• 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

thearmysredneck

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Messages
44
Location
, ,
Judge blocks Mississippi open-carry gun law

Posted:Friday, June 28, 2013 7:35 PM ESTUpdated:Friday, June 28, 2013 8:03 PM EST

NEWS

**(WMC-TV) - A state judge has blocked a Mississippi open-carry gun law from taking effect Monday, according to the Associated Press.Circuit Judge Winston Kidd ruled that the law is vague and an injunction is needed to stop irreparable harm.Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith requested the injunction, and Kidd granted it during an emergency hearing late Friday.The Associated Press reports House Bill 2 clarifies that people don't need any kind of state-issued permit to carry a gun that's not concealed.***********The bill's main sponsor, Republican Rep. Andy Gipson, of Braxton, says the law simply restates the state constitution's right to bear arms. But, some sheriffs and police chiefs worry people could become trigger-happy and hurt civilians or law-enforcement officers.Stay with WMCTV.COM for updates on this developing story.Copyright 2013 WMC-TV. All rights reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report



Discuss.....
 

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
Well, so much for July 1st. Doesn't quite seem right that a single judge can knock down months and years of work by the snap of his finger. Like Rep. Gipson said, I never thought I'd see the day that someone said the Constitution is unconstitutional.
 

RedRuger

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
59
Location
, Louisiana, USA
Hb2

This is how i understand the situation.

1. Mississippi is allegedly an open carry state
2. Some jurisdictions claim that if any part of the gun is covered then the gun is concealed. They contend that a holstered gun in an exposed holster on your belt is actually concealed.
3. They use the above to arrest/harass open carriers.
4. HB2 was intended to clarify that a holstered gun in an exposed holster on your belt is not actually concealed.
5. Some anti gun/anti open carry Mississippi Law Enforcement and Judges feel that HB2 threatens their authority.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
MS has a cronic judicial problem; they think the constitution is unconstitutional as it doesn't back up what they think the law should be. Talk about an activist judge, a that clarifies the law and takes away restrictions is too vauge...
 

JDJHNTR

New member
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
3
Location
N Delta, MS.
Im so mad I could spit!!! We were finally headed in the right direction and a small handful of "suit wearing idiots" get an injunction!! Are you kidding me!!
And then when interviewed on TV they have the stupidness ( only word I could come up with ) to say it would be "dangerous" and they feel the constitution does not give us the right to carry ( bare arms )!!!
Forget it! I'm too mad to keep talking about it right now................sorry.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
This is lawfare

Well you didn't think that the only ones would actually accept the law, did you?

Now comes the months and months of delay, then preliminary hearings, etc., etc., etc. i bet Twelve months before there is any meaningful hearing.

This is modern lawfare.

Live free or die,
Thundar
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Does ANYONE have a copy of the written order?! I'm asking Florida Carry's lawyers to get in to this to help out our neighbors to the west, unless we have a capable sister organization in MS that I am unaware of.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
Does ANYONE have a copy of the written order?! I'm asking Florida Carry's lawyers to get in to this to help out our neighbors to the west, unless we have a capable sister organization in MS that I am unaware of.


Sean, you can can see why I'm telling you Norman vs Fl is completely a waste of time.

I agree with Fl carry helping MS in this instance, I'm sending another tiny donation your way. The only way we'll get OC in Fl is legislatively, and OC becoming the norm in other states is how we'll do it.
 

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
Sean, you can can see why I'm telling you Norman vs Fl is completely a waste of time.

I agree with Fl carry helping MS in this instance, I'm sending another tiny donation your way. The only way we'll get OC in Fl is legislatively, and OC becoming the norm in other states is how we'll do it.

I would never categorize the criminal defense of Dale Norman as a waste of time. Win or loose, lawyers will citing that case for the answers to its certified questions long after we're both dead and gone.

CERTIFICATION OF ISSUES OF GREAT PUBUC IMPORTANCEThe court was unable to find any Florida cases which directly ruled on the following issues,
which affect the millions of Floridians who own firearms and wish to possess and use them in a manner
that comports with Florida law and the United States Constitution, and which affect the thousands of
law enforcement officers who are charged with enforcing Florida's laws relating to firearms. The court
thus certifies as issues of great public importance:


1. Is Florida's statutory scheme related to the open carry of firearms constitutional?


2. Do the exceptions to the prohibition against open carry constitute affirmative defenses to a
prosecution for a charge of open carry or does the State need to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that a particular defendant is not conducting him/herself in the manner allowed?


3. Does the recent "brief and open display" exception unconstitutionally infect the Open Carry
Law by its vagueness?
 

Double_J

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
73
Location
Kingsland/Saint Marys GA, USA
Talked to my attorney

I just talked to my attorney in Mississippi, and he confirmed that open carry is allowed as per the law. He contacted Attorney General Hood and received confirmation that the stay is not valid state wide. I trust his legal opinion and have no doubt that this issue will be dealt with on July 8, and it will come out in OUR favor. I can not believe that a county judge can over-rule the state legislature, I thought for sure that the state supreme court would have the sole authority do do this.
 

DownwardDawg

New member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
5
Location
Oak Grove
I just talked to my attorney in Mississippi, and he confirmed that open carry is allowed as per the law. He contacted Attorney General Hood and received confirmation that the stay is not valid state wide. QUOTE]

What does this mean exactly? It is not statewide?
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Does ANYONE have a copy of the written order?! I'm asking Florida Carry's lawyers to get in to this to help out our neighbors to the west, unless we have a capable sister organization in MS that I am unaware of.

I've looked but I have not been able to find a link to the ruling anywhere on the internet.
 

Kopis

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
674
Location
Nashville, TN
i posted up in the other thread but i asked four cops at a gas station in southaven a few weeks ago. the short story is that they said the only reason to OC is to "intimidte"
and that MS was working on undoing HB2, they didnt know what they had passed.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Verbal Order - Found the transcript

Link: http://randywallace.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/judge-kidd-entered-a-restraining-order.pdf

Page 1

THE COURT: The court has reviewed this
matter, and again, before the court is a motion
for a Temporary Restraining Order and
Injunctive Relief. After hearing on this
matter, and after view of this matter, the
court finds that Rule 65 is the rule that the
court must look at in deciding whether or not a
temporary restraining order is appropriate.
And before the court issues a temporary
restraining order, the court must consider
concern factors: Whether or not there is a
substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs will
prevail on the merits. Next, the court must
consider whether the injunction is necessary to
prevent irreparable harm. The court must also
consider the threatened harm, whether the
threatened harm outweighs the harm the
injunction might do to the respondent, which is
the State of Mississippi. And the court must
also decide or consider whether the entry of an
injunction is consistent with the public
interest.
Three of the prongs the court would find
that are quite obvious is the prong that the

Page 2

court considered or heard most of the arguments
from the State on was the first prong with
whether or not there's a substantial likelihood
that the plaintiffs would prevail on the
merits. The court finds that the law that
we're speaking about today that is scheduled to
take effect on July 1st, which is a Monday, the
court finds that the law as it stands is indeed
vague, it is not clear, it is ambiguous, and
that the court finds that the injunction is
indeed necessary to prevent irreparable harm.
The court finds that the threatened harm
does indeed -- the court finds that the
threatened harm that might be caused to the
State of Mississippi is not outweighed by the
harm that might go to the general public or to
the applicants.
The entry of the judgment for a TRO in
this matter obviously is consistent with the
public interest. The plaintiffs filed this
motion to prevent harm to the public as a
whole, to prevent harm from law enforcement
officers, to prevent chaos and confusion with
respect to who can carry a weapon and how that
weapon can be carried. And, obviously, the

page 3

injury of a temporary restraining order would
be consistent with the public interest.
Herein, the court will grant the
plaintiff's motion for a temporary retraining
order, and in accordance with the law that
temporary restraining order will remain in
effect until the court can hold a hearing on
the merits of this matter, and at that time the
court will consider a preliminary injunction.
This matter will be set for hearing on July 8th
at 1:00. The temporary restraining order shall
remain in effect until that time.
Bond in this matter, which is a
requirement of Rule 65 shall be entered or
granted -- should be entered by the plaintiffs.
And in determining how much bond shall be
granted, the court must look at the facts of
this situation. And, again, the defendant in
this matter is the State of Mississippi.
Mr. Pizzetta has stated that attorney's fees
shall be considered. If the court has wrongly
granted a temporary retraining order, then
plaintiffs shall be responsible for attorney's
fees. The court finds that bond is appropriate
in this matter as a surety. And in light of

page 4

all of the facts and circumstances in this
matter, the court will require bond to be
posted in the amount of $1,000. Motion for
temporary restraining order is granted. The
matter is set for preliminary injunction on
July 8th at 1:00. The parties will have until
next Wednesday to file briefs in this matter.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
This is an attempt (one that might not even be needed) to keep people from attending public Independence day celebrations while visibly armed. Or at least provide a cover for the rear of any police/departments (coughJacksonPDcough) who want to harass, arrest, question etc. citizens who will attend anyway showing the most patriotic of pride.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
This is an attempt (one that might not even be needed) to keep people from attending public Independence day celebrations while visibly armed. Or at least provide a cover for the rear of any police/departments (coughJacksonPDcough) who want to harass, arrest, question etc. citizens who will attend anyway showing the most patriotic of pride.

this is how they do things in russia and china....vote this judge out !
 
Top