Jackson Jambalaya

Regardless of my stance on the law, it is far from unconstitutionally vague.

I knew the anti-gun nuts would win.

This is a long way from being over.

No one has won anything. The only reason the Supreme Court didn't hear it the first time is because it was temporary and not worth the court's time. Now they'll take it up and reverse him. The opponents to this law will doubtless file another suit and try to delay its implementation further, but the Supreme Court will overturn them all. I hope voters can remember all the names come 2015...

I'm not a gun nut, but this opinion reads like something from a 1L who has no business graduating law school.

To cite just one example, the opinion worries that people would have no recourse if they saw a man walking down the street carrying "a machinegun" or a "fully automatic firearm". In fact, automatic weapons have been illegal under federal law since the 1940's.

There may be a void-for-vagueness argument out there somewhere, but garbage like this is why you don't elect judges.

It's not that the vagueness argument is weak; it's that the argument simply does not exist.

The standard under 97-37-1 has always been "partly visible." Under the old language, "partly visible" meant "concealed" so it was illegal. Under the new language, "partly visible" means "not concealed" which is legal.

It's precisely the same standard as before. Actually, it's a MORE specific standard than before, given the addition of the holster examples. The only difference is that now, the same standard yields a policy result Winston Kidd doesn't like.

No one will attempt to defend Kidd's reasoning because it is indefensible. It is a purely political act. He knows it and every lawyer (and first year law student) reading the opinion knows it.

It's politics. Kidd knows he'll be reversed, so he rules for his donors and pals. Then when he's reversed, he's all "did my best!" That is all this is about.

Baffles me that so many people are in favor of this law. Vague or not, new or not, constitutional or not, this is a bad idea. From a business, personal or law enforcement standpoint.

It has nothing to do with being fanatical on one side or the other. Just common sense.

I'm still not exactly sure what the Sheriff's argument is. Is he claiming that MS law enforcement is somehow not as competent as the 28 other states with open carry? Not that open carry has ever been illegal since 1890. I never would have thought I would see a gang of blacks in political positions fight to keep a Jim Crow law designed to disarm blacks on the books.

Hinds County ... A World of Difference!

Maybe John Horhn can seek an injunction to stop adult males from having sex with underage girls.

Look who voted to protect child rapists

Kidd is one of the more competent AA judges in the area. The fact is that judges at this level(liberal and conservative)tend to rule based on their personal beliefs. He is definitely not incompetent, he is a good guy, but obviously he is a gun control advocate. There's enough good ole boys in the legislature and the supreme court that this won't stand long. Its just a matter of time before we start seeing old fashioned duels on Capitol Street.

Another baffled but full of common sense anonymous ... go figure.

Hmm, @4:40. If our laws only had some mechanism by which we could redo, oh, let's get all fancy and say "amend" our Constitution and/or statutes, then we would have a way to handle things that the majority believe are "bad ideas." Oh well. Until that day comes, I guess we'll have to depend on Hinds County judges and other quasi-imperial potentates to tell us all what's best for us.

Oh, our rights come from laws? I wonder if he's actually rad the Constitution. I seem to remember my rights coming from God.

Its just a matter of time before we start seeing old fashioned duels on Capitol Street.

Yup. Sure. Just a matter of time. "Old fashioned duels". Each party will select a matching pistol and march forward from a common starting point, turn and then fire away. Get real.

"Oh, our rights come from laws? I wonder if he's actually rad the Constitution. I seem to remember my rights coming from God."

I wonder if YOU have "rad" the Constutution, which says no such thing.

I am pro gun and support this..The law is vague.some of these people that are against this have blinders on. I don't care if the judge is a democrat but what he is saying makes sense. You will be able to carry guns but there are some very gray definitions that need to be cleared up first. I did not take his ruling as anti gun but maybe we should get a clearer path first.....take your republican anti gun blinders off and quit thinking that everything is a conspiracy....

uhoh, I mistyped a word. Does this mean I have to move to a trailer in Pelahatchie? I suppose I could have conveyed my thoughts a bit better had I put that sentence at the end. I certainly wasn't intending to infer that was written in the Constitution. Sometimes I think faster than I type. Thanks for the proof reading though! You can rest assured it wasn't a speeling eror, I can tell those get you a bit worked up.

I'm not a fan of this legislation, 7:30, but you're an idiot. Judges do not have the authority to make policy that contravenes the legislature based on their own idiosyncratic understanding of "common sense." This is Civics 101. Which in Hinds County means it might as well be Quantum Physics.

Say this is rejected and no on can carry/conceal except law enforcement. We all know there will be one element that will be armed concealed or not.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another baffled but full of common sense anonymous ... go figure.

July 12, 2013 at 5:15 PM
..says Anonymous. My name is Mack. Glad to give you my number if that would help you.

noel said...

Oh, our rights come from laws? I wonder if he's actually rad the Constitution. I seem to remember my rights coming from God.

July 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM

...Your rights do come from laws. God gave you the 10 Commandments. He never mentioned guns.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmm, @4:40. If our laws only had some mechanism by which we could redo, oh, let's get all fancy and say "amend" our Constitution and/or statutes, then we would have a way to handle things that the majority believe are "bad ideas." Oh well. Until that day comes, I guess we'll have to depend on Hinds County judges and other quasi-imperial potentates to tell us all what's best for us.

July 12, 2013 at 5:22 PM
...Ok. We will rely on a group of average politicians to make amends to a decision made by politicians of average intelligence 120 years ago that allowed people to carry revolvers around. They probably foresaw the firepower and violence of 2013. Or not.

It is not a judge that should be telling us not to carry guns around...It is the legislature. Fighting a gun control problem with more guns is thinking way, way outside of the box. Farther than those boys at the Capitol can conceive.

Will those of you supporting open carry please suggest to me how I will be able to tell if the person who shows up at my house openly carrying to fix the plumbing,deliver a package I must sign to receive,or appears at an event I'm attending or while out running errands is a rapist/murderer/robber/pedophile is exercising his " rights"?
How will policemen know when they see someone openly carrying if he has a criminal record or is exercising rights just from looking at him?
When your daughters or granddaughters are dating 18+ year old boys or are away at college, how will you feel about them going on a date with a young man openly carrying? Or going to parties where the boys have guns on them?
How will the policeman or security officer be able to tell if the person has criminal intent or is exercising rights?
When I take my grandchildren for outings, should I carry? Safety on or off?
I'm arthritic so even if I carry too, I won't win if I have to pull my gun to protect myself.
What about my right to feel safe from strangers? Distance will no longer be a useful.
What if Martin had been 18 and carrying openly and they had a shoot out? Those witnesses who said they were watching and Zimmerman said he saw during the struggle had been killed by stray bullets, would they just be collateral damage?
It's no longer a free society when I can't go about my daily life without having to fear those openly carrying may be mentally ill, lack judgment,have anger management issues, and are free to use the fact they have a weapon on them to bully me simply because no longer as fast and athletic as I used to be.

"Duels on Capitol Street", he opines. That would be cool. Hell, the street is already vacant, so no need to have folks scrambled behind watering troughs or into the saloon's swinging doors. Go for it!

This is 10:51 and I approve this previous message @ 7:00.

Giving law enforcement a fighting chance to pursue gun laws is a major crime prevention strategy (see NYC circa 1995). One of hundreds of reasons open carry is a bad idea.

Judge Kidd is a complete idiot. The law is very clear. The Mississippi Constitution gives everyone the right to carry openly. It only specifically gives the legislature the right to regulate concealed carry.

In a misguided attempt to restrict the carry of firearms, the Attorney General issued an opinion that anything that covered any part of a weapon made it "partially concealed"; a term that does not exist in the Constitution and had no definition in the law.

Now the Legislature has provided a definition and Judge Kidd doesn't like it. He needs to do the job he swore to do which is uphold the law and the Constitution, not make his own.

My biggest legal disagreement with his decision is that he expects his injunction to stand until the legislature takes some action to "clarify" the law. My expectation is that the legislature will do nothing of the sort and will not adopt any further amendments either through special session or regular session. What then? Does Judge Kidd expect his ruling to take precedence? He is ordering the legislature to pass a law to his liking, something a judge has no right to do.

I hope the Supreme Court strikes this down quickly and forcefully.

July 13, 2013 at 7:00 AM = Laundry list of logical fallacies

This is 10:51 and I approve this previous message @ 7:00.

Anonymous "Mack" approves another anonymous. ROFLMAO

"Kidd is one of the more competent AA judges in the area. "

Another lib accidentally and condescendingly reveals his inner racsim.

This line reminds me of Jon Stewart's "That's like saying he's the thinnest kid at fat camp."

Duels on Capitol Street? It would be better to move them to Farish Street, which will remain permanently empty.

Tyrone Lewis doesn't want Hinds Countians to openly carry a slingshot. Laugh but it is true.

Congrats Tyrone. Your farcical term as Sheriff becomes more so with each passing day.

Maybe you should put up another stupid billboard next January on Squirrel Appreciation Day.

What's next Tyrone? An injunction against throwing rocks?

Andy Gipson must not have a very big one.

Judge Kidd's order is not enforceable outside Hinds County. Her only sits in Hinds and has no jurisdiction in any other county