TexasCHLforum.com

techenigma wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

v7a wrote:Preliminary Injunction has been DENIED.

THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!!!! Of course I've seen nothing on the news !!!!

The news won't cover this. They like the headlines only, they never do updates on previous stories.

Sure they will. The ink is barely dry on the order. The news guys are flailing their word processors, getting comments from all the relevant players, measuring the anguish, deciding who will be assigned to audit those professors' courses to see if there are any fireworks, any bleeding to lead with.

Give it a couple hours.

TexasTribune: Judge Denies UT-Austin Professors' Attempt to Block Campus Carry

In an e-mail, Renea Hicks, the lawyer for the professors, said he was "disappointed" by the decision.

"We'll just have to pull together more facts for trial and hope things go smoothly on campus in the meantime," he said. "Sometimes, public policies are so terrible and extreme that it takes the law and courts a little while to catch up."

Plaintiffs are sticking to their delusional "no other state has (ever tried) campus carry" narrative...

v7a wrote:Preliminary Injunction has been DENIED.

JALLEN wrote:

techenigma wrote:

TreyHouston wrote:

v7a wrote:Preliminary Injunction has been DENIED.

THANKS FOR THE UPDATE!!!! Of course I've seen nothing on the news !!!!

The news won't cover this. They like the headlines only, they never do updates on previous stories.

Sure they will. The ink is barely dry on the order. The news guys are flailing their word processors, getting comments from all the relevant players, measuring the anguish, deciding who will be assigned to audit those professors' courses to see if there are any fireworks, any bleeding to lead with.

Give it a couple hours.

Yep, An Austin Station yesterday covered Moov- in day and had Houston parents helping their daughter move in and said they had anxiety over "guns on campus" and also over the girl murdered at UT last year when it was gun-free and they wanted the daughter to stay in Houston, ...Austin stations are really covering this ... Police were interviewed yesterday and talked about their role and spoke to new students and stuff ... There's supposed to be a special "Town hall" in a day or so meeting where someone will blabber a bit so news can cover it ...

Wonderful news!

Ya'll obviously have no sympathy for these three professors, they now must try to teach those controversial topics never knowing if one of the over 21 year old students, fully vetted by the State of Texas, and the, FBI, who proved their proficiency with a handgun, and passed,a,written exam on carry laws and use of force, may suddenly be offended by some socialist manifesto, masquerading as teaching, and start shooting indiscriminately. I'd be surprised if they can even manage to emerge from under their desks to address their first class.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dlh wrote: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.

Do you have any sense from this as to why there wasn't an outright dismissal? It seemed to me as a non-lawyer that the court found no merit in any of the arguments.

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dlh wrote: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.

Do you have any sense from this as to why there wasn't an outright dismissal? It seemed to me as a non-lawyer that the court found no merit in any of the arguments.

The arguments dealt only with the propriety of the requested unjunction.

There is a motion to dismiss still pending.

There could be no outright dismissal today, as the issue before the court was whether to issue a preliminary injunction. No evidence has been received on the merits, beyond the motion on the injunction, so it would be improper and premature to dismiss on the merits now.

The pending motions to dismiss are not on the merits exactly, in the sense of a ruling after taking evidence.

JALLEN wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dlh wrote: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.

Do you have any sense from this as to why there wasn't an outright dismissal? It seemed to me as a non-lawyer that the court found no merit in any of the arguments.

The arguments dealt only with the propriety of the requested unjunction.

There is a motion to dismiss still pending.

There could be no outright dismissal today, as the issue before the court was whether to issue a preliminary injunction. No evidence has been received on the merits, beyond the motion on the injunction, so it would be improper and premature to dismiss on the merits now.

The pending motions to dismiss are not on the merits exactly, in the sense of a ruling after taking evidence.

Ah, of course - blew right past that this was just a ruling on TRO and that the motion to dismiss wasn't part of this.

JALLEN wrote:

Glockster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

dlh wrote: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.

Do you have any sense from this as to why there wasn't an outright dismissal? It seemed to me as a non-lawyer that the court found no merit in any of the arguments.

The arguments dealt only with the propriety of the requested unjunction.

There is a motion to dismiss still pending.

There could be no outright dismissal today, as the issue before the court was whether to issue a preliminary injunction. No evidence has been received on the merits, beyond the motion on the injunction, so it would be improper and premature to dismiss on the merits now.

The pending motions to dismiss are not on the merits exactly, in the sense of a ruling after taking evidence.

Well hopefully motion to dismiss is granted within the next couple weeks. Frankly I wish it was mere minutes but courts.....

I'm not a lawyer and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but my reading of the judges ruling seems to pretty much cover all the points of why the 3 liberal witch doctors will lose this case.

On a related note, (but one that I feel doesn't deserve it's own thread,) the group students against cc, are staging a protest tomorrow at UT Austin. At which, they will be displaying a certain type of lewd object that I'm sure can't be mentioned on this forum. In their minds, openly carrying these objects will somehow demonstrate the "absurdity" [their word] of allowing concealed guns carried to class by LTC holders.

nimravus01 wrote:On a related note, (but one that I feel doesn't deserve it's own thread,) the group students against cc, are staging a protest tomorrow at UT Austin. At which, they will be displaying a certain type of lewd object that I'm sure can't be mentioned on this forum. In their minds, openly carrying these objects will somehow demonstrate the "absurdity" [their word] of allowing concealed guns carried to class by LTC holders.

Maybe they will get more participation than the did last time they "protested" in this manner. I think there were only about 25 "protesters"

I'll bet Mom and Dad are glad to see how their kids are spending their time and extra money.

We are so fortunate that the law banning these sex toys in Texas was eliminated in 2008. They are a true danger to the population and I certainly don't want to see them in the hands of immature college students on campus. Who knows what kind of violence they may lead to. Perhaps there needs to be a size restriction.