Idaho Student Sues UI for RKBA

[Al Norris]

I hope that the Circuit Court can right this wrong, that's what they're there for.

Correction: This is a State action. Aaron has appealed directly to the Idaho Supreme Court.

As it stands, Judge Stegner agreed with Tribble's argument and disallowed all monetary claims from the University of Idaho. That's a big win for Aaron.

[hermannr]

Wow, that is a big win. Hope his appeal works too. Aaron is going to be a good gun rights lawyer don't you think?

[tighty whitey]

Why was I thinking this was in Federal court? Thanks for catching my error. So, I hope that the Idaho Supreme Court can right this wrong.

[tighty whitey]

I'm curious if the parties were ordered to appellate court mediation? Has an Initial Brief been filed yet?

[Al Norris]

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:

1. STANDARD OF REVIEW
2. IDAHO CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I § 11 GUARANTEES MR. TRIBBLE’S RIGHT TO POSSESS FIREARMS IN HIS HOME
   1. The authority to abridge the right to keep and bear arms in Idaho is limited to regulation
   2. The 1978 amendment to Art. I § 11 restricts regulation of the right
   3. Under Idaho’s strict scrutiny of fundamental rights, the Regents’ policies do not employ the least restrictive means
3. THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ALSO GUARANTEES MR. TRIBBLE’S RIGHT
   1. Under Heller, infringment of the right to keep arms in the home for self-defense is impermissible under any standard of scrutiny
   2. “Sensitive Places” jurisprudence shows the home to be the most
      protected place
   3. A plain reading of the Heller exception shows that it does not apply to the home
   4. Even under Intermediate Scrutiny, the Regents’ policies fail to have any substantial relationship to safety
4. THE DEFENDANTS ARE VIOLATING STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS
   1. 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
   2. Because their ultra vires prohibition of firearms in his home, the Regents are in violation of I.C. § 18-3302J(2)
5. MR. TRIBBLE CAN NOT AND DID NOT WAIVE HIS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO KEEP FIREARMS IN HIS HOME FOR SELF DEFENSE
   1. The plain language of the housing contract does not create a waiver
   2. In Idaho, the Right to Self Defense is inalienable
   3. Any contract term that regulates firearms is a violation of I.C. 18-3302J(2) and is therefore void
   4. The Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine voids any term that infringes on Mr. Tribble’s right to keep firearms in his home for self-defense
   5. Mr Tribble did not waive his rights by signing the contracts
   CONCLUSION

What issues under the law judgment is Aaron appealing?

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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.

[raimius]

Yeah, it seems pretty clear cut, in light of Heller and McDonald. Self-defense in the home has been explicitly protected.

[hermannr]

under "in re Brickley" (1902) the Idaho State Supreme Court has already ruled that a local government cannot ban possession.

[Al Norris]

I seem to be falling behind. sigh.

Back on July 19th, the NRA filed a Motion to file an amicus brief and a Motion to participate in the orals. The amicus brief was attached to the motion as appendix A.

The file has been uploaded to Google Docs and is here. It's a scanned copy and is 12MB in size, so it cannot be uploaded to the site. You can read the brief there or download a copy for your own reference from Google Docs.

In its introductory statements, the NRA opines:

The district court's judgment should be reversed. As we demonstrate below, Article I, section 11 plainly and categorically entitles Tribble, a mature, law-abiding citizen, to possess a lawful firearm for self-defense in his own home. That is the end of the matter, and that is all the Court needs to decide to resolve this case. It is unnecessary in this "as applied" challenge, for example, to address whether Article I, section 11 entitles Tribble or any other student to possess a firearm anywhere else on the University campus. And because application of Arlicle I, section 1l independently suffices to resolve this case, it is also unnecessary to address Tribble's challenge under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

.....

The NRA has a strong interest in this case because the district court's decision presents a grave threat to the rights of NRA members and other citizens of Idaho by upholding policies of the University of Idaho that prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from possessing firearms in their own place of residence simply because their residence happens to be owned by the University and is located on the University's campus. If affirmed by this Court, this holding and the legal principles it adopts could jeopardize the rights not only of citizens living on University campuses, but also of citizens living in any type of government-owned housing anywhere in the State.

What follows thereafter, is a "fleshing out" of the argument.

Earlier, in this thread, I posted what I thought were the errors of the district Judge. Although Aaron covered some of those errors, the NRA covers many of the rest. Including that the Idaho Supreme Court need not reach to the Federal question, but merely find in favor of Mr. Tribble on Idaho Constitutional grounds alone. This because Article I, section 11 provides more protections than does the Federal Constitution.

[Gunnut17]

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

What do you mean by school, like Elementary?