Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Open Carry Law: Overturns Injunction

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128

    Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Open Carry Law: Overturns Injunction

    http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi...ourt_over.html

    The law which the Court reinstated apparently statutorily distinguishes OC from CC: Miss. has been an OC state for over 100 years.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Link to the Mississippi state forum pages discussing this local story with national implications:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...29#post1978329

  3. #3
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    that was pertaining to my question. so is it legal to carry in MS; because they made a law or it it legal to carry in the state, because there is no law? is that what the court decided?

    got to admit i am a bit confused
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    that was pertaining to my question. so is it legal to carry in MS; because they made a law or it it legal to carry in the state, because there is no law? is that what the court decided?

    got to admit i am a bit confused
    It's not a simple explanation but, here's an attempt...

    The MS Constitution gives no authority to regulate open carry and does give authority to regulate concealed carry.

    MS legislature passed a law using the phrase concealed "in whole or in part".

    A SC judge in a case not related to OC opined (not part of the SC opinion of the case) that a gun tied around one's neck would considered concealed in part. I read his dicta as pointing out the absurdity of viewing the law that way.

    Many of MS LEO agencies took that as to mean OC is impossible. An obviously illogical conclusion

    New law removes "in part". LEOs now have no excuse to harass OCers.

  5. #5
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It's not a simple explanation but, here's an attempt...

    The MS Constitution gives no authority to regulate open carry and does give authority to regulate concealed carry.

    MS legislature passed a law using the phrase concealed "in whole or in part".

    A SC judge in a case not related to OC opined (not part of the SC opinion of the case) that a gun tied around one's neck would considered concealed in part. I read his dicta as pointing out the absurdity of viewing the law that way.

    Many of MS LEO agencies took that as to mean OC is impossible. An obviously illogical conclusion

    New law removes "in part". LEOs now have no excuse to harass OCers.
    maybe i understand better. it seems it was like in FL, where if you were printing or partially exposing your firearm they could arrest you (harass). since your firearm was covered by a holster that was considered concealed. so you can carry OC in MS without a permit?

    in NC we also have a constitution that allows for OC, but does regulate CC. it says word for word what the Federal one says, but with the CC part
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Philadelphia, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    51

    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It's not a simple explanation but, here's an attempt...

    The MS Constitution gives no authority to regulate open carry and does give authority to regulate concealed carry.

    MS legislature passed a law using the phrase concealed "in whole or in part".

    A SC judge in a case not related to OC opined (not part of the SC opinion of the case) that a gun tied around one's neck would considered concealed in part. I read his dicta as pointing out the absurdity of viewing the law that way.

    Many of MS LEO agencies took that as to mean OC is impossible. An obviously illogical conclusion

    New law removes "in part". LEOs now have no excuse to harass OCers.
    After all that caterwauling about "show me where there were decisions about concealed carry by any court" you go and write the same thing that I used as my answer to your question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK, and thanks for writing your comment! After reading this board for several weeks, I understand that some on here just argue/discuss to have something to do.

    It is now several days since the Court's ruling and there have been no reports of gunfights in the streets nor the streets being littered with dead bodies as a result of people running around wildly and shooting at each while openly carrying firearms. There was an incident in Jackson where two guys with AK47s shot at each other in a parking lot but nobody got hurt.

    In fact, in riding around town I have not seen anyone OCing at all.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MyGlockisaRedneck0 View Post
    After all that caterwauling about "show me where there were decisions about concealed carry by any court" you go and write the same thing that I used as my answer to your question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK, and thanks for writing your comment! After reading this board for several weeks, I understand that some on here just argue/discuss to have something to do.
    This is incorrect. I don't have time to go and find the thread. If you're gonna make a point, reference something useful.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by MyGlockisaRedneck0 View Post
    After all that caterwauling about "show me where there were decisions about concealed carry by any court" you go and write the same thing that I used as my answer to your question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    <snip>
    What georg posted was not a "decision about concealed carry". It was a concurring opinion, in which the justice meandered about some things he read regarding the history of what "concealed" meant. The "concealment" by the accused in that case was hiding guns under the hood of a car.
    L.M., Jr. v . State, search for "ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, concurring" to find those much-misunderstood meanderings.
    http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921567600So2d967_11546

    Quote Originally Posted by MyGlockisaRedneck0 View Post
    <snip>
    After reading this board for several weeks, I understand that some on here just argue/discuss to have something to do.
    <snip>
    Pot calling the kettle black...
    Last edited by 4angrybadgers; 09-05-2013 at 10:58 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by 4angrybadgers View Post
    What georg posted was not a "decision about concealed carry". It was a concurring opinion, in which the justice meandered about some things he read regarding the history of what "concealed" meant. The "concealment" by the accused in that case was hiding guns under the hood of a car.
    L.M., Jr. v . State, search for "ROY NOBLE LEE, Chief Justice, concurring" to find those much-misunderstood meanderings.
    http://www.leagle.com/decision/19921567600So2d967_11546


    Pot calling the kettle black...
    Thanks for clarifying. He waited a while to make this jab... missed its mark of course

Posting Permissions

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