constitutional carry challenge

[saddlebum]

^^^^^ Well that was helpful.

Yup ,he's a moron

 

[Glock 40]

Looking on OSCN it looks like the challenge will be heard on 10/30/19 at 4pm with Judge Don Andrews. The petition basically hinges on the idea that the law somehow violates the single subject rule (I disagree but whatever). Anyone know if this judge is a fairly impartial guy or does he believe more in judicial activism with a strong bias to either the right or left?

Looks like hearing should be happening now.

 

[CHenry]

Lowe has no legal legs to stand on here. We cant start using the courts to legislate

 

[Okieron]

The judge was smart

 

[Catt57]

TLDR:
AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: ....PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED.

Source: http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2019-5628&cmid=3816991

ANDREWS: PLAINTIFF APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL MELANIE RUGHANI AND JORDAN SESSLER, DEFENDANT APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL RANDALL YATES AND MITHUN MANSINGHANI: CASE COMES ON FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT: AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:
1. THIS LAWSUIT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN HB 2597, BUT DOES CHALLENGE THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS ENACTED.
2. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS EITHER MISLEADING OR PROVISION IN THE ACT ARE SO UNRELATED THAT THE LAW WOULD BE FACED WITH AN UNPALATABLE ALL-OR-NOTHING CHOICE.
3. THE PROVISIONS OF HB 2597 ARE INCIDENTAL TO ACCOMPLISHING THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT. THEY ALL FORM PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.
4. THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE DOES NOT CONFER SUBSTANTIVE, INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT SIMPLY SETS FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A VIOLATION AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT-THE FREEDOM TO ACT IN SOME SORT OF WAY-NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL VIOLATION.
ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT ABSENT AN INJUNCTION. PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED HARMS ARE THEORETICAL OR SPECULATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND CIRCULATE AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING: COURT REPORTER SCOTT WILMETH PRESENT

 

[sedona]

Finally! This has been a long time coming.

 

[CGS1]

TLDR:
AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS: ....PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED.

Source: http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&number=CJ-2019-5628&cmid=3816991

ANDREWS: PLAINTIFF APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL MELANIE RUGHANI AND JORDAN SESSLER, DEFENDANT APPEARS BY AND THROUGH COUNSEL RANDALL YATES AND MITHUN MANSINGHANI: CASE COMES ON FOR PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION, REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT: AFTER HEARING ARGUMENT FROM BOTH SIDES THE COURT RULES AS FOLLOWS:
1. THIS LAWSUIT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN HB 2597, BUT DOES CHALLENGE THE PROCESS BY WHICH IT WAS ENACTED.
2. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS EITHER MISLEADING OR PROVISION IN THE ACT ARE SO UNRELATED THAT THE LAW WOULD BE FACED WITH AN UNPALATABLE ALL-OR-NOTHING CHOICE.
3. THE PROVISIONS OF HB 2597 ARE INCIDENTAL TO ACCOMPLISHING THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE ENACTMENT. THEY ALL FORM PARTS OF AN INTEGRATED WHOLE.
4. THE SINGLE SUBJECT RULE DOES NOT CONFER SUBSTANTIVE, INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, BUT SIMPLY SETS FORTH A PROCEDURE FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO FOLLOW. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS A VIOLATION AN INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT-THE FREEDOM TO ACT IN SOME SORT OF WAY-NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL VIOLATION.
ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, THAT THEY WILL BE IRREPARABLY HARMED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS SUIT ABSENT AN INJUNCTION. PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED HARMS ARE THEORETICAL OR SPECULATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IS OVERRULED. COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE AND CIRCULATE AN ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S RULING: COURT REPORTER SCOTT WILMETH PRESENT

 

[dru]

LOL, Jason Lowe's already planning an appeal. You'd think he'd get tired of losing

 

[CGS1]

WELL THIS IS GOING TO GET THE LIBTARDS PANTIES IN A WAD,
GOOD LUCK ON THAT APEAL LOWE.

 

[tRidiot]

We need a bigger 'eyeroll' emoticon or something for these 'tards.