Posted on 07/01/2013 5:07:46 AM PDT by marktwain
I read your post, and the article at the link, and still have no clue as to exactly what the issue is all about. WHAT lawsuit?? What is the issue and significance of said lawsuit? Maybe you have covered those points elsewhere, but if so, I haven’t seen them.
Excellent. That clarifies things greatly. Probably if I was still back in Louisiana, the local La. news would have had this as a story, but in Washington state..........
Problem is our AG jim hood, the only state wide elected democrat, who with his interpretations has worked to circumvent our state Constitution, our legislature and the will of the people. His interpretations defy common sense, ther can be no open carry because the part hidden by the holster makes it concealed but not concealed enough to be concealed. If any part of a concealed firearm is exposed, and this may include the holster, you are in violation and considered to be “brandishing” even inadvertant, wind blows shirt open, shirt or jacket pulls and exposes on entering or exiting vehicle, etc. his definition of partially concealed even if “wearing it around your neck tied with string because the string conceals part of the firearm” is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard from a lawyer.
Mississippi gunslinger Ping
Not if the lawyer is a Democrat........
Thanks very much for the ping.
Right on, duffee!
Jim Hood is the only statewide elected demonic-rat and he can always be counted on to go against us.
You’re very much welcome.
Thanks for the ping. Our Open-Carry Independence Day celebration is still on. This POS judge can KMA!
Bump that!
Thank you for the ping!
Link only MSC will not rule on injuction
I don’t understand this at all, do you?
I guess they are just going to let it work through the system. If we have a system. Jimbo Hood didn’t like his dim buddies going over his head and he still got slapped down.
Well, thank you for that. You have a better understanding than me!
“A panel of three justices said they made their decision for procedural reasons...”
Procedural reasons?
Do you know what that means?
I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :>)
I don’t know for sure what it means. I think it means 3 of Judges decided Jim Hood did not follow procedure by bringing the case directly to the MSC. Maybe he should have waited until after the hearing and then appealed.
Please keep in mind this is only my low info voter humble opinion.
Well, keeping in mind that it was the MSC that upheld the insane ruling that a piece of string tied around a trigger guard constituted concealed carry. This ruling does not surprise me. We’ll have to see what happens after the hearing on July 8.
Right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.