08/27/2024
IF YOU ARE A GUN OWNER READ THIS
I took on the establishment At the Supreme Court in 2016 over our gun rights. The case wasn't decided until late 2018. You need to do your part by spreading the word on Dawn Beam.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2016-M-01072-SCT
RICKY W. WARD
v.
DOROTHY WINSTON COLOM
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGES:
11/18/2011
HON. DOROTHY WINSTON COLOM
HON. KENNETH M. BURNS
HON. H. J. DAVIDSON, JR.
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:
THOMAS E. PAYNE
FOR RESPONDENTS:
DOROTHY WINSTON COLOM
KENNETH M. BURNS
H. J. DAVIDSON, JR.
LOWNDES COUNTY
NATURE OF THE CASE:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
The Motion for Rehearing filed by the Respondents is denied. Waller, C.J., Kitchens, P.J., King and Beam, JJ., would grant.
MISCELLANEOUS
VACATED - 06/07/2018
(Notice above when the judges asked for a rehearing, the Supreme Court denied it, but Beam said she would have granted it against 5 other Justices but she lost.)
Below you will read Beam's comments from the court record followed by mine.
BEAM, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
BEAM, JUSTICE, CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
134. The majority's holding today that judges are without authority to control the security outside their courtrooms renders a sad day for justice in Mississippi.
My comment: Oh yes and how have enhanced carriers impacted on Justice? And I'm glad it was a sad day for her. And the law gives the sheriffs responsibility for security of tge courthouse. You would think a Supreme Court Justice would know that.
I have witnessed first-hand the volatility that embodies the courthouse in situations where emotions are running high in even the most reasonable and steadfast citizens among us.
Knowing that litigants, witnesses, and court participants are secure in the sacred halls of the courthouse is imperative to assure "justice for all."
My comment: You have got to be kidding me. First of all the halls are the responsibility of the sheriff. The Judge is responsible for inside the courtroom only. But this is the one that really makes me want to throw up. That it is imperative for all participants be secure. Give me a break. Those who provide that security are in most cases old men long past their retirement or big fat women. If they carry guns, they have to remove the cobwebs from the holster first. Every time there has been a shooting in a courthouse it was because "security" let them in without detecting the gun. Every time there has been a shooting in the courtroom, the gun used was the deputy's gun taken away from him. That is precisely why we should be armed in the courthouse when one of those nuts grabs a gun, shoots somebody and runs out in a blaze of glory while you stumble into him with your new car tag, voter registration card or marriage license. Do you want to put your life in tge hands if a bailiff? I don't.
935. agree with Justice King that the chancery court's order is an appropriate exercise of inherent judicial authority, and that Section 97-37-7(2) as applied to the courts violates the separation of powers.
She claims the court orders banning us from the courthouse while armed and the statutory language violates separation of powers. That's funny. I'll tell you what violates separation of powers. It is the Legislative branch doing its job passing laws while many chancery and circuit judges in the Judicial branch, responsible for determining if somebody broke those laws, but chooses to try and repeal the Legislature's power and override that law. That is exactly what these judges were doing.
However, I agree with Chief Justice Waller that extending a prohibition on fi****ms out into the parking lot (within 200 feet of any entrance door to the courthouses) may be overly broad.
My comment: Well, I'm glad she and Waller could come to that conclusion but her authority ended at the court room door. Not 200 feet from the courthouse outer door.
Thus, I would vacate the subject order without prejudice, and allow the trial judges to enter a specific, detailed analysis in a modified order for security restrictions beyond the courtroom walls.
My comment: She would vacate the order and give the trial judges another shot at being more specific with their orders to include outside the courtroom walls. Justice Beam's lawyers, Chancellors and former Circuit Court Judge buddies had copied what the Lowndes County Judges had done by issuing orders to limit our authority. And guess who one of them was. None other than Circuit Court Judge Dawn Beam with a courtroom in Hattiesburg. Now think about this. I file a complaint with the Supreme Court over judges in Lowndes County that will impact copycat judges all over the state. And Judge Beam ordered us out of the Courthouse with guns. But after this decision, the sheriff, who had the authority and could read the law fixed that problem. But stay with me now. Shortly after that, Circuit Court Judge Dawn Beam became a Supreme Court Justice, appointed by Phil Bryant like Kamala Harris, without votes by the people and now she wants you to keep her in that job!
My final Comment: Given the fact that she was one of those judges issuing unlawful orders to violate our rights and shortly thereafter appointed to the Supreme Court, don't you think she should have recused herself from this case? I mean, after all, she was ruling on what she had recently done and passing judgment on those actions. Now, does it take Einstein to see there is a clear conflict of interest here? I wonder if she ever told the other Justices she was one of those Circuit Judges who signed an order violating separation of powers in our state Constitution!
So will you vote for Dawn Beam? I won't and I am asking all my friends not to. I am urging everybody, including the 3,000 plus permit holders I trained to thumb their noses at her. She is not a gun rights judge. None of the 3 judges in Lowndes County ran for re-election after the Supreme Court pooped in their nests. She shouldn't run either.
If you would like to read the entire case and see what a spanking Justice Randolph and others gave these judges click on the link below and download the case.
https://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2018/2016-m-01072-sct.html
