There's a big difference in meaning between "illegal... firearms" and "illegal or unauthorized possession of firearms", the key word being "possession." It's not that the firearm is or isn't illegal, it's that the students are not allowed to have firearms on campus at all, even if they are legally owned by/registered to the student. Mary Wash is part of the Keep Guns Off Campus campaign, and I'm glad to see that they're taking it seriously.

Legal..illegal..do you have a preference on which one you'd like your head blown off with?

The best source I could find for VA gun laws on college campuses says that the state allows it, but that it also has a provision that individual campuses are allowed to ban guns in their dorms and buildings. I can't find the cite in the law, but here's the reference I took it from:

http://www.armedcampuses.org/content/laws-concerning-carrying-concealed-firearms-virginia

OpenCarry.org seems to validate this idea, saying that in VA it's "not statutorily prohibited" compared to Utah where it's "statutorily authorized." I still can't find the specific law, but every website I read seems to go back to the idea that the state doesn't prohibit firearms for students on school property but also allows the colleges to decide.

http://www.opencarry.org/college.html

http://www.opencarry.org/college.html

The ruling in that case was narrow and GMU only.

The legislature has given the schools over-broad authority to prohibit firearms (and other things) by *regulation*. UMW has not promulgated said regulation.

Thank you Natatia for making this clear as some where unsure of where this policy stood. Natatia's reply should clear all of the misconceptions up as she is with the Fredericksburg police department. Job well done by all parties involved in having the firearm removed.

While the ruling was about GMU, the precedent is fairly clear for universities being allowed to ban firearms. From the decision:

"The board of visitors is also tasked with safeguarding the
university’s property and the people who use it by making
“all needful rules and regulations concerning the
University.” Id. Such necessary rules and regulations
include policies that promote safety on GMU’s campus. "

UMW's BOV are given the same power through the state (the case cites "Code §§ 23-91.24, -91.29." and all universities are given the same power in that code), so I wouldn't hang my hat on the "GMU only" part of the law.

I'll admit to not knowing if "regulation" vs. "college policy" is a meaningful distinction. I saw a few universities did ban firearms specifically, but as best as I could tell from a quick search it was only three or four. But your point that the ruling was narrow and GMU only is a flawed one. The precedent could easily be applied to UMW and I'd be curious to hear where the decision said "This only applies to GMU."

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1091934.pdf

Ms. Bledsoe, I'm sorry to tell you that the Virginia Supreme Court's interpretation of what the US Supreme Court said in Heller with regard to sensitive places is absolutely wrong. Unfortunately, they, along with most anti-gun organizations, read what they wanted the opinion to say, and not what it actually said.

The subject reference was made in the Heller opinion, but was clarified by an extremely important footnote. The text of the opinion states:

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The all-important footnote says:

"We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

Not these critical words: "presumptively lawful."

That means that the US Supreme Court presumes that the fairly common bans on gun possession in these types of places is lawful. But that is all. The status of these laws was not considered in Heller, and they went out of their way to say "presumptive" so that people would know that they were not "deciding" that issue. Unfortunately, most people ignored their efforts, wrongly so.

Reordered for proper sequence.

Yep. POLICY, not law. And frankly, once a student is over 18, the parent isn't "allowing" much. Remember, as a nation we made the decision that 18-year-olds are adults. I also made certain my children knew from a very young age when they disregard a rule, policy, law, or anything else, they must also be prepared to face consequences. I think this student should fight the unconstitutionality of the consequences, and will be offering my financial support should he need it for his lawyer.

I was raped in college. I don't think any student should have to give up the right to self-defense in response to a lowest-common-denominator POLICY set by a risk-averse bureaucracy.

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/2011/aug/06/cuccinelli-clarifies-guns-campus-position-ar-1222531/

I didn't take the time to go directly to the opinion; this is a news report "of" the opinion.