classes?????????

georg jetson said:

Well, I can read. Mississippi law is written in English correct? I cite the MS. Constitution as my authority on the matter of OC. All you've done is given a lot of LEO type attitude. Hot air aint the law.



No. The Ms. Constitution says what the law is and the MS. Supreme Court can be wrong on occasion.

...but, by all means, show me what the Ms. SC has said on the matter of OC. Cite the case.

Click to expand...

So, you have determined that the Mississippi Supreme Court can be wrong on occasion? And when you tell them they are wrong, do they correct the mistake? I did not think so!

Seems that I am not the only one possessing some "hot air."

For starters, work on this site: http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=261

Now, since I am retired and have nothing better to do on this Friday night, I will utilize my computer skills in an attempt to find a clearly worded reference that even you can understand with cites, links, bright lights, and possibly even a few fire works exploding to highlight the view for you.

I will update as info becomes available.

Next: http://www.mississippigunnews.com/how-the-state-of-mississippi-became-an-open-carry-state/

Next: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/concealed-and-open-carry-in-mississippi.html

Next: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...g-quot-concealed-quot-and-other-changes/page2

I see why you want a specific cite or link for over and over you as well as many others refer to this opinion but never cite exactly where one could find it. My notes from my JPD Training Classes are long gone but I will continue to try to find the EXACT cite of this particular "opinion" which removed the right to open carry.

Next: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?62673-Mississippi-Open-Carry-Law NOTE the comment at 02:48PM by Johnny_B. This opinion by Judge Lee must be what set off the whole mess.

Next: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?72241-Mississippi-open-carry-in-the-news

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! At 04:26AM by none other than 4angrybadgers!

The MS criminal statutes do not define concealment. The reason that a holster is (fuzzily) considered "partial concealment" is due to a concurring opinion by then-Chief Justice Lee in "L.M., JR., S.T. & D.S. v. STATE of Mississippi". The text was posted by gunluvinatty in this thread, about halfway down the page: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum32/28581.html

Next: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?72241-Mississippi-open-carry-in-the-news Again, all the confusion about the "opinion" written by some judge in a case dealing with juveniles and only partly with concealed carry of a firearm. Also, the opinion by Mike Moore's office is given.


I had about 10 or 12 more links for you but I forgot to "auto save" them and I lost them when I went to the SPECIFIC court case that discusses the "concealed" theory of interpretation by the court. Here it is:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.asp...1546.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Read it to your little heart's content. You may also might like to read this cite concerning a case in Jackson:
Clark v. City of Jackson, 155 Miss. 668, 124 So. 807 (1929)
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?90516-An-idea-that-may-turn-the-tide

georg jetson, I see that you have, according to this last link, been chasing your tail for two years now as of May 19! If you did not accept what was told you then, you will not accept the same info today, will you?

The Mississippi Legislature finally clarified what is "concealed carry." You should be happy and not argumentative just to be argumentative. But, I know that you cannot change what you are, can you?

Seems like with all the huffing and puffing that you have been doing for the past two years about the "stupid" legislators in Mississippi ruining the right to open carry with their, and various judges/AGs, "opinions" as to what is "concealed," that you would be celebrating this new law which goes into effect on July 1.

Since you were already aware of all this, I thank you for urging me to research this topic so that in the future when you spout off about it, I will be able to refresh your memory again. Do you suffer these "memory" lapses about every two years?

Your computer skills suck. Why are you providing links of old OCDO threads? If I haven't read them then I've participated. You're the one that needs the education.

You still cite NO case where the MS SC ruledd on anything remotely OC. The case of the juveniles with firearms under their hood has no relevance here.

I haven't been my old "in your face" cite it or shut it self. I'll be happy to re-live old times just for you.

I'll bet you didn't research any of the links you provided. Johnny_B's link doesn't work. I could give you the name of the case you're looking for, but that would be to easy.

If you're really ex-law enforcement then we all have reason to celebrate. I can tell by your attitude and lack of knowledge that us LAC's are better off with you in front of a computer and on the streets making unlawful arrests.

Come on... find me one good link. Betcha cant. Oh, make sure you links WORK.

georg jetson said:

Your computer skills suck. Why are you providing links of old OCDO threads? If I haven't read them then I've participated. You're the one that needs the education.

You still cite NO case where the MS SC ruledd on anything remotely OC. The case of the juveniles with firearms under their hood has no relevance here.

Oh, so since YOU say it has no relevance, then that is the LAST word?

I haven't been my old "in your face" cite it or shut it self. I'll be happy to re-live old times just for you.

Thank you . I would enjoy the exchange.

I'll bet you didn't research any of the links you provided. Johnny_B's link doesn't work. I could give you the name of the case you're looking for, but that would be to easy.

You lose your bet! I read them all. Don't you know how to follow a link? Just because YOU say it doesn't work, we are to believe YOU? If you participated on the thread, then you already know what was said in the comment.

If you're really ex-law enforcement then we all have reason to celebrate. I can tell by your attitude and lack of knowledge that us LAC's are better off with you in front of a computer and on the streets making unlawful arrests.

I have been retired for FIVE years. If you read my comment, you saw that I said since I am retired, I have the time to do the research.

Come on... find me one good link. Betcha cant. Oh, make sure you links WORK.

Click to expand...

I provided links for you that you say either have no relevance or you could not find them. This is not my first forum to visit and comment. I take your word no further than I can throw my house!

NEXT!

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

I provided links for you that you say either have no relevance or you could not find them. This is not my first forum to visit and comment. I take your word no further than I can throw my house!

NEXT!

Click to expand...

So. You're not gonna post a good link to any case relevant to OC? What's the point then of your ramblings? Might you be trolling? I haven't met a real-life troll yet. Would you be my first?

georg jetson said:

So. You're not gonna post a good link to any case relevant to OC? What's the point then of your ramblings? Might you be trolling? I haven't met a real-life troll yet. Would you be my first?

Click to expand...

I have posted links and quotes. YOU say that none of them is a good link. Let the links and quotes be read and let the readers decide which is good and which is not.

If YOU are the SOLE arbiter of what is good and what is not, then why do you waste your precious time on this blog or any blog for that matter?

The matter of the law in Mississippi is the domain of the Mississippi State Supreme Court not you. Your opinion, like mine, is just that, an opinion, with no weight nor legal value. :banghead:

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

... Your opinion, like mine, is just that, an opinion, with no weight nor legal value. :banghead:

Click to expand...

So why are you posting yours along with linking to other nonbinding meaningless opinions?

Welcome back Daylen!

So that was you that single handedly got HB2 through the MS legislature... right?

Daylen said:

So why are you posting yours along with linking to other nonbinding meaningless opinions?

Click to expand...

georg asked for links so I gave him some. He said they were no good and asked for more. That is why the :banghead: was used as it describes his desires very well.

Opinions are like noses and other body openings, everybody has them, but nobody really wants to accept the opinions of others. Especially if the other opinion disagrees with their own view.

Therefore, georg and I will just have to agree to disagree.

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

georg asked for links so I gave him some. He said they were no good and asked for more. That is why the :banghead: was used as it describes his desires very well.

Opinions are like noses and other body openings, everybody has them, but nobody really wants to accept the opinions of others. Especially if the other opinion disagrees with their own view.

Therefore, georg and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

None of the links you provided led to the MS SC decision you were referring to. I simply asked you to provide a good link to that case. I will ask again... please provide a link to the MS case which you refer to.

As far as opinions go... well there are good ones and bad ones just like anything else. The founders of OCDO provide us a forum to discuss opinions and for more than just mental wrestling. We can understand each other if we make an effort.

georg jetson said:

Welcome back Daylen!

So that was you that single handedly got HB2 through the MS legislature... right?

Click to expand...

I doubt it! I was surprised when I found out about its introduction, but it didn't take long to make some phone calls and help spread the word. I was about halfway through writing a whitepaper on the problem, to distribute to MS repub/teaparty/conservative groups, when I got the news that some legislators actually knew the problem well and only needed support.

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

georg asked for links so I gave him some. He said they were no good and asked for more. That is why the :banghead: was used as it describes his desires very well.

Opinions are like noses and other body openings, everybody has them, but nobody really wants to accept the opinions of others. Especially if the other opinion disagrees with their own view.

Therefore, georg and I will just have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Seems he asked for links to court cases. I only noticed one link to a court case, the rest were to other blathering opinion sites or postings, not a good citation; which absolutely includes the OCDO page about MS. The court case you linked to is WELL known here on the MS section, I think you even linked to one of my posts.

Summary no new information.

If you read enough you will eventually see some attorney general opinions, before the Hood opinion, after the Court case that has caused confusion. Those opinions are fairly concise, there had been no legally binding determination of what "concealed in whole or in part" did to open carry. The reason for this lack of opinions of what concealed means is easy, that MS supreme court opinion was not binding on the part about what constitutes "or in part". The judge that opined upon what he thought it should be had no binding to it as it was only a concurring opinion, not the majority opinion (it also had nothing to do with the case). Things were a bit clouded prior to the incorrect opinion of Hood (I say incorrect with confidence as a large majority of the MS legislature and Governor agree with me as they passed HB2 and the SB). As I grew tired of directly linking to sources a while ago I'll direct you to the sticky on the subject, which will need to be updated I guess with HB2.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?97455-Open-Carry-in-Mississippi-The-Law

Review

In searching for a reply to georg, I noticed that y'all had been involved in the same type of discussion with others over the years thus the cites given for this site. You must admit, that regrdless of your or georg's OPINION, the PRACTICE by some LEOs has been to follow the "no such thing as Open Carry with part of the weapon hidden" philosophy that was utilized in my training with the JPD in 1978. Rightly or wrongly, this was also the philosophy followed by the MHP.

I am thankful that a clarification will go into effect on July 1.

Really, in my mind, after reviewing the previous discussions held over the past few years here, why keep discussing what was in the past?

You and georg can be confident that y'all were correct all along and the obvious bogus interpretations and "opinions" that prevented OC in the past can all be laid to rest once and for all on July 1.

Pat yourselves on the back for y'all were correct all along and now the law which goes into effect on July 1 makes it better for all of us.

I take no solace in the fact of being right or even being perceived as right. It would not be very difficult to write clearly understandable laws that stay within the bounds and limits of the Constitution. Words have meaning, especially in the case of written law. If laws are written so that each person can interpret them to a different meaning, then that invites those in power, from the street cop to the president, to enforce THEIR meaning of them on the people. However, there has been a tendency since December 16th, 1791 to re-interpret, or simply ignore the restraints the federal and state Constitutions place on governing bodies. It has gotten progressively worse every day since that date, so that it is common place for the Constitutions to be all but totally ignored.

Whenever I see an opportunity to point this out, to people who might listen, or have a vested interest, I do. I not only do this with gun issues, but ANY issue, where those we entrust to be public servants, cross the boundaries of the limitations placed on them while performing that service.

Both the federal and the Mississippi Constitutions have procedures in place to change them, should parts of them need modifying for any reason, as has been done to both several times. There has to be constraints and limitations on authority and power, lest we live under absolute despotism. The Constitution was designed to be the line that was not to be crossed. Just look what happens when it is. All one has to do is look at what is happening on the federal level to see where that can and does lead.

So yes, for many years I have tried to get our lawmakers to correct the weaslewording in 97-37-1 that was designed to get around the plain meaning of Article 3 Section 12 of the Mississippi Constitution, and now the legislature finally got it. I don't know what was different about this year, but I'm glad they finally took their oath with a little bit of seriousness.

On the other hand, if they had succeeded in a vote from the people enacting a constitutional amendment allowing for the regulation of open carry or carrying by any other means, then I would have shut up when that happened.

Well said!

Well said MSREBEL 54! What you stated is so simple and so true. Wish that others on this thread had been so concise and firm!

Daylen said:

I think knowing history is important, even when it is something as dry as the history of laws and the interpretation law.

oh and I don't have opinions, first because I'm not an attorney general, second as it is a practice that can lead to being wrong. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.



I don't pass judgement upon what something is until I know enough about the subject and can point to a multitude of facts in any judgement.

Click to expand...

I just love it when people think they can PROVE their statements by using a dictionary!!!!!!!!!! Yes, similar use/understanding of a word can lead to agreement on the meaning of a word and thus, hopefully, agreement on a statement. However, if one part of a discussion refuses to consider ALL possiblities in the usage of a word, then disagreement abounds!!!

If you do not have "opinions," then how do you have a discussion??????????? Opinion---1. what one thinks; belief not so strong as knowledge; judgment: Opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.(Milton)

".....and I don't have opinions...." Does that mean that you don't think????????????? Does that mean that you do not have beliefs? Does that mean that you do not possess judgment?

"and I don't have opinions, first because I'm not an attorney general, second as it is a practice that can lead to being wrong. You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."

Descartes said that "I think, therefore I am." I say that I think, therefore I have opinions. Yes, and some of those opinions are wrong. I say that I am human, therefore I am subject to error.

Are you subject to thinking and making errors?

Seems that a lot of legislators, judges, LEOs, and As-G make a lot of errors in the interpretation of the Constitution of 1890. Hopefully, many of those errors pertaining to OC will be corrected by HB2.

Opinions

Daylen said:

Have you ever said something like "just a theory"?

Click to expand...

I am an "opinionated" person, so I give opinions. I do not use "theories."

The gentleman was seeking training and should be commended. Take a look at www.rangemaster.com

Located in Memphis and the instructors are stellar. When you choose to carry, the issue is self-denfense, responsible self-defense. I have watched several you tubes and read several articles/books by some of the instructors and have not found them lacking. If I had the cash and the ammo, I would be heading to Memphis.

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

Yes, I have been described before as being hard headed. Glad that you noticed. No matter how hard headed I am, I seem to run into others who seem even more hard headed than me! Case in point---the present discussion.

In your zeal to produce your OPINION about this law and its interpretation, you have forgotten to mention the people that matter---the LEOs who will enforce this new law as well as the old laws currently on the books.

You have spoken of your personal experiences as if they were the ONLY ones to be taken into consideration. Sadly, for you and all others, YOU do not determine what is done in each and every situation. Initial decisions are made by LEOs on the spot and final decisions are made in a court of law.

Have you ever worn a badge and gun and enforced the law? Have you ever had to make the decision to deprive someone of their freedom by placing them in handcuffs and transporting them to jail? Have you ever had to testify in court as to whether your judgment as a LEO to arrest someone was justified and warranted? I worked for about 15 years as a LEO arresting people for everything from overrunning a dog with a motor vehicle to murder AND testifying about it in local, state, and federal courts. I never lost a case. I did have a few situations where a Jackson city judge found people guilty of traffic violations and suspended the fines but I never lost a jury tried case.

Please allow me to hopefully place into the proper context what you and I are talking about. The original law in the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 clearly states that "open" carry shall not be abridged but that ONLY "concealed" carry may be addressed by the state legislature. What happened was that opinions both by judges and the AGs that followed declared that ALL firearms with any portion thereof partly or entirely hidden from view was therefore "concealed" and legally not permitted. Idiotic in my mind but they did not ask either you nor me about it.

First, the issue of legal "concealed" carry was addressed and a law passed to allow for such by Firearms Permit from the MHP. Second, the issue of "open" carry was addressed and a law passed to FINALLY allow for such, AFTER July 1.

Now, just what about my comments do you not agree?

Click to expand...

Police officers don't win or lose cases. That's what prosecutors do. As a LEO, if I wanted to "win" cases, that would bias me. I don't bias that easily. The standard for arrest is PC. If one is doing one's job properly, there will certainly be cases where one arrests somebody who is not guilty and/or one who is guilty, but sufficient evidence is not available to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. However, that's tangential to the fact that the only cases you will have the opportunity to "win" or "lose" are those the prosecutor chooses to take to trial and that will be a small subset of those cases you arrest or refer criminal charges. Iow, prosecutors generally only prosecute the "winner" cases. If you look at stats, you will see the prosecution overwhelmingly wins cases it prosecutes, but only prosecutes a select minority of cases, so it's your "winners" that the prosecutor is choosing. See: selection bias.

There are necessarily going to be plenty of cases where witnesses recant, it turns out witnesse lied or were mistaken, arrested defendants come up with rock solid alibis or defenses etc. etc. that won't GET prosecuted so don't think that by winning all your CONTESTED cases, that you are winning all your cases. And most importantly, be careful about wanting to 'win' cases. We should want to present evidence fairly and in an unbiased manner and be open to divulging exculpatory as well as incriminating evidence, because that's our job, not to win cases in court. If it;'s a self generated case e.g. a DUI a LEO might feel a little differently since they are the gatherers of evidence, but even then lots of stuff is outside your control. The last DUI trial I testified in where the man was found not guilty was primarily because the state lab didn't properly certify the breathalyzer simulator solution and thus the breathalyzer (two times the legal limit) was not admissable and fruthermore the prosecution couldn't mention WHY or that he had failed the "improper' test, so it's natural that he would be found not guilty. Good for him. The state lab screwed up. I wouldn't view that as a "loss". I would hope and pray that those I arrested that were not guilty and trust me - some people you arrest are not guilty. Nobody is omniscient. If you investigate DV cases, etc. you will arrest innocents - because people lie sometimes. I would hope and pray those who were not guilty were either not prosecuted or that I 'lost' that case. I hope for justice not "wins"

cheers

PALO said:

Police officers don't win or lose cases. That's what prosecutors do. As a LEO, if I wanted to "win" cases, that would bias me. I don't bias that easily.

Click to expand...

You must admit though that some cops care if they win a case....how many do you think do , %-wise?

Because I have had a few give me comments after I win a case where I am a defendant and they don't say "good job" lol

Hope?

After a rather extensive treatise on his "opinions" on justice, PALO stated that "I hope for justice not "wins"."

Sir, if you do your job properly and have sufficient evidence to carry to court for the prosecutor to present, then you will both win and have justice. A lot of things are beyond the control of the arresting officer. I did not and still do not view the justice system as a "game" of "try your best and hail fellow well met" after it is all over. We are dealing with often times life and death situations which demand much more that just a good effort for they demand a result that protects the society in which we live.

Many cases in which I was involved regarded the serving of warrants which I had no part in producing. I did not have a concern in their outcome for I was unaware of the background surrounding the charges. I just made sure that proper procedure was followed in the serving of the warrant.

I find a somewhat accusatory air about your comments on "bias" and "winning." You said that, "Police officers don't win or lose cases." That, sir, is fundamentaly incorrect for the LEO is the usually the FIRST person involved in the justice system to take action and if his action is not based upon the law, then all else will fall after him.

I viewed my job as finished whenever the suspect was arrested and jailed. The rest was up to the prosecutor and the courts. I participated when subpoenaed but otherwise my part of the job was complete.