Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds Open Carry Law: Overturns Injunction

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2013/08/mississippi_supreme_court_over.html

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

Link to the Mississippi state forum pages discussing this local story with national implications:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...erred-HB2-Now-in-effect&p=1978329#post1978329

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

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Thanks!

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. I don't have time to go and find the thread. If you're gonna make a point, reference something useful.

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

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>

Click to expand...

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

MyGlockisaRedneck0 said:

<snip>
After reading this board for several weeks, I understand that some on here just argue/discuss to have something to do.
<snip>

Click to expand...

Pot calling the kettle black...

4angrybadgers said:

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...

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. He waited a while to make this jab... missed its mark of course