Opponents of open carry respond

The Mississippi Supreme Court ordered opponents of open carry to respond to the State of Mississippi’s Combined  Petition to Vacate a Restraining Order and Emergency Petition for Interlocutory Appeal by 5:00 p.m. today.

Judging by the time written on their response, they responded just in the nick of time.

My prediction is this:

  • The MSSC will keep the case and issue an expedited ruling.
  • The Court will uphold HB2 based on separation of powers.
  • The Court will find that the legislature has the constitutional authority to regulate concealed carry by defining both concealed and open carry.

The case is State of Mississippi v. Robert Shuler Smith, et al., cause number 2013-M-01114 before the Mississippi Supreme Court.



About randywallace
I am a husband, father, attorney, outdoorsman and cook.

5 Responses to Opponents of open carry respond

  1. I don’t see this as a separation of powers case. If the statute is void for vagueness, it’s unconstitutional and separation of powers does not insulate it from judicial review. On the other hand, if the statute is clear– and, as the AG argues, this one is clear– it can’t be held void for vagueness.

    I predict: The Supreme Court will keep the case, even though they possibly should not (they should have awaited the ruling on the preliminary injunction). They will find that the statute is not vague, and was certainly within the power of the legislature to enact.

    • Bob Wolford says:

      Looks like you called it Tom- appears that the SC will await Judge Kidd’s ruling the PI (on procedural grounds) and decide on the merits later, apparently in the interests of judicial economy (no need to dismiss only to have AG Hood refile a petition after the PI hearing). I tend to agree the SC will ultimately strike down any injunction that’s entered.

    • randywallace says:

      Looks like I missed the boat on the MSSC keeping the case but I continue to expect HB2 to prevail.

  2. I will be genuinely shocked if Judge Kidd grants a preliminary injunction and the Miss. Supt Ct sustains it. There are so many reasons this statute gets upheld, from good ones (it’s clearly within legislative power, and the challenge is, if not frivolous, as close as one gets to it) to less good ones (the political ramifications of striking the statute down would be scary for an elected judge to contemplate), whatever one thinks of it.

  3. randywallace says:

    I will not be shocked at all to see Judge Kidd enter an injunction. While he was basically reciting the technical requirements, he already found that the statute was vague and “there’s a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs would prevail on the merits.” But what do I know……..I guessed wrong on the MSSC keeping the case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: