TexasCHLforum.com

Jim Beaux wrote:

jb2012 wrote:I hope they enjoy paying for useless legal fees.

You can bet the legal fees are being paid by an anti 2a organization.

Same thing happened with Roe Vs Wade. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey was contacted by pro abortion activists. She stated later that the lawyers met with her and only wanted to use her predicament.

The group had been searching for the ideal 'plaintiff'; & she was found to be the ideal candidate. Though 6 mos pregnant she was led to believe that she had time to still get an abortion if she agreed to the scheme. She only signed the necessary documents and as I remember, never even showed up in court. She was nothing more than a body to justify a lawsuit.

A similar tactic was used by gay rights activist in which police where setup to walk in and witness illegal acts.

Thats how the system works.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Secondly, why are they suing the university which is just complying with state law? Shouldn't they sue the state, or possibly the citizens of the state whose elected representatives passed the laws that they disagree with?

tommyg wrote:Maybe the three professors will resign over this issue so that they can be replaced by
someone that has some sense. I have seen a lot of this kind of thing.

There is a mental condition called savant. It is a person who is highly intelligent in
some ways and mentally deficient in other respects. It has been my experience dealing
with professors that at least 1/2 of them suffer from said condition


http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/drhiles/Savant%20Syndrome.htm

tommyg wrote:Maybe the three professors will resign over this issue so that they can be replaced by
someone that has some sense. I have seen a lot of this kind of thing.

There is a mental condition called savant. It is a person who is highly intelligent in
some ways and mentally deficient in other respects. It has been my experience dealing
with professors that at least 1/2 of them suffer from said condition


http://www.psy.dmu.ac.uk/drhiles/Savant%20Syndrome.htm

Skiprr wrote:

goose wrote:

Content of the lawsuit wrote:Compelling professors at a public university to allow, without any limitation or restriction, students to carry concealed guns in their classrooms chills their First Amendment rights to academic freedom.

I personally don't remember where, in the text of the First Amendment, it specifically mentions "academic freedom." But that's just me. The three professors filing suit are Jennifer Lynn Glass, Mia Carter, and Lisa Moore, BTW.

RogueUSMC wrote:.what is 'digital Shakespeare'?

RogueUSMC wrote:I was debating this on Ken Paxton's twitter post regarding this with an 'Associate Professor of Digital Shakespeare'...what is 'digital Shakespeare'?

UCLA Law Professor and constitutional expert Eugene Volokh dismissed that idea in a conversation with the Observer last week.

"The law doesn’t violate the First Amendment, because it isn’t at all targeted at restricting speech," he said in an email. "I’m skeptical about the plaintiffs’ claims that concealed carry by lawful license holders will materially chill people’s freedom of discussion. I don’t think it does in public places, and I don’t think it will in universities. But in any event that hypothetical risk isn’t enough to invalidate Texas’s decision about gun rights."

Nor does campus carry violate, as the professors claim, their Second Amendment rights, according to Volokh. (The part about arms being a right only for members of a well-regulated militia.) "The state has broad authority to allow carrying of guns, including by drawing lines that allow carrying in universities but not in some other places," Volokh said.

Specifically, the professors seek the right to ban guns from their classrooms -- something the university has maintained would put it out of compliance with the new law. The professors, who argue that both state law and university policies are vague on that point, on Friday were granted a hearing for a preliminary injunction on having to allow weapons in class. It’s scheduled for early next month. Fall classes resume at the end of August.

v7a wrote:From article in Dallas Observer:

UCLA Law Professor and constitutional expert Eugene Volokh dismissed that idea in a conversation with the Observer last week.

"The law doesn’t violate the First Amendment, because it isn’t at all targeted at restricting speech," he said in an email. "I’m skeptical about the plaintiffs’ claims that concealed carry by lawful license holders will materially chill people’s freedom of discussion. I don’t think it does in public places, and I don’t think it will in universities. But in any event that hypothetical risk isn’t enough to invalidate Texas’s decision about gun rights."

Nor does campus carry violate, as the professors claim, their Second Amendment rights, according to Volokh. (The part about arms being a right only for members of a well-regulated militia.) "The state has broad authority to allow carrying of guns, including by drawing lines that allow carrying in universities but not in some other places," Volokh said.

Does anyone here have access to PACER to see if there's been any movement on the lawsuit yet? Has the court asked the defendants to file their reply brief by a certain date?