View Single Post
Old September 21, 2011, 09:26 PM   #41
Al Norris
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,541
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, 4 views)
File Type: pdf Tribble-Plaintiffs-Opp-Def-MSJ.pdf (58.3 KB, 5 views)
File Type: pdf Tribble-Reply-to-Defendants-Opp-toPlaintiff-MSJ.pdf (89.1 KB, 6 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Page generated in 0.05263 seconds with 8 queries