Back in June, we notified readers of an upcoming federal case regarding rulemaking. The Legal Information Institute reports that the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on December 1, 2014, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. (13-1041); Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Assn. The issue in this case is whether a federal agency is required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking before it can alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of the agency’s regulation. More information is available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-1052 .
The following article was posted today by Leland Beck, who will be speaking on a panel at the ACR meeting in Baltimore.
Virginia’s Attorney General recently issued an opinion that universities can prohibit the open carry of firearms inside university buildings by policy; however, must promulgate a regulation to apply such prohibition to concealed handgun permit holders.
Summary of opinion:
Under the present state of the law, the University of Virginia lawfully may promulgate a policy that prohibits persons from openly carrying a firearm in the buildings that are subject to the policy. Further, with respect to persons who have a concealed carry permit, because the University adopted a policy rather than a regulation, it has not “otherwise prohibited by law” persons with a concealed carry permit from possessing a handgun, and, therefore, the policies may not be used to prohibit persons with such a permit from carrying a concealed firearm into the buildings covered by the policy.