asked a gulfport cop what he thought

Hello everyone this is my first post. I am a relative new comer to the board but not to guns. i am 25 and some of my earliest memory's were of me and my dad cleaning and shooting guns (i must have been 3-4) and i have recently gotten back into them after a short hiatus. the other day a uniformed gulfport pd officer came into my store and asked if we had a few items and while i was helping him i asked him his "opinion" on open carry and he said "well as long as you have the permit it is ok". i said "no that is for concealed carry if I am not mistaken and i was wondering about open carry". he looked at me and i said "you know right there on your hip out there in the open... just like you guys" and he was kinda shocked. he said he was not aware of any law in gulfport but other cities could be different.

Click to expand...

Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege."  Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals.  A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."

How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.

Click to expand...

Instead of starting a discussion with "case" law, why not start with the "supreme" law, the state constitution ?

Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."

How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.

Click to expand...

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Instead of starting a discussion with "case" law, why not start with the "supreme" law, the state constitution ?

Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."

How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is anything wrong with citing the constitution for understanding the meaning of the law. However, I believe that case law will give you the insight as to how the judges rule on certain aspects. Case law can give you valuable learning experience at no expense to yourself.

Click to expand...

If you were to believe the Mississippi attorney general's office, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to bear arms, only the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. The only problem from where I sit is the folks in Mississippi state government don't want you knowing/exercising the RIGHT to bear arms, which they damned well know exists.

Click to expand...

There is NOTHING confusing about the Mississippi state constitution's wording. Matter of fact, it's better than most !!! What part of "shall not be called into question" is confusing?
If you would re-read my post, you will notice I said the way the LAWS were worded makes them confusing, not the Constitution.
Again: the constitution is talking about a right, not a privilege. AFTER it declares the RIGHT to bear arms, it delves into the PRIVILEGE of concealing arms, two toally different animals.
That was my point....the way that CC laws are written, "in whole or in part", may well require a permit to OC
because a holster "conceals in part"....which, BTW, I disagree with in principal.
Please read and try to understand what was said before you attack.....I agree with you.
If you were to believe the Mississippi attorney general's office, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to bear arms, only the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. The only problem from where I sit is the folks in Mississippi state government don't want you knowing/exercising the RIGHT to bear arms,
Which may very well be the reason for the wording in the CC laws.
which they damned well know exists.

Click to expand...

+ ......I would also add that the Constitutions of most states allow legislative regulation of the RTKBA so long as they don't "regulate the right away"....ie, one law prohibiting CC and another prohibiting OC.
IMHO, it is the wording of the MS laws that seem to cause all the confusion......"concealed in whole or in part" seems to imply that one would need a MS permit to OC since a holster conceals "in part"......not that I agree but, even if you OCed on a lanyard and wore it like a necklace, the side next to your chest would not be visible and therefor "concealed" in some peoples point of view.
Again, IMHO, the MS laws need to be re-worded as to make concealed and unconcealed, as we know it to be, clearly individual concepts.

Just my .02....YMMV

Click to expand...

I, for one, prefer not to depend on somone's "interpretation" of the law, but the rule of law.  What Wain Penton may or may not do is how you end up in jail.

Click to expand...