Messages
34,476
Reactions
118,807
I read somewhere else that a writ of mandamus is a serious charge against a court. It's essentially slapping a judge and telling him to do his job correctly. I was under the impression that an appeal should have been the next step instead the extreme accusation, and that's why the supreme court reacted the way it did.
writ of mandamus

noun

  1. A writ that compels a government entity to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.
  2. an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail


We need to file a “writ of manwhaddamess”!
 
Messages
3,176
Reactions
10,632
writ of mandamus

noun

  1. A writ that compels a government entity to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly.
  2. an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail


We need to file a “writ of manwhaddamess”!
So that explains the Court's use of the term "moot". The writ simply had no application to the situation at hand. In the case of definition 1, presuming the judge dotted the i's and crossed the t's he performed his duties correctly. In the case of definition 2, whether to grant the TRO or not is purely within the judge's discretion and no other judicial remedies (appeal) were even tried let alone had failed. See, words mean things!!
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
I read somewhere else that a writ of mandamus is a serious charge against a court. It's essentially slapping a judge and telling him to do his job correctly. I was under the impression that an appeal should have been the next step instead the extreme accusation, and that's why the supreme court reacted the way it did.
Basically, as I understand it, the A.G' s office stepped out of bounds, instead of filing an appeal to the State Court challenging the ruling, they over stepped by going strait to the State Supreme Court, and the court wasn't having any of it! I haven't seen the OSSC's two paragraph decision, but I suspect there is a lot more at play here! Once the State Judge holds the hearing on the 13th, I'm assuming he will order a full injunction, which the A.G. will surely appeal, so, the question is, does she go to the State Court, or does she step outside the bounds again and go to the OSSC, and what if anything the OSSC rules at that point! Seems to be, the State Judge cannot be forced to reverse a ruling once he installs a injunction, but I don't know!
 
Messages
1,698
Reactions
2,072
Messages
985
Reactions
497
I thought the AG was supposed to do several things like investigate Brown for out of state donations, crypto scandal etc. etc she should be investigated for corruption and dereliction of duties. Just my .02. We need to start pushing these topics HARD.
 
Messages
3,874
Reactions
5,861
I thought the AG was supposed to do several things like investigate Brown for out of state donations, crypto scandal etc. etc she should be investigated for corruption and dereliction of duties. Just my .02. We need to start pushing these topics HARD.
Rosenblum? :s0140:

Sorry. It's your fantasy and you get to have it how you want it. I might have started with something different now that magic mushrooms are legal.
 
Messages
3,062
Reactions
7,709
I thought the AG was supposed to do several things like investigate Brown for out of state donations, crypto scandal etc. etc she should be investigated for corruption and dereliction of duties. Just my .02. We need to start pushing these topics HARD.
She done got her payoff so,

1znpqp.jpg
 
Messages
34,476
Reactions
118,807
So that explains the Court's use of the term "moot". The writ simply had no application to the situation at hand. In the case of definition 1, presuming the judge dotted the i's and crossed the t's he performed his duties correctly. In the case of definition 2, whether to grant the TRO or not is purely within the judge's discretion and no other judicial remedies (appeal) were even tried let alone had failed. See, words mean things!!
You just think you’re better than everybody else, don’t you?


:s0118:






;):s0140:
 
Messages
19,494
Reactions
74,351
What's REALLY funny here, the ONE time our A.G Could have shown off all her high floutin education and legal chops with something really well thought out, well put together, and really laid it out in court and showed us all just how superior she is to the rest of us! And she absolutely FAILED! Just goes to shown she ain't very bright, and completely incapable of fulfilling her duties of that high and mighty office!
 
Messages
689
Reactions
846
Curious question: I have a Sig P365XL with STANDARD capacity magazines of 12 rounds. After this law/rule is in place I will be unable to use those magazines when carrying this pistol for self defense for myself , property or others. The manufacturer is "Out of stock" for Compliant 10 round magazines for this pistol (I am not asking for websites they are in stock, as my point is the manufacturer cannot sell me the compliant magazine as of today), if something god forbid were to happen to my family, others, or property -When outside my home , mobile - as I was unable to carry my sidearm without a magazine because of this rule/law. Wouldn't that be exactly strong grounds for a legal case of "irreparable harm"? I also CANNOT buy a replacement compliant firearm without the needed permit that does not exist.
The Dem's will claim you should have thought ahead and bought mag's B4 114 passed.
 
Messages
3,818
Reactions
7,591
2) Modern firearms aren't what was commonly used in self defense in 1857 and anything containing more than 10 rounds is considered " experimental and unreliable" according to their historians" ( page 15)
I thought the "other side" has been telling us that the Constitution is a "living, evolving" document. If this is the case, should the same logic not be accorded to firearms? The rifle or musket of 1857 has evolved into an AR-15.
 
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
It delays implementation of the entire measure for 10 days so they can examine evidence
for a "preliminary injunction" that would block it in it's entirety until it goes through the courts.
Let's not forget---there are 3 other lawsuits out there, and they are the ones with serious horsepower. The Harney County TRO is just the beginning of a court battle that will
eventually lead to the whole thing being overturned.
Just to clarify, the 4 other lawsuits deal with US constitution vs the Harney one deals with the state constitution.

The Lewis and Clark professor (can't recall his name at the moment) clarified it well saying that the federal and state suits are on "parallel tracks", and if the state loses either one then they can't implement m114.

Edit: Skip to the 4:24 mark in this video to hear his explanation:

 
Last Edited:
Messages
7,161
Reactions
12,005
I thought the "other side" has been telling us that the Constitution is a "living, evolving" document. If this is the case, should the same logic not be accorded to firearms? The rifle or musket of 1857 has evolved into an AR-15.
Just tell them that TVs and Cell phones weren't used by the founding fathers in 1791 and freedom of speech still applies!
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top