Question for the lawyers on here....

[Guest HexHead]

regarding Bonneyman's decision last Friday making HB0962 null and void. Is the AG's office the only one that can appeal the decision, or can HCP holders bring an appeal since we're the ones effected by it? Can't we be "plaintiffs" too?

[Photoguy67]

I am not a lawyer but the way I understand it, you have to be involved in the original law suit to file an appeal.

[Motasyco]

I am not a lawyer but the way I understand it, you have to be involved in the original law suit to file an appeal.

I sure feel involved.

[Guest HexHead]

I sure feel involved.

My thoughts exactly.

[Guest GhostHunter]

Hopefully the legislature will take care of this when they go into session....

[Guest HexHead]

Hopefully the legislature will take care of this when they go into session....

Getting her overturned would be a hell of a lot easier and quicker. As has been mentioned before, if it goes through the legislature again, it will likely need to go through committees in both houses again first, then be voted on by both houses, then go to conference committee again to iron out one bill for the Governor to veto. Then back to the legislature for the override votes and then wait until it can take effect again, assuming the votes and the will are still there.

If you think my sentence went on forever, it's nothing compared to what 'fixing" this is gonna take.

[Guest H0TSH0T]

Getting her overturned would be a hell of a lot easier and quicker. As has been mentioned before, if it goes through the legislature again, it will likely need to go through committees in both houses again first, then be voted on by both houses, then go to conference committee again to iron out one bill for the Governor to veto. Then back to the legislature for the override votes and then wait until it can take effect again, assuming the votes and the will are still there.

If you think my sentence went on forever, it's nothing compared to what 'fixing" this is gonna take.

then some other judge will make it's stench from the bench, and a viscous circle it becomes.

[Guest HexHead]

then some other judge will make it's stench from the bench, and a viscous circle it becomes.

Doesn't appeals court have more than one judge? State Supreme Court certainly does. They can't all be liberal azzholes. Can they?

[Guest H0TSH0T]

Doesn't appeals court have more than one judge? State Supreme Court certainly does. They can't all be liberal azzholes. Can they?

yes, there is more than one judge, and yes it is not beyond the realm of possibility that all of those judges can legislate from the bench, for there own personal reasons, as well as their political ones. Hence the problem......

[TMMT]

Im no lawyer but I am thinking you might be able to bring a suit on if you can show how you can be harmed by a decision and have an Appeals Court hear your argument.

[Fallguy]

Im no lawyer but I am thinking you might be able to bring a suit on if you can show how you can be harmed by a decision and have an Appeals Court hear your argument.

That would be a new suit though, not appealing the ruling in this one.

IANAL, but to answer the orginal question, I would think only those named parties in the suit could appeal any ruling made in the suit.

[tntnixon]

That would be a new suit though, not appealing the ruling in this one.

IANAL, but to answer the orginal question, I would think only those named parties in the suit could appeal any ruling made in the suit.

You would probably have to actually go into a place that serves alcohol and get caught in order to have standing before the court. Then you would have to appeal to conviction (assuming there was one) in order to be heard by the court of appeals. Then and only then could you argue that the order, written by Bonnyman, was erroneous and your conviction should be overturned.

You can't just go into the court and say you want to overturn the order because you "haven't been harmed" by it. At least that's my understanding of the process.

The original plaintiffs had standing before the court because they could argue that they were being forced to do something. In this case, placing a sign on there front door and that the were suffering monetarily by such a requirement. These things, at least theoretically, constitute "harm".

Now I belive all their arguements were BS, but it was enough to get a hearing.

I would have a much tougher time getting a hearing because I wanted to go armed into a bar but couldn't unless I actually did it and got arrested for it.

[Guest HexHead]

Well, I think we're screwed then if we have to wait for AG Cooper to do so. Hell might freeze over first. My impression of him, judging from his opinions, is that he's anti-gun.