Three professors sue UT to keep guns out of their classrooms

[NotRPB]

Three professors sue UT to keep guns out of their classrooms
http://kxan.com/2016/07/06/three-profes ... classroms/

On the air, the news anchorman said "Second Amendment guarantees the right for a Militia to be armed" ... A couple comments below the article noted that error in reading comprehension and history

[jb2012]

I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

[NotRPB]

I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

Agreed

I sent @KXAN_News a tweet to have the anchorman read and learn history instead of the Lib anti-gun propaganda

When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." 34 Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia.
from http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

[goose]

I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

Agreed. I wonder what the basis for their suit is. Won't they have to show harm/standing? I would hope for a crazy long process just to eat up the profs' money. But I suspect that this one will get squashed relatively quickly.

Will be interesting to hear their arguments for how LTC folks are harming them or their classrooms: "These people, that I don't actually know are carrying, are interacting and debating and espousing their views on basket weaving and I am scared of them because they are just like everybody else and I can't tell them apart! How am I supposed to run a classroom where some of the participants have a plastic card practically guaranteeing that they are the least likely to commit a crime? I can't operate in an environment where I know some folks have utterly shunned the criminal lifestyle for clean background checks and the like."

The next round will be college students over 21 (assuming that professors can get birthday info on their students) being interviewed or questioned by professors about carrying. Hopefully, any LTC students would just stare blankly or feign ignorance.

[Jim Beaux]

I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

You can bet the legal fees are being paid by an anti 2a organization.

Same thing happened with Roe Vs Wade. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey was contacted by pro abortion activists. She stated later that the lawyers met with her and only wanted to use her predicament.

The group had been searching for the ideal 'plaintiff'; & she was found to be the ideal candidate. Though 6 mos pregnant she was led to believe that she had time to still get an abortion if she agreed to the scheme. She only signed the necessary documents and as I remember, never even showed up in court. She was nothing more than a body to justify a lawsuit.

A similar tactic was used by gay rights activist in which police where setup to walk in and witness illegal acts.

Thats how the system works.

[LabRat]

You can bet the legal fees are being paid by an anti 2a organization.

--snip--

Agreed. Didn't the Brady Bunch back a suit on an Ammo dealer, then back out leaving the "plaintiffs" in the lurch when they lost the court case?
I seem to recall that is was over the shooting in Aurora.

Let's see how far this one goes. If it's lost, look for the Anti-2A group to abandon their "clients".

That's how their system works.....

LabRat

[Skiprr]

Agreed. I wonder what the basis for their suit is. Won't they have to show harm/standing?

In the Chuckle-of-the-Day, the purported basis of the lawsuit is that this application of the Second Amendment violates the professors' First Amendment rights. I kid you not.

Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom.

I personally don't remember where, in the text of the First Amendment, it specifically mentions "academic freedom." But that's just me. The three professors filing suit are Jennifer Lynn Glass, Mia Carter, and Lisa Moore, BTW.

The second chuckle is that they made particular note, in the lawsuit, of the "irony" that the new campus carry law takes effect on the 50th anniversary of the day Charles Whitman stood atop the tower at UT and killed 14 people. As if that gives their assertions more weight. Never mind, of course, that it was law-abiding non-LEO civilians with guns that stopped Whitman from killing even more, and helped police bring him down.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas ... SKCN0ZN1T0

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/educatio ... rights.ece

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/06 ... pus-carry/

[goose]

Agreed. I wonder what the basis for their suit is. Won't they have to show harm/standing?

In the Chuckle-of-the-Day, the purported basis of the lawsuit is that this application of the Second Amendment violates the professors' First Amendment rights. I kid you not.

Unfortunately, this is why it won't go far. I say unfortunately only because I want lots of anti money being sunk into this. And to take their argument to it's furthest endpoint, we would need to abolish the 2A because the mere existence of firearms anywhere in society would violate their First's rights, using their logic. I want to chuckle but...........they walk among us.

PS, thank you for the links.

[LeonCarr]

One Word:

WHOOP!

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

[dlh]

Federal judges quickly toss frivolous cases these days. I expect that will happen in this case.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Federal judges quickly toss frivolous cases these days. I expect that will happen in this case.

A good judge will dismiss it and impose sanctions on the attorney and the clients.

Chas.

[Soccerdad1995]

First off, the professors do not personally own portions of UT buildings (as far as I know), so the rooms in question are not "their classrooms". The professors are simply employees who are upset at their employer's decisions about what is allowed in the workplace. IANAL, but I would think that the professors would need to show that their employer created a dangerous workplace that harmed them in some way, or violated their employment contracts (if they have such contracts).

Secondly, why are they suing the university which is just complying with state law? Shouldn't they sue the state, or possibly the citizens of the state whose elected representatives passed the laws that they disagree with? If that works, I'll be getting my lawsuits ready for every law that I disagree with and which places me in greater personal danger than I would otherwise be in.

[jb2012]

You can bet the legal fees are being paid by an anti 2a organization.

--snip--

Agreed. Didn't the Brady Bunch back a suit on an Ammo dealer, then back out leaving the "plaintiffs" in the lurch when they lost the court case?
I seem to recall that is was over the shooting in Aurora.

Let's see how far this one goes. If it's lost, look for the Anti-2A group to abandon their "clients".

That's how their system works.....

LabRat

I hope they do back out after they lose the case, and maybe those professors will go broke.

[LabRat]

I hope they do back out after they lose the case, and maybe those professors will go broke.

This.

The Brady Bunch and the Whining Moms are not in this to find facts or truth...it's all about opinion and feelings.
The Aurora folks who got left in the lurch by the Brady Bunch are facing bankruptcy to fund the judgement.....they chose poorly.

I wouldn't mine the profs feelings a large amount of financial pain for their foolhardy decision......choices have consequences.

LabRat

[RogueUSMC]

I think their main hinge in the suit was (according to them) lack of definition as to what was off-limits and what wasn't and that violated their 14th amendment rights. Either way, these three 'professors' didn't do their homework and lacked a proper understanding of the law they were trying to fight...