Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About this Blog   |   On Twitter   |   Follow us on Facebook   |   RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Cuccinelli: Private groups can bar guns in public spaces

Rosalind Helderman

Private organizations that rent space from local governments can ban or regulate weapons at their events, according to Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Responding to a request for an opinion from Loudoun Del. Tag Greason (R), Cucccinelli wrote Wednesday that private groups can apply their own rules on guns when they have paid to use government space for private functions. Greason's request dealt specifically with the Alexandria Red Cross and whether the group can bar guns at a waterfront festival held on land leased from the city.

"As a general proposition, the Constitution acts as a restraint on government, not private actors. It is well established that private actors may do certain things on government property that the government itself could not do," he writes.

In his opinion, Cuccinelli likens the situation to others in which private groups can impose their own rules, even when meeting in public spaces, where government would be restrained.His example: if the government allows groups to rent space and teach morals to children, it cannot ban those that pray or read from the Bible.

But private groups have more freedom. For instance -- other Cuccinelli examples -- a church leasing a high school auditorium can bar nonbelievers; a local Republican committee meeting in public library can keep out Democrats.

Read the whole opinion here.

By Rosalind Helderman  |  March 18, 2010; 10:56 AM ET
Categories:  Ken Cuccinelli , Rosalind Helderman  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: McDonnell re-opens eight rest stops across Virginia today
Next: Two Republicans to challenge Barker for Senate in Northern Virginia

Comments

Looks like its time for a Virginia Constitutional Amendment to prevent leftist from holding events for the "public" and issuing directives that bans citizens who are in possession of legal firearms.

Posted by: AlbyVA | March 18, 2010 12:07 PM | Report abuse

The AG's way of protecting conservative groups from having to admit people that disagree with them. A way to keep blacks, gays, women, athiests, etc. from being a part of a gathering. We're not fooled.

Posted by: jckdoors | March 18, 2010 12:17 PM | Report abuse

What about private companies that receive public funds as part of bailouts? Should they be treated as public entities?

Posted by: millionea7 | March 18, 2010 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Could someone please explain to me why it is necessary for someone to carry a gun in the first place? Unless the person is in law enforcement or responsible for transporting money or valuables, why is it necessary to carry a gun? Could it be to compensate for being small????

Posted by: juliagraffam | March 18, 2010 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I guess that means that a local Republican committee meeting in a public library can keep out people who think. But, how would they know?


Posted by: gary27 | March 18, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

OK, so they can ban guns. What are those groups going to do to ensure that guns are not brought to their events? Are they going to frisk everyone or have them pass through metal detectors? If not, then the ban is useless, if not dangerous, for everyone that attends these so-called gun-free events. Have you ever noticed that mass shootings take place in areas where guns have been banned?

Posted by: ahashburn | March 19, 2010 5:08 AM | Report abuse

juliagraffam wrote:
"Could someone please explain to me why it is necessary for someone to carry a gun in the first place? Unless the person is in law enforcement or responsible for transporting money or valuables, why is it necessary to carry a gun? Could it be to compensate for being small???"

A typical question from someone who has probably never felt that their life was imminent danger from someone else. If you want to go around unarmed and an easy victim, that’s your choice but don’t insist that others do likewise. I don’t understand why people want to buy sports cars that are capable of speeds in excess on 120MPH when you can barely do 45 MPH in rush hour traffic but because I don’t understand doesn’t give me the right to insist that people be prevented from owning such cars.
One more thing, those that like to make references to “something small” as a reason why men own guns make me wonder why they are haven’t these perverted thoughts. Why are you wondering about the size of other men’s….?

Posted by: ahashburn | March 19, 2010 5:23 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company