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:
Quote:
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.