Jump to content

Southerland v. ESCAPA


press1280

Recommended Posts

Looks like a pro se challenged both the open carry ban on handguns AND long guns. The judge? You guessed it. Myerscough once again ruling neither violates the 2A.

Seems the pro se attorney didn't cite the many 19th century state cases that would have helped her claim. But it just goes to show these things should sometimes be left to professionals.

 

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7531070311796205804&q=%22bear+arms%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=6,49

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her husband has a conspiracy case lodged against escapa as well in federal courrt with an attourney. The states attourney and sherriffs department conspired to frame mr southerland when he was running for sherrif one the plat form that he would fire the whole dept and bring in new to get rid of the corruption. I wish he would have gotten it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would anyone who cares enough to file suit try to do this themselves? Completely inadequate to represent themselves. They should see if they can get a lawyer and appeal.

I don't think you'll see an appeal on this one. Did you read the conclusion? "The Plaintiff's claim is DIMISSED [sic] WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED." Caps are Judge Myerscough's. Yikes.

 

Appeals are expensive, and if money is an issue, I think it would be very difficult to find an attorney who would be interested in appealing this decision pro bono. It might even be difficult to find an attorney to appeal this on a paid basis. But then again, the sharks are often hungry...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would anyone who cares enough to file suit try to do this themselves? Completely inadequate to represent themselves. They should see if they can get a lawyer and appeal.

I don't think you'll see an appeal on this one. Did you read the conclusion? "The Plaintiff's claim is DIMISSED [sic] WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED." Caps are Judge Myerscough's. Yikes.

 

Appeals are expensive, and if money is an issue, I think it would be very difficult to find an attorney who would be interested in appealing this decision pro bono. It might even be difficult to find an attorney to appeal this on a paid basis. But then again, the sharks are often hungry...........[/quote

 

Does this essentially kill any future attempts to challenge our open carry ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It

 

 

 


Why would anyone who cares enough to file suit try to do this themselves? Completely inadequate to represent themselves. They should see if they can get a lawyer and appeal.

I don't think you'll see an appeal on this one. Did you read the conclusion? "The Plaintiff's claim is DIMISSED [sic] WITH PREJUDICE. This case is CLOSED." Caps are Judge Myerscough's. Yikes.

Appeals are expensive, and if money is an issue, I think it would be very difficult to find an attorney who would be interested in appealing this decision pro bono. It might even be difficult to find an attorney to appeal this on a paid basis. But then again, the sharks are often hungry...........[/quote

Does this essentially kill any future attempts to challenge our open carry ban?

IMO, It's not an appellate court decision, so technically it has no mandatory state wide effect. A case brought in Illinois' Northern District (good luck with that!) or the Southern District might be decided differently, though they might very well decide to follow the reasoning of this court. A split would have to be appealed. But no, this decision does not essentially kill any future attempts to challenge our open carry ban.

 

I'm sure the pro se aspect didn't help the plaintiff's case. As they say, "bad facts make bad law." In this case, it may have been inadequate arguments made before the court, and obviously this judge NEVER wants to see this plaintiff again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partially.just cause they believe in open carry. And there were some hijinx played out by the states attourney escapa and the local sherriffs dept against her husband and son. Essentially they conspired to get her husband who was running for sherriff arrested on felony charges right before election as a smear campaighn. The judge on that case threw the case out after evidence of conspiracy and perjury were presented and spaanked the states attourney who is anti 2nd amendment in open court. There is a case pending againt those parties now. Unfortunately that happened to late to help his election chances. My guess is this case was just because nell was angry at the states attorney and decided to be an annoyance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...