Mississippi opponents of open carry bill delay its effective date
They got a Temporary Restraining Order issued, which holds the status quo until there can be a hearing on a preliminary injunction. Here's a copy of the motion for TRO. I don't mind saying its bunk. There are traditionally four factors to be considered, and the first is probability of ultimate success, that is, if this case goes to trial, is the person seeking a TRO or PI likely to win?
There's not a word in the morion about that. It doesn't even identify a legal theory. Yes, they don't like the legislation, and speculate it might make more work for them. Is that a reason to strike down a law?
And how do you strike down a law LEGALIZING conduct, anyway? If the court issues a TRO or PI, what happens in the real world? A person is arrested for doing something that the statute says is legal. Does a court's TRO somehow allow him to be prosecuted, for doing a legal act?
Where's the ground for a TRO, as opposed to a notice for argument on a PI? A TRO is issued without hearing, traditionally because (1) if the opposing party knew of the motion in advance, they'd do something bad (like beat up the party asking for one) or (2) there is an emergency such that there is no time to notify the other party and set a hearing. There's not a word about that in this motion.
Not to mention it describes a district attorney as "the chief legal officer of the State of Mississippi," which the Attorney General might dispute, and a sheriff as "the chief law enforcement officer of the State of Mississippi."
Who drafted this pile of offal? Can officers of a county (which is generally a subdivision of the State) sue the State? Isn't that a little like the City Planner suing the city because he doesn't like the zoning plan?
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
Bunk, indeed - but in today's legal/political environment, all they need is a judge who a) agrees with their intent and b) has the mental ability to ignore the clear intent of the law as long as the result is desirable (sadly, easier to find than it should be).
They may get the outcome they deserve - or not, but it doesn't cost anything to try to subvert the will of the people this way. (IMHO, it should)
Posted by: Hartley at July 3, 2013 09:30 AM
The Mississippi Supreme Court has turned down (for procedural reasons) the Attorney General's motion to vacate the TRO. Hearing in the trial court is on Monday
Posted by: Jeff at July 3, 2013 01:13 PM
The other crazy thing about postponing open carry is that it is something long legal in other states. They cannot reasonably argue that it is clearly excessively dangerous if it is still legal in other states without excessive problems. The judge need not make THEORETICAL SPECULATIONS on the dangerousness of it since there is indisputable REAL WORLD PROOF of how dangerous it is (i.e. not very).
Posted by: Critic at July 3, 2013 03:42 PM
Critic - don't bother me with the facts, my mind's made up. ;-)
Posted by: wrangler5 at July 3, 2013 04:44 PM
The petition for a TRO reads like a list of old talking points against the law. There is nothing new that they couldn't have used to argue against the law before it was passed. I doubt there is anything new in it that they DIDN'T use to argue against the law before it was passed. So do they just want the courts to have the veto over the considered judgment of the legislature now, even when there is no plausible constitutional violation?
If they're worried about excessive man with a gun calls, they can simply instruct the 911 operators of the state to tell callers that open carry is legal and not send a car if there is no other indication of illegal activity. No need to waste much time on it. Criminals out to commit a crime would rarely carry openly anyway.
Eventually, even WRANGLER5 must succumb to my irresistible logic ;-)
Posted by: Critic at July 4, 2013 01:12 PM
Some of the very ones that voted for the bill are now the ones trying to stop it. Guess they had to pass it first to find out what was in it. Sounds a bit familiar.
Posted by: Jim K at July 4, 2013 01:46 PM
"There's not a word in the morion about that."
You mean "there's not a word FROM the morons about that."
Posted by: Windy Wilson at July 5, 2013 02:10 PM
How does *anybody* have "standing" to bring such a cause? Seems a stretch to claim that the law would have a direct effect upon a particular person -- specifically the person bringing the suit.
Posted by: bob r at July 10, 2013 01:30 PM