Their failure to establish a likelihood of success is particularly stark.
I love this paragraph.....plainly clear......
"There is only one apparent basis for their fear: Plaintiffs think the adults in their class who
have been licensed by the State to carry handguns state-wide are ticking time-bombs who are likely
to commit acts of violence if they are allowed to carry a handgun in class where they are exposed
to the Professors’ ideas. That is ridiculous."
LabRat
This is not legal advice.
People should be able to perform many functions; for others and for themselves. Specialization is for insects. — Robert Heinlein (Severe paraphrase)
Plaintiffs characterize Heller and McDonald as establishing a ceiling on the Second Amendment, asserting that these cases go “no further than recognition of the right to possession of handguns in the home.” Id. (citing Heller, 554 U.S. 570; McDonald, 561 U.S. 742) (emphasis Plaintiffs’). Instead, these cases established a floor —in regulating areas that implicate Second Amendment rights, States must at least allow individuals to possess useable handguns for self-defense in the home. States that choose to go further are not prohibited from doing so by either Heller or McDonald.
Moreover, as of August 1, the status quo will be that license holders can carry concealed handguns in most classrooms at UT Austin. Plaintiffs wish to disrupt this, calling for an exception to this necessary result of Texas law—just for them—effective August 24. But case law favors preservation of the status quo at the preliminary injunction stage. Indeed, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.” Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). This also counsels in favor of denying Plaintiffs’ request which, if granted, would disrupt the status quo.
Given that most leftist academics are still in denial about 2A being an individual right, I think this was my favorite bit in the AG's brief:
The claim that Plaintiffs’ right to academic freedom has been violated suffers from a threshold problem: Plaintiffs have no individual right to academic freedom, because the right to academic freedom is held by their institution. To be sure, Plaintiffs have First Amendment rights as to their academic research, their out-of-class public statements, and a plethora of other forms of expression. But this case is not about any of that. Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of their right to academic freedom, with a focus on their classroom curriculum and instruction. On those matters, Plaintiffs do not have an individual First Amendment right to academic freedom—their institution, the University of Texas, does.
v7a wrote:Given that most leftist academics are still in denial about 2A being an individual right, I think this was my favorite bit in the AG's brief:
The claim that Plaintiffs’ right to academic freedom has been violated suffers from a threshold problem: Plaintiffs have no individual right to academic freedom, because the right to academic freedom is held by their institution. To be sure, Plaintiffs have First Amendment rights as to their academic research, their out-of-class public statements, and a plethora of other forms of expression. But this case is not about any of that. Plaintiffs have alleged a violation of their right to academic freedom, with a focus on their classroom curriculum and instruction. On those matters, Plaintiffs do not have an individual First Amendment right to academic freedom—their institution, the University of Texas, does.
I would have to say that they letter our AG "wrote" was very well written!!!! I honestly couldn't stop reading it! I don't think these professors have a CHANCE.
With that being said, you know someone was going to challenge the law... I do however believe that one law leads to more. It works both ways. Private schools are next, then all personal business.
I wonder how long it will take for the Judge(s) to decide?
"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." -Chas
TreyHouston wrote:I wonder how long it will take for the Judge(s) to decide?
The PI (preliminary injunction) will most likely be decided (granted or denied) before August 24. The court hearing on the PI is this Thursday and I wouldn't be surprised to see the decision as early as next week (so that the losing party will have an opportunity to appeal to the 5th Circuit before Aug 24). This is just the PI so once that's decided on way or the either, the actual trial will need to be scheduled (Q1 2017?).
TreyHouston wrote:I would have to say that they letter our AG "wrote" was very well written!!!! I honestly couldn't stop reading it! I don't think these professors have a CHANCE.
With that being said, you know someone was going to challenge the law... I do however believe that one law leads to more. It works both ways. Private schools are next, then all personal business.
I wonder how long it will take for the Judge(s) to decide?
I have to agree with you here. This was one enjoyable read (and I don't often say that about legal mumbo-jumbo).
The AG's verbiage was absolutely brutal in its crafting, and powerful in its delivery of the core message.
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.
dlh wrote:Hope the case does not go to trial. Would love to see it dismissed on summary judgment.
No doubt the AG will push for summary judgement. There is no need for a trial in this case, but I'm not familiar with the judge handling the case so not going to make any predictions of likelihood of case being decided on summary judgement.
v7a wrote:Is anyone familiar with the attorneys representing the plaintiffs? It's three different attorneys from three different Austin law firms.
Given how shoddily written their complaint was, I suspect that they are true believers (gun control zealots) who are handling this case pro-bono.
Wow - that is written like a petulant child on a never ending whine. I now know why the AG's response was so brutal. Given the level of horse manure that is piled into the complaint document, a polite response by the AG not was warranted. Rather, the slap-down that he delivered was appropriate.
Your best option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.
When those fail, aim for center mass.
And as enjoyable it was to read this reply it has me looking forward to seeing something equally interesting for whichever local government gets to become the first to trial over 30.06/30.07 signage.
NRA Life Member
My State Rep Hubert won't tell me his position on HB560. How about yours?
Glockster wrote:And as enjoyable it was to read this reply it has me looking forward to seeing something equally interesting for whichever local government gets to become the first to trial over 30.06/30.07 signage.
Malcolm Greenstein
He fashions himself a civil rights lawyer. Apparently some civil rights are more equal than others. He links the recent killing of the Dallas police officers to concealed carry in the class room. University of Texas Professors Fight for Gun-Free Classrooms
Max Renea Hicks:
Remember when the Democratic senators ran away to NM a few years ago? (Holy smokes, more than few, it was like 13). This guy was one of their lawyers. Judging by a quick peek at google results, it appears that he is a favorite hire of the Austin City Council. Attorney comments on professors' campus carry lawsuit
