Bristol Herald Courier Publishes Good Letter To the Editor?

Apparently so.

In the editorial, “UVa-Wise made the right call,” the writer implied that not knowing the outcome of Steve Barber’s mental health evaluation is equivalent to Barber being found a danger to himself and others. First, some education for the lazy journalist.
The record of Barber’s hearing is on file at the General District Court clerk’s office and it should be open to the public. If Barber was judged to be a danger to himself or to others, he would have remained in state custody. That he was released after his evaluation speaks for itself.
If Barber was judged to be a danger to himself or others, recent changes in state law would mandate the forfeiture of his 2nd Amendment rights. Barber still has the right to keep and bear arms. Do the math.
Barber lost his concealed carry permit not by operation of law, but by the fearful overreaction of the commonwealth attorney doing some good old-fashioned CYA.
I agree that Barber’s choices that lead to his predicament were questionable. However, it is now apparent in this post-Virginia Tech world that fear, not freedom, rules on our college campuses.
Barber did not shout “fire” in a crowded theater. A dark and sinister essay does not even compare to that classic example of where the Supreme Court has drawn the line on the “freedom of speech.”
Instead, UVa-Wise is showing classic overreaction based on the fear of what might be. So, now students are best served if they never write anything that might be controversial or perceived as threatening to anyone who might read it.
I suppose UVa-Wise (and the Bristol Herald Courier) believes that freedom of expression is a small price for feeling safe on a college campus, right?
Jack Smith
Bristol, Va.

Clarifying My Position on the AG's Opinion

I've a few questions about the Attorney General's Official Opinion on College Carry.

It is well established in Virginia that a university, through its board, "‘has not only the powers expressly conferred upon it, but it also has the implied power to do whatever is reasonably necessary to effectuate the powers expressly granted.’" This broad authority does not, however, supersede statutory or case law, public policy, or explicit statements of the General Assembly regarding specific topics.

The powers expressly conferred and possessed by the governing body of an educational institution include the authority "[t]o establish rules and regulations for the conduct of students while attending such institution" and "[t]o establish rules and regulations for the employment of professors, teachers, instructors, and all other employees and provide for their dismissal for failure to abide by such rules and regulations."

The University of Virginia has promulgated a "Security and Firearms Policy," which provides that "[t]he possession, storage, or use of any kind of ammunition, firearms, fireworks, explosives, air rifles and air pistols on University-owned or operated property, without the expressed written permission of the University Police, is prohibited."

It is my opinion that the safe operation of the campus allows regulation of, or under limited circumstances, prohibition of, firearms by any persons attending events on campus, visiting dormitories or classroom buildings, attending specific events as invitees, or under any circumstance permitted by law. The universal prohibition of firearms by properly permitted persons other than students, faculty, administration, or employees, however, is not allowed under law. A board of visitors has responsibility for the protection of the students enrolled at their university. At the same time, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and by Article I, § 13, of the Constitution of Virginia, which protect all citizens, may not be summarily dismissed for transient reasons.

In light of the General Assembly’s specific statements regarding the limits of carrying concealed handguns and the grant of authority to colleges and universities to regulate the conduct of students and employees, it is my opinion that neither a board of visitors nor a president of a public college or university may infer authority from its enabling legislation to adopt a universal prohibition of carrying concealed handguns by holders with valid permits.

It is clear from the context of the opinion that the AG did not intend to support an unlimited blanket prohibition of concealed carry by permit holding students. He cites UVA's policy which allows for concealed carry with explicit written permission of the campus police. UVA Wise had no such policy. It's not regulation, it's a blanket prohibition dismissing Constitutional rights for transient reasons.

Also note that AG opinions are non-binding.

He fails to address the pre-emption law or Dillon's Rule.

Let's Look at the Law, Not Political Expediency

§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.

A. No locality shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, resolution or motion, as permitted by § 15.2-1425, and no agent of such locality shall take any administrative action, governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying, storage or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof other than those expressly authorized by statute. For purposes of this section, a statute that does not refer to firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, shall not be construed to provide express authorization.
...
The provisions of this section applicable to a locality shall also apply to any authority or to a local governmental entity, including a department or agency, but not including any local or regional jail or juvenile detention facility.
B. Any local ordinance, resolution or motion adopted prior to the effective date of this act governing the purchase, possession, transfer, ownership, carrying or transporting of firearms, ammunition, or components or combination thereof, other than those expressly authorized by statute, is invalid.

UVA is a governmental entity (administered locally BTW) here

UVA as an agency here.

Under the Administrative Process Act, an “Agency”
is defined as “any authority, instrumentality, officer, board or
other unit of the state government empowered . . . to make
regulations or decide cases.” Code § 2.2-4001 (emphasis added).
To this effect, Code § 23-14 states that all state-affiliated
four-year universities are “governmental instrumentalities;”
Code § 23-9.2:3 supplies the “governing body of every
educational institution” with the power to promulgate certain
necessary “rules and regulations.” Perhaps most significantly,
Title 8 of the Virginia Administrative Code actually denominates
University of Virginia which administers UVA-Wise within its text as the Commonwealth’s
“Agency No. 85.” 8 V.A.C. 85, Agency Introduction.

UVA as a corporate authority here (shaky, but do-able argument)

UVA Wise's Campus Police is a Department here

ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENTS:

UVA was created as a public corporation (page 7 of 116) and is subject to the Dillon Rule

If the Heller Case establishes that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, then Breach of Contract where the Code of Conduct states:

"The College is a community of scholars in which the ideals of freedom of inquiry, freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of the individual are sustained. It is committed to preserving the exercise of any right guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution."

I'm In Good Company

Expelled Conservatives:

John Locke from Christ Church College, Oxford
Robert Frost from Dartmouth (fyi some scholars say voluntary withdrawl)
Tom DeLay from Baylor University

And last but not least

Steve Barber from University of Virginia's College at Wise...

Commonwealth Attorney: OOPS!

Some interesting quotes via an excellent article by Mike Allen of the Roanoke Times:

Barber also has angrily challenged claims made in Scott County court documents that he was involuntarily committed to a mental institution after the guns were found. It was the assertion by campus police that he had been committed that led a judge to suspend his concealed-carry permit.

Barber has shown The Roanoke Times copies of a temporary detention order signed Feb. 29 and a release paper dated March 3. Together, they appear to indicate that he was held in a mental institution for several days but that his evaluators found nothing wrong with him.

Scott County Commonwealth's Attorney Marcus McClung said he had viewed the situation as an emergency that needed a fast response. He pursued the petition using the best evidence he had available: testimony from a campus police sergeant that Barber had been committed.

McClung said he's preparing a new petition using a different statute, under which the issue of whether Barber was committed won't matter.

He noted that the suspension doesn't affect Barber's right to own firearms, and that Barber can appeal.

Asked about Barber's assertion that the college gave the wrong information to authorities, college Vice Chancellor Gary Juhan replied, "I can't comment on that."

Bristol Herald Courier Shinanigans

They allow comments for the editorial, get four total comments (in a row--in support of me), then the comments disappear.

Fascinating. Will they come back?

Update: Two comments are back...
Update: No comments...

I'm gonna stop looking until tomorrow.

TDO Drama

Mike Allen at the Roanoke Times is reporting that Mr. Magoo Marcus McClung can't find either my TDO or my IC.

He can't find the IC because it doesn't exist.

But he can't find the TDO???

I got my medical records today.

Trivia: Leila Bradshaw (school counselor) signed the Petition to TDO. Daphne Blanton's name is on the TDO. No wonder "they can't find it." LOL!

Best line from my medical records:

"Mental Status Exam: The patient is alert and oriented x4, friendly and cooperative with interviewer, maintaining fair eye contact throughout. Patient's speech is regular rate, rhythm, and tone. Thought process appears to be logical and coherent. The patient's thought content was without suicidal or homicidal ideation, plan or intent. The patient denies any auditory or visual hallucinations. The patient states his mood as "open", "really all right ", with affect [sic:
effect] being congruent and full. Attention and concentration not explicitly tested. Insight and judgment appears to be grossly intact."

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it, Bristol Herald Courier!