georg jetson
Regular Member
Gotcha...
Let's work together to get this Ocing stuff cleared up in the most expedient way possible... but let's get it done!!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
An idea that may turn the tide.
- Thread starter DCKilla
- Start date
Gotcha...
Let's work together to get this Ocing stuff cleared up in the most expedient way possible... but let's get it done!!
That's been my plan for a bit. MS for me though is currently on the sideline, I'm trying to help out in AL at the moment, where I live. Over here we are trying to get vehicle carry.
georg jetson
Regular Member
lol!!! Im over here in Louisiana trying to help you guys in Ms.
Louisiana's BIGGEST OCing issue is the fed gun free school zone law. I intend to help states get organized to fight this as it is a national problem... In the mean time I see a solution to the problem in Ms. it's just a shame that nothing is getting done.
In any case, there's a whole list of smart, educated people in Ms. We can get cracking on this and you can pitch in when you have time.
Let's start seeing the threads on RUle 57!! We've got work to do
Last edited:
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Rule 57 is a CIVIL procedure rule, doesn't have anything to do with the Mississippi CRIMINAL code. Never the twain shall meet. It would never get ANYWHERE in a court of law. Rule 57 says basically if you don't want the court to decide, then you can have a trial by jury. Well DUH? And it ONLY applies to CIVIL cases. You cannot overturn statutory law by winning a CIVIL case!
I will admit, it's a valiant try though!
georg jetson
Regular Member
??!! What the hell are you talkin about... never the twain shall meet??!! What law is that?? The I don't know what I'm talkin about so I'll make it up law??
READ the FRICKIN RULE!!! Geez!!! Do I have to hold your hand??
(b) When Available.
(1)
Any person interested under a deed, will, written contract, or other writings constituting a contract, or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance, contract or franchise, may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument, statute, ordinance, contract, or franchise, and obtain a declaration of rights, status or other legal relations thereunder.
Specifically THIS "or whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute, municipal ordinance".
DO YOU SEE THE WORD STATUTE??!!! Reading is FUNdamental.
You just looking to help out a neighbor?
georg jetson
Regular Member
I live in Slidell which is just a few miles west of Ms. I spend time in Jackson for business and in Gulfport with friends... so you can say that I have a vested interest in helping the Ocers in Ms. So...
Yes.
You doing the same in Al. ?
Last edited:
I live in AL, I have family in MS and used to live there. I travel there enough to want decent laws and hope to live there again.
I'm well aware of where Slidell is located. just across the boarder from you is my old stomping grounds. I do wish MS and LA were more permissive about carrying as AL is. It's nice not being restricted by the state on where or when I can carry, even when using my permission slip.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Exactly, I mean you made my point for me, EXACTLY WHOSE rights, status, or other legal relations are affected? Are you a citizen of Mississippi State, or are you a citizen of "The State of Mississippi"?
But again, CIVIL rules of procedure DO NOT apply to criminal cases, and cannot POSSIBLY get the code declared null or void. I don't EVEN care if the word STATUTE is in there, it's not going to CHANGE the STATUTE. Maybe you win a civil case, big deal, what the hell is everyone else suppose to do? The statute has not changed.
I mean really, I'm not trying to go head to head with you, but do you not SEE that the "rules of procedure" do NOT trump the Mississippi code? You may win a case.....so what?
georg jetson
Regular Member
Well I have to give credit where it is due... it is true that as a non-resident of Ms, I MAY not have standing to file. However, I doubt it.. and this is why...
Rule 57 uses the term "any person". I haven't looked yet, but I'm gonna bet that the applicable definition here for "person" does NOT include residency... we'll see...
Now.. to address the rest of what you say...
1. There is NO such thing as being a CITIZEN of a state. You are a CITIZEN of the US and a RESIDENT of a particular state. You make this mistake because you have the same grasp of the law as the average person... abysmal. If you would simply stop trying to give useless opinion and start actually reading the law you MAY learn something.
2. Ok... you are almost CORRECT that civil rules do not apply to criminal cases. Again your opinion and NOT law. In certain instances civil rules CAN apply. However, in this case, it is irrelevant and here's why...
PASSING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A FRICKIN CRIME!!!! What are you thinking here... Oh I get it... we file a complaint with the local court that the evil legislature has committed a crime by enacting an unconstitutional law... and we charge them wit WHAT statute??? Uhhh... can't find it...
[ Im sure there are people that think this is the way it should be
]The process we are given as redress, in this case, is a lawsuit filed in CIVIL court per RULE 57 whereby a person (b)1 "may have determined ANY question of CONSTRUCTION or validity arising under the instrument, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, contract, or franchise, and obtain a DECLARATION of RIGHTS, status or other legal relations thereunder."
Now of course if you "don't EVEN care if the word STATUTE is in there"... well then Im wasting my time with a person who enjoys their ignorance, but I rebut you useless opinions with the law such that others here may benefit.
Enough of your useless opinion... find the law that backs up your claims.
The language of the constitution seems to admit there are citizens of states... Also, remember States are supposed to be sovereign countries within a larger federal republic. What you suggest is analogous to saying one can only be a resident of France because there are only citizens of the European Union.
PASSING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A FRICKIN CRIME!!!! What are you thinking here... Oh I get it... we file a complaint with the local court that the evil legislature has committed a crime by enacting an unconstitutional law... and we charge them wit WHAT statute??? Uhhh... can't find it...
[ Im sure there are people that think this is the way it should be
I couldn't agree more. Also, those three words are only part of the problem. If the courts and LE had better respected the constitution and not tried to interpret their way around the constitution there would be little problem.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Yes it would be... but that is an unrealistic expectation and the "framers" new that over 200 yrs ago.
There are a list of tools that we HAD for redress... due to lack of VIGILANCE by the people, this has resulted in a general ignorance of the law and therefore a surrender of the tools to combat tyranny.
We have a tool in the declaratory judgement at both the state level and the federal level... let's learn about it and use it.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
It would seem to admit that, however, what it actually means is United States citizens of this state and United States Citizens of other states. This is really not that important as it appears from your posts that a citizen from another state would have standing to file a lawsuit per rule 57 in MS because the "whole or in part" issue would affect ANYONE in the geographical jurisdiction of Ms.
Your analogy is improper... there is NO analogous example of the relationship of the United States as a nation with it's member states in the entire world today.
Edit -
The 14th Amendment would seem to support YOUR point... I'm willing to conceed
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States AND of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Last edited:
MSRebel54
Regular Member
I would only ask that you cite me a case, ANY case, preferably in MS, but anywhere really, of where a civil suit or procedure has voided law. Also, you are bordering on being disrespectful to me, which was not my intention towards you, as evidenced by my last paragraph in the post. I do enjoy a heated discussion WITH opinions, whether they are right or whether they are wrong. But I don't enjoy being treated disrespectfully, and will end a conversation if it comes to name calling. "Ignorant" for example. Ignorant simply means you don't know something, but we're talking about (in regard to rule 57) something that hasn't happened, so we would BOTH have to be ignorant, wouldn't we?
Sure, I could be wrong, and HAVE been wrong many times before. I don't know of ANYONE who has never been wrong before. But that's what a healthy discussion is for, one never learns anything from being right all the time. If I'm PROVEN wrong, that's a good thing, because at that point, I've learned something.
And as far as OPINION goes, isn't it your OPINION that the Rule 57 strategy will work? It's my opinion that it won't. What makes your opinion so much more valid or valuable than mine?
georg jetson
Regular Member
My opinion is supported by LAW and yours isn't. Can you understand that?
Do you see what transpired between myself and another here concerning the issue of state citizenship. The other poster used LAW in SUPPORT of his opinion. In addition, when I went searching the law to find something to support my position, what I find was to the contrary... so my initial position was wrong, but we all learned something together... and that IS usefull.
Now... know this...
I don't care if you end the conversation because you're not bringing anything of value. I put the law in front of you and you "don't care". It is YOU that WILLINGLY wish to remain ignorant and I simply point it out. The term is not meant as disrespect, it is a descriptor properly used to describe someone that does not know something... as you pointed out. However, what would concern me more is the description of being WILLINGLY ignorant. You have made several inaccurate statements already, about rule 57, none of which were supported by any law and all of which you formulated WITHOUT READING the dang law. That is your choice.
No sir, I will not further do YOUR research for YOU. If you can find some LAW that would show that rule 57 is not used for what IT SAYS ITSELF that it is used for then by all means post it. We will learn together.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
I did read it. And I am respectfully asking that you explain to me how (in layman's terms, I'm not a lawyer) this would get the job done? So you win the case, doesn't it just apply to you, not everyone everywhere? Does a court under civil rules have the power to nullify current law? I thought the only ways that could be done was for the legislature to repeal it, or the supreme court to find it unconstitutional. Am I wrong? I'm just asking, cause I really don't know. I enjoy reading the code, but not procedure. I'm not really fond of how lawyers play games with words, about what is plainly common sense. Now, I hope we get get off to a better second start!
georg jetson
Regular Member
NO. BUT, at least you're asking questions now instead of blurting out unsupported, INCORRECT opinion. In Louisiana, we would also file for an injunction at the same time. You need to look in your rules to find out how this is done in Ms.
What does rule 57 say??? "Courts of record within their respective jurisdictions may declare rights, status, and other legal relations regardless of whether further relief is or could be claimed."
You're not completely wrong... in the case of a lawsuit, filed under rule 57, that has been WON in civil court, the loosing party will probably be able to appeal directly to the SC. So, yes, the SC would have the final say. Read your rules to find the answer to this question.
It's obvious you don't know. Now I'm telling you were to look to find out. The law is the law... all of it... the rules of procedure is code just as much any other statute. You need to get the whole picture. Playing word games is just a part of how the legal system works.. it's no excuse for us to remain ignorant.
Lastly... quit being so dang sensitive... geez...
MSRebel54
Regular Member
First, thanks for the response, I DID actually learn something from it. Particularly, that if the case was won, it would apply to everyone, not just the individual(s) who won the case.
Secondly, I'm not being sensitive, I just don't want to see what would otherwise be a conversation that produces useful information deteriorate into nothing useful on the forum. Everyone has a bad day.
So thanks again for the info, and I'll consider it within the big picture.