Idaho Student Sues UI for RKBA

The answer contains arguments that would not pass the "smirk" test. This test is basically what we learn in law school to be arguments that you can't read them or write them without smirking at the lameness of the argument. Seriously though, how can one try to claim that a place where someone lives is not a home?
 
Just playing devil's advocate here, but I can see how some places where people live might be considered exceptions. I assume that someone enduring an extended stay in hospital cannot claim that the hospital is their residence and keep a firearm there, even though they may in fact have resided there for years. I can see that a university might want to consider its on-campus accommodation as somehow different in nature from regular, off-campus, private accommodation.

Not saying that they are right. But I'm not sure that we would want to do away altogether with the idea that some places are "sensitive areas" etc.
 
Last edited:
With few exceptions, a hospital is a self-enclosed structure, not even offering the convenience of an apartment - individual privacy, as in locked doors. So this example does not rise to the test of a home.

Want to try again, Kleinzeit?
 
a hospital is a self-enclosed structure, not even offering the convenience of an apartment - individual privacy, as in locked doors.
Click to expand...

Well, a prison is an apartment structure housing many individuals, and has locked doors in abundance. So should we apply Heller to the state prison?

:D:D:D:D:D
 
So should we apply Heller to the state prison?
Click to expand...

Prisons house convicted fellons which cannot legaly own a firearm anyway.

A hospital is not a place of residence. Nursing homes could be argued to also house folks who would not normaly be allowed to own firearms.(those that suffer from mental illness)
 
Last edited:
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):

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.​
Click to expand...

In addition, 6 new sections of code are to be added. Each deals with the separate educational authorities and are all worded the same:

[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.
Click to expand...

Read the above closely, as it permits possession and carry, but the various boards may regulate or prohibit guns in undergrad housing only.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Attachments

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.
 

Attachments

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).

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Ok, going over this again, just because I'm having a discussion here atwork about this subject. Curious about this:

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.
Click to expand...

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

So Aaron will be required to pay the government despite the statutes in place?
 
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, 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top