Fire mission -- Virginia members...

[DaveH]

and for that matter anyone else who spends any time in Virginia.


From a VA-ALERT.

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

[First person singular pronouns (I, my, mine, etc) and “PVC” reference Philip Van Cleave, President VCDL]

Here is an open letter that I have sent to Attorney General
Cuccinelli. If he would like to respond and defend himself, I will be
glad to share his response with all 14,000 of you:

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:

YouTube - vaguninfo's Channel

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."



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

VCDL ACTION ITEM

Let's contact the Attorney General's office and POLITELY let him know
that fear mongering against gun owners is not a principle that he
should be standing on. Click here to go to his web mail address:

Contact Us Form

Suggested subject: Stick to the law and do not smear gun owners!

Suggested message:

Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,

I am very disappointed that your brief on DiGiacinto v the Rector and
Visitors of George Mason University contains gratuitous fear mongering
against gun owners, even going so far as to say that preschoolers
would be at RISK from gun owners carrying at a public university! I
would expect such a low blow from the Brady Campaign, but not an
Attorney General who ran on principles and being pro-liberty.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[packinnova]

Rather surprised that kind of fear mongering came from Cuccinelli...

[SCGunGuy]

As a future VA resident I have more than a casual interest in this issue.

It seems to me that the chief responsibility of a state's attorney general is to ensure that the constitution of the state is upheld by the government and its agencies, not to defend the state and its agencies. If the state or an agency is violating the constitution and or the laws of the state, the AG ought to be first in line to sue, not serving as counsel to the violator.

[DaveH]

Are we surprised they monitor our alerts? Nah! Have come to expect it.

Virginia Politics Blog - Virginia gun rights leader blasts Cuccinelli over GMU campus gun ban

Virginia gun rights leader blasts Cuccinelli over GMU campus gun ban

To compare arch-conservative Ken Cuccinelli to Sarah Brady, who is virtually seen as the mother of the modern gun-control movement -- now those are practically fighting words among gun owners.

But that's exactly one of the shots Philip Van Cleave, the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, leveled at Attorney General Cuccinelli on Wednesday for the AG's defense of George Mason University's on-campus gun ban.

Van Cleave's email blast was entitled: "Et tu, Cuccinelli?"

In an open letter to the AG, Van Cleave criticized the legal brief Cuccinelli's office filed May 20 in Digiacinto v. The Rector and Visitors of George Mason University, a Virginia Supreme Court case concerning GMU's ban on guns in their library and other buildings, especially as it applies to non-students.

The brief gives a full-throated defense of GMU's right to ban firearms from the campus -- and then some.

In his letter, Van Cleave reminds the former Republican senator from Fairfax that when he came calling as a candidate at a VCDL meeting, Cuccinelli called the GMU ban "indefensible."

Although Van Cleave's letter says he was sympathetic to the Attorney General's duty as Virginia's top lawyer to defend the state school in court, Van Cleave also pistol-whips him for some of the brief's rhetorical flourishes, characterizing them as "gratuitous" and "fear-mongering" and even "Clintonesque" for making a " 'for the children' emotional argument"

The text of Van Cleave's letter, as included in his email to VCDL members and followers, is as follows:


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.

-- Fredrick Kunkle

[DaveH]

Talk about anti-gun comments, ck out the ones at:

Not Right Enough: Cuccinelli Attacked Over Defense Of GMU Gun Ban | TPM LiveWire

Maybe it has to do with TPM Media being headquartered in New York City and having a bureau in Washington, DC.

[DaveH]

at:

VCDL in the news - The Sentinel

Richmond TV station WTVR story, including snippets of an interview with Phillip, regarding the AG Ken Cuccinelli's Brief on the George Mason University gun ban.

[2ndAmend]

I am moving to VA at the end of June and I plan on attending GMU so I sent an email.

[varob]

I predict that Cuccinelli will be running for a higher office.

I'm sure I'll remember this.

[DaveH]

VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Sells Out To Anti-Gun Lobby

VA Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli Sells Out To Anti-Gun Lobby


Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
Virginia --(AmmoLand.com)- It is always painful to report the painful truth about our so-called friends.

In this case, it is even more painful because it appears that a former friend of the 2nd Amendment has begun the all-too-familiar process of selling out and trying to get votes for future races from both sides of the fence.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of Virginia in Rudolph Digiacinto vs. George Mason University defending the Universities ban on carrying a firearm inside buildings such as the campus library.

However, when Mr. Cuccinelli ran for Attorney General he told gun owners that the university lacked the legal authority to issue such firearms bans. He even went so far as to suggest that the way to challenge the ban was in court.

Now that Mr. Digiacinto has taken Mr. Cuccinelli up on his suggestion, Mr. Cuccinelli turns around and stabs him in the back.

Mr. Cuccinelli has not only stabbed the defendant in the back but all those gun owners who voted for him.

Am I saddened by this? YES! Am I surprised? NO!

A few years back VGOC was the ONLY gun lobby to publicly challenge Mr. Cuccninelli’s distorted notion that innocent gun owners should be held liable in civil court for crimes committed with guns that had been stolen from them.

Mr. Cuccinelli backed down in that case but did not apologize. He handed his Blame-Innocent-Gunowners Bill off to an anti-gun radical in the Virginia Senate.

Will Mr. Cuccinelli back down this time and withdraw his brief? We won’t know unless we ask him.

What is even more important is that Mr. Cuccinelli hear loud and clear that gun owners are aware of his betrayal and will remember it when he runs for office next time.

If Mr. Cuccinelli gets away with this without a large outcry from gun owners it will only embolden him to sell out even more.

Please call Mr. Cuccinelli at 804 786 2071 and urge him to WITHDRAW his brief defending the GMU campus gun ban and resubmit it along the lines of his campaign statements.

As always please make a donation at www.vgoc.org to help keep us in the fight for the 2nd Amendment.

For Liberty,
Mike McHugh
President, VGOC


About:
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition is Virginia’s only no-compromise, non-partisan gun lobby patterned after Gun Owners of America on Capitol Hill. VGOC is a non-profit tax-exempt organization under 501(c)(4) of the IRS code. Because we lobby politicians to protect and defend the 2nd Amendment, contributions are not tax deductible for IRS purposes. Visit: www.vgoc.org

[DaveH]

I received a reply -- sort of.

Here is VCDL's reaction from a VA-ALERT.

[I have bolded the portion which is where I have a major complaint about Cuccinelli's action.]

[First person singular pronouns (I, my, mine, etc) and “PVC” reference Philip Van Cleave, President VCDL]

One of our members has just forwarded to me an email he received from
the Attorney General's office. The email addresses a previous VA-
ALERT ("Et tu, Cuccinelli") from a couple of weeks ago.

In that alert I pointed out that the Attorney General's defense of the
GMU gun ban went overboard by drifting away from using legal arguments
and into gratuitous, emotion-laden, fabricated scenarios - such as a
child in the GMU library possibly getting hit by an accidental
discharge caused by a gun owner.

I had heard earlier through the grapevine that the Attorney General
wasn't going to respond to VCDL's complaint until after the litigation
between GMU and Rudy DiGiacinto was over, so I was surprised to
receive the email below, which is included in its entirety.

In the response, which VCDL promised to release as soon as we got one,
the Attorney General says his office is "...zealously representing our
client, George Mason University..."

Boy, that's an understatement! It's like an attorney publicly
slandering his best friend in order to win an otherwise indefensible
case. Gun owners were painted as dangerous, unstable, and
irresponsible people who put the public at risk.

If the Attorney General feels he has a duty to defend GMU, fine. But
why did that defense HAVE to include impugning gun owners?

In defending himself for saying at a VCDL meeting that GMU did not
have the legal authority to ban guns, Cuccinelli says, "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."

Cuccinelli's comments about the GMU gun ban can be seen at 5 minutes
and 30 seconds into

YouTube - vaguninfo's Channel

With all respect to the Attorney General, this is NOT, nor has it ever
been, about local preemption (which I agree doesn't apply, as GMU is
not a locality). Two of Cuccinelli's predecessors, Bob McDonnell and
Jerry Kilgore, wrote Attorney General opinions on State Parks saying
that the agency did not have the power to regulate carry, transport,
and possession of firearms because the General Assembly has preempted
the entire field of firearms and has not given State Parks any such
authority.

I think the situation is clear: GMU, which is just another state
agency, also has no special firearms regulatory dispensation, and
would similarly not be able to control firearms beyond state law.

Finally, in the email below, Cuccinelli writes, "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."

Once the case has been heard, VCDL will be happy to invite the
Attorney General to present the policy implications at a VCDL
meeting. This is an important issue for gun owners statewide and we
will need to know exactly where we stand.

-----------

Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Cuccinelli.
Please find a note that the attorney general asked me to share with you:

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, GeorgeMason 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
Virginiaand 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


-------------------------------------------
************************************************** *************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
[emphasis added]

Additional thought:

Cuccinelli writes "As matter of process, I don’t wordsmith each and every brief filed by my staff, nor did I in this case."

Well, this is no run-of-the-mill case; this is no ordinary brief. This brief / case was started by his predecessor, Bill Mims, an appointed, not elected AG. Mims is a well-known gun control advocate. For all I know Mims may have written it. Cuccinelli you signed it. You own it! Given Bill Mims' footprints all over it, why didn't you wordsmith it?