The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 13, 2011, 04:50 PM   #51
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
If successful, how would this translate to a private college?

I ask becasue I am an Iowa concieled cary permit holder but attened classes at a private school. It is basicly the only place I go that I can not carry.

It is not, as far as I can tell, against Iowa law. But it is against school policy. I could probably skirt the policy because they do not have signs posted but I know what the policy is and do not like playing in the gray arias on this kind of thing.

I also feel that it is probably one of the most likely places that I might need to defend myself.

So could a similar type of challenge be used to confront this policy?
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 08:33 PM   #52
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Chaz88, unfortunately your problem is PRIVATE. A private property owner can do whatever they please. No, you either abide their rules, violate their rules very quietly and hope for the best, or find another school that will allow you to carry. (there are some that do you know)
hermannr is offline  
Old October 13, 2011, 09:15 PM   #53
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
unfortunately your problem is PRIVATE. A private property owner can do whatever they please.
That is kind of what I thought the case would be, but it usually does not hurt to ask. Thank you for the response.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 07:49 PM   #54
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 21
Mr Tribble lost out on his case unfortunately...

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/201...-gun-ban-case/
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 09:21 PM   #55
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
I'm waiting for Aaron to post the decision before I make any comments.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 9, 2011, 02:53 PM   #56
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
Aaron has placed the Judges decision up on Google Docs. He highlighted the most glaring errors of the court.

I've only skimmed the decision and will have a breakdown later after work.

In short, this Judge is nutso-cuckoo (a legal term you may not be familiar with).

Tribble v. Regents Decision

But there may be a reason for the way this Judge has rendered his opinion. Back on Nov.12th, the Idaho Reporter, a purported "watchdog" paper, reported the following:

Quote:
Stegner’s new post comes with a $124,000 salary and possible pension payoff

University of Idaho President Duane Nellis announced Friday that Sen. Joe Stegner, R-Lewiston, will leave the Idaho Senate to become the school’s chief lobbyist starting Dec. 1.
Joe Stegner is Judge Stegner's brother. Cronyism is alive and well in Idaho.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 9, 2011, 03:15 PM   #57
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
"It was reasonable for the the Regents to conclude that allowing firearms on University property could disrupt the University's learning environment..."

I don't think so.

How can you come to that conclusion without proof? Oh, its ok...the regents believe that guns can disrupt the learning environment...

That's kind of weird since this is my Alma Mater and I took a marksmanship course on campus in 2001.
Isk is offline  
Old December 9, 2011, 03:46 PM   #58
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 358
The decision reasons that, although it is his "residence," it is not his "home," it is a "government-owned" "housing unit" analogous to a "government building."
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old December 9, 2011, 07:47 PM   #59
Hardcase
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Sunny Southern Idaho
Posts: 1,901
In the Boise paper's web site, there is a pretty significant group of people who are of the opinion that if Aaron signed a contract that said "no guns", then he gave up the right and he's out of luck.

And they don't have a problem with it. I know what they're thinking - it's just guns, it's no big deal; if you want your guns, go rent somewhere else. Obviously the bigger issue of a state-controlled agency requiring someone to surrender a Constitutional right in exchange for renting an apartment (which is not a "home", apparently) doesn't cross their minds. And even when it's stated point-blank, they still don't see it.

I shouldn't get so wound up about the comments section of the newspaper, but I honestly was shocked at how many people thought that the University of Idaho was completely in the right on this.

I suspect that part of the issue may be that a few months ago, a student was murdered by a University of Idaho professor with a gun. Not on campus, but I think that the distinction is lost on most. It was a very nasty situation and is still getting quite a bit of media play in the state.

I guess that part of the local ambivalence has to do with the timing of the shooting and the lawsuit. Nonetheless, does that mean that rationality has to go out the window?

(mini rant off.)
__________________
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 December 9, 2011, 08:52 PM   #60
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
Oh No, Hardcase. The Rant Has Just Started!

About the Judge and his brother. The probability that some impropriety exists is extremely high. But proving it may be a hopeless task. This decision juxtaposed against the Reporter article, conflict of interest might be inferred, but is by no means guaranteed.

This decision is riddled with so many errors, it's hard to know where to start.

Aaron's home isn't a home as envisioned by the Supreme Court. It is leased property. He has no possessory interest whatsoever. The building wherein he resides is on school property and the school is a sensitive place. Since the Regents operate as a State agency, the building is therefore a government building. Therefore, these all fall within Heller's presumptively lawful exceptions, and the right Aaron seeks is well outside the core.

Aaron isn't substantially burdened. He could as easily chosen to live off campus by renting or leasing any number of other houses or apartments. Should we note that any rental agreement or lease would contain the same restrictions? As in no possessory interest, and therefore not a home as "envisioned" by Heller?

There is of course, the Nordyke opinion, where heightened scrutiny will only occur if the right is substantially burdened. And the part where the Nordyke panel said that a government does not have to provide a place to exercise ones fundamental rights, is played by the Judge.

Since Aaron could have chosen to live off campus, since the government does not have to provide a place to exercise any fundamental right, nothing is burdened. Since the Regents are only regulating (not once does this Judge use the word, "ban") arms, which the Judge deems appropriate according to his interpretation of In re Brickey (see footnote 3 on page 17 - the only reference to the precedent), their interests in maintaining public safety is substantially related to the regulation (note the word, again) and therefore meets the burdens of intermediate scrutiny.

It's extremely perplexing that this Judge sees a complete ban as mere regulation. His view is in complete disagreement with prevailing case law.

The above is disjointed and does not in any sense convey the totality of this courts errors. Quite frankly, after reading the decision again, I find myself angered beyond measure. This so-called Judge has literally taken damn near everything he quoted out of context.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 10, 2011, 10:05 AM   #61
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 358
In my opinion, "sensitive places" and the assumptions that the presence of firearms = danger and the absence of firearms = safety are our two biggest enemies.

If a government owned/controlled place is so "sensitive," then they need to provide screening of everyone who enters and active protection (like in a courhouse or airport). In other words, if a government facility chooses to deny your ability to excercise your right to protect yourself because the place is so "sensitive," then they need to actively provide protection for you. Posting of "no guns" signs and written policies are not actual protection.

In this decision, as is so often done in today's culture without a second thought, it is assumed that the presence of children -- our most precious and vulnerable responsibility -- is a reason to deny the adults in charge of protecting them the means to do so. It just makes no sense. But if you try to question their flawed logic, you just get a blank stare in return. [Where is the head banging against the wall smilie when you need it?]
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old December 10, 2011, 10:14 AM   #62
WeedWacker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,529
Quote:
[Where is the head banging against the wall smilie when you need it?]


__________________
- Weed
Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation.
9mm vs 45 ACP? The answer is 42.
WeedWacker is offline  
Old December 10, 2011, 06:30 PM   #63
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
So Al, is Aaron going to appeal? Or should I say, when is...file appeal.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 10, 2011, 10:06 PM   #64
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
Yes. He said he was definitely going to appeal. He's got 45 days to iron out a strategy... One he thought he didn't need.

Even I thought Idaho case law made this a non-starter.

How the Judge gets from here (FN3),

Quote:
The Idaho Supreme Court interpreted the pre-amendment Article I, sec. 11, to mean that "the legislature may . . . regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it."
to the idea that a ban is a regulation of the exercise, is beyond any sane persons knowledge. Hell the rest of the footnote makes no sense at all, with respect to this case. I haven't the foggiest idea of why it was included. It proves absolutely nothing.

The only real thing I can say is that this Judge may have just wanted this case to go away, until after his brother got his job with the University.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 11, 2011, 01:14 PM   #65
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
This decision presents a real danger here, to Idahoans, if this Judges decision is left to stand. As we have seen in other cases, it will be used against us, elsewhere.

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 (both legislatively and in our courts), 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).

A said above, this decision, should it stand, will be used by other courts, against all of our interests. Not just those of Idaho.

Last edited by Al Norris; December 11, 2011 at 03:01 PM. Reason: highlighting and added qualification
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 11, 2011, 02:39 PM   #66
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,406
What scares me (and endangers our freedoms) most is that people like this can be appointed or elected as judges in the first place. In many ways, the judges that produce these rulings are the down-river flood waters. We have to fix the dam before we can stop the flood....
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is online now  
Old December 26, 2011, 09:22 AM   #67
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
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. They are suing for $61,118.00 for defending themselves.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 26, 2011, 01:55 PM   #68
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
Blind arrogence...they didn't even wait for the appeal to be heard. You think they expect Aaron is just going to go away?

From my one go around in court I did learn one thing. At least the judge we were dealing with, he really did not like awarding fees to the prevailing party, but if the looser had asked for attorney fees in his initial filing, he would auomatically reciprocate...

Maybe it is a good thing the university wants its defence costs.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 26, 2011, 02:25 PM   #69
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
By suing for costs now, while a pretty standard practice, it is nothing less than a State agency using its nearly unlimited purse strings to intimidate the plaintiff to not appeal and make the costs higher. This assumes that the Regents will win on appeal.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 26, 2011, 02:34 PM   #70
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,131
Can he bring up the alleged bribe during the appeal? Maybe call the judge to testify about his brother's shiny new job?
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 27, 2011, 04:50 PM   #71
tighty whitey
Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Location: Florida, near the mouse
Posts: 76
Just discovered this thread

I'm really interested in this case. I find the costs and attorney's fees demanded to be outrageous, especially for Idaho.
__________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. ~ Groucho Marx
tighty whitey is offline  
Old December 31, 2011, 01:50 PM   #72
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
One other thing I learned in the one case where I was sued, and we prevailed in our defence...Just because the judge grants your costs, does not mean you can collect them.

And just where does UI think a college student in student housing is going to come up with $64K? As my dad said once, "you can not get blood out of a turnip"

I hope he appeals and wins, then asks for the same exact rate that UI is asking. I don't know how he could loose, but as our lawyer said to us once..."it does not matter what the outcome is, the only winners are the lawyers..."
hermannr is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 01:36 PM   #73
tighty whitey
Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Location: Florida, near the mouse
Posts: 76
Any Update?

Am I correct in assuming that no appeal was filed? Any news? Thanks,
__________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. ~ Groucho Marx
tighty whitey is offline  
Old January 19, 2012, 03:21 PM   #74
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
From the Docket:

Quote:
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
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
01/12/2012 Defendant's Response to Plf Motion to Disallow Costs
01/17/2012 Reply in Support of Motion to Disallow Costs
01/17/2012 Affidavit of Aaron Tribble in Support of Plaintiff's Reply
As you can see, Aaron is fighting the "costs" of the lawsuit (UI Regents have claimed $61K against Aaron) and has filed a Notice of Appeal directly to the Idaho Supreme Court.

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.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 27, 2012, 02:59 PM   #75
tighty whitey
Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2009
Location: Florida, near the mouse
Posts: 76
Thanks for the Update

I think that the motion to disallow a recovery of attorneys fees is strong. I suspect that a briefing schedule is either in place or in the works. I hope that the Circuit Court can right this wrong, that's what they're there for. Peace, g.
__________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. ~ Groucho Marx
tighty whitey 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 05:40 PM.


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 0.13750 seconds with 8 queries