Virginia Attorney General and University alumnus Ken Cuccinelli issued a written opinion July 1 in which he asserted the University's current firearms policy does not provide it with the legal authority to prevent concealed carry permit holders from bringing guns into on-Grounds buildings. This came as a surprise to many who believed the matter of on-campus gun control was settled earlier this year when the Supreme Court of Virginia upheld George Mason University's prohibition against firearms in university-owned facilities and at university-hosted events.
The crucial distinction between the restrictions present at George Mason and the University is that only the former's is a "regulation" that is statutorily equivalent to state law. This is significant because Virginia Code provides that "[t]he granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law[.]" Since the University merely has an administrative "policy" dealing with firearms, Cuccinelli concluded that concealed carry permit holders retain their special status even once they enter on-Grounds facilities. Given that both the U.S. and Virginia Supreme Courts have deemed it legally permissible to bar concealed firearms in on-campus buildings, however, and that there are a variety of legitimate reasons to restrict the proliferation of firearms in collegiate settings, the University should begin working to transform its firearms policy into a regulation that will carry the full force of law.
There is no controversy surrounding the University's authority to create a regulation that would bar all firearms, whether concealed or not, from on-Grounds buildings. In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court pointedly stated "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on ... laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." The Supreme Court of Virginia used this ruling in its affirmation of George Mason's firearms prohibition, noting "the fact that GMU is a school and that its buildings are owned by the government indicates that GMU is a 'sensitive place.'"
Moreover, there is a compelling case to be made for prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms into university buildings. Most obviously, guns are extraordinarily dangerous, and even if the individuals carrying them harbor no malicious intent it remains possible for accidents to happen or for the weapons to end up in the wrong hands. Even granting the possibility that a determined and murderous individual could disregard the prohibition and wreak havoc, it makes sense for the University to promulgate a gun control regulation that can protect against gun-related mishaps involving non-criminal individuals.
To do so, the administration must navigate a more complicated review process than it normally would when simply issuing a policy. A regulation has to comply with the Virginia Register Form, Style and Procedure Manual if it is to be enshrined in the Virginia Administrative Code, and this involves posting the proposed rule for a 60-day public comment period. In addition, all regulations are subject to both gubernatorial and legislative review. This could create delays and controversy for the University since neither Gov. Bob McDonnell nor the Republican-controlled House of Delegates likely will acquiesce to a regulation that limits individuals' ability to carry firearms.
These potential complications should not discourage the University from establishing a legally-enforceable regulation that would prohibit concealed carry permit holders from taking their guns into on-Grounds facilities. The University's existing policy is exactly along these lines and has not been a major source of discontent among students, faculty, staff or visitors. It only came under fire after Republican State Sen. Emmet W. Hanger, Jr. issued what was likely a politically-motivated request for Cuccinelli to clarify the legal force of the University's firearms policy. In response to this attack on institutional autonomy, the administration and the Board of Visitors should reassert their authority and issue a regulation that will continue to promote a safe and tranquil environment for those in the University community.
Read More
CARTER: U.Va. Health owes clarity to transplant patients
By Nathaniel Carter | 3 days agoUnfortunately, this negative press is fully the fault of U.Va. Health — it failed to address significant stakeholder concerns when crafting its justification.
EDITORIAL: Upholding medical amnesty is a collective effort
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoUniversity leadership, Greek life organizations and students themselves must recommit to the safety provided by an effective and knowledgeable use of medical amnesty.
KURTZWEIL: Dockworkers’ unions cannot avoid the threat of automation
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoInstead of continuing to demand decreased automation, the union should work with the legislature in the hopes of driving investment into the reorganization of the current workforce.
