TexasCHLforum.com

Lynyrd wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:14 pm

J.R.@A&M wrote: ↑Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:39 am An appeal of this case is being heard Wednesday by a panel of judges on the 5th Circuit Ct. of Appeals. http://tpr.org/post/us-5th-circuit-set- ... -carry-law

Renae Hicks, who represents UT Austin sociology professor Jennifer Glass, appealed that ruling to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court.

Just a question. How much does a sociologist make?

My gut tells me that Glass is not paying for this appeal out of her pocket. Think--George Soros, Mother's Demand Action, Bloomberg....etc.

JALLEN wrote:There is a system maintained by the Federal courts for access to all court filed documents, called PACR. You register, give a deposit and they bill monthly. Less than $10 a month, no charge. It gives access to all Federal courts. IIRC, it's 10 cents a page to download. I used to use it all the time before I retired.

It is interesting to note which courts charge and which do not for court-filed documents. The Texas Supreme Court, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, and Texas Appellate Courts do not charge for their opinions or filed briefs to my knowledge. They are freely accessible on-line. Same with the United States Supreme Court. Trial courts appear to be another animal--most appear to charge whether at the federal or state level. Would be nice if none of the courts charged so retired dudes like me on a fixed income can access various documents and study them.

Does anybody have a link to the new Motion to Dismiss that was due by September 12'th?

A few thoughts on the professors' response:

1. They are desperately trying to maintain a frivolous lawsuit that should never have been filed to begin with;

2. They admit to a "fresh take" on their second amendment analysis. LOL....Judges and lawyers know what that means.

3. It is alarming that they want the right to require conceal-carry students to identify themselves to their professors. That is an obvious attempt to chill, intimidate, and coerce students into NOT carrying---think grades. Not all students who attend the University of Texas major in basket-weaving. Many go on to professional schools or jobs after undergraduate study where grades are a significant factor in the selection process. Pompous professors with a bully-pulpit have enough power as it is over a student's grades---now they want to expand that power by learning who is carrying and not carrying.

We can hope Judge Yeakel sees through all the rhetoric and grants the Motion to Dismiss.

Getting back to the lawsuit...

The court's next step is either granting the motion to dismiss outright (we can hope) or having a trial down the road to determine any "legitimate" factual issues raised by the plaintiffs. Stay tuned...

Don't know if this is still good law or not...but.....:)

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pu ... V0.wpd.pdf

The brains of undergrads are filled with mush. If they had taken a logic course they would have known the appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

v7a wrote:Still no decision from the court. Only five business days left before classes start.

Anybody know anything about Judge Yeakel? There is an old saying among lawyers: A good lawyer knows the law...a better lawyer knows the judge.

I would be surprised if the judge granted the temporary injunction. However, I have been surprised before. Injunctions usually involve specific, concrete, and likely threats such as a company using a bulldozer about to destroy your house. We have none of that here. The plaintiffs simply constructed a possible, hypothetical scenario and asked for relief against that.

Regardless, I assume the judge has his own clerks researching and giving him various memorandum on the law in this area so he will have quite a bit of material to work with in reaching his decision.

Nice work on the part of the attorneys for the Attorney General and the University of Texas! Now, let's hope Judge Yeakel dismisses the case out of hand.

I have a strong suspicion an "interest group" (think leftist anti-gun groups--there are several) is paying the attorney's fees incurred by the plaintiffs. Always nice when parties gets a free lawyer (sarcasm).

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.

Hope the case does not go to trial. Would love to see it dismissed on summary judgment.

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