• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

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.
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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:cool:
 

JT

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
224
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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.
 

whoflungdo

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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.
 

Johnny_B

Regular Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
144
Location
Gulf Coast, Mississippi, USA
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...
 

whoflungdo

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
25
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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.
 
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
2,269
Location
baton rouge, Louisiana, USA
imported post

"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, as wellas the Heller decision.

It's discouraging to know there are some within our own ranks who truly agree with this judicially-created fiction.
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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
 

JT

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
224
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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.
 

Mr.Advocate

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
255
Location
Mobile, Alabama, USA
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.
 

JT

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
224
Location
, Mississippi, USA
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.
 
Top