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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT