Second Amendment Case: Law Student Sues Idaho University to Keep Guns

18-3302J(5)(c): The authority of the board of regents of the university of Idaho, the boards of trustees of the state colleges and universities, the board of professional-technical education and the boards of trustees of each of the community colleges established under chapter 21, title 33, Idaho Code, to regulate in matters relating to firearms.​

While it is, undoubtedly, within the power of the legislature to prohibit the carrying of concealed deadly weapons, and such regulation is a proper exercise of police power, yet the legislature does not possess the power to prohibit the carrying of firearms, as the right to do so is guaranteed to the citizen both by our federal and state constitutions.​

A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state. But the statute in question does not prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed, which is of itself a pernicious practice, but prohibits the carrying of them in any manner in cities, towns, and villages. We are compelled to hold this statute void.​

Dear xxxx,

In 2008, the Senate offered S-1441. This bill was designed to place the legislature as wholly occupying the field of firearms regulation. The bill repealed 18-872 and 50-343 and consolidated those authorities in a new section, 18-3302J. During the passage of this bill, the Regents of the University of Idaho raised a big stink, and an exception was carved out. 18-3302J(5)(c) is that exception. The bill was passed and signed into law.

That same year, the decision of the Supreme Court of the U.S. was delivered in District of Columbia v. Heller (Heller, June 2008), in which the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment to the Constitution was an individual right, irrespective of any militia duty, and that its core meaning was a right for individuals to keep and bear arms for self-defense of themselves and/or their family, particularly at home, where the need is arguably the greatest.

A scant two years later (June 2010), in the case of McDonald v. Chicago (McDonald), the Supreme Court again took up the second amendment and ruled that the right was incorporated by the 14th amendments Substantial Due Process clause, as against the States and local governments.

As of today, there have been 39 civil rights cases filed nationwide, since the McDonald decision was delivered. This litigation has been designed to define the contours of that right. Most of the litigation is a concerted effort by both the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and some few other pro-gunrights organizations. Idaho is now included in this litigation.

On 01-18-2011, a 36 year old student at UI, filed a lawsuit against the Regents (CV-2011-0000069, Idaho 2nd District, Latah), seeking to change its policy of banning firearms from University property. In specific, this student (a 2nd year law student, married with 2 children and living in married housing) seeks to be able to possess his handgun in the apartment for defense of self and family. He is not seeking to carry on campus.

With this background, we come to the purpose of this writing.

It would be in the best interests of the State, to amend 18-3302J(5)(c) to permit students who have passed the State and Federal background checks to obtain a Idaho Concealed Weapons Permit, the ability to keep their firearms in their abodes.

This would most likely moot the case at bar. It is within keeping of the decision in 1902 of In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597, which decision has been the binding court decision on all legislative acts as regards firearms.

I know that this may seem trivial in light of everything the legislature has on its plate. Yet to fail to do something now, may require the Idaho and/or Federal courts to impose even more upon the universities and colleges. Consider the wording of Brickey:


Aaron Tribble, the plaintiff in the above case, is currently waiting for a reply by the Regents (due on Feb. 11). Should the Regents reply with a Motion to Dismiss, Aaron will undoubtedly reference this decision. Since the legislature has no power to disarm its citizens, such authority cannot be passed to an agency created by that legislature. The Court would have no recourse but to strike down whatever policies the universities may have, that interferes with the right as defined by Brickey.

Thank you for any consideration of this matter.

Al Norris​