Virginia Upholds Ban on Gun Possession at Public University

[vvvvvvv]

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1091934.pdf

A few key points:

"[T]he language in Article I, § 13
concerning the right to bear arms is 'substantially identical
to the rights founded in the Second Amendment.'"

"The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the
Second Amendment protects the right to carry and possess
handguns in the home for self-defense."

"We hold that GMU is a
sensitive place and that 8 VAC § 35-60-20 is constitutional
and does not violate Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of
Virginia or the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution."

 

[Glocktogo]

Thoughts?

 

[inactive]

"We hold that GMU is a
sensitive place and that 8 VAC § 35-60-20 is constitutional
and does not violate Article I, § 13 of the Constitution of
Virginia or the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution."

While I disagree with the position, I do agree with the legal rationale of the decision. The precedent we have allowed to be established supports the establishment of prohibited places.


Still, just because they can does not mean they should. Shame on them for being so naive to the benefits of responsible gun ownership and detriments of gun-free victim zones.

 

[vvvvvvv]

My thoughts are that this serves as another example of why the decisions in Heller and McDonald (which were cited throughout, for those who don't like to read that stuff) were losses for the protection of the Right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Werewolf]

Thoughts?

That decision represents the main problem with the Heller decision. The SCOTUS did gun owners no favor with how they ruled in that case.

It's gonna get worse as a result. A lot WORSE!

 

[vvvvvvv]

That decision represents the main problem with the Heller decision. The SCOTUS did gun owners no favor with how they ruled in that case.

It's gonna get worse as a result. A lot WORSE!

And the NRA and GOA did us no favors by championing such a position.

Quick summary of Heller and McDonald for those subject to TLDR; or lack of wanting to use the search function:

The only right granted by the Second Amendment is the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense within your own home. All other restrictions are presumed Constitutional until ruled otherwise by the Supreme Court.

 

[Glocktogo]

Would anyone expect any federal official in any branch of the government to decentralize power over the people in this day and age? There's an entirely different mindset on that side of the Potomac.

 

[inactive]

Would anyone expect any federal official in any branch of the government to decentralize power over the people in this day and age? There's an entirely different mindset on that side of the Potomac.

Unfortunately no. Which is why laws like the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, Montana Firearms Freedom Act, and the similar bill that failed in OK are so important.

We need to flex as much muscle as possible against Federal control of State and individual affairs.

 

[MaddSkillz]

How can a person read the 2nd Amendment, study the founding fathers intention of 2nd Amendment and then come to the conclusion that it's only for home protection?

Oh that's right, the government could do that because they know the 2nd Amendment is really there to protect us from them.

People allowing a government to regulate that which is there to protect us from them makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Dale00]

Citizens in certain sensitive locations cannot be trusted with firearms. If allowed to carry in sensitive locations, some of them will flip out or otherwise endanger themselves and others. The founding fathers were incorrect. Citizens are not to be trusted.

This is the judgment of the ruling political elite.