• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

judge files injunction to block HB2 open carry law

rtd2

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
4
Location
mississippi
Welcome to OCDO rtd2.

Yes, I mentioned the procedural issue. Looks like the answer to the question I posed in post 26 was "yes". An interlocutory appeal is not allowed prior to the hearing for the permanent injunction. I haven't had time to find the appropriate rule. The interesting thing is... the AG should have known this. I hope he's not showboating.



Thanks for the Welcome, I overlooked your reply addressing the procedure, btw he's ruled TODAY , says its UNCONSTITUTIONAL, Hinds county Kangaroo court ,dismissed -next stop, MS Supreme Court

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22717908/hearing-on-open-carry
 
Last edited:

saiga12boy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
110
Location
Colorado
I say it's high time we disobey the laws. As the poster for braveheart said "every man dies but not every man really lives" It's time we live free.
 

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
The A-G issued a statement that he "believes" that the injunction applies only to Hinds County!

http://www.msnewsnow.com/story/22859168/attorney-general-says-gun-ruling-not-statewide

Yeah, for what it's worth that's one man's opinion. But that's the opinion of the states top law enforcement official. At this time, I'd say that it's very good that he's not of the opposite opinion. At least he is appearing to do his job on behalf of the interest of the state.

That's more than I can say for "Mr. I voted for it, but I'm so dumb I didn't know what I was voting for".
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
Yeah, for what it's worth that's one man's opinion. But that's the opinion of the states top law enforcement official. At this time, I'd say that it's very good that he's not of the opposite opinion. At least he is appearing to do his job on behalf of the interest of the state.

That's more than I can say for "Mr. I voted for it, but I'm so dumb I didn't know what I was voting for".

Whether someone uses it as a justification or says its "not legally binding" depends on if they like the opinion or not. It might be a good idea to have a copy on you, so that if anyone should need such an opinion (one with some weight) it will be on hand.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
Yeah, for what it's worth that's one man's opinion. But that's the opinion of the states top law enforcement official. At this time, I'd say that it's very good that he's not of the opposite opinion. At least he is appearing to do his job on behalf of the interest of the state.

That's more than I can say for "Mr. I voted for it, but I'm so dumb I didn't know what I was voting for".

There are democrats and it seems there are democrats create a need to have a constitutional ban on them being in the state...
 

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
In reading over the appeal, here's one part I just don't get as to why they worded the argument this way:

While the Plaintiffs and the Circuit Court may believe it wise to adopt
restrictions on open carry so that citizens do not see firearms in public, the fact remains
that the legislature is not constitutionally required to adopt such restrictions.

The way I read Article 3 Section 12, not only are they not required to regulate open carry, they are prohibited from doing so by the phrase "shall not be called in question" coupled with the specific exception that the legislature "may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons".

What? Is that just too much common sense for lawyer and judge type people or am I totally off base here? I'll also bet that when the Constitution was written, the writers didn't argue much over the definition of "concealed".
 

rtd2

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2013
Messages
4
Location
mississippi
Chief Justice Waller has Ordered Responses by August 5th , Robert Shuler Smith, Hinds Co DA, is named as the respondent, so his office is ordered to file a response (and 10 copies) by August 5th. And the AG is ordered to file 6 more copies of the petition.
Its expected the NRA will file an Amicus Brief as well

Response order

http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Orders/700_77186.pdf
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
In reading over the appeal, here's one part I just don't get as to why they worded the argument this way:



The way I read Article 3 Section 12, not only are they not required to regulate open carry, they are prohibited from doing so by the phrase "shall not be called in question" coupled with the specific exception that the legislature "may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons".

What? Is that just too much common sense for lawyer and judge type people or am I totally off base here? I'll also bet that when the Constitution was written, the writers didn't argue much over the definition of "concealed".

Very good point. You are correct that if the people are governed by consent and that consent is the state constitution, then the only authority that the state has is in the constitution. The state is expressly forbidden from regulating open carry period. However, because of bad jurisprudence, the state can usurp power if there is a legitimate government interest or for the safety of the people. Read about the three tiers of [strike]usurpation[/strike] scrutiny the judicial system has invented to allow illegal changes to the constitution.

I have come to the conclusion that if we don't get the judicial branch to stick to the exact, literal text of the constitutions then we will lose our republic.
 
Last edited:

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
So, what does that mean? What's after Aug. 5th?

For good reason, much of the legal process is done on paper and not in a court room. In this case, the proper procedure once a district judge has ruled that a statute is unconstitutional and an appeal has brought by someone with standing, the Ms. SC has jurisdiction over the appeal. An appeal has been brought by the MS. AG. The SC requires a written response to the AGs appeal. The number of copies etc is probably per court rules(see the SC website).

It appears to me that the issue before the SC is a matter of law. Such matters can be determined without a hearing. So... after Aug 5, the SC will gather all the info in the opposing briefs as well as any amicus briefs filed and make a ruling. Though someone reading the rules may find that a hearing will be held... I haven't looked.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
For good reason, much of the legal process is done on paper and not in a court room. In this case, the proper procedure once a district judge has ruled that a statute is unconstitutional and an appeal has brought by someone with standing, the Ms. SC has jurisdiction over the appeal. An appeal has been brought by the MS. AG. The SC requires a written response to the AGs appeal. The number of copies etc is probably per court rules(see the SC website).

It appears to me that the issue before the SC is a matter of law. Such matters can be determined without a hearing. So... after Aug 5, the SC will gather all the info in the opposing briefs as well as any amicus briefs filed and make a ruling. Though someone reading the rules may find that a hearing will be held... I haven't looked.

Whether or not to hold oral arguments on the merits of the case is at the discretion of the court.
 
Last edited:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Truth, facts, common sense, ethics, etc., is no defense. It will come down to exactly how anti rights the justices are. Any gun rulings from this court to predict the result?
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,224
Location
America
We're not out of the woods yet. The MS supreme court has a bad track record on ruling by code and constitution instead of rumor, taboo and personal preferences.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
We're not out of the woods yet. The MS supreme court has a bad track record on ruling by code and constitution instead of rumor, taboo and personal preferences.

Well if a court refuses to recognize the state constitution, and denies a law duly passed by the legislature, and rules only based on what htye want, then the only solution is for the Supreme Court to be dismissed in full or to go to the feds.

Mississippi, like every other state in the country, was admitted on the basis they had a ratified constitution, if renegade courts are ruling contrary to the constitution and creating a scenario in which the state cannot be effectively government according to that constitution, then the only solution I see is a new constitutional convention in that state or to impeach every judge and replace the judiciary

If I were the unilateral dictator of the federal government though, I would tell MS Supreme Court that if they rule the legislature doesn't have the authority to make laws or statutes because "the law is not a good idea" then I would have the entire judiciary of MS dismissed, have the state disbanded and make them come up with a territorial legislature and they would be a territory until they ratify a new constitution
 
Last edited:
Top