Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: OpenCarry.org's Mike Stollenwerk on SuperTalk Mississippi at 5PM Central TODAY (24 July)

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    http://www.supertalk.fm- tune in today to the Sid Salter show for discussion of open carry issues.

    5PM Central time

    6 PM East Coast Time


    Direct Link for audio appears to be http://lightningstream.surfernetwork...p;skin=WFMN-FM

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    i cant get through!!!

  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    bigz wrote:
    i cant get through!!!
    try http://www.supertalk.fm



  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    i finally got through i tried to get your point across mark and thanks for being on the show to discuss this mike

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    I got through, I got my question in about the statue specifically not allowing OCing, thanks for being on the show Mike and answering me.

    I understand where Mark is going for rights vs. privileged, but we have to go through the legislature, not the courts to get the rights back and to strike the "or in part" from the statue or Mississippi will be a licensed state.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Great Show. Thanks Mike. I don't think Supertalk has ever been busier. I was able to get through just before the show went off the air.

    Glad to hear from so many of you from around the state.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    I actually spent a LOT of time in MS,
    I have invested TONS of time talking with TONS of "officials" in MS,
    I have asked questions of them which NObody wants to answer,
    I have had to face their ignorant and (in some cases) stupid "law enforcement officers" while OC'ing,
    I have made more effort than anyone I can think of trying to resolve the "misunderstanding" of MS right to bear arms vs state statutes.
    And to be treated by this arsewhole in the manner I was?
    Forget standing up for your rights, follow the lead here and learn to kiss arse.
    I am not trying to put you down at all, nor am I saying your not qualified to talk about this, you've been doing this long before me.

    You went to the constitution right off the bat and I think Sid was a little put off by you not talking about Open Carrying fast enough.

    He's a just talk show host, sir, and he has to keep things on topic and have time constraints and talk show hosts don't like being told they started off wrong and what they should do.

    I agree that we shouldn't have a permit to exersise a right, but case law and the statues will trump our personal beliefs until we get the statue changed.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    I got through, I got my question in about the statue specifically not allowing OCing, thanks for being on the show Mike and answering me.

    I understand where Mark is going for rights vs. privileged, but we have to go through the legislature, not the courts to get the rights back and to strike the "or in part" from the statue or Mississippi will be a licensed state.
    In my opinion the legislature needs to strike the section in the fireams permit area of the statute about open carrying and the legislature needs to clearly define what open carrry is once and for all.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    I got through, I got my question in about the statue specifically not allowing OCing, thanks for being on the show Mike and answering me.

    I understand where Mark is going for rights vs. privileged, but we have to go through the legislature, not the courts to get the rights back and to strike the "or in part" from the statue or Mississippi will be a licensed state.
    Screw the legislature. I'll go ahead and ensure my next OC outing in the good ole boy state of MS turns into an arrest for OC.
    Then, the courts can either uphold the very constitution they swore an oath to uphold and defend or make it official they're all a huge assortment of liars and hypocrites.
    But if you do that, and it goes to court, they will follow precedent like ALL courts do and follow the opinions and ruling that even a string partially conceals it.

    You'd have to get the supreme court of MS to break precedent, and I don't think that would happen unless the statue and laws change.

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

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Case law and statutes do NOT trump the state constitution, sorry.
    The ONLY thing needed is for MS to obey their own supreme law and be done with it.
    This is not "my personal beliefs" here.
    I worded it wrong perhaps, you are looking at the constitution, yes.

    But as Sid said, if it were a period in article 2 sec 12 and not a comma, it would be a whole different ballgame legally...but it is a comma and legalities are a headache.

    I'm not trying to argue with you, I agree that the stupid legal technicality that a piece of string conceals a gun is supremely moronic, but it IS within the constitution to give the legislature the power to regulate concealment, and legally and technically a holster does conceal a gun/weapon.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    whoflungdo wrote:
    Johnny_B wrote:
    I got through, I got my question in about the statue specifically not allowing OCing, thanks for being on the show Mike and answering me.

    I understand where Mark is going for rights vs. privileged, but we have to go through the legislature, not the courts to get the rights back and to strike the "or in part" from the statue or Mississippi will be a licensed state.
    In my opinion the legislature needs to strike the section in the fireams permit area of the statute about open carrying and the legislature needs to clearly define what open carrry is once and for all.
    I agree! The statue specifically says

    ...nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any stun gun or a deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972.

    it's backwards, and as Sid said at the end, it's kind of a backwards roundabout way to be able to Open Carry because we're technically "Openly Conceal Carrying" a weapon...

    very frustrating.

    Thanks again Mike for being on the show, glad that Open Carry is getting out there for people to know about, I think it was the man from Tupelo? that didn't know he could even do it!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    I got on after the first break and tried to steer the conversation towards the constitution but the best I could get was an acknowledgement that the case law and constitution contradict one another. I give Sid credit for that much. Mike did a good job in getting the issue some exposure in Mississippi. I'm glad that Sid did not argue against open carry. It's up to us now to keep it going. I suggest we contact Sid and ask him to do another segment on open carry soon. It wouldn't hurt to contact other stations with the same request.

    I agree that there is nothing wrong with the wording of Article 3, Section 12. Period or comma is irrelevant to the legalmeaning of that section. The problem is that the MSSC hasdefined concealed in part in a manner devoid of common sense. It is that definition alone that strips us of our right. Mississippi should be an unlicensed open carry state. The problem is how to make that happen.I'll be going to a law library tomorrow to try to find the infamousJustice Lee ruling and any additional info I can on the case law specific to that definition. I'll report back on that when I am done.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Despite his wishes, rights ARE absolute.
    But that's not true - all rights are subject to reasonable regulation.

    There is not a single legal system in the world that takes a 2-3 sentence constitutional provision and turns it into some kind of "absolute right."

    This kind of reasoning and associated argument is not helpful to the cause.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Keep thinking that, Mike.
    It's that very mindset which has created the need for this site.
    Wonder where the founders came up with this "unalienable" concept?
    Naw, can't be.
    "Not helpful?" Depends on just what cause you're referring to.
    If you're wanting to schmooze folks a la NRA, I can agree with you there.

    People need to open their eyes and start thinking differently, IF you expect different results. While they're at it, start treating anyone who would violate your right to openly bear arms the same way you'd treat a rapist.

    Why is it the NRA crowd wines, dines and hobnobs with the enemy? Maybe that's the problem. Most Amerikans are OK with their 2nd amendment rights being violated, but get all bent out of shape when someone rapes their wife/girlfriend/daughter.
    I agree with you Mark edward marchiafava, I could not have said it better myself, you speak the truth all to well, keep up the good work, Mr. Advocate.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    Despite his wishes, rights ARE absolute.
    But that's not true - all rights are subject to reasonable regulation.

    There is not a single legal system in the world that takes a 2-3 sentence constitutional provision and turns it into some kind of "absolute right."

    This kind of reasoning and associated argument is not helpful to the cause.
    Where are you going with this Mike, please please, define yourself already, I mean what your stating in your statement is completely ludicrous. You use absolute right like it's some kinda thing for anti gun people. What you really meant to say, is what our forefathers put in place for us ,"It's our Right" or don't you get that, YET!!!

    F- What the current legal system says, its wrong man, it all goes back to what should be, but isn't. Our legal system is the dumps and you know it, it needs help, and everyone knows it, don't defend something that isn't Just, give applause to our forefathers for being way smarter then we are today.:X

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    The only "reasonable" regulation of rights is somethinglikethe old "you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre"example that is given for restrictions on the1st Amendmentthatwe all know so well. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment that would be akin to brandishing a firearm. In other words, use of yourrights in a mannerthat could cause harm or damageto another. I don't think Mike believes Mississippi's regulations are reasonable (at least i hope he doesn't) but unfortunately many people in Mississippido.

    Mike, I know you probably feel under the gun here but I think you can see how the reasonable regulation argument is not applicable when it comes to the current state ofopen carry in Mississippi. That said, thanks again for bringing the issue some positiveexposure. All in all it was a plus with only one caller that I heard that tried to discourage the idea of open carry. I wish Sid would have addressed the constitutional issue in depthbut at least he acknowledged that it existed.

    Mark, you are dead right on theissue in Mississippi but the fact is that Sid wasn't going to discuss this from the angle we wanted regardless. Some of us tried to steer the conversation in that direction with no success. Sid alsoseemed a bit flustered by your direct manner. He took your comments personally when you said thediscussion was started wrongwhich is why he told you to get your own show. There's not much you can do about that other than try a different tack next time. The plus is that we gave open carry some exposure yesterday and we did get the constitutional issue acknowledged.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    First of all I'm not a lawyer, so this is just my opinion. I understand where all of you are coming from on both sides of this issue. However, until someone has the time and money to be a test case and take this all the way to the MS Supreme Court, this is what we have to live with.

    Since there is no traditional definition of "Open Carry" in MS, we have to go with the case law precedents that have been set. The MS Constitution does allow for the regulation of concealed carry. Case law has stated that if the gun is partially concealed it is concealed. I know there is no case law where a gun in a holster has been considered concealed, but there are several where the gun has been partially concealed and the subject was arrested and convicted of carry a concealed firearm. It is going to be difficult to overturn that precedent by law or by a court. I don't like it, that's just the way it is.

    If you want traditional "Open Carry" without a carry permit in MS, you are going to have to get the Legislature to define open carry and redefine the Concealed Carry portion of the law. OR Be willing to be a test case.

    YMMV

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    we all know here whoflungdo, that MS definition of CC and using a holster as a cruch is terribly wrong. I mean, I know thats the way it is man, but its still wrong and stupid. To use a firearm holster against what it was designed to do is wrong morally 100% wrong. I don't know exactly what the people of MS was thinking when they put that into the MS constitution, but obviously they weren't thinking. Or two they was thinking, and they succeded in there own stupid way, I mean how else are you suppose to carry a firearm openly without it being in your hands. These guys, I Believe, knew exactly what they were doing when they added that into the law.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    144

    Post imported post

    Of course it's morally wrong, but that's the way it's been defined and unless we get a case to the SCOMS or the legislature to change it, we have to live with it as it is. It's wrong, period, but that what they did to regulate carry of firearms...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Johnny_B wrote:
    Of course it's morally wrong, but that's the way it's been defined and unless we get a case to the SCOMS or the legislature to change it, we have to live with it as it is. It's wrong, period, but that what they did to regulate carry of firearms...

    Exactly my point.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    "Reasonable restrictions."

    Now, let's contrast that with words more familiar to the founders, such as "shall not be infringed," or "throw off."

    While you won't read "reasonable restrictions" anywhere within the declaration of independence, the constitution or the bill of rights, you WILL find it throughout material from both the Brady bunch and NRA propaganda.

    It's discouraging to know there are some within our own ranks who truly agree with this judicially-created fiction.
    You can't be more right on, hey guys, he hit the nail on the head, the more I read Marks stuff, the more I feel like he reads my mind. Thank you Mark for being one of the few 100% true Pro-Gun Activist, I appreciate your hard work in the forum and your experience on the issue's that are mentioned throughout this site.

    Thanks Mr. Advocate

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    "Reasonable restrictions."

    ...It's discouraging to know there are some within our own ranks who truly agree with this judicially-created fiction.
    I assume that you are responding to my post so please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought I made myself clear when I spoke of a "reasonable restriction"against using our rights to infringe upon the rights of others or cause harm to another. Dou you regardproplerly enforced laws against brandishing, negligent discharge,libel, lying to induce panic, etc., to beunreasonable restrictions of our rights? Since I agree with you 100% on Mississippi's case law vs Mississippi's constitution I'm not sure howI fall into the ranks of those who agree with the judiciary. Again I say this assuming you are responding to my last post. If I'm wrong please correct me. If you think my views on reasonable restriction wrong please explain why. Thanks.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    255

    Post imported post

    JT wrote:
    mark edward marchiafava wrote:
    "Reasonable restrictions."

    ...It's discouraging to know there are some within our own ranks who truly agree with this judicially-created fiction.
    I assume that you are responding to my post so please correct me if I'm wrong. I thought I made myself clear when I spoke of a "reasonable restriction"against using our rights to infringe upon the rights of others or cause harm to another. Dou you regardproperly enforced laws against brandishing, negligent discharge,libel, lying to induce panic, etc., to beunreasonable restrictions of our rights? Since I agree with you 100% on Mississippi's case law vs Mississippi's constitution I'm not sure howI fall into the ranks of those who agree with the judiciary. Again I say this assuming you are responding to my last post. If I'm wrong please correct me. If you think my views on reasonable restriction wrong please explain why. Thanks.
    I understand what you are saying and where your going with your thought process on the issue and agree to an extent. I mean your trying to make baring arms a little more then what it is. The right to bare arms shall not be infringed, obviously if your going around dangerously waving your gun around and wanting to hurt innocent people, then of course that's wrong anyone would agree with you there, that's just common sense. But I don't think people putting out a law on that changed anything, humans here in America are smart enough to know the difference.

    As far as the 1rst goes, I'd rather not comment on that to much, except I will say this, Freedom Of Speech, that's what it means. That's all I'll say about that.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    224

    Post imported post

    Mr.Advocate wrote:
    ...dangerously waving your gun around and wanting to hurt innocent people, then of course that's wrong anyone would agree with you there, that's just common sense. But I don't think people putting out a law on that changed anything, humans here in America are smart enough to know the difference.
    Yes common sense and commondecencytell usus that such things are wrong. My point is that we have such laws because people have done and continue to dosuch things. The state can't render justice unless it prohibits such behavior. As we like to say, if it isn't prohibited it's legal. This to me is a separate issue than Mississippi's idiotic definition of "concealed in part." That defies both common sense and common decency.

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
  •