The Mississippi Supreme Court overturned Hinds County Circuit Judge Winston Kidd's injunction against the "open carry" law. The opinion itself is only two pages long but the decision was 9-0. It takes a genteel swipe at Judge Kidd's reading comprehension skills when it states he "erred when he stated a reasonable person could not discern what the law allows and what the law prohibits." In other words, Judge Kidd, you may not like what the law says but that is a far cry from claiming no one can understand it. Reversed once again.
Now will Judge Kidd fire his court reporter?
Now will Judge Kidd fire his court reporter?
41 comments:
http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Orders/700_80585.pdf
Order here: http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Orders/700_80585.pdf
In other news, water is wet.
Order here: http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Orders/700_80585.pdf
MarquisEsq, apparently a circuit judge thought the issue more complex, but apparently it was not.
It's a GOOD bill, the Supreme Court says so.
@ 3:06- there is a difference between a circuit judge and a Hinds county circuit judge.
When can we start toatin!
You could have been toatin all along.
So now the libs will immediately pounce on the Supremes for their stupidity, lack of wisdom and tarnished judgment. Obviously the supremes just want rednecks to be armed. What time does Jesse's flight arrive?
It was a 9-0 vote, not exactly a party-division decision.
They'll turn against and eat their own at the drop of a hat. they oughta be turning against the dumbasses who sponsored the protest and the idiot who crafted the injunction.
"So now the libs will immediately pounce on the Supremes for their stupidity, lack of wisdom and tarnished judgment."
Uh, no.
"They'll turn against and eat their own at the drop of a hat."
So basically what you're saying is that they will vote across party lines for something that is constitutional or a good idea? I wish the other party would do that too!
No, what I'm saying is that the folks who are against our constitutional right to open carry will blame the state supreme court for properly interpreting the constitution. One minute they're cheering and assuming the court will uphold an idiotic injunction and the next they're bemoaning a court of dunces who made the wrong ruling. Maybe Kingfish will roll out a spreadsheet to show us how much time and money has been wasted on this debacle/challenge to our rights.
Who pays for the bond that Kidd ordered?
I bet Kidd is all bug-eyed over this one.
THIS right here....
"[The Circuit Judge] also erred when he stated that 'a REASONABLE person reading the bill could not discern what the law allows and what it prohibits.'"
the supremes nailed it! jacktown leadership is unreasonable and out-of-control...a govt of men (and wimmen), not laws!
Two possibilities exist, and only two:
1. Winston Kidd really is too stupid to understand the plain meaning of the statute; or
2. Kidd knew he would be overturned by the Supremes, but can go back to his Stokes-Lumumba voting constituents and say, "I stood up to the white NRA Tea Party people."
Either way, he's unfit for the bench.
"constitutional right to open carry..." where exactly does the constitution say "open carry"
This is over...
Sorry Donna, guess you better go get you a can of "Schlitz Malt Liquor" and drown your liberal sorrows.
Maybe a can of Colt 45 will do the trick ??
8:57; Yours is a hollow argument. We have a constitutional right to bear arms. Hold, carry, transport, possess, as defined by Webster. The Constitution doesn't mention night-sights or clips either. Argue that shit and maybe you can get Kidd to agree with you.
10:04 - presumably, they *could* ban certain clips, etc. - compare a silencers ban - but in Miss. at least, that will remain an academic question.
the right to bear arms is a term that is used to the explain rights of the people to form a militia for the protection of the state. But I will concede to you how the second amendment or the bill of rights is translated in modern terms, you are correct. The only argument I see is the translation of "bear" or "carry", I believe the forefathers had this to mean "transport" and not "open carry" as you have suggested. Which is why each state is its on republic and can DECODE the constitution or right their own to over ride such rights.
completely my opinion just like you have yours. no harm no foul. but we could argue each amendment till death...
There should be a rule that when one of these stupid judges is overturned a certain number of time that they are fired and sent to the house..with NO $$$$ !!!
@ meople
Intelligent beings have the ability to read and comprehend and further acknowledge that many different phrases can be utilized to say exactly the same thing and it's not necessary, for discussion or for legal sake, to recite, word for word, unless the words would be ambiguous or alter the original intent. You know, like how when the 1st says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", somehow turned into prohibiting the free exercise of religion if you were in..... let's say... public school.
Nice try at diversion, though. Simple minded... but when that's all you got, that's the hand you play.
The American jurisdictions where guns are most restricted have consistently had the highest violent crime rates, and those with the fewest restrictions have the lowest violent crime rates. For instance, robbery is highest in jurisdictions which are most restrictive of gun ownership. As to one specific control, the ban on carrying concealed weapons for protection, “violent‐crime rates were highest in states [that flatly ban carrying concealed weapons], next highest in those that allowed local authorities discretion [to deny] permits, and lowest in states with nondiscretionary” concealed weapons laws under which police are legally required to license
every qualified applicant.
- Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
10:49 - None of the firearms in question have "clips".
@12:15 you need to get laid.
"they oughta be turning against the dumbasses who sponsored the protest and the idiot who crafted the injunction."
"Sorry Donna, guess you better go get you a can of "Schlitz Malt Liquor" and drown your liberal sorrows."
"8:57; Yours is a hollow argument."
"1. Winston Kidd really is too stupid to understand the plain meaning of the statute"
"They'll turn against and eat their own at the drop of a hat."
And the democrats are the pretentious ones? You guys match Ladd and associates in terms of arrogance.
Good luck winning the next national election. Acting like jerks hasn't helped y'all out yet, but maybe if y'all keep trying, it'll work next time.
@ meople
I'm married to a middle aged milf with an overactive libido. Needing to get laid isn't a concern. But thanks for thinking of my sexual well-being.
Now, let's examine your attempt to somehow redefine the "the right to bear arms"
you said, "the right to bear arms is a term that is used to the explain rights of the people to form a militia for the protection of the state".
See... an opinion in an argument has to be valid. You don't get to simply wave your hand and awash yourself in willful ignorance and hide behind your "opinion." No, you are stupid. You will be shamed and called what you are..... as you should be. Because you don't have the balls to accept the words as the truth nor the intellect to debate the facts as they are.
So..... let's look at your dumb assertion that the right to bear arms is associated with forming a militia. The U.S. Constitution states that the right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. Pretty strong word if it was intended to have qualifications, such as only for militia. Secondly, the MS Constitution states "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", so ... wait... people are supposed to form a militia in their homes, person and property because meople says it's been "translated in modern terms".
You idiot, you are doing the attempt at translation.
As I understand it that is what debates are for... To back up ones opinion against the other... But when one resolves debates with name calling and the insistance of the old "I'm right because I said so" argument it kind of takes the fun out of it.
BTW. I collect guns and ammo. I enjoy the 2nd amendment and also am pro militia from an oppressive government. Just to be clear I was getting the idea your assumptions were off base.
"...the right to bear arms is a term that is used to the explain rights of the people to form a militia for the protection of the state."
When a statement like that is presented as fact, whatever else precedes or follows it is automatically out the window. A well-coiffed man in a tuxedo who farts in a populated lobby is, nonetheless, dismissed as crude and his hair and attire are forgotten.
"None of the guns being discussed have clips"? How stupid is that. Neither the junction nor the overturn ignore guns with clips. I've got six handguns with clips that are holstered. 12:15 sounds like a first year law student practicing for his job on the Supreme Court, hoping to be able to 'interpret' the constitution in light of European standards and modern assumptions. Nice try but it don't work quite that way. And yes, seems he needs to get laid. Momma is somewhere else.
So, you have half moon clips for all of your 6 revolvers?
Assumptions are so juvenile........ Except the "needing to get laid" part.
A revolver doesn't use a clip, dumbass at 3:35. Thus the name.
Not so fast, 5:40. Remember this is Jacktown....the dude probably duct taped a clip to the bottom of his revolver so it be looking so bad.
Please allow me to educate you. The only handguns to ever use a "clip" is a revolver. It's a half moon "clip" utilized as a speed loader.
Semi-auto pistols and all automatic and semi-automatic rifles that use a detachable or insertable mechanism, use magazines..... not clips. Clips are used to hold cartridges and are sometimes used to strip those cartridges into the magazines of weapons. In some instances, such as the Garand, the clip and cartridges are loaded directly into the magazine.
There is a significant difference between a clip and a magazine. A "clip" is a term used by the ignorant. It's not even slang, it's just being dumb.
Feel free to continue to wallow in your ignorance, though. Anyone that has to "interpret" simple words is comfortable in their ignorance.
A clip is something to bind papers with. A magazine is something to read. Clip/Magazine - Whether its used for a pistol, revolver, or a cannon and think the general population understands. The OCDs types need to give it a rest.
Actually, the general population understands quite well. It's the ignorant that seem to feel all gansta when they talk gats and clips. Hell, why use words at all if using the proper ones to describe an item doesn't matter to you.
I mean, it must be all OCD to want to see someone refer to a hospital as a hospital and not a brothel or refer to a car as an asteroid, or a grocery store as a starfish. Heck, lets just drop words all-together and just grunt.
God forbid someone expects another to use proper terms. It would be like giving wild labels like "assault weapon" for guns that "look" evil.
Post a Comment