TexasCHLforum.com

I just read all 40 or so pages of the plaintiffs request and the AG's response. I've never read 40 pages of any legal jargon, and I think that the AG opinion is a pretty hard slap. I think it goes without saying, this thing should get tossed.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I just read all 40 or so pages of the plaintiffs request and the AG's response. I've never read 40 pages of any legal jargon, and I think that the AG opinion is a pretty hard slap. I think it goes without saying, this thing should get tossed.

You have a stronger stomach than me, my friend. I read all of the AG's response and loved it. I got about halfway through the second page of the plaintiff's complaint and threw up in my mouth a little bit. I couldn't take it. I'm assuming it didn't get better after that point?

LucasMcCain wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:I just read all 40 or so pages of the plaintiffs request and the AG's response. I've never read 40 pages of any legal jargon, and I think that the AG opinion is a pretty hard slap. I think it goes without saying, this thing should get tossed.

You have a stronger stomach than me, my friend. I read all of the AG's response and loved it. I got about halfway through the second page of the plaintiff's complaint and threw up in my mouth a little bit. I couldn't take it. I'm assuming it didn't get better after that point?

You assume correctly. The AG response is even better formatted, and had better grammar.

TexasJohnBoy wrote: The AG response is even better formatted, and had better grammar.

That's actually really sad. I believe all three professors are English professors of one kind or another.

LucasMcCain wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote: The AG response is even better formatted, and had better grammar.

That's actually really sad. I believe all three professors are English professors of one kind or another.

I doubt the "professors" had little if anything to do with writing the brief, not that I think they aren't capable of shoddy work.

There are three lawyers who signed it, this is on them. I assume the one listed first is probably the lead and did the writing -- he says he specializes in First Amendment issues.

Austin TV News ... (Forgot if Fox 7Austin or KXAN 36 but Live Feed video tonight's News of GunFree UT protest of about 20 people in their orange shirts and megaphone, saying 9 people (out of what? 40,000) decided NOT to attend UT because of illogical fears of Law Abiding Citizens ... or something like that

http://kxan.com/2016/08/04/ut-professor ... lassrooms/

This can't be good. Not only did the judge hearing the case not laugh it out of court like he should have, he actually lauded the plaintiffs.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/04 ... challenge/

"It goes without saying that this is an interesting case," said U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel. "Both sides, I thought, did an exceptional job."

Appointed by Bush, btw.

I got some bad vibes this afternoon when I read that Yeakel was the judge hearing this.

So there is armed security with metal detectors at every building entrance to UT, I presume? How are professors keeping illegal guns out of their classroom currently so they can teach without fear?

Some notes from the court hearing:

1. 1st Amendment individual right to academic freedom: not clear which way the judge was leaning. The case law on this is plainly against the plaintiffs. There is no Supreme Court case saying there is such a right and there are decisions from 4-5 other Circuits that say there isn't. So unless the judge personally believes there is such a right and is willing to risk being overturned by the 5th Circuit, I'm guessing he will probably rule against the plaintiffs on this argument.

2. Equal protection: it sounded like the judge was not buying this claim from the plaintiffs. The judge pointed out that there is a rational reason for allowing guns in classrooms but not at sporting events (alcohol is served there). The plaintiff attorney dishonestly countered with "there could be students in class drinking" (sure, theoretically, but they would be violating UT's policies if they were to drink in class). The UT attorney talked about how there was a lengthy process at UT with a committee that decided on the specific gun exclusion zones and that the committee report lays out all the rational / non-arbitrary reasons why guns are excluded from some places and not from other places. These decisions weren't just made willy nilly as the plaintiffs pretend.

3. Vagueness: this was a new claim that the plaintiffs introduced at the court hearing today (it was not argued in the previously filed briefings). Basically their argument is that it's not clear that if faculty were to ban guns in classrooms if they would be subject to disciplinary action or not. The UT attorney said they would be subject to disciplinary action but she was not prepared to speak to how exactly that process works and how it ties into the campus carry policy passed by UT. Since neither party was actually ready to dive into the details in the hearing it will be argued by both parties in paper briefs early next week.

For those who are not familiar with vagueness claims:

If a law or policy is not clear to the people who have to follow it, it can be struck down because it's vague. For instance, a gun control law in California was struck down a few years ago because it purported to apply only to handgun and not rifle ammo but it didn't really define them so a reasonable person would actually know what is handgun ammo vs rifle ammo.

One interesting possible outcome:

If the judge grants an injunction against UT's policy because of vagueness but leaves the state law intact, does that mean that until they pass a new policy students could carry anywhere on campus that is not prohibited by state law, including classrooms? Sure, professors could say "no armed students allowed in my classroom" but those would just be words with no legal backing (no different from "only vegans allowed in my classroom"). The professors just wouldn't be subject to disciplinary action for uttering those words until a new non-vague policy gets passed.

"What we are asking for is a time out so that we can take enough time for a full-blown trial in these issues," said attorney R. James George Sr. "Don't risk something tragic happening because we don't want to wait 60 days to have a trial."

This is insane! You've had over a year! The people with licenses are not the issue! Quit insulting us by insinuating that we are dangerous people!

v7a wrote:Some notes from the court hearing:

...

Thanks! I got a lot more out of that than I did the newspaper article.

Scott Farkus wrote:This can't be good. Not only did the judge hearing the case not laugh it out of court like he should have, he actually lauded the plaintiffs.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/04 ... challenge/

"It goes without saying that this is an interesting case," said U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel. "Both sides, I thought, did an exceptional job."

Appointed by Bush, btw.

Don't fret about that. Judges frequently say that, sometimes even when one or both sides have put on a complete clown show. Actually, now that I think about it, it might be more commonly heard when one side has been a clown show.

As Churchill said, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." I think it was a different context, of course.

When the clown show side goes to lunch after the hearing and starts berating their lawyer(s) for the clown show, the lawyers can recall that expression of "approval" from the judge, and may not have to pick up the tab.

JALLEN wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:This can't be good. Not only did the judge hearing the case not laugh it out of court like he should have, he actually lauded the plaintiffs.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/08/04 ... challenge/

"It goes without saying that this is an interesting case," said U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel. "Both sides, I thought, did an exceptional job."

Appointed by Bush, btw.

Don't fret about that. Judges frequently say that, sometimes even when one or both sides have put on a complete clown show. Actually, now that I think about it, it might be more commonly heard when one side has been a clown show.

As Churchill said, "When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite." I think it was a different context, of course.

When the clown show side goes to lunch after the hearing and starts berating their lawyer(s) for the clown show, the lawyers can recall that expression of "approval" from the judge, and may not have to pick up the tab.

I hope you're right.

Had a lot more I wanted to say, but I'll leave it at that.

v7a wrote:Some notes from the court hearing:
One interesting possible outcome:

If the judge grants an injunction against UT's policy because of vagueness but leaves the state law intact, does that mean that until they pass a new policy students could carry anywhere on campus that is not prohibited by state law, including classrooms? Sure, professors could say "no armed students allowed in my classroom" but those would just be words with no legal backing (no different from "only vegans allowed in my classroom"). The professors just wouldn't be subject to disciplinary action for uttering those words until a new non-vague policy gets passed.

I agree with that. If the judge throws out the University of Texas Rules for vagueness then the plaintiffs still lose as they default back to the law which allows students to carry anywhere on campus, subject to other state laws (sporting events, stadiums, etc.).

My gut still tells me that the University of Texas should win this one.