PDA

View Full Version : University of Idaho Student sues for RKBA


Al Norris
01-27-2011, 6:02 PM
I said I would start a thread to discuss my views on another topic. My apologies to anyone waiting for it. When I got home I had another "problem" crop up.

Aaron Tribble vs. State Board Of Education & Board Of Regents, etal.

Case: CV-2011-0000069
Idaho 2nd District Court
Filed: 01/18/2011
Judge:John R. Stegner
Plaintiffs: Tribble, Aaron
Defendants:Nellis, Duane; State Board Of Education & Board Of Regents
Summons issued: 01/21/2011
Initial Hearing: 07/20/2011

Aaron Tribble, 36, is married, with 2 kids. He lives with his family in U of I married housing. He is a second year law student who has filed against the University to obtain his right to have a firearm for lawful self defense in his home, which happens to be Campus Housing.

A couple of short local videos of Aaron can be found here (http://www.kxly.com/news/26630602/detail.html) and here (http://www.khq.com/Global/story.asp?S=13915731). There are also stories about this on Huffington and MSNBC.

I've been in contact with Aaron and am attempting to help out. The other thread will have to wait a day or two.

Again, my apologies.

Crom
01-27-2011, 6:56 PM
This looks very interesting. I can't tell... was the complaint filed in federal court or Idaho state court?

Gray Peterson
01-27-2011, 7:24 PM
Wait a minute, it's actually state court.

Idaho Constitution:

SECTION 11.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony

Al Norris
01-27-2011, 8:43 PM
Yes, it's State court.

Grey, have you read the 1906 decision, In re Brickey? That decision has been the basis of all Idaho gun law. From the syllabus:

While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

Even though the syllabus was written by the Court (and not a clerk), the actual holding is even more instructive:

A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state. But the statute in question does not prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed, which is of itself a pernicious practice, but prohibits the carrying of them in any manner in cities, towns, and villages. We are compelled to hold this statute void.

Long story short, in 2008 the Idaho legislature gave the Regents authority to do something the legislature itself cannot do.

Mr. Tribble is not arguing this (my impression is that he wasn't aware of this, and Aaron is acting pro se. ... sigh). His sole argument is the current rage: Heller says he must be accorded a firearm, in his home, for defense of self and family.

Gray Peterson
01-27-2011, 9:47 PM
Yes, it's State court.

Grey, have you read the 1906 decision, In re Brickey? That decision has been the basis of all Idaho gun law. From the syllabus:

While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.

Even though the syllabus was written by the Court (and not a clerk), the actual holding is even more instructive:

A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state. But the statute in question does not prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed, which is of itself a pernicious practice, but prohibits the carrying of them in any manner in cities, towns, and villages. We are compelled to hold this statute void.

Long story short, in 2008 the Idaho legislature gave the Regents authority to do something the legislature itself cannot do.

Mr. Tribble is not arguing this (my impression is that he wasn't aware of this, and Aaron is acting pro se. ... sigh). His sole argument is the current rage: Heller says he must be accorded a firearm, in his home, for defense of self and family.

He has a pretty good case, though I suggest that him and SAF should communicate.

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 10:37 AM
SECTION 11.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony

Ooops.

Yeah, they can't pass laws forbidding the possession of a firearm. But they can pass laws forbidding all use of a firearm, including self-defense, target practice, etc.

In light of that, their "right" to keep and bear arms is hardly worth the paper it's printed on.

Epic fail.

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 10:43 AM
Ooops.

Yeah, they can't pass laws forbidding the possession of a firearm. But they can pass laws forbidding all use of a firearm, including self-defense, target practice, etc.

In light of that, their "right" to keep and bear arms is hardly worth the paper it's printed on.

Epic fail.

Forest for the trees. The self defense case law in Idaho is quite strong.

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 11:01 AM
Forest for the trees. The self defense case law in Idaho is quite strong.

Then it is despite, and not because of, the enumerated RKBA in the Idaho constitution that what you say is true.

(Actually, that may be overstating things a bit. Quite clearly, parts of the enumerated RKBA as stated in the Idaho constitution can be construed to conflict with other parts of that very same statement. However, my point stands: the right as stated is hardly worth the paper it's printed on -- it's only the case law itself that acts as a foundation).

spgripside
01-28-2011, 11:18 AM
There's an article on this by C.J. Ciaramella at The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/28/student-sues-university-of-idaho-over-firearms-ban/).

Zhukov
01-28-2011, 12:13 PM
The only thing the schools have authority to do is enforce some regulations on their students.

I can carry on Campus and not get arrested, since loaded open carry is fully protected in the state of Idaho (I do it every day since I'm just waiting on my Concealed Permit to be issued). - They may be able to trespass, but even then that's not a sure bet due to the statutes and what-not of the state.

Hell, not a single incident since July 2010 over open carrying every day. I even Open Carried at the CCW class (Held in the Sheriff's Dept office). Gotta love it.

This is an *extremely* pro-2A state. With the State preemption, the only thing regulated is the discharge of firearms by the state and things like brandishing, etc.

In other words, being a normal person carrying every day results in no issues but if you act like an idiot (threatening people with guns) you get punished, as it should be.

The guy has a leg to stand on since the campus housing aren't the dorms and no law prevents it, but the school's authority is based on the pre-emption statute which may very well violate state and national constitutions.

We'll see how it goes, but if there's ever a place to push the issue, this is definitely a friendly state to do it in.

Librarian
01-28-2011, 12:51 PM
the right as stated is hardly worth the paper it's printed on -- it's only the case law itself that acts as a foundation).

That's always true.

Someone will always think that someone else's right interferes with his/her right.

The whole idea of stating rights is a legalism. If we accept the idea of a government at all, one of its principal characteristics is supposed to be as neutral referee. The mechanism of the refereeing - distinct from its effectiveness and from its supposed neutrality - that is most often adopted is a court system.

Federalist 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm): "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 12:58 PM
That's always true.

Someone will always think that someone else's right interferes with his/her right.

The whole idea of stating rights is a legalism. If we accept the idea of a government at all, one of its principal characteristics is supposed to be as neutral referee. The mechanism of the refereeing - distinct from its effectiveness and from its supposed neutrality - that is most often adopted is a court system.

That is, of course, true, but my point here is that the case law acts as the sole foundation for RKBA in Idaho. The text of their constitution most certainly does not, thanks to that one passage within it.

In states that have a real stated RKBA, the text of their constitutions can act as that foundation, upon which case law is then built.

See the difference?


Also of note is that courts are fickle things, and can change their tune. Without a solid foundational document, one has no argument of substance to use against such change. If a court is intent on ignoring stare decisis, the only arguments one would have left would be based on such foundational documents. In the case of Idaho, that foundational document leaves you nowhere to go.

That is my point.

kcbrown
01-28-2011, 1:16 PM
Federalist 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm): "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

The problem of how to get a government to control itself is one that mankind has been attempting to solve throughout history. Nobody has succeeded yet.

There is one approach that I've never heard of being tried in full. One of the fundamental characteristics of the judicial system is that it is an adversarial system, the theory being that in such a system, each side will have great incentive to do its best to win. Why not apply that to government? The "checks and balances" approach of the U.S. government fails because each branch has intimate ties with and dependencies on the others, and that discourages an adversarial relationship. What's needed is a system where the branches have no such relationship with the others -- where the branches are purely adversarial with respect to the others. I'm just not sure exactly how to put such a system together.

And one other thing: the people themselves are supposed to be a check against government power. But have you noticed how that fact is not formally recognized anywhere? Little wonder we're having the troubles with government we're having right now. There needs to be a formal mechanism by which the people can directly smack the government down. As I see it, one form of that check should be in the form of direct veto power over laws. I'm not saying that the people should be able to directly vote in favor of a given piece of legislation, or that the people should be able to directly introduce legislation. Only that they should be able to strike down legislation. Why? Because a law is a restriction on someone's freedom, and therefore, the fewer laws there are, the more free the people will be. A mechanism that acts to reduce the laws in place is very, very badly needed.

Dreaded Claymore
01-28-2011, 1:50 PM
And one other thing: the people themselves are supposed to be a check against government power. But have you noticed how that fact is not formally recognized anywhere? Little wonder we're having the troubles with government we're having right now. There needs to be a formal mechanism by which the people can directly smack the government down. As I see it, one form of that check should be in the form of direct veto power over laws. I'm not saying that the people should be able to directly vote in favor of a given piece of legislation, or that the people should be able to directly introduce legislation. Only that they should be able to strike down legislation. Why? Because a law is a restriction on someone's freedom, and therefore, the fewer laws there are, the more free the people will be. A mechanism that acts to reduce the laws in place is very, very badly needed.

This sounds like a good idea if we can think of a mechanism to achieve it. It'd be good for people to have some anti-government power besides taking arms in a bloody revolution. And I'm mostly in agreement with the people not being able to introduce or vote on legislation. In California, as far as I can tell, it's at best a mechanism to extend the length of the Constitution, and at worst a way to bring financial ruin to the state (Prop. 13).

Al Norris
01-28-2011, 4:55 PM
He has a pretty good case, though I suggest that him and SAF should communicate.

Gray, my understanding is that the SAF is not particularly interested, at this time.

I've attached the complaint.

Rotnguns
01-28-2011, 6:22 PM
The only thing the schools have authority to do is enforce some regulations on their students.

I can carry on Campus and not get arrested, since loaded open carry is fully protected in the state of Idaho (I do it every day since I'm just waiting on my Concealed Permit to be issued). - They may be able to trespass, but even then that's not a sure bet due to the statutes and what-not of the state.

Hell, not a single incident since July 2010 over open carrying every day. I even Open Carried at the CCW class (Held in the Sheriff's Dept office). Gotta love it.

This is an *extremely* pro-2A state. With the State preemption, the only thing regulated is the discharge of firearms by the state and things like brandishing, etc.

In other words, being a normal person carrying every day results in no issues but if you act like an idiot (threatening people with guns) you get punished, as it should be.

The guy has a leg to stand on since the campus housing aren't the dorms and no law prevents it, but the school's authority is based on the pre-emption statute which may very well violate state and national constitutions.

We'll see how it goes, but if there's ever a place to push the issue, this is definitely a friendly state to do it in.

For sure. You'd have to look long and hard to find a state with more sensible gun laws than Idaho.

Zhukov, I can guess with strong certainty which University you are talking about. FYI, the police were called on someone open carrying on the sidewalk along University drive. Police checked it out and left. Since he was on the sidewalk, no issues. However, the OC guy was mad as hell and made a stink.

The Idaho State Code does not limit firearms on campus for higher ed. However, most if not all public colleges have a rule forbidding same. As far as I know, this rule has not been tested to the point of a trespass complaint. When I went to school at UI, many of us had guns in our rooms for hunting or target shooting, or whatever. Never a problem.

Good luck in your OC adventures in Idaho, but frankly, the only encounter you are likely to have with authorities is probably going to be a friendly discussion about your choice of handgun.

Rotnguns
01-28-2011, 6:34 PM
That is, of course, true, but my point here is that the case law acts as the sole foundation for RKBA in Idaho. The text of their constitution most certainly does not, thanks to that one passage within it.

In states that have a real stated RKBA, the text of their constitutions can act as that foundation, upon which case law is then built.

See the difference?
Also of note is that courts are fickle things, and can change their tune. Without a solid foundational document, one has no argument of substance to use against such change. If a court is intent on ignoring stare decisis, the only arguments one would have left would be based on such foundational documents. In the case of Idaho, that foundational document leaves you nowhere to go.

That is my point.

California has a "real stated RKBA," does it not? Try doing in LA what Zhukov does in Idaho. You'll find out the difference really quick.

N6ATF
01-28-2011, 7:22 PM
California has a "real stated RKBA," does it not?

It does not.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

The original intent of the bolded parts meant to only use harsh language. Not weapons of the most effective variety (firearms). :rolleyes:

Rotnguns
01-28-2011, 7:26 PM
It does not.



The original intent of the bolded parts meant to only use harsh language. Not weapons of the most effective variety (firearms). :rolleyes:


It seems to me that it does - see Section 32:

http://www.terryism.com/crkba/

Or am I missing something?

N6ATF
01-28-2011, 7:33 PM
You are. 6th paragraph.

Therefore, it is submitted that the following amendment be made to the California State Constitution to clarify this intent: add the following section to Article 1:

Now go back to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 and hit the End button on your keyboard. Do you see Section 32 there?

Rotnguns
01-28-2011, 7:51 PM
You are. 6th paragraph.



Now go back to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1 and hit the End button on your keyboard. Do you see Section 32 there?

Thanks for the information. It's quite disconcerting. Was there a referendum or an initiative that removed the RKBA from your state constitution? I guess this goes to show that constitutional statements are not worth much without the backing of the citizens.

Hopefully the tide will change and the RKBA will be reinstated.

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 8:04 PM
Thanks for the information. It's quite disconcerting. Was there a referendum or an initiative that removed the RKBA from your state constitution? I guess this goes to show that constitutional statements are not worth much without the backing of the citizens.

Hopefully the tide will change and the RKBA will be reinstated.

There was never an RKBA provision in the state constitution of California.

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 8:04 PM
Question: Is there any effort in the Idaho Legislature to rectify this situation?

Funtimes
01-28-2011, 8:39 PM
Gray, my understanding is that the SAF is not particularly interested, at this time.

I've attached the complaint.

I wouldn't doubt it, thats the position we are in, in Hawaii.

Rotnguns
01-28-2011, 8:43 PM
Question: Is there any effort in the Idaho Legislature to rectify this situation?

Gray, which situation?

There was a bill proposed last year to prohibit colleges and universities from enacting rules against ccw on campus but that was strongly opposed by all of the university presidents. No one cared enough then to push it. Maybe different now.

In terms of clarifying the language in the Idaho State Code regarding RKBA, I have never heard it mentioned before.

wildhawker
01-28-2011, 8:45 PM
I wouldn't doubt it, thats the position we are in, in Hawaii.

Not all cases can or should happen at the same time. Obviously the CA9 decisions will apply to HI also, so filing more (redundant) challenges doesn't make much sense.

Al Norris
01-28-2011, 9:14 PM
Question: Is there any effort in the Idaho Legislature to rectify this situation?

Here's what happened.

Idaho has always been a preemptive State. However, the statutes that had been passed, only dealt with cities (18-872) and counties (50-343). As things often do, more and more agencies of the State began to use their regulatory powers to ban guns in state parks and other areas. So the legislature enacted a new law to occupy the entire field of firearms regulation. The prior sections were repealed and a new code was inserted by SB 1441, passed in 2008. This new code was 18-3302J (all firearms statutes are now consolidated under Title 18 Chapter 33). However, during the session, the Idaho Board of Regents raised a stink and the following exception was carved out:

18-3302J(5)(c): The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.

When all this was happening, I argued with my state reps that they had no authority to grant the Regents actual statutory authority to disarm the public. Argued till I was blue in the face.

Anyway, the law was passed and the Regents now had the authority to do what they have been doing all along (nobody has ever challenged their policies).

As of this moment, there is no legislative action to fix/rescind the law. Idaho is looking at a 184mil shortfall this year. All eyes are focused on that. By the time this case goes to its hearing, the session will be over for the year.

Unless....

I've put a bug under Senator Dean Camerons butt. Right now, he has the most clout in the Senate. We'll see...

Gray Peterson
01-28-2011, 10:29 PM
Here's what happened.

Idaho has always been a preemptive State. However, the statutes that had been passed, only dealt with cities (18-872) and counties (50-343). As things often do, more and more agencies of the State began to use their regulatory powers to ban guns in state parks and other areas. So the legislature enacted a new law to occupy the entire field of firearms regulation. The prior sections were repealed and a new code was inserted by SB 1441, passed in 2008. This new code was 18-3302J (all firearms statutes are now consolidated under Title 18 Chapter 33). However, during the session, the Idaho Board of Regents raised a stink and the following exception was carved out:

18-3302J(5)(c): The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.

When all this was happening, I argued with my state reps that they had no authority to grant the Regents actual statutory authority to disarm the public. Argued till I was blue in the face.

Anyway, the law was passed and the Regents now had the authority to do what they have been doing all along (nobody has ever challenged their policies).

As of this moment, there is no legislative action to fix/rescind the law. Idaho is looking at a 184mil shortfall this year. All eyes are focused on that. By the time this case goes to its hearing, the session will be over for the year.

Unless....

I've put a bug under Senator Dean Camerons butt. Right now, he has the most clout in the Senate. We'll see...

Ask Senator Cameron if he really wants the state to get hit with court costs over something so stupid. Tribble, assuming he knows how to file cases and he's competent, will likely win. With the exception of one case out of Michigan, every time a public housing project has been sued for refusing to allow guns in the rented homes, they've either lost or settled out.

I suggest highly that you do your best to apprise of this. U of I cannot win here, even if it means yanking Tribbles case out from under him by a statutory change.

Funtimes
01-29-2011, 1:23 AM
Not all cases can or should happen at the same time. Obviously the CA9 decisions will apply to HI also, so filing more (redundant) challenges doesn't make much sense.

Actually, we had some hope for Peruta, and still do when it hit's the 9th. That still requires a lawsuit though. Nordyke could solve some of our problems, only if it comes out in the form of Strict Scrutiny. Chester was a big help, but we don't know how that will play out for us in the 9th (yet). We, Hawaii, also have numerous merits that are specific to us right now.

I'm prohibited from applying for an open carry license. To apply, one must be engaged in the business of protecting life and property. To do so, one must be a guard (by statute); guards must be licensed.

Some of our islands are unable to even get a permit application. They are straight up denied from getting it, until they meet all the prerequisites. What are those prereqs? We don't know, and the police station won't tell them or give us a copy of the information.

I was actually threatened, in a fairly discrete manner, that if I tried to take the concealed carry application out of the PD -- I would be arrested.
"You would be stealing our private government property, and we won't allow that."

Many peoples firearms have been confiscated at the PD, even when they could have turned them over to a FFL. Like CA, our list is long too.

So to call the merits redundant, I would have to disagree.

wildhawker
01-29-2011, 8:41 AM
I think you may still be misunderstanding the way these cases will affect HI and how you can follow them with other litigation.

Does HI have a FOIA/Public Records/Sunshine Act?

Funtimes
01-29-2011, 1:46 PM
Yes, we do. Requests have been sent out just a few days ago; they have about 7 days left to respond. However, one of my friends requested some documents, and the Office of Information practices told him they don't have the money to give it to him, so they wont lol

I don't feel that I have misunderstood how these cases will affect us, nor am I saying I have thought of everything either. However, I can think of numerous ways to apply them to Hawaii, if we get a favorable outcome. We have also thought of ways to apply them in not-so favorable outcomes (i.e., Peruta).

Rotnguns
01-29-2011, 6:46 PM
Here's what happened.

Idaho has always been a preemptive State. However, the statutes that had been passed, only dealt with cities (18-872) and counties (50-343). As things often do, more and more agencies of the State began to use their regulatory powers to ban guns in state parks and other areas. So the legislature enacted a new law to occupy the entire field of firearms regulation. The prior sections were repealed and a new code was inserted by SB 1441, passed in 2008. This new code was 18-3302J (all firearms statutes are now consolidated under Title 18 Chapter 33). However, during the session, the Idaho Board of Regents raised a stink and the following exception was carved out:

18-3302J(5)(c): The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.

When all this was happening, I argued with my state reps that they had no authority to grant the Regents actual statutory authority to disarm the public. Argued till I was blue in the face.

Anyway, the law was passed and the Regents now had the authority to do what they have been doing all along (nobody has ever challenged their policies).

As of this moment, there is no legislative action to fix/rescind the law. Idaho is looking at a 184mil shortfall this year. All eyes are focused on that. By the time this case goes to its hearing, the session will be over for the year.

Unless....

I've put a bug under Senator Dean Camerons butt. Right now, he has the most clout in the Senate. We'll see...

You probably know, but in case you don't: Dean's son was shot to death by another student about 7 years ago. He's been a wonderful legislator, but I hope his personal tragedy does not reduce his sympathy for your cause.

Al Norris
01-29-2011, 6:53 PM
Ask Senator Cameron if he really wants the state to get hit with court costs over something so stupid. Tribble, assuming he knows how to file cases and he's competent, will likely win. With the exception of one case out of Michigan, every time a public housing project has been sued for refusing to allow guns in the rented homes, they've either lost or settled out.

I suggest highly that you do your best to apprise of this. U of I cannot win here, even if it means yanking Tribbles case out from under him by a statutory change.

I was in the process of thinking of the appropriate language to amend when I received an email from Aaron. According to him, there is someone who has a very good connection with his State rep who is going to ask that the code be amended. Aaron wanted to know if I could work the same from my end of the State! He is more than comfortable with the case being mooted, as long as he gets to keep his firearms in his home.

Allowing married graduate students to possess firearms in their home (in this case, housing is in a separate area of the campus) is a good first step in knocking down the "sensitive place" doctrine that seems to be developing in the federal district courts.

In addition, Aaron filed his first amended complaint on Friday. It is much better than his first one.

Edited to add: Rotnguns, I knew this. His attitude is the same. Dean is a gunny and doesn't blame guns for the tragedy.

Rotnguns
01-29-2011, 8:06 PM
I was in the process of thinking of the appropriate language to amend when I received an email from Aaron. According to him, there is someone who has a very good connection with his State rep who is going to ask that the code be amended. Aaron wanted to know if I could work the same from my end of the State! He is more than comfortable with the case being mooted, as long as he gets to keep his firearms in his home.

Allowing married graduate students to possess firearms in their home (in this case, housing is in a separate are of the campus) is a good first step in knocking down the "sensitive place" doctrine that seems to be developing in the federal district courts.

In addition, Aaron filed his first amended complaint on Friday. It is much better than his first one.

Edited to add: Rotnguns, I knew this. His attitude is the same. Dean is a gunny and doesn't blame guns for the tragedy.


Good to hear this. He's always been a stand-up legislator. Best wishes on your quest!

Al Norris
02-01-2011, 1:47 PM
The following letter was sent to my State Representatives, Senator Dean Cameron, Rep. Maxine Bell and Rep. John Stevenson:

Dear xxxx,

In 2008, the Senate offered S-1441. This bill was designed to place the legislature as wholly occupying the field of firearms regulation. The bill repealed 18-872 and 50-343 and consolidated those authorities in a new section, 18-3302J. During the passage of this bill, the Regents of the University of Idaho raised a big stink, and an exception was carved out. 18-3302J(5)(c) is that exception. The bill was passed and signed into law.

That same year, the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. was delivered in District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller, June 2008), in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was an individual right, irrespective of any militia duty, and that its core meaning was a right for individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense of themselves and/or their family, particularly at home, where the need is arguably the greatest.

A scant two years later (June 2010), in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (McDonald), the Supreme Court again took up the second amendment and ruled that the right was incorporated by the 14th amendments Substantial Due Process clause, as against the States and local governments.

As of today, there have been 39 civil rights cases filed nationwide, since the McDonald decision was delivered. This litigation has been designed to define the contours of that right. Most of the litigation is a concerted effort by both the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and some few other pro-gunrights organizations. Idaho is now included in this litigation.

On 01-18-2011, a 36 year old student at UI, filed a lawsuit against the Regents (CV-2011-0000069, Idaho 2nd District, Latah), seeking to change its policy of banning firearms from University property. In specific, this student (a 2nd year law student, married with 2 children and living in married housing) seeks to be able to possess his handgun in the apartment for defense of self and family. He is not seeking to carry on campus.

With this background, we come to the purpose of this writing.

It would be in the best interests of the State, to amend 18-3302J(5)(c) to permit students who have passed the State and Federal background checks to obtain a Idaho Concealed Weapons Permit, the ability to keep their firearms in their abodes.

This would most likely moot the case at bar. It is within keeping of the decision in 1902 of In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, which decision has been the binding court decision on all legislative acts as regards firearms.

I know that this may seem trivial in light of everything the legislature has on its plate. Yet to fail to do something now, may require the Idaho and/or Federal courts to impose even more upon the universities and colleges. Consider the wording of Brickey:

"While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions."

Aaron Tribble, the plaintiff in the above case, is currently waiting for a reply by the Regents (due on Feb. 11). Should the Regents reply with a Motion to Dismiss, Aaron will undoubtedly reference this decision. Since the legislature has no power to disarm its citizens, such authority cannot be passed to an agency created by that legislature. The Court would have no recourse but to strike down whatever policies the universities may have, that interferes with the right as defined by Brickey.

Thank you for any consideration of this matter.

Al Norris

Granted that this is a compromise solution, but one that I think is palatable with both sides of the argument. It also puts us on much the same track as Utah.

Al Norris
02-11-2011, 11:09 PM
Aaron just sent me the response by the Regents. Standard reply. Next up: Aaron's MSJ.

Al Norris
03-03-2011, 5:03 PM
Submitted today, was H0222. This bill would change the authority of the Idaho colleges, etc. in their regulation of firearms on Campus. It's had its 1st reading and was submitted to the committee on State Affairs.

Changes the following to read (strike-outs are the old language; underlines are the new language):

18-3302(J)(5) This section shall not be construed to affect:
(c) The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of for professional-technical education, and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, or a dormitory housing commission established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms in undergraduate residential facilities owned or operated by such institutions or commissions, as provided for in title 33, Idaho Code.

In addition, 6 new sections of code are to be added. Each deals with the separate educational authorities and are all worded the same:

[State governing board] shall have no authority to regulate the lawful possession of firearms except that the [board] may regulate or prohibit the possession of firearms in undergraduate student housing owned or operated by the district.

Read the above closely, as it permits possession and carry, but the various boards may regulate or prohibit guns in undergrad housing only.

I also expect that the Idaho Educational Boards, will fight this tooth and nail.

Al Norris
09-23-2011, 5:57 AM
Long overdue in updating.

The proposed Idaho law failed to make it out of the Senate Committee.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit has proceeded and is at the MSJ/Cross MSJ stage. A hearing on the motions has been set for Oct. 12, 2011.

In his MSJ, the Opposition to defendants MSJ and Reply to Defendants MSJ, Aaron has hammered the defense with In re Brickey. This is the seminal gun case in Idaho.

The defendants, in an attempt to justify their actions have made a claim that there are Heller Homes and non-Heller Homes. That because this is University property, it is a sensitive place and therefore qualifies as a non-Heller Home.

Last winter, someone put up a FaceBook page on the UI Gun Case (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribble-v-State-Board-of-Education-UI-Gun-Case/190019901025610). It would be nice if you would show your support by going there and "Liking" the page.

You will find the current filings there, if you are interested in reading them.

ckprax
09-23-2011, 6:58 AM
I would rather have the law fail and the lawsuit continue. The proposed language simply created another class and did not address the real problem. There is no logical reason to allow graduate students the right to keep and bear while denying their undergraduate peers. Sure it would be a step in the right direction but an additional law or lawsuit would be needed to ensure undergraduates have their rights regardless of where they live.

I understand that this proposed law was designed to address a specific problem for one individual but the problem is bigger than that. Tribble has a good case, a positive ruling will benefit all college students in Idaho.

Crom
09-23-2011, 8:01 AM
Al, Thanks for the update on Tribble's case.

Anchors
09-23-2011, 12:37 PM
This case looks really interesting. It seems like something that could gain some traction, right?
I hope some of the right people take him under consideration.
The basic point of Heller should extend to all homes (I would even argue all military base housing/government housing, though I know that might be in a future distant from current reality).

That's always true.

Someone will always think that someone else's right interferes with his/her right.

The whole idea of stating rights is a legalism. If we accept the idea of a government at all, one of its principal characteristics is supposed to be as neutral referee. The mechanism of the refereeing - distinct from its effectiveness and from its supposed neutrality - that is most often adopted is a court system.

Federalist 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm): "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

Great quote.

Paul S
09-23-2011, 12:47 PM
..................... In California, as far as I can tell, it's at best a mechanism to extend the length of the Constitution, and at worst a way to bring financial ruin to the state (Prop. 13).

But without which in my view, financial ruin would have been visited upon the struggling homeowner.

Al Norris
12-10-2011, 7:20 PM
As it was said in the other thread (that was moved to the "off topic" area), the Judge denied Tribble his MSJ and granted the Regents MSJ.

Aaron has uploaded the decision at Goggle Docs: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1sBI64ZrdrSEX0Bwa_GLf-x9dBniqPaPJguHJVHbZwCEi8ANdA9Csl9csAZed&hl=en_US&pli=1

Aaron has marked up a couple of sections to pay attention to. On page 17 of the doc, pay close attention to FN3... You just have to wonder at how the Judge arrived at a decision that flies in the face of binding precedent.

Actually, the entire decision is bent and twisted beyond anything I've yet to read. If you read the decisions in Kachalsky and Hightower, this one ought to make your head spin.

Dreaded Claymore
12-10-2011, 8:35 PM
This decision was really, really painful to read.

It looks like pretty much all 2nd Amendment challenges will automatically fail at the lowest level. I guess that there are challenges to some types of law that will not automatically fail at that level. Otherwise, there would be no reason to have those courts at all, if all they do is rubber-stamp the legislature's decisions.

Hopefully it doesn't end there.

Gray Peterson
12-10-2011, 8:58 PM
At least it's merely a state court case and the damage is limited.

Rossi357
12-10-2011, 9:13 PM
As it was said in the other thread (that was moved to the "off topic" area), the Judge denied Tribble his MSJ and granted the Regents MSJ.

Aaron has uploaded the decision at Goggle Docs: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=1sBI64ZrdrSEX0Bwa_GLf-x9dBniqPaPJguHJVHbZwCEi8ANdA9Csl9csAZed&hl=en_US&pli=1

Aaron has marked up a couple of sections to pay attention to. On page 17 of the doc, pay close attention to FN3... You just have to wonder at how the Judge arrived at a decision that flies in the face of binding precedent.

Actually, the entire decision is bent and twisted beyond anything I've yet to read. If you read the decisions in Kachalsky and Hightower, this one ought to make your head spin.

Is there another site where I can read this without opening another account?

Al Norris
12-10-2011, 11:03 PM
Sorry Rossi, it's the only place he put it... I'll see what I can do about it.

Gray, Aaron will appeal.

Gray Peterson
12-10-2011, 11:27 PM
Sorry Rossi, it's the only place he put it... I'll see what I can do about it.

Gray, Aaron will appeal.

Well, he'll appeal it to the Idaho Court of Appeals, the last part of the "mandatory appeals" stage. Idaho Supreme Court and SCOTUS does NOT have to take the case.

What I meant was that for the MANDATORY jurisdiction of this kind of case, it wouldn't infect the entire 9th Circuit, just the state of Idaho (Idaho's appellate court, like Oregon, is a statewide jurisdictional court rather than like Washington and California which is geographical...

Al Norris
12-11-2011, 9:03 AM
Well, he'll appeal it to the Idaho Court of Appeals, the last part of the "mandatory appeals" stage. Idaho Supreme Court and SCOTUS does NOT have to take the case.

What I meant was that for the MANDATORY jurisdiction of this kind of case, it wouldn't infect the entire 9th Circuit, just the state of Idaho (Idaho's appellate court, like Oregon, is a statewide jurisdictional court rather than like Washington and California which is geographical...

All true as far as it goes.

But there is a real danger here, to Idahoans, if this Judges decision is left to stand.

The Judge erred when he said that the Idaho right had no greater protection than the enumerated Federal Right. Idahoans have always enjoyed much greater freedom in arms, than many other States, even those that have interpreted the Federal 2A.

The Judge erred when he somehow used State v. Grob to reword the language of In re Brickey to mean that a ban on possession was a mere regulation (FN3, pg. 17-18). That case (Brickey) was specific. The legislature might regulate carry, but it could not ban carry wholesale. To ban the possession of firearms, is to ban the carry of firearms.

The Judge erred when he conflated a University (and by implication, any place of higher learning) was a school and therefore protected as a sensitive place. "Schools" are strictly defined in the Idaho Statutes.

The Judge erred when he ruled that because a housing unit was on University property, that made it a Government Building, and therefore a sensitive place. That error was compounded when he conflated State Government Buildings as coming under the same protections as the laws that protect Federal Buildings, Idaho statutory law notwithstanding.

The Judge erred when he equated a lease for habitation to a mere license. The Judge further compounded that error when he declared that such leased/licensed housing was not an abode. To make the determination that anyone who leases/licenses (and by direct implication, rents) a house or an apartment, has no possessory interest will have a severe impact on all Idahoans who do not own their homes. It makes null the statutory rights of those who rent or lease.

While not gun related, those implications alone, are nothing short of staggering!

Last, but not least, this decision sets the University of Idaho and its Regents apart from the rest of the Idaho Government by making them, in effect, a fourth branch of Government.

Those are just 6 errors in this decision. There are several more, as they relate to the decisions of Heller and McDonald.

In sum, this decision flat out destroys much of the statutory framework of firearms laws in the State of Idaho. Further, it destroys the possessory interests of all renters and leaseholders to any property claimed as their "home," in the State of Idaho (this goes far beyond governmental housing).

This decision, should it stand, will be used by other courts, against all of our interests. Not just those of Idahoans.

Al Norris
12-26-2011, 5:26 AM
Aaron Tribble got an early Christmas present from the Idaho Board of Regents.

On Dec 21st, they filed their Memorandum of Costs and Attorney Fees (http://www.keonalodge.com/MOC.pdf). They are suing for $61,118.00 for defending themselves.

Left Coast Conservative
12-26-2011, 5:58 AM
California has a "real stated RKBA," does it not? Try doing in LA what Zhukov does in Idaho. You'll find out the difference really quick.

Try finding a RKBA anywhere in the California Constitution.

OleCuss
12-26-2011, 6:13 AM
Al, your analysis was very interesting. Thank you.

I wonder if he can get funding from realty investors and the like for an appeal?

edlegault
12-26-2011, 11:39 AM
There was a discussion about CA RKBA. Not stated as such in the Calif constitution, but this is:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the 2A does apply to CA. Now we just wait on the SCOTUS to define more what the 2A means.

wildhawker
12-26-2011, 11:59 AM
There was a discussion about CA RKBA. Not stated as such in the Calif constitution, but this is:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the 2A does apply to CA. Now we just wait on the SCOTUS to define more what the 2A means.

No, the California Supreme Court has found that there is no RKBA in the California Constitution. The argument that you're trying to make is incorrect. (See, pre-emption; see also, Supremacy Clause.) The Second Amendment was incorporated as against state and local governments by the U.S Supreme Court through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Privileges and Immunities Clauses. (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010.)

-Brandon

Librarian
12-26-2011, 12:37 PM
There was a discussion about CA RKBA. Not stated as such in the Calif constitution, but this is:


CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA


SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.

Therefore, the 2A does apply to CA. Now we just wait on the SCOTUS to define more what the 2A means.

You need to read this : http://books.google.com/books/about/Debates_and_proceedings_of_the_Constitut.html?id=y _EJAAAAIAAJ - Debates and proceedings of the Constitutional convention of the state of California, convened at the city of Sacramento, Saturday, September 28, 1878

(You're lucky - Vol 3 is the correct one; the other volumes are not online. Secretary of State has a bit of discussion (http://www.sos.ca.gov/archives/collections/1879/guide.htm).)

You will find that the delegates took a narrower view of 'the supreme law of the land'; seems to have had something to do with the 'late unpleasantness' from 1860-1864.

edlegault
12-26-2011, 8:08 PM
The California Supreme Court deciding there is no RKBA in Calif is like saying that slavery is ok because Calif does its own thing. :eek:

wildhawker
12-26-2011, 8:32 PM
The California Supreme Court deciding there is no RKBA in Calif is like saying that slavery is ok because Calif does its own thing. :eek:

The parties' and amici's briefs in McDonald v. Chicago (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/case-filings/) - and the USSC decision itself - were framed exactly around the issues of states' and local governments' police powers and their tension with federal constitutional protections for enumerated [fundamental] civil rights.

-Brandon

Al Norris
01-29-2012, 2:09 PM
Just a bit of an update.

On Jan. 10th, Mr. Tribble filed his appeal (http://www.keonalodge.com/NOA.pdf) to the Idaho Supreme Court.

Then on Jan. 19th, at the hearing for costs, Judge Stegner agreed with Tribble's argument and disallowed all monetary claims from the University of Idaho.

01/04/2012 Hearing Scheduled (Motion 01/19/2011 09:30 AM) Plaintiff's Motion to Disallow Costs
01/04/2012 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Disallow Costs
01/04/2012 Motion to Disallow Costs
01/04/2012 Amended Motion to Disallow Costs (http://www.keonalodge.com/MDC.pdf)
01/10/2012 Filing: L4 - Appeal, Civil appeal or cross-appeal to Supreme Court Paid by: Tribble, Aaron (plaintiff) Receipt number: 0191327 Dated: 1/10/2012 Amount: $101.00 (Cash) For: Tribble, Aaron (plaintiff)
01/10/2012 Bond Posted - Cash (Receipt 191328 Dated 1/10/2012 for 3125.00)
01/10/2012 Bond Posted - Cash (Receipt 191329 Dated 1/10/2012 for 292.50)
01/10/2012 Notice Of Appeal (http://www.keonalodge.com/NOA.pdf)
01/12/2012 Defendant's Response to Plf Motion to Disallow Costs
01/17/2012 Reply in Support of Motion to Disallow Costs (http://www.keonalodge.com/RMDC.pdf)
01/17/2012 Affidavit of Aaron Tribble in Support of Plaintiff's Reply

Note on the cash bond expenditures: Under Idaho Appellate Rule #28, the party appealing must assume all costs of reproducing court documents to submit to the higher court on appeal. These are therefore the costs of of the documents that are listed in the Notice of Appeal.

safewaysecurity
01-29-2012, 2:12 PM
And what's the significance of this?

boxcab
01-29-2012, 3:52 PM
And what's the significance of this?

If I understand correctly...


The University must swallow the costs of defending themselves in the original case.

Mr. Tribbel is on the hook for the xeroxing costs for all documents needed to file the appeal.


I wish him luck, but I believe truth will win out for him.

Zhukov
01-29-2012, 4:59 PM
What I find interesting is how the Judge can even argue sensitive place on government buildings.

As I've stated before:

You can freely open carry in Government buildings right now. In fact, due to court precedence, the Idaho constitution, and the preemption statutes, the state and other public entities cannot bar you because you are carrying.

I had a moment when a manager at one of the state owned and operated liquor stores was questioning if I could carry there because it was a "government building" - I explained that because it's public property, I specifically could not be barred from carrying there. I offered to have him call Boise PD or the Ada County Sheriff, and he backed off, letting me purchase.

I sent an email off to the head of the Idaho State Liquor Division citing the constitution and preemption statutes, and that the manager needed to be corrected. He agreed and stated he would educate his managers on the matter.

Hell, I open carried to my concealed carry permit safety class that was run *in the Sheriff's* department building, next to the jail. They didn't even blink and were more interested in what I was carrying out of curiosity.

Anyone have info on the Judge? Where they are originally from, where they went to school, etc? I'm curious if they are even from Idaho. Almost anyone I've met that is from this state could give two craps about someone carrying, but the transplants (the bad ones! I'm a good one!) always tend to be twitchy at first.

Al Norris
07-16-2012, 6:01 PM
Plaintiff/Appellant Arron Tribble filed his opening brief today at the Idaho Supreme Court. Luckily, the brief was submitted to google-docs, so I can at least point to it! Appellate Brief fv.pdf - Google Docs docs.google.com (http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.google.com%2Fopen%3Fid% 3D0B3C8rDERCUp5ajhzUUlDSEJpNVk&h=iAQHuoz1pAQEqh0FNxzKlyASadqJY9hxxH8m02iK_cuowRA&enc=AZMOOwp2xQfYSGmp4zvADACWQOxDlcrcQrHhc-MvttkuN1F0OpAjX5eBs9B5TBm22BUr-KIFNiYPnXC-VoCBDsMw)

A look at the TOC is instructive of what Aaron is claiming:

STANDARD OF REVIEW
IDAHO CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I § 11 GUARANTEES MR. TRIBBLE’S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS IN HIS HOME
The authority to abridge the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho is limited to regulation
The 1978 amendment to Art. I § 11 restricts regulation of the right
Under Idaho’s strict scrutiny of fundamental rights, the Regents’ policies do not employ the least restrictive means
THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ALSO GUARANTEES MR. TRIBBLE’S RIGHT
Under Heller, infringment of the right to keep arms in the home for self-defense is impermissible under any standard of scrutiny
“Sensitive Places” jurisprudence shows the home to be the most
protected place
A plain reading of the Heller exception shows that it does not apply to the home
Even under Intermediate Scrutiny, the Regents’ policies fail to have any substantial relationship to safety
THE DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS
The Regents’ grant of general authority in the Idaho Constitution, when rationalized with Article I § 11, contains no authority whereby the Regents can lawfully prohibit firearms in the home
Because their ultra vires prohibition of firearms in his home, the Regents are in violation of I.C. § 18-3302J(2)
MR. TRIBBLE CAN NOT AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP FIREARMS IN HIS HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE
The plain language of the housing contract does not create a waiver
In Idaho, the Right to Self Defense is inalienable
Any contract term that regulates firearms is a violation of I.C. 18-3302J(2) and is therefore void
The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine voids any term that infringes on Mr. Tribble’s right to keep firearms in his home for self-defense
Mr Tribble did not waive his rights by signing the contracts
CONCLUSION

What issues under the judgment is Aaron appealing?

Under Article I § 11 of the Idaho Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in any part of the State of Idaho, did the District Court err by allowing the prohibition of firearms in Mr. Tribble’s home?
Under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in the home for self-defense, did the District Court err by allowing the prohibition of firearms in Mr. Tribble’s home?
Under Idaho Law, which prohibits any regulation of firearms without express authority, did the District Court err by holding that the Regents’ general grant of authority contains an express provision giving power to prohibit firearms in the home?
. Under Idaho Law, the Idaho Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution, did the District Court err by holding that Mr. Tribble waived his right to keep and bear arms, leaving him no ability for self-defense in the home?

I'm only part way through this brief, but it appears that on both State and Federal grounds, the Idaho Supreme Court has no real choice, but to find for the plaintiff/appellant.

The Regents will respond on or about the 15th of August (Idaho uses the same briefing schedule as the Federal Courts, at this level), barring a motion to extend time to file.

Dreaded Claymore
07-16-2012, 6:22 PM
Plaintiff/Appellant Arron Tribble filed his opening brief today at the Idaho Supreme Court.

In before KCBrown's (repeated) prophecies of doom. :D

kcbrown
07-16-2012, 6:58 PM
In before KCBrown's (repeated) prophecies of doom. :D

You clearly need some raspberries!

:tt2:



:D



Frankly, this is one I expect the plaintiff to win. But it's in the 9th Circuit. I think there's a good chance it'll have to go to SCOTUS to get the win, assuming this goes up to the 9th Circuit on appeal. It mostly depends on the Idaho Supreme Court. I don't know of any 9th Circuit decisions that have been made about "in the home" RKBA since McDonald, but there may be some.

Al Norris
07-16-2012, 7:19 PM
There is this to consider:

If the Idaho Supreme Court decides the issue of law on only the Idaho Constitution (and Idaho Statutes), then there is no basis to appeal to a federal court of appeals.

Only if the decision reaches to the federal questions, can the 9th intervene.

This is one of the reasons that Aaron has mostly treated this as a State issue. Federal Courts cannot interfere with State courts on purely State interpretations of State Constitutions.

SilverTauron
07-16-2012, 8:45 PM
I predict removing the gun bans and regulations on college campuses will be the most difficult part of expanding the RKBA.

The problem is that culturally speaking "guns on campus" has about the same popular appeal as legalizing heroin. Guns in public? Sure. Guns in the office building? A OK. Guns around my just graduated daughter at a university far away from home? Hell No!


Why is this the case? Because parents foot the bill for higher education. As such colleges have a profit motive to ban guns , so as to prop up the image of their university as the safest place for your son or daughter to attend school.

The real tragedy is that its all marketing-no university ive ever enrolled in has as viable security plan beyond dialing police and waiting to get shot. Undergraduate dorms are essentially unsecured, since door locks are commonly bypassed so that students can smoke outside and get back in easily. Back doors are commonly propped open for the same reason, and thanks to students living their sheltered lives in "Condition White" anyone with a smile and kind word can just pretend they locked their keys out of a dorm and be let in by a "good Samaritan".I worked an on-campus job manning the front desk of a dormitory, and a 40 year old woman once tried to walk into the building claiming to be a "health inspector". At 6:45 PM on a Friday.

I made some choice phone calls and addressed the situation , but what was scary is that this woman successfully got into the building 4 times earlier that week and no one, to this day , knows why. Just some anecdotes to remember should any of you hear the perky girl at the college Welcome Desk start her spiel on campus safety and how guns and weapons are banned.

Thus, the college lies about security, the parents buy into the lies, and when tragedy strikes the ones who pay for it are the students and factulty, all in the name of making the clients feel safe. This is why even in pro-2A states universities consistently ban guns, sometimes with state authority backing them.At most universities , guns are not allowed on campus property period, dot, the end. IF the college is somewhat relaxed they'll let you keep the hardware in your easy-to-steal vehicle parked halfway across campus.

My take, we'll need to culturally broaden acceptance of public concealed carry before we can take on the monolith of gun bans in universities.

kcbrown
07-16-2012, 8:49 PM
There is this to consider:

If the Idaho Supreme Court decides the issue of law on only the Idaho Constitution (and Idaho Statutes), then there is no basis to appeal to a federal court of appeals.

Only if the decision reaches to the federal questions, can the 9th intervene.

This is one of the reasons that Aaron has mostly treated this as a State issue. Federal Courts cannot interfere with State courts on purely State interpretations of State Constitutions.

Yikes. Then unless the Idaho Supreme Court is honest and forthright about the meaning of the RKBA clause in Idaho's constitution, this case is dead.

However: can the Idaho Supreme Court really ignore the federal questions? I don't see how, since McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states under the 14th Amendment. Even just ignoring the federal question altogether, instead of issuing a ruling, reaches to the federal questions because of that, no?

Of course, this is the 9th Circuit we're talking about here, so even if ignoring the question is tantamount to reaching the federal questions, the 9th Circuit is still likely to deny the appeal on the basis you cite.

hoffmang
07-16-2012, 8:57 PM
If NRA can't win the under 21 handgun purchase ban in CA-5, then we're going to have problems enforcing the 2A on college campus for college students.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-16-2012, 10:31 PM
If NRA can't win the under 21 handgun purchase ban in CA-5, then we're going to have problems enforcing the 2A on college campus for college students.


Because of no circuits to split against?

Funtimes
07-16-2012, 10:44 PM
Because of no circuits to split against?

If they win in CA5 there will be a circuit split just after that lol.

hammerhead_77
07-17-2012, 9:45 AM
As a counter transplant (grew up in most-northern Idaho, settled in most-southern Kommifornistan) I am watching this with interest.

You have to understand the mindset...the local Sheriff where I grew up has stated that part of his role is to DEFEND the local population when Federal agents come to confiscate guns! This is the state where the Governor put the state police on the border to stop the feds (nuclear waste going to BR1).

I suspect that for all the reasons stated by Mr. Norris, the lower court ruling will be struck down with prejudice... And don't put it past the legislators to take up an issue and help "clarify" it for the Judge.

NorCal Mtn Flyer
07-17-2012, 1:56 PM
I predict removing the gun bans and regulations on college campuses will be the most difficult part of expanding the RKBA.

The problem is that culturally speaking "guns on campus" has about the same popular appeal as legalizing heroin. Guns in public? Sure. Guns in the office building? A OK. Guns around my just graduated daughter at a university far away from home? Hell No!


Why is this the case? Because parents foot the bill for higher education. As such colleges have a profit motive to ban guns , so as to prop up the image of their university as the safest place for your son or daughter to attend school.

The real tragedy is that its all marketing-no university ive ever enrolled in has as viable security plan beyond dialing police and waiting to get shot. Undergraduate dorms are essentially unsecured, since door locks are commonly bypassed so that students can smoke outside and get back in easily. Back doors are commonly propped open for the same reason, and thanks to students living their sheltered lives in "Condition White" anyone with a smile and kind word can just pretend they locked their keys out of a dorm and be let in by a "good Samaritan".I worked an on-campus job manning the front desk of a dormitory, and a 40 year old woman once tried to walk into the building claiming to be a "health inspector". At 6:45 PM on a Friday.

I made some choice phone calls and addressed the situation , but what was scary is that this woman successfully got into the building 4 times earlier that week and no one, to this day , knows why. Just some anecdotes to remember should any of you hear the perky girl at the college Welcome Desk start her spiel on campus safety and how guns and weapons are banned.

Thus, the college lies about security, the parents buy into the lies, and when tragedy strikes the ones who pay for it are the students and factulty, all in the name of making the clients feel safe. This is why even in pro-2A states universities consistently ban guns, sometimes with state authority backing them.At most universities , guns are not allowed on campus property period, dot, the end. IF the college is somewhat relaxed they'll let you keep the hardware in your easy-to-steal vehicle parked halfway across campus.

My take, we'll need to culturally broaden acceptance of public concealed carry before we can take on the monolith of gun bans in universities.


Though the precedent is based in Colorado rather than Idaho, this transition has already taken place! Just last year it was clearly affirmed that there IS the right to carry concealed on all Colorado campuses.
IANAL, so I'm not sure exactly how the CO case might influence the ID case, if at all. If I remember correctly, the CO case was also achieved in State Court, not Federal.

nicki
07-17-2012, 2:45 PM
Universities are sacred ground for the "Libtard Elites", the idea of any guns on their "scared ground" is "sacrilegious".

We here "students, students" like they are high school students.

To the best of my recollection, most college students are "adults". There may be a few gifted minors and I would trust those gifted minors more with guns than many adults.

Unfortunately many people have the believe that colleges are "party schools" where the only thing college students do is have wild parties.

The organization that is better suited for this is students for concealed carry.

Ultimately parents will have to get involved. The college safety issue is where we can generate the next generations of gun owners, especially among women.

Nicki

SilverTauron
07-17-2012, 5:33 PM
Here's a story illustrating just how long we have to go on the subject of universities and concealed carry.




Collins stayed silent and was then raped at gunpoint, she said.

Collins said she would have been carrying her firearm and would have defended herself that night had campus rules permitted it.

“I know at some point during my attack I could have stopped it,” said Collins. “Had I been able to do so, two other rapes would have been prevented and a life could have been saved.”

Collins said she later submitted a request to the president of the university to be permitted to carry a concealed weapon on campus. The request was granted under a requirement of nondisclosure.

“Had SB 231 been the current law, my family and myself would have been saved a lot of torment,” said Collins.

“Because of the fact that I was rendered defenseless, this man was allowed to be at large and to continue to rape other women in the community, and consequently he murdered a young woman as well,” added Collins.

Gregory Brown, a history professor at UNLV, this week argued against the campus carry legislation on the UNLV Faculty Alliance website, saying the measure would “almost certainly” increase the likelihood of violent shootings on campuses.

Source article here:http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2011/03/17/rape-victim-to-testify-on-campus-carry-law/

Note that it took a sexual assault to convince a university to legally honor this woman's right to carry-and they demanded she keep her mouth shut!

hoffmang
07-17-2012, 6:33 PM
Because of no circuits to split against?

'Cause if we can't win that in Texas...

-Gene

Dreaded Claymore
07-17-2012, 6:47 PM
Gregory Brown, a history professor at UNLV, this week argued against the campus carry legislation on the UNLV Faculty Alliance website, saying the measure would “almost certainly” increase the likelihood of violent shootings on campuses.[/I]

Source article here:http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2011/03/17/rape-victim-to-testify-on-campus-carry-law/

And that's true, in that it would increase the likelihood of attempted rapists getting violently shot as they attempt their crimes. Which is a good thing.

kcbrown
07-17-2012, 7:34 PM
'Cause if we can't win that in Texas...


I thought of that, too, but consider this:

Texas, as "pro gun" as it claims to be, is anti-open-carry. The people there I've actually spoken with (at one of the gun stores there, in particular) oppose open carry. This came as quite a surprise to me.


From where I stand, and as someone who grew up there myself, Texas is all talk and no walk when it comes to RKBA (well, that's overdramatizing it a bit -- they're really just sort of middle of the road about it). Hell, during the 80s and 90s, they didn't allow carry except at the discretion of the issuing authority (i.e., "may issue" -- exactly what we have here in California), and that's precisely what led to the Luby's massacre in Killeen.

Texas has this "pro gun" reputation, for some reason, but when it comes to real support for RKBA, it looks to me to be unremarkable. They may be improving, but until I see them embracing Constitutional carry, I will not regard them as being the pro-gun bastion that people seem to think they are.

Gray Peterson
07-17-2012, 7:48 PM
I thought of that, too, but consider this:

Texas, as "pro gun" as it claims to be, is anti-open-carry. The people there I've actually spoken with (at one of the gun stores there, in particular) oppose open carry. This came as quite a surprise to me.


From where I stand, and as someone who grew up there myself, Texas is all talk and no walk when it comes to RKBA (well, that's overdramatizing it a bit -- they're really just sort of middle of the road about it). Hell, during the 80s and 90s, they didn't allow carry except at the discretion of the issuing authority (i.e., "may issue" -- exactly what we have here in California), and that's precisely what led to the Luby's massacre in Killeen.

Texas has this "pro gun" reputation, for some reason, but when it comes to real support for RKBA, it looks to me to be unremarkable. They may be improving, but until I see them embracing Constitutional carry, I will not regard them as being the pro-gun bastion that people seem to think they are.

Incorrect on "may issue". All carry was banned unless you were "traveling". It took the CHL law to make that happen, which required George W. Bush to be elected in 1994 to override Governor Ann Richards' veto.

hoffmang
07-17-2012, 10:04 PM
The 5th Circuit was the first court of appeals to adopt the individual rights interpretation of the 2A.

-Gene

kcbrown
07-18-2012, 12:42 AM
Incorrect on "may issue". All carry was banned unless you were "traveling". It took the CHL law to make that happen, which required George W. Bush to be elected in 1994 to override Governor Ann Richards' veto.

I guess the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre) on the Luby's massacre is incorrect, then, when it states:


In response to the massacre,[5] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses.


(emphasis mine)


Looks like that article needs correcting. Do you have a source for what the law stated prior to the massacre?


In any case, if the law was even more strict than I say, then that bolsters my argument about Texas.

kcbrown
07-18-2012, 12:45 AM
The 5th Circuit was the first court of appeals to adopt the individual rights interpretation of the 2A.

-Gene

Now that is interesting. I didn't know any circuit had adopted that interpretation prior to Heller. So, essentially, Heller happened in part because of a circuit split?

hoffmang
07-18-2012, 8:37 PM
Now that is interesting. I didn't know any circuit had adopted that interpretation prior to Heller. So, essentially, Heller happened in part because of a circuit split?

Yes and no. Yes in the truest since, but Heller had a bit of a life of it's own.

-Gene

Crom
07-23-2012, 5:44 AM
Now that is interesting. I didn't know any circuit had adopted that interpretation prior to Heller. So, essentially, Heller happened in part because of a circuit split?

The history on this is fascinating.

If you read Silveira v. Lockyer (2002) (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13948185712203065755) there is an interesting section titled "Background and Precedent" where the court looks at the 2A landscape. In this section they detail the momentum that was swinging our way. Emerson (2001) was decided in 2001, after that something amazing happened. The U.S. Solicitor General issued a memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft to the U.S. Supreme court and all U.S. attorneys endorsing the Emerson view that the 2A right is an individual one. I find it perplexing that we are usually litigating agasint the federal government yet in this example they helped pave the way for Heller


Frst, as we have noted, there is the recent Emerson decision in which the Fifth Circuit, after analyzing the opinion at length, concluded that the Supreme Court's decision in Miller does not resolve the issue of the Amendment's meaning. The Emerson court then canvassed the pertinent scholarship and historical materials, and held that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to possess arms — the first federal court of appeals ever to have so decided.[13] Second, the current leadership of the United States Department of Justice recently reversed the decades-old position of the government on the Second Amendment, and adopted the view of the Fifth Circuit.Now, for the first time, the United States government contends that the Second Amendment establishes an individual right to possess arms.[14] The Solicitor General has advised the Supreme Court that "[t]he current position of the United States ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to possess and bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions...." Opposition to Petition for Certiorari in United States v. Emerson, No. 01-8780, at 19 n. 3. In doing so, the Solicitor General transmitted to the Court a memorandum from Attorney General John Ashcroft to all United States Attorneys adopting the Fifth Circuit's view and emphasizing that the Emerson court "undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials ...," although the Attorney General was as vague as the Fifth Circuit with respect both to the types of weapons that he believes to be protected by the Second Amendment, and the basis for making such determinations