Plaintiff/Appellant Arron Tribble filed his opening brief today at the Idaho Supreme Court.
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
- 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
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.