- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Actually, the TRO has probably created standing for court action against the policy, thus saving the protesters both the inconvenience of a possible arrest and exposure to the elements. By shifting legal action to a TRO, rather than criminal charge, the system has lost several intimidation techniques it can use to bully the actors into copping a plea (elevating the charges to something like assault because people were frightened; putting the concept of a felony on the table; threatening a jury trial at which gun owners are disqualified; etc.).
Having the TRO declared invalid would, in and of itself, be a substantial victory - perhaps as much as an actual victory against a carry charge.
There are several issues regarding lawful carry at NH universities:
1. Can an individual be arrested for simply carrying?
2. If the answer is no, can an individual be ordered to vacate public areas or face charges for carrying?
3. May the university take non-judicial disciplinary action against a student who complies with the law, but violates school weapons policy?
4. Ditto for employees
There are actually lots of issues on the table.
Presumably, the "T" is indeed "temporary" pending a decision by the court regarding a more permanent addressing of the issues.
Also, if you want to deal with the courts effectively the wisest course is fighting their game using the legal system, rather than expressing righteous indignation against an order you don't agree with. The court does not care what you think of the order but, lawful or not, has the force of law behind it until the order expires or is vacated the court that issued it or a higher court.
Mr. Boudrie is correct, the judge did these guys a big favor and gave them the means to have this settled by the courts without risking arresting. Of course, if the intent of the protest was to create a public spectacle the TRO isn't as useful.
Agreed on the TRO giving them easier standing. In addition, often when we're talking about equitable remedies that are possibly rights-infringing, the appeals process is usually amped up to warp speed.
While I agree with Mr. Boudrie's potential questions, the overriding issue to me seems to be indeed whether the NH University is a "political subdivision" for the purposes of the firearms law preemtion statute. If the courts determine that it isn't, seems to me all the subsequent questions become irrelevent--as a matter of judicial restraint, courts usually will not (and should not) venture into discussion of the statutory and constitutional issues of a case if discussion is mooted by a condition precedent.
As the courts may see it, there seems to be a lot more than whether the UNH system is indeed a political subdivsion. Including any relevent case law, some of the questions you need to be asking are what was the legislative intent of the premption statute, and if the words "political subdivsion" have application to statewide departments in other contexts. Was it meant to apply to agencies with statewide jurisdiction, or only subordinate governments in New Hampshire? Does the University system have express or implied delegation of authority from the legislature to promulgate such rules? Was the intent of the statute to make the legislature the last word on gun laws, or to simply make sure that cities and towns couldn't pass more restrictive ordinances?
It'll be an interesting legal battle for sure, but again, I agree that the TRO did more help than hinder.