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....