Via Nick in the comments.
There are some updates in the University of Idaho gun case here.
If you are in the Moscow area this Wednesday it would help if you could attend the hearing at 9:30 AM at the Latah County Courthouse.
In other news the defendants have filed a response to the plaintiffs motion for judgment and the plaintiff responded to it. Basically the defendants say, “The state is prohibited from banning guns but we can do what we want because we aren’t the state and besides that, you gave up any right to complain when you became a student and signed the lease which said no guns allowed.”
That defense goes over with me about as well if they were prohibiting mix-race marriages. It’s a good thing my blood pressure is naturally low because it spiked a few points when I read their response.
Hi, Joe. Broken record, here.
Somebody needs to make the point that the proscription in the Second Amendment is absolute. It is not lain solely on Congress. The relevant part of the Amendment being: “the right of the people… SHALL NOT be infringed.”
To me this reads as a “Thou shalt not…” directed at all actors — public or private.
Only private property rights can trump the right, which inheres to the individual as though it were his skin.
And, as a public university can in no way be considered private property — both in that it is taxpayer supported and in that it operates as a public accommodation — it can in no way exercise control over the armed state of people occupying space it claims ownership rights over.
M
Unless I’m reading that wrong, the college is saying that since he doesn’t have guns on campus and can’t prove it because you know… he’s obeying the law… then he doesn’t have the right to fight the prohibition?
Thanks for posting Joe! Gun issues are getting hot here in Moscow: