How can I exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms in Mississippi?

imported post

My question to the AG, the DPS, or lawyers, or whoever would be tasked with answering this question, is for them to tell ME just how I can exercise my Constitutional right to keep and BEAR arms.

Article 3 Section 12 of the MS Constitution, clearly and unambiguously states the "right" of every citizen ...shall not be called into question...except that the legislature may forbid or regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.

So the legislature did exactly that. Regulate concealed carry, but in a manner that is designed to skirt Article 3 Section 12 altogether. The wording of 97-37-1, "concealed in whole or in part" does not specifically nullify open carry, for if it did, it would be unconstitutional under Article 3 Section 12. So the right to keep and bear arms still exists under Article 3 Section 12. But how does one exercise the right that is defined in that section? Government is guaranteeing a RIGHT, and then preventing any way to exercise that guaranteed right.

If carrying a sidearm on the outside of your clothes in a holster is "concealed in part" and therefore concealed, or if tying a string around the trigger guard and hanging it from one's neck is also "concealed", then in WHAT manner can I exercise the right defined in Article 3 Section 12?

It is STILL a right. Someone needs to tell me just how I legally go about exercising that right.

If the AG's office (or the DPS for that matter) refuses to provide a way in which I can exercise my Constitutional right, as stated in the MS Constitution, then they are a traitor to their oath to 'uphold and defend the Constitution for the State of Mississippi'.

I think some bold lawyer should take this to court base on the fact that a constitutionally guaranteed right that is impossible to exercise, is no right at all, and therefore the code is unconstitutional.

And if a lawyer needs a case, I don't think it would be hard to get someone in his locale to walk around town open carrying until they got charged with "carrying a concealed weapon". I think it's a matter of money, or it would have already been done. No individual has the money it would cost for something like this, and no lawyer wants to do it 'pro bono'.

So, in the meantime, we're stuck with an oxymoron (or just plain moronic) wording of the code in 97-37-1.

imported post

Many have asked this question of our AG and none have gotten an answer. It's not just the statute but also the the case law interpreting the statute that has caused the problem. A holstered firearm in plain view is not "concealed" by any rational definition yet according to our brilliant judicial minds it is.

To get this changed either the statute has to change to define aholstered firearm as not "concealed in part"or a court case has to redefine "concealed in part" Both are an uphill battle as evidenced by by Senate bill 2153 which would have removed the prohibition on permit holders from carrying in parks and would have allowed churches to decide for themselves whether or not to allow people to carry in church. SB21 53 passed the Senate by a vote of 48 to 3 and then died in theHouse Judiciary B Committee yesterday never allowing the full house to vote.

Your question is one we need to keep asking and get as many people as we can to ask. We also need to take a more active role in finding and supporting candidates who will work to honor the plain language of our constitution. I don't really see any other way outside of an arrest andcourt case where one man takes the risk for all and works through the appeal process with no guarantees since English grammar is obviously not high on the list of prerequisites for serving as a Supreme Court Justice here.

imported post

Not true, JT, I've gotten an answer from the AG's Jim Dale: "get a permit."

imported post

mark edward marchiafava wrote:

Not true, JT, I've gotten an answer from the AG's Jim Dale: "get a permit."

Click to expand...

Well yeah... If you consider that ananswer.:cuss:

imported post

or you can sue the state in federal court for violating the 2nd Amendment. Appropriate case law should be Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

imported post

Get a Permit to Open Carry a Handgun or Pistol in Mississippi.

However, if you REALLY want to make them angry..., Open Carry a Long-gun (Rifle, Shotgun, AR-15 type, or AK-47 type, etc.) around town.

Just watch out for Schools and Churches, and Local Bans such as: Parks, Public Meetings,Political Rallies, Parades,and Political Meetings.

When you Carry a Long-gun make sure it is exposed and slung around your Body or Arm, and that no part of the Long-gun is obsecured from plain view.

However, if you do not want to get a Permit to carry a Pistol, tell them you are traveling, and are not a Tramp, and prove it..., per Mississippi Code 97-37-9(b).

Do not carry any Firearm/Weapon in a rude and angry manner.

imported post

Permit?
It's no longer a right.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

or you can sue the state in federal court for violating the 2nd Amendment. Appropriate case law should be Murdock v. Pennsylvania.

Click to expand...

I don't think this is an option since the SCOTUS is deliberating incorporation of of the 2A towards the states as we speak. What we are talking about here is an convoluted legal definition of "concealed in part" that was imposed by MS Supreme Court. What actually constitutes concealment or partial concealmentisn't defined in the statute. I don't see how a Federal lawsuit comes into play at this point.

imported post

Don't waste your time contacting state rep Bob Evans, he's an idiot.
According to him, you don't have a right to bear arms, but you CAN exercise the PRIVILEGE to bear arms.

imported post

Excuse me, this is my first post on this board.

So, all is needed is some brave soul to become a scape goat, correct?

Everyone knows if you holster a firearm in the open thenthere's no attempt to conceal. Then there's that "in part" BS that some how applies to OCing. IMO they must prove your intent to conceal. I mean if you intend to conceal without a permit then you must be punished according to the law based on the MS Constitution.

imported post

The problem in Mississippi is, as with MUCH of The South, that there are too many Jim Crow Laws that still on the books.

These Laws were written to disarm Black People.

Well the interpretation of the Law is:

1. In Mississippi one can not Carry a Handgun Concealed, 'in whole' or 'in part'.

2. A High Mississippi State Judge has ruled a Handgun in a Holster, even in plain view, is Concealed 'in part'.

3. 97-37-1 stands on that basis, several exceptions aside under Mississippi Code 97-37-9.

4. Until these Jim Crow Laws are removed this is the way it will continue to be in Mississippi and throughout MUCH of The South.

5. It is no different in Georgia or Tennessee either.

P.S.: My Father always told me, '... Son, Pistols and Alcohol are a very inparticular kind of Politic, you see...'

imported post

Question: How can I exercise my Constitutional right to bare arms in Mississippi?

Answer: Buy a shirt without sleeves.

Maybe you can use a clear plastic holster.

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Question: How can I exercise my Constitutional right to bare arms in Mississippi?

Answer: Buy a shirt without sleeves.

Maybe you can use a clear plastic holster.

Click to expand...

I dunno man, this is Mississippi. "Wifebeaters" are something of a state uniform.

And according to that State Supreme Court decision that mentioned a holster was "partial concealment", there was comment that even hanging a gun from a string around your neck would be partial concealment, since half of the gun's surface was hidden from view. (Not a word-for-word quote, but you get the idea.) So even a clear holster would be "concealing" part of the pistol against your side. Dontcha love the logic in that decision? :quirky

imported post

To be clear about something, there is no "holding" like y'all are discussing. The comments are "dicta" which means that they are not binding law. They may or may not be indicative of what the Court would actually hold, but the comments themselves do not have the force of law.

Here's the relevant portion from my summary of weapons laws:

In re: L.M., S.T. & D.S. v. State[/i], 600 So.2d 967, 971 (Miss. 1992) (Noble, concurring) (“I discovered that carrying a concealed weapon in whole or in part even meant that a revolver carried in a holster on a man's hip was a partially concealed weapon, riding a horse with a saddle holster and revolver under a person's leg violated the statute; and that covering a weapon with feet, hands, or clothing meant that the weapon was concealed under the interpretation of the statute. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather throng could be partially concealing it.”)

Also, it is my understanding the AG can't give a private citizen an opinion on a legal issue.

imported post

Not true, JT, I've gotten an answer from the AG's Jim Dale: "get a permit."

Click to expand...

I get a 'permit' to exercise a government privilege, not a natural right. I don't get a government permit to breathe do I, which is my natural right.

My question remains: Under the current MS code, HOW do I exercise my right under Article 3 Section 12 of the MS Constitution, WITHOUT violating the law?

imported post

If you're not making the attempt to conceal then why worry?

imported post

If you're not making the attempt to conceal then why worry?

Click to expand...

There is no way you can NOT make the attempt to conceal under MS law. Re-read some of the post in the thread about 'concealed in whole or in part'. The MS legislature has done what lawmakers typically do. They have weasel worded they way around something the Constitution clearly defined as 'blue' and turned it around to mean 'red'.

The MS Constitution Article 3 Section 12 states that ....."although the legislature may regulate or forbid the carrying of concealed weapons." It does NOT say they may regulate or forbid the carrying of "partly concealed" weapons. Concealed means hidden from view. It is either hidden, or it isn't. You either see what it is, or you don't. What is 'partly concealed' anyway? That's like being 'partly pregnant' isn't is?

The Constitution used the word "concealed", the legislature added the adverb "partly" to completely deconstruct the meaning of the Constitution's intentions, and the word concealed.

So now, in MS you have to have a concealed carry permit to OPEN carry.

My question was, and there is no answer to it, how can I exercise my Constitutional right under the law? (right to keep and bear arms, not right to conceal). Answer: I CAN'T. Until this ridiculous, stupid, code is changed to remove the words, "in part".

imported post

Look, atleast I told you what I would do.

Carry a Rifle or Shotgun, or any other hand-held Weapon.

imported post

Out of an abundance of caution, OCDO codes MS a licensed open carry state. if somebody can get this clarified otherwise thru an Ag opinion, bill, court case, let us know!

imported post

MSRebel, I'm not ignorant to what the law says.



I think that the wording in the statute can be easily changed to "concealed or attempting to conceal" with an amendment to that statute. It doesn't look like a big change, but a very effective one. That's what we need to be pushing for, a change in the statute. No one needs to be going to jail for something that was defined so stupidly.