Arizona -(Ammoland.com)- A longshot appeal to the Fifth Circuit, to stop Texas Campus carry, has been rejected by a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court. Three professors at the University of Texas had filed the case on novel grounds. From uscourts.gov:
Three professors from the University of Texas at Austin challenged a Texas law permitting the concealed carry of handguns on campus and a corresponding University policy prohibiting professors from banning such weapons in their classrooms. The professors argued that the law and policy violate the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court dismissed the claims.
We AFFIRM.
Two years ago, in July of 2016, three academics associated with the University of Texas sued the Texas AG, Ken Paxton, and several University of Texas officials. They were desperately attempting to stop Campus carry in Texas, where some students who had Texas carry permits were allowed to carry personal defensive firearms on campus. The firearms had to be concealed.
A year later, Judge Lee Yeakel dismissed the case, on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not suffered any harm. Therefore they had no standing to sue. The professors decided to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. All of the professors are women. One, Dr. Glass, is a Liberal Arts Professor. The other two, Dr. Lisa Moore and Dr. Mia Carter, are professors of English. That may explain their ability to construct the novel arguments used in the case. From mystatesman.com:
Jennifer Lynn Glass, Lisa Moore and Mia Carter argued that their First Amendment right to academic freedom has been violated because free speech is chilled in classrooms out of concern that someone might be carrying a concealed handgun.
They also contended that their Second Amendment rights have been infringed because firearm usage is not sufficiently “well-regulated.” And they said their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment has been violated because UT lacks a rational basis for deciding where concealed carry is permitted.
A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected all those arguments Thursday, upholding the July 2017 dismissal of the case by U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin.
At the Fifth Circuit, the three-judge panel dismissed the appeal because merely claiming you are frightened of a possible outcome does not violate First Amendment protections. The Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, not the right of the state to restrict individuals from keeping and bearing arms.
The Fourteen Amendment claim was dismissed under “rational basis”, which the Professors had admitted was the correct level of scrutiny for their claim They said there was no rational basis for regulations of the University of Texas (insisted on by the State of Texas), which found that concealed carry could be restricted on some places in the University campus, such as research laboratories, but not others. They claimed different regulations on private universities versus public universities, violated equal protection under the law.
The Fifth Circuit panel stated it was easy to find a rational basis for such disparities, such as the protection of private property rights at private universities.
The professors will evaluate if they wish to expend more treasure and time to ask for an en banc hearing of the entire Fifth Circuit. An en banc hearing would be voted on by the entire Fifth Circuit. If approved, the entire Circuit would hear the case.
I expect the entire Fifth Circuit would uphold the dismissal by the three-judge panel. The opinion is well argued and rests on solid precedent. The professors have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court. The impending appointment of Judge Kavanaugh by President Trump to the Supreme Court makes a successful Supreme Court appeal less likely.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
About Dean Weingarten:
Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.
She looks like Adam Lanza with glasses !
Guns are nearly prohibited in Chicago. Maybe these prof. should go get a job teaching there, (on the south side). After all, Chicago is basically a gun free zone. These professors and the so called English professor, should know what, well regulated, meant in the 18th century. It simply meant in the vernacular of the time, well trained.
Dear mom and dad, this is what I’m doing with this year $60,000 tuition money you gave me. I hope you realize that the embarrassment that I’ve caused the family and our friends is well worth the effort?
Yeah, she looks like she would fit right into the normal working world of regular folks.
For sure that is what I would want to see my daughter or wife toting around. I seriously think they are just advertising because they do not make enough money as a prof. Any woman in her right mind wouldn’t be seen carrying that around in public. Then again the guy on the right looks like he about ready to take a big lick. Sick, Sick, sick no wonder this country is going to hell if this is what professors do.
I say Chambers, I declare your timepiece is WELL REGULATED.
Lt. Simon, the men in your charge are WELL REGULATED.
Would the same professors be scared of any men in the classroom that are well endowed?
These “educators” are ignorant My arms are well regulated Well regulated “Well Regulated” in the old English context means equipped, armed and proficient. The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Also militia doesn’t apply to the National Guard. There was no such thing at the time. It was everyday armed citizens. Think minute men. The militia act of 1792 encompasses all white males 18-45. Of course today it… Read more »
The legal argument depends on the absurd assumption that a person who would ignore the law that says he’s not permitted to murder you would follow a law that says he’s not permitted to carry the means to do so.
if this is an example of the work product generated by a pair of English professors, UT are in serious trouble. Their “thinking”….. their First Amendment right to academic freedom has been violated because free speech is chilled in classrooms out of concern that someone might be carrying a concealed handgun. >>>>>>> hoplophobia at its finest. If I am sitting in her classroom armed and concealed, HOW will she ever know? She won’t. If she is such a scairdycat, suspecing everyone in her classroom IS armed, the needs to grow up. Or at least, since she’s outgrown her binky (I’m… Read more »
No wonder our kids are screwed up. Stupid is as stupid does .How did these FOOLS get to be professors??????????
@Rich z, An interesting question. I note amusement that they did not progress beyond their native language. Maybe that is the answer.
All the snowflakes walking around with their dildo’s in hand ,gee that’s not offensive
Did the women also argue men stifle free speech, since a strong Male could kill them all with his bare hands? Is John Wick banned from the classroom because he could kill 3 Professors with a pencil. A fargin pencil!
No. Because ability and intent aren’t close to the same thing.
“WITH A FUCKING PENCIL!!!!!!!” HAHAHAHAHAHA
“This is my weapon, this is my gun”. “One is for shooting, and one is for FUN!”
“This my weapon, this is my gun”. “One is for shooting, the other for FUN!”.
Great pic to compliment this article. If it doesn’t show the mentality of these college professors, what ever will? Perhaps we should begin an action to eliminate those dangerous dildos on campus, or at least require a registration and license to buy one and to carry. Especially concealed ones. Also, immediately stop the illicit manufacture of them by 3-D printers. This has to stop..
After all, it’s for the children.
The “female” in the pic wit da dik….. I would BET she had it hidden in a hot spot over night! “It” looks the type that would do such a thing. Hotdog down a hallway!
God bless Texas. Finally a court that doesn’t have its’ collective head up its collective butt.
Hey………..the only time you should open your pie hole is when you stick the sucker in your hand in your mouth.
Interesting picture for this article
Is she one of the professors at UT?
What kind of events does the College Board allow on campus ??????????
If these professors are so scared of gun carrying students maybe the professors need to move to another state that has their ideals or look for another job.
I believe that all of the original digital documents that they submitted and edited should have to be reviewed to determine that all research, writing, reviews and editing to confirm all was done on their private computer devises and on their personal time. Other wise they were stealing public funds if any were done while they were on state payroll or university equipment.
On that same note, there should be a freedom of information request of their university server to prove they did not use the university equipment or email services for any of their legal work.
Tough s**t, snow-fems. Try caliph-agnia, new-yawk, or better yet, venezuela – you know…socialist heaven.
Your idol bho, bernie s., danny g., & sean p. all said venezuela is a great socialist place, plus it’s clearing out – so there should be fewer people standing in line to get toilet paper. Enjoy.