MS “open carry” law is now in the hands of the State Supreme Court

Now we wait

Attorney Lisa Mishune Ross who represents DA Robert Shuler Smith and the handful of Hinds County Constables who have been “confused” by House Bill 2, filed a rambling and mostly irrelevant brief with the MS Supreme Court supporting Judge Winston Kidd’s injunction against House Bill 2.  After reading her brief I am concerned that we are left completely uninformed of Ms Ross’ stand on dueling.

Ms Ross proposes to address three issues in her brief:

A. Whether the phrase “called not be called into question” [ I believe she means "shall not be called into question"]  means the Mississippi Legislature cannot place reasonable restrictions, consistent with public safety and Article 3, § 12, on the right to keep and bear arms in public?
B. Whether House Bill 2 is unconstitutionally vague on its face as a matter of law? .

C. Whether Judge Kidd violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine?

Ms Ross begins her argument with the MS Constitution Article 3, Section 12;

“[T] he right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.”

She spends a great deal of time on the phrase “shall not be called into question” and attempts to make a point that this phrase does not limit the government from placing “reasonable limitations consistent with public safety on the right to keep and bear arms.”  She continues further to site several court cases where the U.S. Supreme  Court has issued opinions supporting governments ability to impose limitations on the “right to keep and bear arms” Her point seems to be that she and her clients are distraught because House Bill 2 did not outline limitations on citizens right to keep and bear arms.

They and Judge Kidd want the Legislature to outline in the bill who can and can not carry weapons openly.  The problem with this is that House Bill 2 does not address open carry of weapons, it simply defines “concealed”.  Other laws address the issue of who can and can not carry a weapon.

The second point in Ms Ross’ brief is her attempt to show that House Bill 2 is “unconstitutionally vague”.  Her first point on this matter is a claim that there has been confusion among the population on House Bill 2.  She quotes Attorney General Hood in an interview where he stated, there has been, “quite a bit of confusion” about House Bill 2.  The problem with that is Judge Kidd, Ms Ross and her clients are the source of that confusion.  This I believe has been their tactic all along.  They spread ideas about House Bill 2 that they know are false and cry on TV about how confused they are, then go to court and claim the bill is confusing.

more here at mississippigunnews