Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Proposed Legislation

  1. #1
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238

    Proposed Legislation

    Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Every year a Constitutional carry bill is introduced in the legislature, and every year it "dies in committee". The bill introduced would null and void 97-37-1. As if it didn't even exist. Some even modify 97-37-1 but they always die in committee. There's your problem right there. It's not that the bills are not being introduced, its that WE are not holding our legislators feet to the fire.

    I write every time, but I'm only one person.

    {Georg Jetson replies:}
    I have friends in Ms. If you are keeping you finger on the pulse of this particular issue, then give us a heads up and we can increase constituent participation.
    [written 6-June-2011]
    As I told ya'll, I'd let you know about bills, esp. Constitutional carry type bills that were introduced this year. There are at least three house bills relating to carry this year, one Constitutional carry, and one relating specifically to open carry. (I haven't checked the senate bills yet). The bills I refer to are:

    HB596 - By Rep. Formby, More or less a true Constitutional Carry Bill.

    HB704 - By Rep DeBar, although titled "Weapons permit; revise law to allow constitutional carry.", I personally, cannot see where it does any such thing. I look forward to comments on this one.

    HB1399 - By Rep. Hood. This bill specifically defines and addresses "in plain sight" or open carry, and seeks to make such specifically legal in the Mississippi code. (We all know what Article 3 Section 12 states).

    Other bills relating to firearms in one way or another are: (you may want to gander at these if you have the time)

    HB10, HB145, HB455, HB550, HB553, HB576, HB598, HB616, HB627, HB695, HB736, HB1165, HB1169, HB1429, HB1435, HB1477, and HB1485.

    Admittedly, I have not read all these bills. I'm sure they would make for some interesting reading!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    596 sucks in wording and is only for pistols and revolvers...

    704 is the section 45 version of the previous bill.

    1399 is almost there except it needs to simply say what is concealed instead of what is unconcealed; additionally it places a regulation upon OC which is unconstitutional.

    Seems even those who are on the side of not making OC illegal still want to be able to regulate that which is constitutionally unregulatable. Perhaps we need to push for 1399 and then worry about the unconstitutional regulation. That could probably be done with a MS supreme court challenge and be limited in scope enough to succeed.


    Edit: I had to laugh at 1485. Thank Waveland PD for that one.
    Last edited by Daylen; 02-25-2012 at 04:21 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    596 sucks in wording and is only for pistols and revolvers...

    704 is the section 45 version of the previous bill.

    1399 is almost there except it needs to simply say what is concealed instead of what is unconcealed; additionally it places a regulation upon OC which is unconstitutional.

    Seems even those who are on the side of not making OC illegal still want to be able to regulate that which is constitutionally unregulatable. Perhaps we need to push for 1399 and then worry about the unconstitutional regulation. That could probably be done with a MS supreme court challenge and be limited in scope enough to succeed.


    Edit: I had to laugh at 1485. Thank Waveland PD for that one.
    Pretty fair assessment. However, I would disagree with one thing. This:
    "Perhaps we need to push for 1399 and then worry about the unconstitutional regulation. That could probably be done with a MS supreme court challenge and be limited in scope enough to succeed."

    As it stands now, MS statute already attempts to regulate OC by the "in whole or in part" clause. The fact that this remains unchallenged for this long concerns me to let another statute pass requiring a similar challenge. I see no bill, relevant to OC, that is useful unless it strikes the offending clause from the statute.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Pretty fair assessment. However, I would disagree with one thing. This:
    "Perhaps we need to push for 1399 and then worry about the unconstitutional regulation. That could probably be done with a MS supreme court challenge and be limited in scope enough to succeed."

    As it stands now, MS statute already attempts to regulate OC by the "in whole or in part" clause. The fact that this remains unchallenged for this long concerns me to let another statute pass requiring a similar challenge. I see no bill, relevant to OC, that is useful unless it strikes the offending clause from the statute.
    Considering its MS, this would still be a step forward, while at the same time the bill would clear the way for the next step. The current law is nebulous and hard to attack, the bill would clarify and thus make the offending part clearly unconstitutional; a far easier target.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  5. #5
    Regular Member bigun220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Soso, MS
    Posts
    67
    Here is an update on the gun related house bills:

    HB 455 Weapon dealer record keeping requirements; repeal transmitted to senate

    HB 598 Concealed Weapons; revise prohibition against carrying in church... passed
    committee
    This is interesting.

    HB 627 Gun buy back programs; prohibit transmitted to senate

    HB 695 Gun Permits; revise reciprocity transmitted to senate

    HB 1326 Crimes; revise certain provisions relating to hunting on public roads... passed committee

    The rest of the listed gun related bills are dead.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •