DiGiacinto v. Rector and Visitors of GMU
704 S.E.2d 365
Va.2011Background
- DiGiacinto filed for declaratory judgment and an injunction to stop GMU from enforcing 8 VAC § 35-60-20 against him.
- 8 VAC § 35-60-20 prohibits possession or carrying of weapons on GMU property in specified buildings and at events; open grounds are not barred.
- DiGiacinto, not a GMU student or employee, sought to carry a firearm onto campus, including buildings and events.
- GMU asserted sovereign immunity over statutory claims and contested GMU’s regulatory authority; circuit court allowed open-carry claims but barred statutory claims, and held the regulation constitutional.
- Circuit court held GMU’s regulation is constitutional as applied to Virginia and U.S. constitutions, relying on Heller’s concept of sensitive places; DiGiacinto appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of 8 VAC § 35-60-20 | DiGiacinto | GMU | Constitutional; regulation preserves rights while restricting in sensitive places |
| Sovereign immunity and self-executing provisions | DiGiacinto | GMU | Article I, § 14 is self-executing; sovereign immunity does not bar self-executing-constitutional-claims |
| GMU authority to promulgate 8 VAC § 35-60-20 | DiGiacinto | GMU | GMU had statutory authority to enact safety regulations; regulation valid |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (right to bear arms restricted in sensitive places)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment applies to states; not unlimited in all places)
- Gray v. Virginia Dep’t of Transp., 276 Va. 93 (2008) (self-executing constitutional provision analysis under Article I, § 14)
- Robb v. Shockoe Slip Found., 228 Va. 678 (1985) (self-executing test explanations for constitutional provisions)
- ACLU v. Mote, 423 F.3d 438 (4th Cir. 2005) (co-extensive application of state and federal constitutional rights)