• 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.

Jackson Mayor suspends open carry law amid COVID-19 pandemic

T

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
T

Tosta Dojen

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Messages
183
Location
Roanoke, Virginia, USA
Jackson can't ban the open carry of firearms, judge rules

A federal judge ruled the city of Jackson cannot overturn the state right to open carry firearms — even amid a public health outbreak such as the coronavirus pandemic.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III, means city officials are prevented from issuing any ban on open carry in the state's largest city, so long as it opposes state law.

[...]

Attorneys for the mayor and the Jackson City Council on Friday agreed to the terms of a consent decree to never attempt to restrict open carry again. A consent decree is an agreement between two parties issued by a judge instead of continuing the case in court.
 
color of law

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
6,012
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
2. The City of Jackson, by and through its Mayor, its City Council, or its other officials, agents, employees, successors and all persons in active concert or participation with it shall not adopt any orders, resolutions, ordinances, policies, or practices which have the purpose or effect of directly or indirectly prohibiting, restricting, or inhibiting the open carry of firearms, unless a statute or law of the State of Mississippi is adopted or amended to specifically prohibit, restrict, or inhibit the open carry of firearms in Mississippi, or to specifically authorize municipalities to do so, and such statute or law is not held violative of the United States Constitution or the Mississippi Constitution by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Mississippi Constitution - Article I Section 12:
The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.
Click to expand...
You don't need a court of competent jurisdiction to interpret the plain meaning of the constitution.
 
KBCraig

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,897
Location
Granite State of Mind
color of law said:
You don't need a court of competent jurisdiction to interpret the plain meaning of the constitution.
Click to expand...
But it seems you do need a court to declare that it was a violation, and that police can't do that again.

That's why we're having the national discussion about qualified immunity right now.
 
solus

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Well KB, considering the point at hand was Jacksonville’s overseers acted in clear and direct violation of Mississippi’s long standing (1890) constitutional mandates, the overseers edict(s) should never been put in place in the first place!

as for QI, as your aware thats a 1967 USSC generated doctrine which the lower courts mutated beyond belief and the USSC has steadfastly refused to address needed reform and relief.

there can be no national discussion per se., until the legislative powers that be pass specifically pass legislation outlawing the practice...kinda like choke holds etc!

(sidebar can the Sovereign federal legislative body pass legislation against QI & LE abuse against citizens which forces state level government to adhere to the law? Doesn’t that impinge the whole concept of our founding father’s ideal of state’s sovereignty?)
 
Last edited:
color of law

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
6,012
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
To add to my post #11 above.

To presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers—at least with regard to unambiguous statutes. See Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014).
Finally, Heien and amici point to the well-known maxim, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse," and contend that it is fundamentally unfair to let police officers get away with mistakes of law when the citizenry is accorded no such leeway. Though this argument has a certain rhetorical appeal, it misconceives the implication of the maxim. The true symmetry is this: Just as an individual generally cannot escape criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law, so too the government cannot impose criminal liability based on a mistaken understanding of the law.
Click to expand...
(My bolding)

Notice that the Supreme Court says the "government cannot impose criminal liability." The court is a branch of the government which means the court cannot impose a criminal liability. A court must have both subject matter jurisdiction and personam (personal) jurisdiction to have authority over the case. A statutory law repugnant to the constitution is void, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The constitution voids the statutory law which denies the the court personam jurisdiction, meaning the court only has jurisdiction to dismiss the charge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top