Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: The Mississippi Constitution and Original Intent

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    We hear a lot about original intent in relation to the U.S Constitution but what about the Mississippi Constitution? Are there any documents similar to the Federalist Papers that explain the intent of sections of the Mississippi Constitution. It is interesting to see how the Mississippi Constitution has changed over the years in regards to the right to keep and bear arms. Here's whatI mean.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1817, Article 1, Section 23.

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1832, Article 1, Section 23.

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the state.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1868, Article 1, Section 15.

    All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Article 3, Section 12.

    The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

    Prior to 1868 the right to "keep" as well as bear arms was not mentioned.Granted the people of that day understood that possesion of arms was implied but can you imagine how the "right to bear arms" would beinterpreted in today's climate?

    It is obvious thatin 1890 thegovernment wanted the powerto place restrictions on concealed carry that were not in place before. The question is why? We all know about thebizarre 70's ruling that viewed a holstered firearm as partially concealed but what about the original intent of Article 3, Section 12? It is obvious to anyone who takes Article 3, Section 12 at face value that open carrycannot benot prohibited by the legislature. There had to be some historicalrational for the changeabout concealed carry but theapparent intent is that the government would have the power to make sure thatall armed people would be readily identifiable unless given special permission by thelegislature. Anyone know of any documentation about the changes in our state constitution?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Why don't you pose some interesting questions to His Highness, Jim Hood, along with some of the muckity mucks in the state legislature, as well as the governor, himself?
    That is my ultimate intentionbut we know what the AG will say already. Just using this forum as a sounding board and thought it might make a good discussion.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    What WOULD be interesting is to bombard that talk radio station in Jackson, hijack the conversation away from their usual soap opera/Oprah format.

    Not familiar with the station you're referring to. I don't get Jackson talk radio where I'm at unless you are talking about the MPB stations that I don't bother listening to.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Do you know the station call numbers or frequency? Also is it a specific program and host?

    Back on topic. I noticed something between the first two versions of the State Constitution thatI thought interresting.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1817, Article 1, Section 23.

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.

    Mississippi Constitution of 1832, Article 1, Section 23.

    Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the state.

    The insertion of the preposition "of" appears to be for the purpose of making a clear distinction between the "defence of himself" and the "defence of the State" as if someone realized that the phrase, "in defence of himself and the State," could be construed to mean that "defence of himself" was only authorized when engaged in "defense of the State." It would be interesting to see documentation concerning the reasons the changes were made. Still looking but haven't found anything.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Thanks, I'll look into it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    341

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    When I called in a year or so ago, the host was downright hostile to OC, told me to get a permit or "I'll see ya in jail."
    Really.
    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    If you want to set a date, we can both call in within minutes of each other.
    You lead, I'll follow up behind your call.
    Once I know what I'm dealing with I'll give that some thought. I don'twant to waste my timearguing with a fence post. It would have to be on a weekend or when I had a day off since I am normally working during that time frame.

    I'm beginning to get the idea that finding historical documentation onthe "why" ofthe constitutional changes isn't going to be easy. (At least via the web). My hope was to find some clear documentation that the intent of the 1890 changes wasn't to infringe on open carry. I'm still hoping one of my Mississippi brethren can help point me in the right direction.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:

    I'm beginning to get the idea that finding historical documentation onthe "why" ofthe constitutional changes isn't going to be easy. (At least via the web). My hope was to find some clear documentation that the intent of the 1890 changes wasn't to infringe on open carry. I'm still hoping one of my Mississippi brethren can help point me in the right direction.
    Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records
    Yeah, I know we fight an uphill battle with case law but howdo weget that changed without a court case or a constitutional amendment? The legislature andgovernorwould at minimumneed to change the law to define concealed carry properly. My hope is that when we write our state legislators and governor concerning the needed change we can point out more than just the common sense aspects. I haven't even been able to find the full text of the ruling that defined "partially concealed" outside the bounds ofthree dimensional vision.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records
    Yeah, I know we fight an uphill battle with case law but howdo weget that changed without a court case or a constitutional amendment? The legislature andgovernorwould at minimumneed to change the law to define concealed carry properly. My hope is that when we write our state legislators and governor concerning the needed change we can point out more than just the common sense aspects. I haven't even been able to find the full text of the ruling that defined "partially concealed" outside the bounds ofthree dimensional vision.
    I haven't found the full case opinion from the SCOMs, but I'm pretty sure they've ruled that way knowing how backwoods backwards this place can be sometimes

  11. #11
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny_B View Post
    JT wrote:

    Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records
    Woefully, I'm coming to the same conclusion as you have.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by JT View Post

    Yeah, I know we fight an uphill battle with case law...

    but howdo we get that changed without a court case or a constitutional amendment? The legislature and governor would at minimum need to change the law to define concealed carry properly. My hope is that when we write our state legislators and governor concerning the needed change we can point out more than just the common sense aspects. I haven't even been able to find the full text of the ruling that defined "partially concealed" outside the bounds of three dimensional vision.
    It is a shame that something that we are supposed to have as a right, is clouded with so much smoke and mirrors.

    The constitutional amendment will, likely, be the only way that the general public and law enforcement agencies at large will ever get on the same page, so to speak.

    Until then, I'm reluctant to run the risk of getting arrested for exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Get the shotguns out! its a zombie thread!
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  14. #14
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Get the shotguns out! its a zombie thread!
    Respectfully, isn't the information posted here just as relevent to today as it was when it was originally posted?

    You need to keep in mind that newcomers haven't had the opportunity to respond to all the former threads as some of the ones with longer tenure have had.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    Respectfully, isn't the information posted here just as relevent to today as it was when it was originally posted?

    You need to keep in mind that newcomers haven't had the opportunity to respond to all the former threads as some of the ones with longer tenure have had.
    When a discussion took place years ago and the people having it long since left, it helps little to resurrect the thread by posting in it; however it is good to read old ones. If the subject is still relevant and the thread has been left alone for years, then the discussion is taking place elsewhere. Bringing up an old discussion while a newer thread is being used for the topic is not very polite for then any other people posting have to do so in multiple threads or leave some of them just open for you to post in with no reply and I guess discuss with yourself. I ask that we keep things in newer and fewer threads.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  16. #16
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    When a discussion took place years ago and the people having it long since left, it helps little to resurrect the thread by posting in it; however it is good to read old ones. If the subject is still relevant and the thread has been left alone for years, then the discussion is taking place elsewhere. Bringing up an old discussion while a newer thread is being used for the topic is not very polite for then any other people posting have to do so in multiple threads or leave some of them just open for you to post in with no reply and I guess discuss with yourself. I ask that we keep things in newer and fewer threads.
    Yes sir, I understand.

    It was never my intent to be impolite. I'm just interested in the topics concerning open carry and am trying to learn all I can.

    For future reference, how old is a thread when it is "too old" to respond to? 3 months, 6 months, 9 months?

    I don't want to commit the same offense again.

  17. #17
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    Yes sir, I understand.

    It was never my intent to be impolite. I'm just interested in the topics concerning open carry and am trying to learn all I can.

    For future reference, how old is a thread when it is "too old" to respond to? 3 months, 6 months, 9 months?

    I don't want to commit the same offense again.
    Thats a good question, I will try to enlighten you.
    A guy that has 10000 posts on another forum should have learned more about old threads, dead posters and stale topics.
    You should NOT respond to a two month old thread in the open carry questions forum,
    from a 15 year old that says he wants to know if he can open carry, When
    he only has only one post, has never been back to get his answer, which
    he had answered for himself, And Then
    You just welcome this ghost poster to the forum, And thank him for his question!
    Im surprised you didnt try to get him to go out and buy himself a fine Taurus hand gun!

    I study these forums to learn, I expect each new post to ADD to the discussion,
    you Write Way too many totally useless posts!

    Im annoyed, and the world doesnt need anymore noyeds.

    Im not going to chastise you anymore, for the past. I hope I wont feel the need to, in the future.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  18. #18
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Sir:

    My apologies for annoying you.

    I have sent you a PM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by MilProGuy View Post
    Sir:

    My apologies for annoying you.

    I have sent you a PM.
    deleting your last post, and others, then PMing it to me, as PRIVATE, is just sillyness. Anyone that wants to waste your time, just ask, I will repost it here..

    I will continue looking for and reading substantive posts.
    Unfortunately, I expect plenty of wasted effort.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  20. #20
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post
    deleting your last post, and others, then PMing it to me, as PRIVATE, is just sillyness. Anyone that wants to waste your time, just ask, I will repost it here..

    I will continue looking for and reading substantive posts.
    Unfortunately, I expect plenty of wasted effort.
    Sir,

    In deleting the lengthy post in this thread and then PMing it to you was a courtesy to you, at least that is what I intended it to be. Very shortly after I had posted it on the open forum (somewhere around 2:00 a.m.), I had second thoughts about addressing the issues on the open forum because I thought it might offend you publicly; and I certainly did not wish to do that.

    As far as deleting other posts, I was merely trying to go back and get rid of some of the posts you had referred to as annoying, so that I could help alleviate some of the tension that you are experiencing. I'm sorry if doing that has upset you. If I am breaking some forum etitquette by deleting posts, I will certainly refrain from doing so.

    I don't quite understand what you mean by: "Anyone that wants to waste your time, just ask, I will repost it here."
    Is this directed to me or to any forum member who would like to read the pm I sent you?

    Will you mind sending me a PM and respond to the one I sent you? Or...if you prefer to post the PM and respond to me openly, that will be fine with me.

  21. #21
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,

    your long post from 11:08 p.m. had been deleted in less than 1 hour, and i already read it,
    it did not need a reply, so i didnt.
    but when i noticed that you had run around the forum deleting your posts, including this one,
    i made a reply about your actions.

    I consider that a poster that goes back and deletes the record of the things he has posted in public
    is suspecting himself of being disingenuous, wrong headed or misleading.

    you cannot offend me with a post!
    I have stepped on some toes before, and ive been chastised on occasion, but I CAN take it, and we always get over it.
    I have never felt the need to remove posts that could be embarrassing to me, or break the record of who said what when!

    Someday we will be old forum friends, or ,,,, something else.... Ill probably learn to just get along with you.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  22. #22
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by 1245A Defender View Post

    I consider that a poster that goes back and deletes the record of the things he has posted in public
    is suspecting himself of being disingenuous, wrong headed or misleading.


    Someday we will be old forum friends, or ,,,, something else.... Ill probably learn to just get along with you.
    Thanks for your reply.

    I can understand how you might feel that way about my deleting some of my previous posts. But I really deleted them for the reasons that I stated previously.

    From now on, I'll choose my words more carefully, initially, and implement the guidelines you have shared with me,...and there shouldn't be a need for me to delete any further posts.
    Last edited by MilProGuy; 10-05-2011 at 04:46 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member CharleyCherokee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    WesternKy
    Posts
    294
    I am torn on a situation like this. If it says SPECIFICALLY in the state constitution that open carry is allowed I can see financial support coming easily to someone who would fight against the actions of government to blatantly work against the constitution of the state. Citizens of Texas and Mississippi for example should ACTIVELY fight against such blatant disregard for their state constitutions by their government. This being said, I fully realize it is much easier to say a thing than to do it. I've no personal stake in it. I've nothing to lose. These things are merely a symptom of the times. An apathetic citizenry who will not act until it is ALMOST or ALREADY too late to change a thing. The point is well made in the movie "Swing Vote". "
    The populace goes from bondage to liberty. From liberty to abundance. From abundance to complacency. From complacency to apathy. From apathy back to bondage. And so the cycle repeats."
    A bullet may have your name on it, but shrapnel is addressed to whom it may concern.
    Why open carrying is a good idea: http://forum.pafoa.org/open-carry-14...encounter.html

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by CharleyCherokee View Post
    I am torn on a situation like this. If it says SPECIFICALLY in the state constitution that open carry is allowed I can see financial support coming easily to someone who would fight against the actions of government to blatantly work against the constitution of the state. Citizens of Texas and Mississippi for example should ACTIVELY fight against such blatant disregard for their state constitutions by their government. This being said, I fully realize it is much easier to say a thing than to do it. I've no personal stake in it. I've nothing to lose. These things are merely a symptom of the times. An apathetic citizenry who will not act until it is ALMOST or ALREADY too late to change a thing. The point is well made in the movie "Swing Vote". "
    The populace goes from bondage to liberty. From liberty to abundance. From abundance to complacency. From complacency to apathy. From apathy back to bondage. And so the cycle repeats."
    Open carry is not "allowed" in MS it is PROTECTED, exercising rights are protected not allowed; as such it is beyond the legislatures control. kudos for at least knowing it is in the MS constitution! If something can be allowed it can later have its allowed status revoked, this is not the case with rights, they are specifically protected by the constitution, statute or just in common law. As I tire if saying MS does not have any law or real precedent of calling open carry concealed carry. One judge submitted an assenting opinion in which he said, "I think more needs to be said about this" and went on to try and CREATE law where none was, his opinion is not very binding. If you have any other court cases where a majority opinion goes against the intent of the MS constitution please help us out by posting it or its name or something so that others might find it.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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