Cuccinelli: Concealed carry at UVa hospital is OK – UPDATED
AP Photo | Steve Helber
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli should have been a barber. Because the legal hair-splitting his office is engaging in this days is taking that avocation to an entirely new level.
Perhaps it’s that Cuccinelli feels desperate to make amends to the gun crowd for the drubbing they gave him when he supported George Mason University’s right to ban handguns — including concealed ones — in classroom buildings, dorms, at campus sports events and other places.
So now he’s come out with a new opinion that says the University of Virginia’s ban on firearms in its hospital and on its hospital grounds does not apply to permit holders who carry concealed.
The reasoning is set forth as a letter the AG sent Sen. Emmett Hanger, R-Augusta, on Friday. It boils down to the difference between “regulation” and “policy.”
George Mason, he writes, adopted a “regulation” banning all guns in certain places on campus, and a regulation has the force of law.
UVa, on the other hand, adopted a mere “policy,” and policies do not have the force of law. When a policy conflicts with a state law, (in this case Virginia’s concealed handgun permit law) the law always trumps the policy. Or something like that.
Which means, Cuccinelli writes, that permit-holders are within their rights to carry concealed in contravention to UVa’s policy. But open carriers must follow the university’s policy, unlike concealed carriers.
The implications of this are pretty interesting. For example, Virginia Tech’s ban on guns also seems to be a policy.
(UPDATE: Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker has confirmed that Tech’s gun ban is a policy, and that efforts are now beginning to change that into a regulation).
It also should be noted that it was Cuccinelli, as a state senator, who in 2009 introduced legislation weakening the state’s concealed handgun permit law, so that almost any non-felon or non drug addict could qualify for a concealed carry permit by watching a 1-hour online video about handguns.
Cuccinelli introduced that law after a guy who markets that $39.95 online video gave Cuccinelli a $1,000 contribution for his attorney general’s campaign.
You’ve got to wonder what’s coming next – a bill in the General Assembly forbidding state colleges and universities from adopting regulations with regard to firearms on campus? Kind of like what they did this year with local governments and air rifles?
July 6, 2011 - 10:25 AM
And why wouldn’t it be ok?
“so that almost any non-felon or non drug addict could qualify for a concealed carry permit by watching a 1-hour online video about handguns.”
I’m still interested in why you keep saying this. If this was made to be the case in 2009, how were people getting permits in the same manner prior to that time?
I’ve had my permit since about (guessing here) 2003 and I was not required to handle a gun during my class.
Jack,
The bill Cuccinelli put in required that local judges accept as proof of handgun “competency” the completion of any online video course conducted by an NRA certified instructor. Before that, judges had the discretion to reject such silly demonstrations of “competency.”
Just wait until someone conceal carries into his office and “pops a cap in his a$$”…
Nevermind… I forgot… anyone not on his side would never do anything so idiotic.
It makes you wonder whether there’s a regulation forbidding the concealed carry of handguns into the AG’s headquarters.
I just called Cuccinelli’s office to ask whether I, as a citizen, would be able to carry my concealed handgun into his office. I was told (very bluntly), “First of all, as a regular citizen, you would not be allowed into the office in the first place. You would have to be an employee or have been invited.”
She then offered to give me the number of the State Police, who she said would answer any questions I had about where I could carry a gun.
I did not feel at all welcome to contact my elected state attorney!
@#4 “Just wait until someone conceal carries into his office and “pops a cap in his a$$”… ”
And making concealed carry illegal would prevent this how?
“It makes you wonder whether there’s a regulation forbidding the concealed carry of handguns into the AG’s headquarters.”
I don’t know the answer, but my first reaction is to doubt it. If there was such a regulation, do you honestly think it would somehow magically prevent someone from walking into his office and “popping a cap in his a$$”? Such regulations only affect people who are inclined to obey rules and regulations. People who have made a decision to commit murder are not included in that category. I’m not sure how many different ways this can be said.
@#6
Well that was just rude of them. So….if you were invited, could you concealed carry? The fact that she couldn’t answer the question makes me think there’s no rule against it, she probably would have known that. Then again, government employees aren’t always the sharpest tools in the shed.
I’m sure weapons are banned in the AG office just as they are in the Capital building. However, localities cannot ban them from local government offices. Talk about hypocrites! I guess state elected officials view their security and lives as being more important than those working in local government buildings. It should be all or nothing when it comes to guns – either they are allowed EVERYWHERE or every authority, business owner, church, etc. has the right to disallow them.
VT Hokie writes: “Such regulations only affect people who are inclined to obey rules and regulations. People who have made a decision to commit murder are not included in that category. I’m not sure how many different ways this can be said.”
The United states has some of the most lax gun laws in the world coupled with some of the the highest gun violence rates. I’m not sure how many different ways this can be said.
Watch out, Lynda K. Suzie won’t believe that you actually went to the trouble to call Cuccinelli’s office. You’ll need to provide your phone records as proof (and she still won’t believe you!).
Dan,
Yous question, “what’s coming next”.
FWIIW, what I, personally, would like to see coming to Virginia next would be “Constitutional Carry” — i.e., if you can legally own it, you can discretely or openly carry it.
Of course like some other Constitutional Carry States, such as Alaska, I would hope that Virginia keeps issuing CHP for those of us who wish to have them for reciprocity / recondition when traveling out of State.
Others may likely have other priorities for restoring our freedom and lost rights. Face it, this is an ongoing pro rights vs. anti rights struggle — a civil-rights issue, a question of fundamental human rights.
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. – Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson’s Commonplace book
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good” – George Washington
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.”
– Mahatma Gandhi
“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of “self-defense.” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.”
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
Morris… I also tried to follow up with a question to the State Police headquarters but I have been calling their main number for over an hour and no one answers the phone… no recording, no live-person…. nothing!
I feel so secure now knowing my government officials are there for me.
hmmmmm…
VCDL’s attorney came to the exact same legal conclusion right after the VA Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. Cuccinelli is correct in his assessment of what that ruling meant. Hopefully VCDL will succeed in allowing adult students, faculty and staff who have permits and are already carrying everywhere else they go, to be able to carry on campus, too. There is nothing magical about a campus that makes it any different from other places a person might go. A campus when boiled down is just people and buildings.
“The United states has some of the most lax gun laws in the world coupled with some of the the highest gun violence rates.”
Guns don’t cause violence. Violent people cause violence. Guns are available here, so they get used by violent people, but violent people are happy to use whatever tools are accessible.
And we are far from the most violent country in the world. Africa, and Central and South America rank far beyond us in that department.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Most of the gun violence in this country is the result of gang violence…aka drug related violence. Not related even remotely to legal gun owners with concealed carry permits being able to carry in this place or that place. Even a blanket nationwide ban on concealed carry wouldn’t impact those statistics one iota. Legalizing drugs would, IMO, be a more viable solution for reducing gun violence in the U.S. than further restricting firearms, and wouldn’t require trampling on the freedoms we enjoy as Americans.
Larry Hincker told me today that Tech believes that the “policy” is binding upon students and universities employees, even if it may not be on visitors.
Thus, they could be kicked out of school or dismissed for violating the university policy, which they agree to abide by as a condition of attending school or working there.
I predict that BobH will predict that he should have predicted that Dan would blog about this. And I predict that BobH will call Dan predictable.
I predict that Dan will write another column about Sheriff Hunt and the upcoming GOP mass meeting in Rocky Mount on Saturday.
“if you can legally own it, you can discretely or openly carry it.”
This is basically already true, as the legal requirements for being able to legally purchase a gun are the same as the legal requirements for being able to obtain a permit to conceal it (as far as the criminal background check goes), at least in Virginia. If you can pass the background check you’re golden in either case. If you can legally buy a gun, you are going to be able to obtain a CHP. If you can obtain a CHP, you are going to be able to purchase a firearm. You can’t be eligible for one and not the other. The only difference between VA and Alaska is that you have to submit to the pointless bureaucracy.
You don’t have to have a CHP to conceal a firearm, it’s not like the gun is going to glow neon red through your clothing or leap out of your pocket and reveal itself if you don’t have that piece of paper. All the CHP does is show that you are a good little obedient citizen who went to the trouble to be compliant with the law and fill out some paperwork. It’s really quite pointless.
#18 You must have ESPN, Dan.
I predict that the next baseball-themed caption contest will involve the challenge of explaining the infield fly rule in 50 words or less. And, so doing, I predict that DaveH will claim that baseball is not a metro subject.
The AG’s staff probably somehow knew that you weren’t his kind, if you know what I mean.
VT Hokie… The gun issue has been argued to death and neither your opinion nor mine will ultimately matter one iota.
Sorry, should be BobH…
Re: #16
I don’t think anyone is disputing that — condition of admission / condition of employment.
I like to see it changed and it is no secret that grassroots pro-freedom activists have the same goal, as pointed out at #14.
DaveH is pretty cool on the metro issue, Morris. It’s BobH who allows that to get caught in his craw. . .
Re: #19
OK I’ll revise that.
“If you can legally own it, you can legally carry it (discretely or openly) without any “Nanny May I and without additional expense, hassle or requirements.”
IMHO, that should be a major goal.
Then (or maybe at the same time) we need to address the “Yes, but not here” hypocrisy — which is what this thread is about.
All the arguments for not carrying in/on/at [fill-in-the-blank] are exactly the same as those the hoplophobic use for restricting carry in the crazy patchwork quilt of no guns in/on/at “X” — e.g., airport parking lots, airport terminals, public buildings, venues that charges admission, bars, buses, churches, colleges, concerts, funeral, gun shops, gun shows, libraries, parades, parks, protest, public gathering, public meetings (councils, boards, etc), road side rest areas, schools, sporting events, stadiums, trains, to name a few. Avery State is different.
However, there is no evidence that there is any higher rate of gun related problems in State “a”, which allows legal carry in one of these places/events than there is in State “b”, which denies legal carry in one of these places/events.
In addition, those States which have the most of this “but not here” restriction nonsense are the ones where the anti-gun forces have lost their attempts to ban out rights or to extremely restrict legal carry — and now they are fighting a rear guard action to make it as logistically hard as they can for law abiding Citizens to avoid run afoul of the nit-picking laws.
“Before that, judges had the discretion to reject such silly demonstrations of “competency.”
They didn’t have that discretion. They *thought* they had it.
“It makes you wonder whether there’s a regulation forbidding the concealed carry of handguns into the AG’s headquarters.”
There is not.
“I’m sure weapons are banned in the AG office just as they are in the Capital building.”
They are not banned in the Capitol building, either. FYI. Open carry may be, but if you have a permit to carry concealed you may carry there. I have done it personally.
I don’t remember if the Capitol building has metal detectors, but the state legislature building does and you simply show them your permit and they will allow you to walk around the machine rather than through it.
If you walk in the UVA hospital and yell “fire”; if you walk in with a switch blade; if you walk in drinking a bottle of beer; and if you walk in with your tallywhacker out, you would be dismissed from the facility and possibly arrested. However, you can walk right in with the butt of the pistol stick out of your pants and it’s perfectly fine. That makes zero sense no matter how much one wants to defend gun rights. Can I walk around with a baseball bat in the hospital? Can I walk around carrying a noose?
@ Dan Casey – I don’t often weigh in on the gun threads because they tend to turn vitriolic quickly. Realizing it’s your blog, and as a guest I’m free to ignore posts at my discretion, I must say I think posting comments about shooting the Attorney General of the Commonwealth is in extremely poor taste even if meant sarcastically. In spite of your obvious disdain for A.G. Cuccinelli’s stances and actions, I’m surprised that you let that stand.
FYI – concealed carry permit holders *are* permitted to carry weapons in General Assembly buildings. There are clearly marked entrances for CHP holders, where guards check permits, and carriers declare their weapons.
Rick, you’re funny. I don’t know about UVA’s hospital, but the hospital I used to work in you could have carried a baseball bat around if you wanted to.
“However, localities cannot ban them from local government offices. Talk about hypocrites!”
Additionally, they are not hypocrites. Guns are not banned from any state government buildings that I know of other than jails and courthouses and state law prohibits them from banning them. They are preventing localities from passing laws that are more restrictive than the state. Local courthouses and jails may also be off-limits.
Policy isn’t law unless it is codified. In Virginia, no weapons postings and policies to not hold force of law. You can be asked to leave and if you do not, it is a trespass not a gun violation. So the Attorney General, educated in matters concerning the law, has interpreted the law correctly. Boo hoo, Dan.
#18.I predict that your prediction will come true and I predict that you will be accused of trying to sabotage his chance of getting the nomination.
An outrage: guns are banned from courthouses. Think of all those defenseless people inside them, on a daily basis. At least, they should allow air guns in there, eh?
When I read the following link, I thought of the old saying “I carry a gun, because I can’t carry a Cop.” I, also, thought of all the folk out there whose only plan for self-defense is that (against all odds) a professional armed person (an LEO) will just happen to be there if or when those who accept no responsibility for their or their families’ safety are in mortal danger.
http://tinyurl.com/3fhuhhe
**
A Modest Proposal to Add Jobs and Reduce Injuries
by Iain Murray on June 14, 2011
There are thousands of door-related accidents each year. The Consumer Product Safety Commission should do its bit by requiring that a professionally trained doorman open and shut all doors for door-users. That would create millions of jobs not just as doormen but as Doorman trainers (they’d have to be properly certified so that people aren’t exposed to the horrors of “cowboy” doormen) and also in the apparel industry as doormen need to look smart, with epaulettes and caps. The Amalgamated Union of Door Openers and Kindred Workers could have exclusive representation to ensure the doormen have adequate working conditions and to ensure demarcation from competing trades such as window openers. Of course the political power of the new union would be considerable — imagine the effects of a strike!
SNIP
**
.
.
Re: #36
[sarcasm]
Good example, Dan.
[/sarcasm]
You might have a point, when colleges have metal detectors and guards at every entrance and the same ratio of armed LEOs to building occupants as do courthouses.
.
@#38
Oh, and don’t forget the judges. Judges are exempt from the gun ban in courthouses too.
BTW, just as a warning, NEVER accidentally carry pepper spray into a courthouse either. I had one of the kind that goes on your keyring…I had to go by the Salem Courthouse one day to turn in some paperwork in the clerk of court office (ironically it may have been related to my CHP, I can’t remember). So….I leave my firearm in the car, the obvious, but I completely forgot about the pepper spray on my keys, didn’t even think about it. I get to the metal detector and toss my keys into the little box thing so they can go through the scanner. The deputy saw the pepper spray and totally flipped out, “YOU CAN’T BRING THAT IN HERE!!”. I apologized and politely asked if I could just leave my keys up front while I took care of my business, it would only take a few minutes. Oh no. I had to take it back outside to my car. She was so intense about it I was honestly afraid for a minute I was about to be thrown on the floor and handcuffed. Seriously.
In conclusion, I have zero worries about someone with malicious intent being able to sneak some kind of weapon into the courthouse. Holy cow.
To DaveH’s point, if restaurants, schools, nursing homes, banks, churches, colleges, etc. employed the same kind of security, Dan’s post #36 might actually be relevant.
I had a similar experience at the same courthouse, but it was with the Leatherman tool I carry on my belt at work. The guard was gruff about it, but I was permitted to leave it in an envelope drop-box at the guard station. That was at least 3 years ago.
It’s amazing that you (the plural you, including all of the AGs haters) seem to think that he is free to conclude the facts his ideological whims might see fit.
You dismiss his opinion (“Or something like that.”) as if you think he’s just making stuff up! Have you taken the time to read ANY of his opinions? They are well thought out, and they clearly outline the legal basis for his conclusions.
Would you really want an Attorney General who did otherwise? Would you rather him write an opinion which says, in essence, “the law says this, but I don’t really care, we’re gonna do it my way instead!”?
Think about what you complain about, and what you ask for. One day you just might get it, and it’s called Tyranny.
This just goes to show how confusing concealed carry laws can be. Since there is no federal law that states must follow, it is up to the states and sometimes organizations and jurisdictions within a state to make up the rules, regulations, laws, and “policies.”
It is important that gun-owners be aware of the laws in their area. They can (and do) change frequently with the political tides. If we are not up-to-date then we could end up losing our rights if we are found to be carrying illegally.