The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14, 2011, 11:38 PM   #26
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
Quote:
Want to try again, Kleinzeit?
Ha ha... Okay

How about a grounds keeper who lives in a hut in the grounds of an elementary school?

Just playing devil's advocate, remember.
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old March 3, 2011, 08:33 PM   #27
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Submitted today, was H0222. This bill would change the authority of the Idaho colleges, etc. in their regulation of firearms on Campus.

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

Quote:
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:

Quote:
[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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 4, 2011, 01:05 PM   #28
Kleinzeit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 562
So, this will have a direct impact on campus carry? What is the current situation with that in Idaho?
Kleinzeit is offline  
Old March 4, 2011, 02:48 PM   #29
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Currently, firearms are banned on all campuses.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 7, 2011, 08:33 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Here's a newsource on the pending bill : http://www.necn.com/03/03/11/New-bil...ea040effd997f2
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 17, 2011, 11:35 AM   #31
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Yesterday, the 16th of March, House Bill 222 was passed: 41-28-1. It now heads to the Senate.

It's kind of curious. The representatives for my district (Maxine Bell and John "Bert" Stevenson) both voted against the bill. That much was expected, based upon my communications with them. Across the river however, the two representatives there ("Bud" Bedke and Dr. James Wood) both voted for the bill.

Why is that curious? The north side of the Snake River is more "cowboy" and hence more conservative than is the south side. Generally.

There is a news-blog about the bill, here.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 17, 2011, 12:53 PM   #32
Don H
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,705
Al, thanks for keeping us up-to-date on this!
Don H is offline  
Old March 17, 2011, 02:40 PM   #33
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Aaron filed a Motion for Judgment on the 7th and the Opposition has just been entered.

Aaron's memo is a very good read. He even uses some cases I've cited several years ago (in other threads), but I couldn't see how they could be used for him.

The Regents are grasping at straws and stalling, as expected.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Tribble-Memo in Support of MJP.pdf (87.4 KB, 14 views)
File Type: pdf Tribble-Regents-OppMemo.pdf (374.9 KB, 8 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 22, 2011, 09:39 PM   #34
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
On Monday the 21st, Aaron filed his Reply in Support of MJP. I've got to say that Aaron trashes the defendants on their opposition to the MJP.

Tomorrow there will be a hearing on the motion, 9:30am in the Latah County Court.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Repy in Support of MJP.pdf (27.0 KB, 15 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 26, 2011, 10:02 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
The Judge made it a wash, in the hearing for the MJP. Standing was not affected.

Aaron Tribble filed his Second Amended Complaint, all he did was to add two words to the original complaint (filed 04-15-2011).

Quote:
The Plaintiff has added the word “expressly” to paragraph 11 in order to correct a misquote of a statute. The Plaintiff has also added the word “lawfully” to the first paragraph of his prayer for relief to correct an ambiguity.
The Defendants in their First Amended Answer (filed on 04-22-2011), have included an additional affirmative defense and are demanding Attorney fees. Aaron countered with a Motion to Dismiss that claim, with prejudice (filed on 04-25-2011).

This is a good counter move, as Aaron points out that the Idaho Statutes do not allow the Government to charge for defenses on civil complaints in matters of first impression.

Keep in mind that the Regents are not regulating, they are prohibiting the very thing that the Heller Court said can not be done. Nor, as a government entity, can they strip your rights via contract, in order to live in campus housing.

There will be a hearing on this matter on May 9th at 11:00 am.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 28, 2011, 03:41 PM   #36
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
An update to this case:

On 05-11-2011, the Judge denied Aaron's MTD.

On 06-08-2011, the Hearing date for MSJ's was set for 09-12-2011.

On 07-25-2011 (Monday), cross motions for MSJ's were filed by the plaintiff and the Defendants. Opposing briefs are due on Aug. 29th. Reply briefs are due on Sept. 5th.


I hope to have those (MSJ) filings, shortly.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 28, 2011, 11:38 PM   #37
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
FYI, HB 222, the bill that would prevent Idaho public colleges and universities from restricting firearms on campus was never advanced out of the Senate State Affairs Committee. It died without a vote, but I suspect that it will be reintroduced next session.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 04:27 AM   #38
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,530
Ok, going over this again, just because I'm having a discussion here atwork about this subject. Curious about this:

Quote:
Aaron countered with a Motion to Dismiss that claim, with prejudice (filed on 04-25-2011).

This is a good counter move, as Aaron points out that the Idaho Statutes do not allow the Government to charge for defenses on civil complaints in matters of first impression.
Quote:
On 05-11-2011, the Judge denied Aaron's MTD.
So Aaron will be required to pay the government despite the statutes in place?
__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 08:35 AM   #39
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
If he loses his case. Yeah, that's what I took away from this, also.

Currently, I'm waiting for Aaron to post or send me the MSJ briefs.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 19, 2011, 11:17 PM   #40
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Al, as you already know, Just because you ask the court to force the other party to cover expenses, does not mean you will be awarded any...been there done that. (over 10 years ago).still haven't got my money back...even though the court awarded me atturneys fees. (I was a successful defendent)

Anyway, I am not sure I like the idea of leaving "undergraduate" housing in the hands of the regents. I was well over 21 when I finally received my BS.
hermannr is offline  
Old September 21, 2011, 09:26 PM   #41
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Having now read all three of the pleadings, I cannot see how this court will attempt the Second Amendment Two-Step: 1)Define the core of the right; 2) Define the complaining action as being outside the core holding of Heller. The "Only In The Home" mantra, we have heard so often in other cases, cannot survive this particular case.

The fall back position is to declare all University property as a "sensitive" place. Under Idaho statutes, this would seem to be an extreme reach for this court.

Alternatively, the court will have to dance around defining some definition of a "dwelling" and what is defined a "home." We did see this in one other recent case (New York).

In the pleadings (attached), the plaintiff hammers the defendant with In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902), again and again. This is the seminal case in Idaho law that enshrines our right to keep and bear arms as sacrosanct.

I now see why the plaintiff has waited to source this case until now. The University of Idaho and the Board of Regents are the spikes and Brickey is the sledge hammer!

Regardless, should the court go against Aaron Tribble, it should be an easy appeal. The Idaho Constitution, the Federal Constitution, Idaho Statutes and Case law all combine against such a determination. It would become a circus of errors not remotely matched by Chicago in Ezell added to the Judge in Kachalsky.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Tribble-Plaintiff- MSJ.pdf (116.2 KB, 3 views)
File Type: pdf Tribble-Plaintiffs-Opp-Def-MSJ.pdf (58.3 KB, 4 views)
File Type: pdf Tribble-Reply-to-Defendants-Opp-toPlaintiff-MSJ.pdf (89.1 KB, 5 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 02:08 PM   #42
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
As a lawyer and U of I Alumnus, I feel this is a huge waste of University resources. The University should have dropped the issue from the start and just let him have the guns.

The University is grasping at straws to hold on to a policy that has no basis in fact. I'm proud to see this man stand up to that kind of unrelenting bureaucratic BS. It is nice to see a law student get a "hands on" education.

And for those out there that like to rag on lawyers...look what this future lawyer is doing to protect your rights. We're aren't all bad eggs...
Isk is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 02:39 PM   #43
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 7,075
I tried, but I couldn't resist,,,

Quote:
We're aren't all bad eggs...
But as a class,,,
You're such easy targets.

Sorry my friend,,,
I see a lawyer,,,
Jokes happen.

Aarond

P.S. I get most of my lawyer jokes from my lawyer buddies.

.
__________________
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Combat: "A Silent Cry"
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 02:59 PM   #44
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
About 30 years ago, when I was a starving economics student living in Upham Hall in Moscow, a bunch of us had shotguns in our closets because it was nothing to scoot out after class for some pheasant hunting. Do you know who cared? Nobody! I know, I know - times change.

Of course, that's when Mort's was the place to hang out and the Corner Club had cheap beer.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 03:47 PM   #45
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
I just received this reply from Aaron, that clarifies what this "Heller Home" is:

Quote:
Yup, the "Heller Home" thing really took me by suprise too. Basically, the deal is this: they know that my apartment is easily shown to be a home AND if its a home then the maximum protections of Heller apply. So they are trying to essentially parse the definition of "home" in heller by taking the dicta and creating two types of "homes". They want "Heller Homes" and "Non-Heller Homes". A "Heller Home" is a home that is not found in a sensitive place. A "Non-Heller Home" is one that exists in a sensitive place, such as a college campus. Of course, this is all total fiction because they are just trying to blend the holding of Heller with the dicta. Essentially, its their way of twisting the primary thrust of Heller (people have a right to keep and bear arms in their homes) and making it completely useless to anybody. Believe me, the government will always be able to argue that something is a sensitive place if they are able to do it here. If the home is "sensitive" then everything is "sensitive." Bottom line: Heller did not distinguish between types of homes and that's what the Defendants are trying to get the court to do here because its the only way they can survive the home argument.
Al Norris is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 03:56 PM   #46
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,576
I suppose non-Heller type homes have no Fourth Amendment protection either.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 04:32 PM   #47
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,909
Quote:
I suppose non-Heller type homes have no Fourth Amendment protection either.
Indeed, why should they have any Constitutional protections at all? This is the proverbial slippery slope that ought not to be traveled.
__________________
Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop - Gus McCrae
Hardcase is offline  
Old September 22, 2011, 11:08 PM   #48
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Non-Heller "Home" = Incarcerated in the Pen. or the State Mental Hospital.
hermannr is offline  
Old September 23, 2011, 08:13 AM   #49
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Some time last winter, I stumbled across the UI Gun Case FaceBook page and then forgot about it (I have a page, but don't do much with it - My sister ragged me about it until I joined. sigh).

Anyway, Aaron alerted me about this and asked if I would spread it around. He would appreciate you folks going there and "Like" the page so that he can see how much support there is.

So if you do the FaceBook thing, support Aaron by going there and "Liking" the page.
Al Norris is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 03:53 PM   #50
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Yesterday, the MSJ hearing was held.

From the comments section of the Tribble v. Board of Education facbook page, I wrote and asked: "Was anyone there? Did anyone get a "feel" as to how the Judge was leaning?

There was this reply:

Quote:
There were about 40 people in attendance. It's hard to say how the judge was leaning because both sides were asked pointed questions by him. The Defendants were asked the lion's share of those questions so perhaps the judge is being more ...skeptical of the Defendants than he is of the Plaintiff. Given that the judge did articulate the Plaintiff's interpretation of Brickey and Art 1 section 11 when he asked a question of the Defendants, the judge is seemingly leaning towards the Plaintiff on the Idaho Constitutional issue. It's hard to tell where he stands on the federal issue or the waiver defense.
Let's hope that this is a good sign. We will know, when the Judge issues his opinion.
Al Norris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15051 seconds with 8 queries