should have mentioned it, and said, “Contrary to the AG opinion of such-and-so, this office concludes that…”
Again… what?!?
My gripe with liberals is their immediate reach to change the effect of the law without changing its text.
Cuccinelli has not, so far as I can see, sought to create substantive law where the law is silent. Even given that his letter was intended to apply to employment policy as well as student discipline, and even though his opinion conflicts with that of a prior AG, his opinion is the one grounded in the text of the GA’s words. The contrary position is the one that talks about “traditional authority” instead of actual written authority.
And perhaps next year will see a change in that “they failed” comment of yours. With a Republican governer in Richmond, it was a good year for gun rights in Virginia. Perhaps the issue of carrying concealed by students and faculty can be corrected by definitive GA action. Certainly I’d like to see that.
Notice what I said: “to use some of your language”. I was making an argument I’ve heard you make over and over about the judiciary. Cooch changed the official AG interpretation of the law, without acknowledging it, and yet that doesn’t seem to bother you one whit. You assert that he is simply standing up for the law, when, in point of fact, he is changing it from what it was before he got into office. While you are amazingly quick to condemn those who disagree with you politically for not using the legislature to effect change, here you have an AG doing it and you don’t even raise an eyebrow. And while you are quick to point out the fact that liberals should leave poor Cooch alone and go after the legislature, you seem to have no problem with the fact that the legislature twice rejected legislation that would have changed the law to how Cooch now interprets it.
To me, that is very telling about both his motivation and his honesty. This isn’t about the law or the power of universities (if it was, he would have at least mentioned it or, again, got the legislature to change it). It’s about appealling to his anti-homosexuality base and manipulating the law to fit his agenda.
As was the prior AG’s opinion. The clear text of the language of the statutes granting the universities the power to handle student discipline and their staff. Yet you quickly dismiss the prior AG’s opinion in favor of Cooch’s. Despite the fact the prior AG’s opinion dealt specifically with the grant of power, while Cooch’s deals with other legislation rejecting sexual orientation as a protected class.
You missed the point. You insist on putting the onus of effecting legislative change only on those who disagree with you politically. But you seem to be fine with it when the new, more socially conservative, AG does it on his own.
At the risk of sounding condescending, we have three branches of government. You’re confusing my statements about the law as it comes from judicial review (the interpretation) and and the law is it comes from the legislature (the writing) with the law as it comes from the executive (enforcing).
Cuccinelli has every right to disregard prior AG’s opinions. He is not bound by precedent; he can and should enforce the law as it is written and as it is written.
So when did the legislature twice reject law to how Cuccinelli now interprets it? The concealed handgun thing? That is inference upon inference. Cuccinelli hasn’t spoken on the issue of concealed handguns, so far as I know, and you’re only saying that he holds that position by inferring it from his position on protected classes. Yes?
I agree that his honesty takes a hit when he fails to mention the contrary AG opinion. He should have mentioned it and either distinguished the case, or explicitly stated that he was simply rejecting it as in error.
I further agree that this is very likely motivated by his dislike for gays.
But a homophobic sheriff is not wrong to arrest a gay serial killer.
No. There are plenty of issues on which I agree the onus is on my side to get new law made.
A homophobic sherrif though who arrests gay serial killers but refuses to arrest straight ones, though, is wrong.
Whew. Thanks for clearing that up.
He is not bound by prior AG opinions, no. But he has now changed the law as it is interpreted by the AG. And when people rightly condemn him for it, you come to his defense and deride them for not respecting the process. A process that Cooch didn’t care for either.
You agreed with me that the two opinions are in serious conflict. The reason for that conflict is the determination of the powers that the universities have to determine their own affairs. The prior AG determined that the grants of power to the universities’ does permit the universities to enact regulations that differ from those of the state (permits to carry on campus). This AG has now changed that, and has taken the opinion that the grants of power to the universities does NOT permit the universities to enact regulations that differ from those of the state. After the first AG’s opinion, the legislature had the power
(and bills were introducted) to change the law to limit the universities powers. They didn’t. I’m simply pointing out that the current AG has not borne the brunt of your “you don’t like it, change the law in the legislature” refrain. Instead, you put the onus on the Universities and other liberals to change the law back to what it was before Cooch took office. Seems a bit unfair.
And the award for the most bizarre non-sequitor goes to …
Except this one, right?