Mississippi open carry in the news

Lavon said:

Heck No and please provide proof of last statement. Clear proof. Not an interpretation of MS law as written. Nowhere has anyone clearly specified to MS being an OC state...without referring back to 2A. Which is fine. Damn glad it's there! But the issue is state law...

Click to expand...

Is the MS constitution itself not proof enough of what it protects? What sort of proof are you looking for beyond the MS constitution; it is fairly self defining? Codified Law does not always adhere to the MS constitution as I am sure you are aware. However, a careful reading of Title 97 and maybe one other section for schools provides some more clarity on the possible meaning of the code; even though it shows some glaring problems as well. Multiple places in the code refer to openly carrying a firearm; which means the codified laws of MS recognize that it is possible to carry a firearm unconcealed.

97-37-17. Possession of weapons by students; aiding or encouraging


Also, there are attorney general's opinions, such as:

Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi

January 14, 1993


Re: Concealed Weapons


Mr. Pete Bowen
Chief of Police
P.O. Box 1408
Columbus, MS 39703


Dear Chief Bowen:


Attorney General Mike Moore has received your letter and has assigned it to me for reply. A copy of your letter is attached for reference.

In your letter you ask about carrying concealed and unconcealed weapons and the law on the same.

The state law makes carrying certain weapons, including handguns, concealed in whole or part a crime. There are stated exceptions to this general statement, including in a motor vehicle, a person's home or business, which includes the property surrounding such home or business. See 97–37–1 of the Mississippi Code of 1972. There are also certain affirmative defenses to a charge of carrying a concealed weapon. See 97–37–9 of the Mississippi Code of 1972. Our law also allows two kinds of permits for carrying concealed weapons, one kind for security guards, bank guards, etc., section 97–37–7, and another kind for the general public, section 45–9–101.

If a handgun is not carried concealed in whole or part then it is not in violation of state law (there can be exceptions, for example section 97–37–17 for any illegal possession by a student on a campus or school grounds). Exactly what constitutes concealed in whole or part is largely a question of fact which we do not determine, and would depend on the facts of each case.
Very truly yours,

Mike Moore
Attorney General

By: Larry J. Stroud
Special Assistant Attorney General



Attachment


November 23, 1992

Mike Moore, Attorney General

Post Office Box 220

Jackson, Ms 39205

ref: Request for Attorney General Opinion


Dear Sir:

Does Section 45–9–101 of the Mississippi Code allow a permit holder to carry a handgun unconcealed, ie, holster or does it allow only the carrying of a handgun concealed (not visible)?

Does Section 97–37–1 or any other State Statute allow for the unconcealed carrying of a handgun, ie, in a holster?

If, the carrying of a handgun unconcealed, as in a holster is prohibited, then by what section should a person be charged and what appropriate penalty would apply?

Your quick response will be greatly appreciated. My mailing address is PO Box 1408, Columbus, Ms 39703–1408.

Sincerely,

Pete Bowen
Chief of Police

1993 WL 669065 (Miss.A.G.)

END OF DOCUMENT

If Blackhawk made a clear Serpa I wonder how that "holster partially concealing" argument would work.

Irish_Dave said:

If Blackhawk made a clear Serpa I wonder how that "holster partially concealing" argument would work.

Click to expand...

You cannot carry a pistol or revolver without a firearms permit. That's what we have to work with. "Smoke and Mirrors" is going to land your butt in jail with a concealed weapons charge.

Exactly what constitutes concealed in whole or part is largely a question of fact which we do not determine, and would depend on the facts of each case.

Click to expand...

What facts? It's either concealed or open right?
Black...GGGRRRREEEEYYYYYYYY...White

DCKilla said:

You cannot carry a pistol or revolver without a firearms permit. That's what we have to work with. "Smoke and Mirrors" is going to land your butt in jail with a concealed weapons charge.

Click to expand...

I contend that one SHOULD not carry without a concealed pistol permit. Language has meaning and I think advocates for the constitution should never budge from the fact that the MS constitution protects and does not allow for requireing a permit to carry unconcealed.

I do agree in MS if someone plans to carry a firearm, please get a concealed pistol permit first. We do not need an unplanned court case to rule against the constitution. Things are already precarious enough as things stand.

Lavon said:

What facts? It's either concealed or open right?
Black...GGGRRRREEEEYYYYYYYY...White

Click to expand...

Such a determination is up to the legislature and courts, not the attorney general. Also, I think that AG was trying to be constitutional, yet not go against what a single MS supreme court judge said (which was totally against the constitution and had nothing to do with the case before him).

This whole thread is as ridiculous as the law is. If I were to go by the "law" and were approached by a LEO asking me "what I was doing with that gun on my side", I could say "what gun?". According to the law it is concealed, and therefore YOU cannot see it. And he would say yeah, well it's "partly" concealed so I see it. And then I would say, according to precedent, "partly concealed" IS concealed, so you STILL cannot see it. And then he's going to say, I'm going to charge you with carrying a concealed weapon, and I can respond, well if it's concealed how do you know I HAVE a weapon? He either sees it, OR it's concealed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You see, the whole thing is like the old Abbot and Costello "Who's on First" routine.

I'm VERY surprised someone hasn't taken this logic to court before. Of course the black robed w****s will just bang their gavel and holler "guilty", so it's going to take someone who has the means to take it up the ladder. But if they win in the end, it will be a new precedence, regardless of 97-37-1. It would in fact, VOID those three words we're all so concerned about.

MSRebel54 said:

This whole thread is as ridiculous as the law is. If I were to go by the "law" and were approached by a LEO asking me "what I was doing with that gun on my side", I could say "what gun?". According to the law it is concealed, and therefore YOU cannot see it. And he would say yeah, well it's "partly" concealed so I see it. And then I would say, according to precedent, "partly concealed" IS concealed, so you STILL cannot see it. And then he's going to say, I'm going to charge you with carrying a concealed weapon, and I can respond, well if it's concealed how do you know I HAVE a weapon? He either sees it, OR it's concealed. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You see, the whole thing is like the old Abbot and Costello "Who's on First" routine.

I'm VERY surprised someone hasn't taken this logic to court before. Of course the black robed w****s will just bang their gavel and holler "guilty", so it's going to take someone who has the means to take it up the ladder. But if they win in the end, it will be a new precedence, regardless of 97-37-1. It would in fact, VOID those three words we're all so concerned about.

Click to expand...

It is very silly, which is why I do not acknowlege it as true. I might make sure that I have a CC permit when carrying, but I do not acknowledge that the state has power over something the constitution says is beyond their power to regulate. Also, the power to regulate OC is not much more than rumor at this point.

oh....your REALLY don't want to get me started do you?

MSRebel54 said:

oh....your REALLY don't want to get me started do you?

Click to expand...

I hope I have not contributed to a rise in your blood pressure.

sccrref said:

Do not lie to the officer. Exercise yourfifth amendment right.

Click to expand...

Can you do that during a traffic stop?

I know that some dunces use it in a court of law when they want to stonewall the prosecutor, but I didn't know about during a traffic stop.

MilProGuy said:

Can you do that during a traffic stop?

I know that some dunces use it in a court of law when they want to stonewall the prosecutor, but I didn't know about during a traffic stop.

Click to expand...

The protections of the fifth amendment always apply. Citizens NEVER have to answer a question that incriminates themselves.

If a person lives his / her life honorably, truthfully, and lawfully, then I can think of no circumstance when they might incriminate themselves by answering a question.

MilProGuy said:

If a person lives his / her life honorably, truthfully, and lawfully, then I can think of no circumstance when they might incriminate themselves by answering a question.

Click to expand...

What does that have to do with my reply to your previous statement? Trying to hop on a high horse when you see argument is wrong?

MilProGuy said:

If a person lives his / her life honorably, truthfully, and lawfully, then I can think of no circumstance when they might incriminate themselves by answering a question.

Click to expand...

Well then... let's just throw that old 5th amendment right out... of course we're all honorable, truthful And lawful. How dare the authors of the Bill of Rights insinuate otherwise...

By the way... why did they bother with this anyways???? Stupid due process, double jeopardy, self incrimination amendment...

MilProGuy said:

If a person lives his / her life honorably, truthfully, and lawfully, then I can think of no circumstance when they might incriminate themselves by answering a question.

Click to expand...

I'll see if I can't state this a little more clearly so that it might be more readily understood:

If a person is honest, and they abide by the law...they can, with good conscience, take the witness stand in any court of law and forthrightly answer any question that an officer of the court may put to them.

Those who hide behind the fifth amendment, like the "green company" executives who recently took the "fifth", usually have something to hide...which, would, in fact, incriminate themselves if they honestly answered the questions.

MilProGuy said:

I'll see if I can't state this a little more clearly so that it might be more readily understood:

If a person is honest, and they abide by the law...they can, with good conscience, take the witness stand in any court of law and forthrightly answer any question that an officer of the court may put to them.

Those who hide behind the fifth amendment, like the "green company" executives who recently took the "fifth", usually have something to hide...which, would, in fact, incriminate themselves if they honestly answered the questions.

Click to expand...

So what, who cares? Or is this somehow pertinent to

Can you do that during a traffic stop?

... but I didn't know about during a traffic stop.

Click to expand...

or my reply that yes the 5th amendment protection is always in place? Or are you trying a red herring fallacy to change the subject from where the 5th applies to if it should apply or some other nose in the air argument.

Daylen said:

So what, who cares? Or is this somehow pertinent to


Or are you trying a red herring fallacy to change the subject from where the 5th applies to if it should apply or some other nose in the air argument.

Click to expand...

I felt my comments were relevent to the discussion.