Cuccinelli applauds SCOTUS 2nd Amendment decision despite backing GMU gun ban

Earlier today the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, upholding 2nd Amendment rights. At issue was states and local governments having the right to ban guns. This lawsuit was brought as a result of a challenge to the Chicago handgun ban. The local significance stems from DC v. Heller, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to local laws. Without Heller, the Chicago case probably would not have been made. Since the Heller ruling only applied to the District, this case was necessary to define gun control in states and localities.

Quick to jump on the bandwagon of this ruling was VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli:

“While we are still reviewing the decision, I am pleased that the Supreme Court has found that Second Amendment rights are as deserving of respect from state and local governments as are other rights found in the Bill of Rights,” said Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. “I particularly agree with Justice Alito’s recognition that the right to keep and bear arms is ‘fundamental’ to America’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty’.”

This is a very interesting statement considering Cuccinelli has recently come under fire for his defense of George Mason University and their ban on guns. Essentially, it is not forbidden to carry a gun, concealed (if carrier has a permit) or open on the campus of Mason, unless they are a student or faculty member. In that case the student could be expelled and the faculty member fired. No one (except for law enforcement) can carry at a GMU event or in a building on campus.

Phillip Van Cleave, President of the Virginia Civil Defense League, a pro-2nd Amendment organization that operates solely in Virginia, recently penned a letter calling out Cuccinelli on this stance:

Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,

I am very disappointed in your brief filed with the Supreme Court in reference to DiGiacinto v the Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, which challenges GMU’s gun ban in their library and other buildings, especially as it applies to a non-student.

Since GMU is a state entity, I understand that the Virginia Attorney General’s office has to defend against this lawsuit.

As a candidate for Attorney General you said at a VCDL meeting on December 18th, 2008 that GMU’s gun ban was indefensible. (A link to the video and a transcript are at the end of this letter.)

But what is really indefensible is the gratuitous, fear mongering aimed at gun owners in that brief.

I can understand making your argument that the GMU ban is valid based on some legal theory, since you are stuck defending GMU. The brief does some of that, BUT the brief then goes clean off the reservation into a gratuitous attack on gun owners, with a heavy does of fear mongering and even squeezes in a Clintonesque “for the children” emotional argument:

“Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community’s safety is seriously compromised. Unquestionably, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless, a rejected student applicant could walk into the Dean of Admissions office with an openly visible sidearm to discuss why the university rejected his application. An expelled student could do the same while he met with the Dean of Students to discuss his appeal of his expulsion. A disgruntled ex-boyfriend armed with a large hunting knife mounted on his side could enter the student residences to speak to his former girlfriend where she lived. Finally, any person who wishes to enter Fenwick Library with a sidearm, could not only frighten students and minors, such as preschoolers, but also expose them to unnecessary risks, such as an accidental discharge”

That looks like something that Sarah Brady would write!

While you might not feel that you can win his case based on legal merits, using made up, emotional scenarios to influence the Supreme Court is unconscionable.

You ran a campaign on putting principles first. But all that fear mongering in this brief has nothing to do with principles and everything to do with winning the case AT ALL COSTS.

You were right the first time, Mr. Attorney General: principles DO matter and that brief has thrown those principles in the trash.

Finally, the argument in the brief that colleges and universities are “sensitive places” is not tenable. Truly sensitive places would be guarded like a fortress – higher education schools are not, with the public having easy access to them.

Here is the brief (the offensive language is on the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8):

http://www.virginia1774.org/RVGMUBrief.pdf

Your statement that GMU’s ban is indefensible can be seen and heard by skipping forward 5 minutes and 30 seconds into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU

Here is a transcript of your comments in the video:

“I heard the college question – you know, ***they don’t have the legal authority to pass the regulations they are passing that trump what the General Assembly has said.*** Now one way to deal with that is for an individual to simply challenge it in court and say, ‘Hey, I want to go walk at George Mason and this blocks me, so I have standing.’ But, the problem with doing it at the legislative level is that you have got to succeed. Because, and I say, and it sounds funny, but if you don’t you end up setting the reverse precedent that the courts will interpret as meaning taking the side of the university. That’s the danger we have in that area.”

As a student at George Mason I have spoken out against this ban. I had to jump through a number of hoops to get my carry concealed permit and it doesn’t make sense that the Commonwealth of Virginia says I’m competent enough to carry, but George Mason University does not. Cuccinelli seemed to preface this in his statement:

“Accordingly, the Office of the Attorney General will continue to review laws and regulations affecting Second Amendment rights on a case-by-case basis to determine if they comply with the constitutional guarantee recognized by the court in the earlier case of District of Columbia v. Heller and today’s McDonald case.”

With more ammunition (pardon the pun) for pro-2nd Amendment groups it seems that Cuccinelli is wrong in his legal reasoning. If States and Localities cannot ban guns, then how does a university have power to do so?

It will be very interesting to see how far this brief goes.

Contribute for Conservatism!

About the author

Alan Moore

Alan Moore is a conservative activist and public relations expert in NoVA. Follow Alan on Twitter: @SecPress