• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Everyone on here is going to jail!!

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
That source is WRONG. Unless you want misinformation don't start there.

Nope, not wrong, just the most-conservative reading of conflicting case law. Your reading is the least-conservative interpretation. It sounds like you're on your way to being the first test case, and I'd be happy to contribute $$ to your defense fund if/when that happens. Once you've been arrested, charged, get it to trial, and win, then you can say that the website is wrong. Until then, it's Schoedinger's cat--indeterminate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat for explanation of analogy).
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
Nope, not wrong, just the most-conservative reading of conflicting case law. Your reading is the least-conservative interpretation. It sounds like you're on your way to being the first test case, and I'd be happy to contribute $$ to your defense fund if/when that happens. Once you've been arrested, charged, get it to trial, and win, then you can say that the website is wrong. Until then, it's Schoedinger's cat--indeterminate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat for explanation of analogy).

Here's the WRONG part:

"As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."

What case states this?
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Nope, not wrong, just the most-conservative reading of conflicting case law. Your reading is the least-conservative interpretation. It sounds like you're on your way to being the first test case, and I'd be happy to contribute $$ to your defense fund if/when that happens. Once you've been arrested, charged, get it to trial, and win, then you can say that the website is wrong. Until then, it's Schoedinger's cat--indeterminate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schroedinger's_cat for explanation of analogy).

No that reading is of the single law in question, not the constitution, not the AG opinions, nothing but the single bit of code; oh and some judicial hearsay. Also, your thoughts on what would happen if I was to be a test case is off (well unless I am unlucky enough to come across a REALLY ignorant cop) as concealing without a license on one's person is a non-arrestable fine; however, thanks for the pledge of support.
 

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
Here's the WRONG part:

"As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."

What case states this?

L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992).

"ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, concurring:

I concur with the majority opinion, but I think more should be said about carrying concealed weapons.

One of the first cases I undertook as a young lawyer was the defense of a man charged with carrying a concealed weapon. I thought his defense would be simple and easy until I learned what the statute meant. To my amazement, I discovered that carrying a concealed weapon in whole or in part even meant that a revolver carried in a holster on a man's hip was a partially concealed weapon, riding a horse with a saddle holster and revolver under a person's leg violated the statute; and that covering a weapon with feet, hands, or clothing meant that the weapon was concealed under the interpretation of the statute. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather thong could be partially concealing it. (One Western gunfighter used that method.)"

[emphasis added]

Full opinion and transcript can be found at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Carry-The-LAW&p=775442&viewfull=1#post775442
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992).

"ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, concurring:

I concur with the majority opinion, but I think more should be said about carrying concealed weapons.

One of the first cases I undertook as a young lawyer was the defense of a man charged with carrying a concealed weapon. I thought his defense would be simple and easy until I learned what the statute meant. To my amazement, I discovered that carrying a concealed weapon in whole or in part even meant that a revolver carried in a holster on a man's hip was a partially concealed weapon, riding a horse with a saddle holster and revolver under a person's leg violated the statute; and that covering a weapon with feet, hands, or clothing meant that the weapon was concealed under the interpretation of the statute. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather thong could be partially concealing it. (One Western gunfighter used that method.)"

[emphasis added]

Full opinion and transcript can be found at http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Carry-The-LAW&p=775442&viewfull=1#post775442

This case has been talked about here ad nauseum. This a CONCURRING opinion and not the opinion of the SC. In addition, if you read this you see that Chief Justice Lee is making a point about the RIDICULOUS the wording of the law.

All of this and more is discussed in the thread you link to. The fact is that there is NO case in Ms. that supports this: "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
That opinion was not a majority opinion, just a concuring one. It is not law, only the actual outcome of the case is law as there was no other majority opinion. The outcome was that a firearm in a vehicle was considered concealed, this was almost immediately fixed with a code change. If you take the time to look at AG opinions issued after that case they still refuse to answer what is concealed or open. If it was as clean cut as that judge claims (nothing like hearsay coming from a chief justice) AGs would have repeated such an opinion.
 

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
This case has been talked about here ad nauseum.
I agree 100%. And yet here we are.

if you read this you see that Chief Justice Lee is making a point about the RIDICULOUS the wording of the law.
I agree 100%. And the legislature hasn't done a thing about it in all the years since, so it stands as written.

The fact is that there is NO case in Ms. that supports this: "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."
Likewise, it is also a fact (AFAIK) that there is no case law or AG opinion that offers any interpretation contrary to Justice Lee's. So the prudent course is to operate as OCDO stated. If OC is really "technical CC" as Justice Lee's opinion contends, then you've got a permit and no law has been broken. If OC is just OC, no law has been broken (and you've got a superfluous permit that you might find useful another day). But either way, there's no case against you. The alternative is to risk being a test case and to hope that a court will throw out the law.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
I agree 100%. And yet here we are.

Because the OCDO website is still incorrect about the statement "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."


I agree 100%. And the legislature hasn't done a thing about it in all the years since, so it stands as written.

So let's request that OCDO change the description.

Likewise, it is also a fact (AFAIK) that there is no case law or AG opinion that offers any interpretation contrary to Justice Lee's. So the prudent course is to operate as OCDO stated. If OC is really "technical CC" as Justice Lee's opinion contends, then you've got a permit and no law has been broken. If OC is just OC, no law has been broken (and you've got a superfluous permit that you might find useful another day). But either way, there's no case against you. The alternative is to risk being a test case and to hope that a court will throw out the law.

I agree with everything you say here. However, that still doesn't change the fact the statement I quote above is incorrect. It took you a few sentences to explain things correctly. Why shouldn't OCDO's description reflect the truth when it's that simple to explain?
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Likewise, it is also a fact (AFAIK) that there is no case law or AG opinion that offers any interpretation contrary to Justice Lee's. So the prudent course is to operate as OCDO stated. If OC is really "technical CC" as Justice Lee's opinion contends, then you've got a permit and no law has been broken. If OC is just OC, no law has been broken (and you've got a superfluous permit that you might find useful another day). But either way, there's no case against you. The alternative is to risk being a test case and to hope that a court will throw out the law.

Well there is as I've referenced in the sticky. They are very clear that OC is legal, they simply refuse to say what it is... They did not use his opinion, meaning his is not relevant. Therefore the constitution is the document to look at, which is very clear in its wording and intent.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Because the OCDO website is still incorrect about the statement "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part..."




So let's request that OCDO change the description.



I agree with everything you say here. However, that still doesn't change the fact the statement I quote above is incorrect. It took you a few sentences to explain things correctly. Why shouldn't OCDO's description reflect the truth when it's that simple to explain?

Exactly, OCDO is not helping, instead they are perpetuating rumor and taboo. It would be better if OCDO would simply not give any info and say UNKOWN or CONFUSING.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Exactly, OCDO is not helping, instead they are perpetuating rumor and taboo. It would be better if OCDO would simply not give any info and say UNKOWN or CONFUSING.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER The law is always in a state of flux and even lawyers and judges get it wrong from time to time. All advice posted on this forum should be considered nothing more than hearsay. Even if a poster identifies themselves as an attorney, law enforcement official or expert in a given field, there is no way to verify that fact or that they are correct. Therefore, any and all advice you glean from this forum should be independently verified! NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE!
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
LEGAL DISCLAIMER The law is always in a state of flux and even lawyers and judges get it wrong from time to time. All advice posted on this forum should be considered nothing more than hearsay. Even if a poster identifies themselves as an attorney, law enforcement official or expert in a given field, there is no way to verify that fact or that they are correct. Therefore, any and all advice you glean from this forum should be independently verified! NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN SHOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE!
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/misc.php?do=showrules

I would hope that OCDO would be trying to give the best information available. It's not a matter of whether the info can be relied on from a legal standpoint, it shouldn't be MISLEADING. It's plain and simple. What OCDO has to say about OCing in MS. is misleading. Why are we perpetuating a myth?
 
Top