<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Tom,<div><br></div><div>I agree with the two statements you made. However in your "bonus round' you started talking about a "newly availed freedom", and there I have to disagree with you, that freedom has been with us </div><div>since December 15th, 1791, hardly "newly availed".</div><div><br></div><div>Also in light of the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "> <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller" title="District of Columbia v. Heller" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">District of Columbia v. Heller</a></i> (2008), and </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; "><i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago" title="McDonald v. Chicago" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(6, 69, 173); background-image: none; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; background-color: initial; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; ">McDonald v. Chicago</a></i> (2010), I have a feeling from reading them that the Supreme Court will eventually</span></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">agree that in state owned housing, you can't require a citizen to give up a fundamental Constitutional right just to live there. See my comment on waiving your fundamental </span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Constitutional right to search and seizure just to live in state owned housing.</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">Wayne</span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" face="sans-serif" size="3"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;"><br></span></font></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On Jan 24, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>Two things, Mr. Price -<br><br>1) The South Hill Vista apartments are, in fact, state-owned housing.<br><br>2) If residents of these state-owned dwellings are permitted to store<br>firearms and ammunition within these state-owned dwellings, there is<br>nothing to prevent residents of state-owned dorms (including those dorm<br>residents who habitually consume such copious amounts of alcohol as to<br>fall out of second-floor windows) from possessing and storing firearms and<br>ammunition within their dorm rooms.<br><br>And for the bonus round, might I add that the first fatality resulting<br>from this newly availed freedom may, subsequently, place the state (along<br>with the State Board of Education and UI President Duane Nellis) in court<br>once again . . . as defendents in a wrongful death lawsuit.<br><br>Tom Hansen<br>Moscow, Idaho<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Mon, January 24, 2011 7:11 pm, Wayne Price wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">Paul,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If we can agree that South Hill Vista, in one way or the other is in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fact state housing, then I can't see how a rule waiving a fundamental<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Constitutional Right in order to live in that state housing will be held<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by the court(s) to pass Constitutional review.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I worded it above specifically to look at the issue of waiving a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">fundamental Constitutional right to take out all the possible animus<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of what can be a "hot button" topic, and strictly look at it as a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Constitutional issue. For example, can the University of Idaho, as a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"state" entity require people to waive the right of search and seizure<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in a state owned residence? IF the answer is yes, that would mean a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">law enforcement agency to enter University housing, in this case South<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Hill Vista, would NOT need a search warrant. Can we live with that?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Wayne<br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>