GMU Lawsuit at the Virginia Supreme Court

http://www.virginia1774.org/GMULawsuit.html has copies of all the filings.

Very interesting case, most VA universities and colleges ban the possession of weapons by staff and students while on college property without permission.
The GMU regulation bans weapons to everyone, university affiliate or not. Cities, counties etc. in VA cannot ban weapons from public property unless the ban is in state law.

The law suit is over two issues, first is such a blanket ban constitutional and second can the ban be imposed by the university itself. The Judge ruled against the RTKABA (state and federal) angle by saying the university qualified as a sensitive zone and against the second argument by claiming the university had Sovereign immunity. I think the claimant (DiGiacinto) has a pretty good case on both grounds, but i am no lawyer. The key is really the second part of the suit. Can the university pass specific bans against weapons possessions by the general public when other public entities cannot. If DiGiacinto losses his appeal this opens up grounds for all the schools to ban weapon possession by the general public. Then it would depend on the Legislature clarifying the preemption law to say it really does apply to universities as well. One of the arguments the Judge used was that even though the GMU ban has been in place for a while the legislature has not done anything about it. The current VA senate leadership is hostile to gun laws although a few very popular ones made it through this session, one to allow University professors with CPP to carry on campus did not make it very far.
 
http://vagunforum.net/general-discussion/alert-action-item-cuccinelli-t4940.html

Above is a link to a discussion on the VCDL response to the Attorney General's brief on the lawsuit appeal. Essentially the AG used the standard arguments that a sensitive place needs to exclude guns.

I wrote the AG and pointed out that banning guns has zero effect on the safety of a "sensitive" place. If it is truly sensitive they need to post armed guards at all entrances and search everyone entering. A person who is bent on murder does not really care if guns are allowed or not.
 
I just watched the video for the first time and I am perplexed at the least. First he says that Democrats in the Senate are better on guns than republicans. What? Does the Republican Party know he said this? If I am mistaken didn't I read in the paper that the Democrats had killed a lot of pro gun bills by a subcommittee or something like that? Then he without a doubt says that the college ban is indefensible and that only the General Assembly can make it illegal to carry firearms at colleges.

Facts are facts, and he is on video saying these things to get elected and then does the opposite.
 
The majority of the VA Democratic Senators might be pro gun, certainly a majority of the Senate is. But the leadership in the Senate (Democratic) is decidedly anti-gun,
 
The one thing VA DOES have is the VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League), the finest grassroots gun rights organization I have ever been affiliated with! These guys know how to get things done and you can bet they are on top of this. I would LOVE to see a LCDL modeled after them! I would join and participate in a heartbeat!
 
VCDL

I agree with the previous commenter's thoughts about VCDL. They are a superbly run organization with a lot of really solid statewide grassroots, but well organized, support.

Disclaimer: I was a member of VCDL when I formerly lived in Virginia, and have continued to follow their work since I moved away.
 
VCDL raised a hew and cry about the brief the attorney general wrote supporting the George Mason University gun ban. I received a reply to my complaint email today.

Dear friend:

My office recently filed a brief in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, a case that has been ongoing since November 2008. My friends at the Virginia Citizens Defense League and other Second Amendment supporters have taken issue with that brief and – based on the language used in it – have challenged my longstanding commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.

The Office of the Attorney General files briefs like this on a regular basis, defending our clients (agencies, colleges, and universities of the commonwealth) in litigation in both state and federal courts. As a matter of process, I don’t wordsmith each and every brief filed by my staff, nor did I in this case. However, I have reviewed the brief and the legal arguments contained therein, and acknowledge that the OAG is zealously representing our client, George Mason University. So long as a Virginia law is validly enacted and not apparently repugnant to the Constitution, I have a duty to defend it.

If the 2005 pre-emption law that I had strongly supported as a state senator had been applicable to state government entities (as I incorrectly recalled in 2008) and not merely to local government entities, then there would be no DiGiacinto case. I understand how my misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General Assembly.

I, and the Office of the Attorney General, defend the rule of law. In this case, we are defending a validly enacted regulation, and we must do so zealously with every legal argument available to us. While I may not always agree with a particular policy position, I will defend Virginia laws and regulations as well as the constitutions of Virginia and the United States. To do otherwise would validate my opponent’s accusations during the campaign that I would bend the law to suit my personal views. I have not. I have issued legal opinions that are contrary to my policy views because they are based on the law as it is and not the law as I might like it to be. Laws, and not politics, dictate legal outcomes.

As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters.

Sincerely,
Ken
Click to expand...

The VCDL response pointed out quite correctly that previous Attorneys General had ruled that State agencies did not have the power to enact gun regulations separate from what the General Assembly has specified. The largest complaint from me against the brief was some very anti-gun language. It is one thing to argue that GMU can enforce their own gun regulations it is another to use anti-gun rhetoric to do so.
 
The one thing VA DOES have is the VCDL (Virginia Citizens Defense League), the finest grassroots gun rights organization I have ever been affiliated with! These guys know how to get things done and you can bet they are on top of this. I would LOVE to see a LCDL modeled after them! I would join and participate in a heartbeat!



Ditto MI-I have thought about supporting VA.
 
The open question I am thinking to myself is how come no one ever seems to sue one of these places when they get hurt because they were denied there right to bear arms?

I am no lawyer and I am just kind of rolling this off the cuff but what if places like this and stores ect that dont permit firearms were sued when someone gets hurt on their property because they were denied the right to bear arms in these places.... Dont these places have to provide for your protection if they deny you the right to bear arms?

Thats my two cents.....

:)
 
what if places like this and stores ect that dont permit firearms were sued when someone gets hurt on their property because they were denied the right to bear arms in these places.... Dont these places have to provide for your protection if they deny you the right to bear arms?
Click to expand...

That might be a hard sell, because there's nothing compelling you to shop at a certain store, frequent a particular business, go to a specific school, etcetera. If you feel like your personal security is at risk because you've been legally disarmed by a private property owner, you're free to leave.
 
That might be a hard sell, because there's nothing compelling you to shop at a certain store, frequent a particular business, go to a specific school, etcetera. If you feel like your personal security is at risk because you've been legally disarmed by a private property owner, you're free to leave.
Click to expand...

I think you have a good point but Im sure theres thousands of lawyers out there that could win something like this.

(Guy breaks in house, gets hurt in house and sues home owner and wins)

Dont get me wrong Im not lawsuit happy but its a tactic the anti's Im sure would have no problem using so why not us?
 
Last edited:
Since all the high-profile shootings in places where concealed/open carry isn't allowed haven't led to a flood of successful civil litigation against the property owners, I imagine the lawyers probably know something we don't. When you're talking about places like malls and schools, God knows their pockets are deep enough for any number of lawyers to make the effort if they thought they could win.

I imagine there's some set of circumstances that might lead to a civil judgement against the property owner, but as the legal saying goes, "extreme cases make for bad laws". Even if one plaintiff is successful, I don't see it leading to a blanket requirement forcing private property owners to provide metal detectors or armed guards as a condition for barring firearms.

I'm a big proponent for legal carry, but I also believe that property owners' rights should trump customers' rights in this case - the customer is always free to leave.
 
Last edited:
I think you have a good point but Im sure theres thousands of lawyers out there that could win something like this.

(Guy breaks in house, gets hurt in house and sues home owner and wins)

Dont get me wrong Im not lawsuit happy but its a tactic the anti's Im sure would have no problem using so why not us?
Click to expand...

What would the cause of action be? It's not an intentional tort. It's not negligence. There simply is no legal theory under which the victim could proceed against the property owner.

Furthermore, it is pure speculation that if the victim had been able to have a gun, the injury/death would not have occurred. You'd never be able to show that some action of the property owner was the proximate cause of the injury/death.

That is why no such lawsuits are ever brought.

DD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top