ILNews

Past NRA president to speak at law schools

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former president of the National Rifle Association will visit two Indiana law schools Nov. 3 to discuss the Second Amendment and gun bans.

The Indiana University Maurer School of Law student chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies will host a discussion with Sandy Froman about gun bans around the country. Signs will direct attendees to the room holding the discussion, said chapter president Armen Boyajian.

Froman, NRA president from 2005-2007 and now a practicing attorney in Arizona, will speak at Indiana University Maurer School of Law at noon. Her discussion, "The Chicago Gun Case: How Should our Second Amendment Civil Right to Bear Arms Apply to States and Municipalities?" will examine the Chicago and Washington, D.C., bans and how guns are being considered by some as the new "abortion" issue for the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The SCOTUS recently granted certiorari to McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago, et al., No. 08-1521, which deals with the federalism question of how the Second Amendment should be applied to the states.

At 4:30 p.m., Froman will visit the Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis student chapter at the event, "NRA v. Chicago - Does the Second Amendment Apply to States Through the 14th Amendment?" That discussion will be in the Wynne Courtroom at the law school, 530 W. New York St.

Both events are free and open to the public. Reservations are requested for the Indianapolis event, and people may RSVP to Stephen.Simcox@gmail.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT