Idaho Student Sues UI for RKBA

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?]
 
[Where is the head banging against the wall smilie when you need it?]
Click to expand...

banghead.gif

banghead.gif

banghead.gif
 
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),

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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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:
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....
 
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.
 
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.
 
Can he bring up the alleged bribe during the appeal? Maybe call the judge to testify about his brother's shiny new job?
 
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.
 
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..."
 
From the Docket:

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
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
Oops!

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.
 
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:

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

What issues under the law judgment is Aaron appealing?

  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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?
  • 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top