• 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.

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

MSRebel54

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
imported post

aadvark wrote:
Look, atleast I told you what I would do.

Carry a Rifle or Shotgun, or any other hand-held Weapon.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I suppose that would be legal, but it wouldn't be practical. My guess is I'd end up being charged with something unrelated to the firearm such as disturbing the peace, causing a disturbance, or something along those lines, in a best case scenario. In a worst case scenario, I'd probably be killed by some trigger happy cop.

My references to the Constitution and law in this thread were directed at handguns, since 97-37-1 does not apply to a rifle with a barrel over 18" long or a shotgun with a barrel over 16" long. I was under the impression we were discussing the open carry of handguns, not long guns.
 
MSRebel54

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
imported post

DCKilla wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree the wording should be changed or amended. I'm not sure however that "attempting to conceal" is all that much better than "in whole or in part". "Attempting" sometimes goes toward a person's intentions, and opens up a whole other can of worms. But I see where you're going with that. Although, I personally, don't think the "attempt" language would be necessary, since if a cop noticed a bulge, at that point, the weapon would actually be concealed. I'd say just leave it at "concealed". Most courts know the definition of concealed. We both agree it needs to be changed in some way however, so that open doesn't mean concealed.
 
J

JT

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

I agree that the wording "in part" needs to be deleted or changed in the statute. It would also help to add a definition of "concealed" like many state statutes do. Here are some examples I found.

Louisiana

Concealed Handgun―any handgun as defined in R.S. 40:1379.3(J)(1), which is carried on a person in such a manner as to hide or obscure the handgun from plain view.

North Dakota

62.1-04-01. Definition of concealed. A firearm or dangerous weapon is concealed if it is carried in such a manner as to not be discernible by the ordinary observation of a passerby.

There is no requirement that there be absolute invisibility of the firearm or dangerous weapon, merely that it not be ordinarily discernible. A firearm or dangerous weapon is considered concealed if it is not secured, and is worn under clothing or carried in a bundle that is held or carried by the individual, or transported in a vehicle under the individual's control or direction and available to the individual, including beneath the seat or in a glove compartment. A firearm or dangerous weapon is not considered concealed if it is:

1. Carried in a belt holster which is wholly or substantially visible or carried in a case designed for carrying a firearm or dangerous weapon and which is wholly or substantially visible;

2. Locked in a closed trunk or luggage compartment of a motor vehicle;

3. Carried in the field while lawfully engaged in hunting, trapping, or target shooting, whether visible or not; or

4. Carried by any person permitted by law to possess a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to that person's home or place of business, or to a place of repair, or back from those locations.

5. A bow and arrow, an unloaded rifle or shotgun, or an unloaded weapon that will expel, or is readily capable of expelling, a projectile by the action of a spring, compressed air, or compressed gas including any such weapon commonly referred to as a BB gun, air rifle, or CO2 gun, while carried in a motor vehicle.

Texas

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Virginia

If any person carries about his person, hidden from common observation, (i) any pistol, revolver,… For the purpose of this section, a weapon shall be deemed to be hidden from common observation when it is observable but is of such deceptive appearance as to disguise the weapon's true nature.
 
J

JT

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

mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Instead of debating the Brady bunch, why not focus attention on Jim Dale at the AG's office and his totally asinine statement of "get a permit?"
Click to expand...
Didn't see where anyone advocated a debate with the Brady's over this. IMO trying to change the statute is a better option than bothering with Dale or the AG himselffor that matter. They won't address issues to private citizens so other than trying to get info from their already issued opinions there's not much we can expect from that office. Once the statute is clarified then the silly concurring opinion that started this mess becomes a non-factor, especially if the term "concealed is defined in the statute.
 
G

gunluvinatty

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2009
Messages
14
Location
, ,
imported post

If anyone is seriously interested in seeing this changed, I believe JT has correctly pointed out the most expedient method of getting that accomplished.
 
MSRebel54

MSRebel54

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Northern Mississippi, ,
imported post

IMO trying to change the statute is a better option than bothering with Dale or the AG himself for that matter.
Click to expand...
Ya'll correct me if I'm wrong, but that would have to be introduced in the legislature, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed by Governor would it not?

And certainly the definition of concealed, as in the provided examples would work just fine. I have written two or three of my state Reps about the statute, to no avail. I don't think I've ever even gotten a reply on this particular subject.

Consider too, that even if it passed both House and Senate, would whoever the sitting governor is sign it? There would be so much political lobbying against it from various groups and liberal newspapers etc. I'm not saying it 'can't be done'. I'm just saying I think it would be an uphill road to travel for sure.:banghead:
 
A

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
imported post

Yes we are discussing Handguns.

However, I merely answered the question under the Title of this Post.

Unless I am mistaken the Title went: How can I my Cocnstitutional Right to Bear Arms in Mississippi?

I merely responded based off of the discussion about the Concealed 'in-whole' or 'in-part' dilemma, that one needs only to Bear a Long-gun.

If a Long-gun would prove impratical, one need only Bear a Hand-held Arm, such as a Bowie Knife or a Baton, etc..
 
DCKilla

DCKilla

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Wet Side, WA
imported post

Is there any way one of you guys could type out a PDF or word file that explains what we would like in a bill to give "concealed" a definition? I'm not to good with thiskind of thing. That's why I ask.

I would like something so we can walk up to our rep and explain what we would like to happen. Mailing questions is not goodenough anymore.
 
turbodog

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

MSRebel54 wro
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".
Click to expand...
Just curious, is there a reason you can't get a permit? A legality reason I mean? Or is this a philosophical issue?
 
J

JT

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

DCKilla wrote:
Is there any way one of you guys could type out a PDF or word file that explains what we would like in a bill to give "concealed" a definition? I'm not to good with thiskind of thing. That's why I ask.

I would like something so we can walk up to our rep and explain what we would like to happen. Mailing questions is not goodenough anymore.
Click to expand...

I posted some examples from other state laws above and I have been looking for more such examples when I get the chance. I like the fact that the North Dakota law clearly defines a visiblyholstered sidearm as not concealed. How this would work with the "concealed whole orin part" phrase I'm not sure but I would think thata clear definition of a holsterd sidearm as unconcealed would be sufficient. Still , whatever is put in one section of the law has tobe looked at to see how it would impact other sections. I'm open for suggestions and will post any other examples I find.

I'mworking on a letter to send to my reps but was going to wait until the fate of H.B. 298 is decided since it would address some issues about where permit holders can carry if passed in it's present form. While that doesn't impact open carry I don't want to send a letter that has points that have already been addressed by recent legislation.
 
lil_freak_66

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
imported post

have yall looked into clear holsters that hold the firearm out at an angle?

it'd be probably beawkward and look funny...but it would make all sides of the firearm be completely visible.

probably of course would have to be custom made.

but from how y'all have stated the law,it is my understanding that it would be legal...if the holster is completely clear then its not concealing any part of the firearm,and having it held out from your body at an angle makes all sides of the firearm visible in a clear holster.
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

MSRebel54 wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
No one NEEDSto tell you how to exercise your rights. That's YOUR responsibility. If you're still interested in finding your answer then do the following...

1. Someone posted a piece of the SC ruling in this thread. Findthe entire textfor yourself and READ it.

2. Post the quote in question as well as a link to the appellant’s brief. Perhaps we can ascertain the appellant’s strategy. In other words, if the appellant argued ONLY that the firearm was not concealed in part, but did NOT challenge the constitutionality of the statute, thena constitutional challenge can and should be made. It’s amazing how often attorneys make mistakes… ‘cause they’re people just like the rest of us.

3. If the referenced quote allegedly defining "concealed whole or in part" is INDEED dicta as astutely observed by someone here, then this case is irrelevant to Article 3 section 12. Indeed, it may be an instance of a SC justice pointing out the OBVIOUS constitutional flaws of 97-37-1

4. Depending on what we find, we can discuss an appropriate strategy.
 
A

Article1section23

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
489
Location
USA
imported post

georg jetson wrote:
No one NEEDSto tell you how to exercise your rights. That's YOUR responsibility. If you're still interested in finding your answer then do the following...

1. Someone posted a piece of the SC ruling in this thread. Findthe entire textfor yourself and READ it.

2. Post the quote in question as well as a link to the appellant’s brief. Perhaps we can ascertain the appellant’s strategy. In other words, if the appellant argued ONLY that the firearm was not concealed in part, but did NOT challenge the constitutionality of the statute, thena constitutional challenge can and should be made. It’s amazing how often attorneys make mistakes… ‘cause they’re people just like the rest of us.

3. If the referenced quote allegedly defining "concealed whole or in part" is INDEED dicta as astutely observed by someone here, then this case is irrelevant to Article 3 section 12. Indeed, it may be an instance of a SC justice pointing out the OBVIOUS constitutional flaws of 97-37-1

4. Depending on what we find, we can discuss an appropriate strategy.
Click to expand...
+1, especially on the guy doing his own research. I bet he gets food stamps also....somebody tell me...somebody give me an answer....STFU!!!
 
J

JT

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

Shawn wrote:
+1, especially on the guy doing his own research. I bet he gets food stamps also....somebody tell me...somebody give me an answer....STFU!!!
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read the OP's posts very well. He wasn't asking for someone to do the work for him. He was asking the question rhetoricallyas a discussion point.

As for your comments above, no need to be rude even if you are mistaken. You might want to consider the old saying:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

JT wrote:
Shawn wrote:
+1, especially on the guy doing his own research. I bet he gets food stamps also....somebody tell me...somebody give me an answer....STFU!!!
Click to expand...
You obviously didn't read the OP's posts very well. He wasn't asking for someone to do the work for him. He was asking the question rhetoricallyas a discussion point.

As for your comments above, no need to be rude even if you are mistaken. You might want to consider the old saying:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"
Click to expand...
Please know that it was not my intention to encourage rudeness. However, it was my intention to impress upon the OP that he MUST find the answers himself and that he CAN find the answers himself. His understandable frustration is easily discerned, but not without remedy.
 
J

JT

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

georg jetson wrote:
Please know that it was not my intention to encourage rudeness. However, it was my intention to impress upon the OP that he MUST find the answers himself and that he CAN find the answers himself. His understandable frustration is easily discerned, but not without remedy.
Click to expand...
Understood georg. My reply wasn't directed toward you. The problem is that his frustration IS without remedy the way MS law is currentlywritten and interpreted.
 
G

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

JT wrote:
georg jetson wrote:
Please know that it was not my intention to encourage rudeness. However, it was my intention to impress upon the OP that he MUST find the answers himself and that he CAN find the answers himself. His understandable frustration is easily discerned, but not without remedy.
Click to expand...
Understood georg. My reply wasn't directed toward you. The problem is that his frustration IS without remedy the way MS law is currentlywritten and interpreted.
Click to expand...
I'm going to disagree with your last statement. There is ALWAYS remedy. Would someone here be willing to post a link to the court case causing the trouble? I looked on the MS. SC website, but their online records appear no older than 1997.
 
J

JT

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

georg jetson wrote:
I'm going to disagree with your last statement. There is ALWAYS remedy. Would someone here be willing to post a link to the court case causing the trouble? I looked on the MS. SC website, but their online records appear no older than 1997.
Click to expand...
You can find the text of the ruling here.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum32/28581.html

Your right that there is a remedy. It will take a favorable court case or a change of legislation. The frustration of the OP was the unwillingness ofthe powers that be to explain the law as currently applied. They won't at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top