January 25, 2011 in Idaho

Idaho law student sues university over firearms

Associated Press

MOSCOW, Idaho — A law student at the University of Idaho has filed a lawsuit challenging the school’s rules that prohibit him from storing firearms in his on-campus apartment.

Aaron Tribble, 36, contends the university’s policy is unconstitutional and last week filed a civil suit in Idaho’s 2nd District Court.

The university bans firearms on campus, but students are allowed to store and check out their guns at a police substation on the Moscow campus in North Idaho.

Tribble, a second-year law student who lives in campus housing designated for students who are married or have children, wants to store his guns in his apartment.

Tribble claims the university is exercising power it doesn’t have over the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. In an effort to keep his legal case streamlined, he is asking a judge to block the university from enforcing the weapons rule in his apartment complex only.

“Once you dig into it, you really discover that there’s just too many issues to have to argue when it comes to possession of guns anywhere on campus or in other residence halls or dorms,” he told the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.

University spokeswoman Joni Kirk confirmed Monday that the university had received a copy of the lawsuit and was reviewing the complaint.

Judge John Stegner has scheduled an initial court hearing in the case for July 20.

Tribble said he intends to act as his own attorney in the case.

He is not the first student to challenge the legitimacy of the university’s rules for firearms.

Al Baker, a third-year UI law student and the Idaho director of the Students for Concealed Carry organization, has been working to overturn campus bans. He said he supports Tribble’s efforts to fight rules targeting on-campus family housing.

“The simple fact that this would be a non-issue if the Tribble family happened to live in an apartment across the street illustrates how naive the university policy really is, especially considering that criminals have no regard for policies like the one at issue here,” Baker said.

38 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

maria on January 25 at 9:28 a.m.
Why doesn’t he just MOVE OFF CAMPUS?
Theopyre on January 25 at 9:37 a.m.
It’s probably also unconstitutional to prohibit guns on public elementary, middle, and high school campuses. Better sue the states for that too.
JMSalinger on January 25 at 9:47 a.m.
It’s about time someone has the chutzpa to do this.
johnclarke on January 25 at 9:47 a.m.
In the absence of meaningful gun control, creating “weapon free zones” achieves nothing except defenseless targets. I would prefer better training and education before allowing licensed carry.
dkerns on January 25 at 9:47 a.m.
In light of recent SC rulings, what authority can the university show to justify the policy?
That’s all the guy is asking.
I hope he wins, and he should.
hawken on January 25 at 9:52 a.m.
Cudos to the law student as he experiences the anti-second amendment crowd.
His apartment is his home and should be secure from anti-constitutional prohibitions,,,, not to mention unreasonable search and seizure by government entities.
Not to mention the fact that he is legally and legitimately authorized by law, to have a concealed weapons permit, according to this article.
So what’s the beef in him legally possessing a firearm in his home? Rhetorical question.
maria on January 25 at 9:54 a.m.
Theopyre: I’m thinking my six-year-old grandson otta be able to pack a loaded gun in his lunchbox. What could possibly go wrong?
This 36 year-old law student probably signed an agreement that he would not keep guns on campus when he moved in. Rules are rules. Sounds like he’s just looking for a way to sue the school to finance his education and rent.
hawken on January 25 at 9:55 a.m.
Of course, “meaningful gun control” has a different definition from the left than the U.S. Supreme Court, the state of WA and ID as evinced by their respective, requirements to be issued a concealed weapons permit. Which this young man has met.
maria on January 25 at 9:59 a.m.
hawken, he’s 36 years old. He’s not a “young man”. He’s middle-age.
hawken on January 25 at 10:01 a.m.
Maria…. I’ll give you that point…. only makes my point more relevant.
maria on January 25 at 10:07 a.m.
hawken, do you think the students living in dorms on campus should be able to keep loaded guns under their beds? They pay for those dorm rooms, too. 36 year-olds should understand rules.
pjc on January 25 at 10:11 a.m.
A 6 year old is different from a 36 year old - surely one can understand that distinction. A university is different from an elementary school or a high school. Children are treated differently by the law than adults.
maria -I suppose he could move off campus; however, one shouldn’t have to give up all constitutional rights when you pay your rent to the state as your landlord. It would be just as terrible if the U of I prohibited one from reading the NYTs or the Spokesman Review as a condition of renting. Additionally, this housing (those for the married students who have children) is a lot different than the regular dorms. These are more like apartments.
hawken on January 25 at 10:13 a.m.
Maria…. I think the U.S. Constitution is the supreme rule, upheld by the states of Idaho and Washington.
Anyone who meets those legal standards, along with a background investigation by the FBI as required by those whom are given a concealed weapons permit, are legally authorized to possess a concealed weapon. The fact is, that I can have a weapon in my home without a concealed carry permit. Which is the topic at hand.
It’s only the Constitution that protects our individual rights from the left.
opiemuyo on January 25 at 10:13 a.m.
Finally someone standing up for his rights!
Really, six year old with a gun? Work on it. Gun free zones only apply to persons who follow the rules. (sheep)
Theopyre on January 25 at 10:14 a.m.
I dunno, I don’t necessarily think that he’s got a bad case, if only because UI is a public university (although he did probably sign an agreement waving his right in order to live in the on-campus housing). Still, I ask the same thing as maria did in her first post: why doesn’t he just move across the street?
Theopyre on January 25 at 10:17 a.m.
Regarding the elementary school thing, it was mostly a joke. And of course kids can’t have guns, but those are gun-free zones for adults too.
hawken on January 25 at 10:18 a.m.
Gun free zones don’t apply to one’s home.
eagleproducer on January 25 at 10:23 a.m.
The campus housing isn’t his home. It’s owned by the state of Idaho and states can restrict guns on their property. That is the common law precedent that will rule. In addition, he signed a lease that has the prohibition clearly identified and is an enforceable contract. He voluntarily gave up his rights to keep his guns in his place of domicile. A private property owner can legally make similar agreed upon provisions and restrictions to renters.
Theopyre on January 25 at 10:24 a.m.
Maybe not. Still, he knew that to be a rule when he decided to make a gun-free zone his home. You don’t sign up for a track team and then complain when they demand that you run.
reservedparking on January 25 at 10:26 a.m.
Class project?
maria on January 25 at 10:26 a.m.
If they are going to make it okay for one student to keep a gun on campus, then they must make it okay for all students to keep guns regardless of housing situations. My grandchildren will not go to college there if it comes to that. I’d rather send them to BYU. Plus, why did U of I let the mule-cloning research program die? They were on the cusp of curing prostate cancer in humans with that research. Instead of being recognized world-wide for it’s brilliant staff, U of I would rather cow-tow to north-central Idaho gun nuts and their egos.
R.I.P. U of I
http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/greener.htm
Theopyre on January 25 at 10:31 a.m.
I suppose if high schools have archery in PE class, why not range shooting?
Actually, that could be kind of cool. Imagine proposing that to parents…
hawken on January 25 at 10:54 a.m.
A rental house is owned by the landlord….. The constitution is not checked at the door.
maria on January 25 at 10:58 a.m.
hawken, remind me never to rent to you.
eagleproducer on January 25 at 11:14 a.m.
A private property owner can make mutually agreed upon provisions in leases/rental agreements that prohibit tenants from possessing firearms on the premises. It’s no different from saying you can’t have a waterbed or pets.
Do you dispute that, Hawken?
polly on January 25 at 11:21 a.m.
Feh. Law students. I’ve never seen the law student in my building not high as a kite. Makes a person wonder what the law is coming to. That kid rented that apartment knowing he had to check his gun at the substation. He’s probably lucky that the police offer that service to students. How come you can’t take a gun into the courthouse? It’s your right, after all. You can’t take one on a plane either. Maybe we should take all sorts of places to court for our right to bear arms everywhere. Or not. My arms can stay in my closet.
IRun on January 25 at 11:31 a.m.
@Hawken… I think you need to read up on Constitutional Law. In this case, the landlord is the University. In addition, the State of Idaho does not have a law in place that bans the limitation of gun rights in leases. Some States do but Idaho does not. As such, the University has just as much right to restrict guns and other weapons in its campus housing as you or I restricting it from potential housing tenants. The student was well aware of these restrictions: http://www.uidaho.edu/universityhousing/communities/Important%20Documents This is a link to the housing agreements that all students must sign and it explicity states that guns are not allowed. His housing is owned by the University and as being the landlord (whom the student entered into a signed agreement with) can determine what is and isn’t allowed into their facilities.
hawken on January 25 at 11:34 a.m.
Thus,,, the reason for his law suit. Time will tell.
maria on January 25 at 11:37 a.m.
Hawken doesn’t like to follow rules, either.
maria on January 25 at 11:39 a.m.
Are you going to sue the Spokesman Review for giving you a time-out last week? Isn’t that a violation of your right to free speech? Rules, schmules….
eagleproducer on January 25 at 12:18 p.m.
Aren’t conservatives always wailing about frivolous lawsuits that clog our judicial system?
Loudin on January 25 at 1:47 p.m.
Real men don’t need guns…they’re a tool of the weak and feeble.
All a real man needs is a mat, a non-conference ref and some headgear (ladies don’t dig cauliflower ears). If you have a problem with another guy, take it out back and settle it like men…settle it via wrestling.
Guns? Pfff…those are for flabby men of weak technique who don’t know how to fight with honor. A gun is like a TV remote: Put your fat little sausage fingers on it, change the channel and all your problems are solved. Well, not really…unlike a gun, you don’t lose a bit of your manhood when you click over from “Pawn Stars” to “Metalocalypse.”
Fists are for warriors, guns are for sissies.
Loudin
PS: I’ve heard Shute has a concealed weapons permit…probably has a little pink .380 he can hide in his purse. I don’t know why he thinks he needs it, other than he’s now 300lbs and makes regular appearances on “The People of Walmart” website. So sad he’s not a champion anymore, like me.
><(((*> on January 25 at 2:18 p.m.
what is with all these nancy’s and their anti gun talk.
vive le constitution!
also,
i think he should move off campus if it’s an issue in sanctioned housing.
but i am all for gun rights. gun ownership. and the shooting range.
johnclarke, agreed! completely.
otherwise, we’d all be as safe as the people in chicago…
spokanecougar on January 25 at 2:21 p.m.
Sorry, when I lived in the dorms in college I signed a lease with the school - my landlord - to live in the dorm stating I cannot have hot plates, dogs, cats, drugs, firearms and I knew that when I moved in. When you sign a lease with a landlord you have to live under their rules written into the contract that you sign, and that includes this dill hole suing the university. If he, or anyone else for that matter, don’t like the contract they sign, then move someplace else that has different rules, not that difficult to understand.
Sounds like this guy is just trying to cash in his 15 minutes of fame after a horrible tragedy where gun rights have come to the forefront of the political discussion.
SpokaneLiberal on January 25 at 4:24 p.m.
The building is school property. Even Scalia said in the recent 2nd Amendment case that prohibitions on guns in “sensitive” areas like schools and government buildings is acceptable in the Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear personal arms. . .
cdspokesreader on January 25 at 4:38 p.m.
I think it comes down to the fact that he signed a lease that clearly stated he was not allowed to have guns on the property. How is that different from landlords saying you can’t have a pet? Just because the landlord is the U of I shouldn’t have an impact on the landlord tenant laws in Idaho. He should know as a law student that he shouldn’t have signed the contract if he wasn’t happy with the provisions of the lease. I don’t supposed this housing is subsidized by the college in any way do you???
Besides instead of all this talk about our right to bear arms… I think we should be arming bears. Those poor guys in Alaska obviously need something to protect them!
greenlibertarian on January 25 at 10:25 p.m.
Certain contract provisions may be deemed “unconscionable”, therefore unenforceable, even when agreed to which is the angle this guy is going for.
Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Generally speaking, to the extent we can legally do so, restricting firearms in the hormone raging, drunken-ness college scene will likely save lives.
You’ve a right to be stupid as well.
New_Improved_Drywitt2000 on January 25 at 10:29 p.m.
“Even Scalia said in the recent 2nd Amendment case that prohibitions on guns in “sensitive” areas like schools and government buildings is acceptable in the Supreme Court interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear personal arms.”
Don’t tell the teabaggers this……or Nino will have to wear body armor to work.