Idaho Student Sues UI for RKBA

[Al Norris]

It was bound to happen.

Back in the 2009 Idaho legislative session, the State adopted a law that in no uncertain terms let all Idaho governments and agencies know that the legislature occupied the entire spectrum of firearms law within the State. However, in the debate of this law, the Idaho University Regents screamed bloody murder. The upshot was that the legislature caved and it was codified that the Universities and colleges could set their own policy.

Now we have this:

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 kids. He lives with his family in U of I married housing. He is also a second year law student who has filed against the University to obtain his RKBA, in his home, for lawful self defense.

Google the name, all the stories give the same info as above (except the actual case). Because of the way the Idaho Courts work, unless you visit the court in question, in person, you won't get a copy of the complaint.

I sure hope this guy has been reading Guras' briefs! It should be a cinch to win this.

[Kleinzeit]

I'm beginning to wonder if universities might actually be emerging as the main front on which RKBA is going to be fought over the next decade...

I think we might see some big changes in Texas soon, too.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Well, TX is an interesting case - let's see if the legislature actually gets to it. Perry did an emergency song and dance for a bunch of his cohorts' social hot issues EXCEPT the gun ones (unless I'm wrong). TSRA says the business interests, worried about liability, pull the purse strings on the so-called pro-gun folks. No liberals to blame this time, just money talks.

See if Coyote Man steps up?

[Longdayjake]

I am actually attending law school with the plaintiff (Aaron Tribble). I can keep everyone updated about the case. So far SAF has called him and expressed interest in taking up the case. This case presents both state and federal questions so this could end up going all the way to the SCOTUS.

[Spats McGee]

Well, this is interesting! I posted a thread a while back about a petition by some other college students trying to carry on campus. Looks like "campus carry" is an issue that's warming up a bit.

[AH.74]

There is a bill being introduced in NM that proposes to allow CC in schools and universities also. It is very recent good news.

[Al Norris]

Longdayjake, is there anyway you can get Aaron to send me a copy of the complaint?

Email sent.

[Longdayjake]

I will have to see about the complaint. Aaron just got done doing 3 television interviews about the case so in a day or two we may have what is in the complaint coming straight from the horse's mouth.

This case is not about carry on campus. It is about possession in campus housing. The scope of the suit is narrow but it could open a door that leads to eventual campus carry. What is awesome is that the Idaho Supreme Court ruled back in the day that only Idaho legislature can make laws and they cannot delegate that power to any other institution. As I do more research on this I will let you guys know what we learn.

[Al Norris]

Jake, I didn't include the complete text of In re Brickey. But you have the cite so it should be easy to look up. If you can't find it, I'll post it here. It is really short, but it is the case all gun law in Idaho is based upon.

Suffice it to say that the Legislature can delegate, it just can't deny the right to keep and bear completely. Brickey is why concealed carry is regulable but open carry is not.

For what it's worth, I pointed all this out to my State reps, when they added 18-3302J to the statutes, back in 2009. I also pointed out that in light of Heller, McDonald would be incorporated, further limiting what the legislature could or couldn't do... Of course, they didn't listen.

Once McDonald was actually decided, I just knew someone would bring a suit against the Regents.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Florida is moving to amend some of it's wording, as well, to include colleges and OC with a permit.
This one has already been filed, and if passed, our new Governor, promised to sign it, and it will be effective July 1, 2011.

http://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/B...x?BillId=44867

[Al Norris]

Hope that Florida revision passes. It can only bolster Mr. Tribbles' suit.

[GoOfY-FoOt]

Al wrote: Hope that Florida revision passes.

You and I both, brother...
On a high note, opposition has been nearly non-existent, although it may be early, yet.

I hope they have decided to 'choose their battles' and will leave this one alone.

[Al Norris]

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 RKBA, in his home, 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 and here.

There are also articles on Huffington and MSNBC. It hasn't quite gone viral and I hope it doesn't.

I've been in communication with Aaron. I'm currently waiting to hear from another attorney about this case.

This is a straight forward right to keep a firearm, in the home, for defense of self and family. Straight out of Heller.

Unless Aaron comes online and says anything more, that's all I'll say at this time.

[Kleinzeit]

Thanks for following up on this for us.

[Al Norris]

First amended complaint was filed today. Much, much better than the original.

[Al Norris]

In talking with Aaron about his case, he let me know that someone with pull on his State reps (in northern Idaho), is approaching him/them with the idea to amend the offending legislation. I asked Aaron if it might help if I undertook the same from this end of the State. He didn't mind. In fact, he was willing to have his case mooted, if the passed legislation would allow his objectives.

With that in mind, I carefully thought out a means to persuade my reps.

The following has been 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

Assuming I get any interest, I will then forward my proposed changes to the law.

[maestro pistolero]

Wouldn't case law be stronger medicine against future infringement rather than than simply changing the law?

[Al Norris]

I believe the answer to that would be ... it depends upon the State.

Our legislature has been pretty observant about gun rights. Since the 1902 decision, the State legislature has not tried to circumvent it.

The fact that the colleges and universities have always been "gun free," is mere tradition and until now, has not come under much, if any, scrutiny.

Consider: If the legislature forces the Regents to allow guns in student housing, for self protection, it kills the idea that such places are sensitive. The courts will not be able to use that as rationale for forbidding firearms.

Currently, because of the "tradition," a valid argument can be made. That would lead to bad precedent and would require a legislative act to remedy.

What I'm proposing is to remedy the situation first, to forestall a judicial citation. It further opens the door to a more liberal law to allow campus carry. First and foremost, I believe we have to rid ourselves of the "sensitive places" doctrine that is beginning to take hold in the various district courts, nationwide.

Utah has already done this. There is a proposal in Texas to do this. I'm merely trying to get Idaho to jump on the wagon.

All That Aside, it may still come down to case law.

[Al Norris]

As suspected, here's the reply to the complaint. Standard stuff.

I expect Aaron to reply with an MSJ. Due in 15 days, I think.... Gotta go read the Idaho Rules for Civil Procedure.........

[Al Norris]

Most of the response will be extremely easy to counter. But did anyone catch this?

1. In answer to Paragraph 1, Defendants admit the first two sentences of said Paragraph 1, and admit that Plaintiff Tribble currently holds a license from the University of Idaho ("University") to occupy a single family student residential unit in the South Hill Vista family housing area pursuant to an Apartment/Family Housing Agreement, and that he may continue to occupy the unit only so long as he maintains his status as a student of the University and complies with the terms of the license agreement.

6. In answer to Paragraph 6, Defendants admit that they actively enforce the University's policies with respect to possession of firearms on the University's campuses, Including in University-owned student residences.

17. In answer to Paragraph 17, Defendants admit that a student's breach of the University of Idaho Apartment/Family Housing Agreement may result in termination of the student's license and removal of the student from the licensed premises . . .

I found it interesting that the Board attempts to [mis]characterize Aarons home as something other than a home in order not to fall under Heller. Sorry guys, your home is a home, even if rented or leased. Terming a "Housing Agreement" as a license does not get you out of that!

[Longdayjake]

The answer contains arguments that would not pass the "smirk" test. This test is basically what we learn in law school to be arguments that you can't read them or write them without smirking at the lameness of the argument. Seriously though, how can one try to claim that a place where someone lives is not a home?

[Kleinzeit]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can see how some places where people live might be considered exceptions. I assume that someone enduring an extended stay in hospital cannot claim that the hospital is their residence and keep a firearm there, even though they may in fact have resided there for years. I can see that a university might want to consider its on-campus accommodation as somehow different in nature from regular, off-campus, private accommodation.

Not saying that they are right. But I'm not sure that we would want to do away altogether with the idea that some places are "sensitive areas" etc.

[Al Norris]

With few exceptions, a hospital is a self-enclosed structure, not even offering the convenience of an apartment - individual privacy, as in locked doors. So this example does not rise to the test of a home.

Want to try again, Kleinzeit?

[Gary L. Griffiths]

a hospital is a self-enclosed structure, not even offering the convenience of an apartment - individual privacy, as in locked doors.

Well, a prison is an apartment structure housing many individuals, and has locked doors in abundance. So should we apply Heller to the state prison?

[teeroux]

So should we apply Heller to the state prison?

Prisons house convicted fellons which cannot legaly own a firearm anyway.

A hospital is not a place of residence. Nursing homes could be argued to also house folks who would not normaly be allowed to own firearms.(those that suffer from mental illness)