open carry while cutting grass

i was cutting my lawn the other day.when i got hot andtook off my shirt.i was carrying my glock in a holster on my side.someone must have sean it and called the police.when they arrived they wanted to why i was cutting gaass wearing my gun .itold them i had a permite to carry and just took off my shirt when i got hot they checked my perment they said i was legal to carry in a holster out in the open.they told me to have a nice day and left the gulfport police was nice about the call and said the nabors shuld mind there on business.

Welcome to OCDO! (open carry dot org).

I'm glad your police encounter was relatively uneventful.

I have a few questions that will help me understand the legality of the police actions.

1. Police came onto your private property while you were mowing your grass?

2. The police detained you, meaning seized you temporarily? Or, were you totally free to ignore them and keep on mowing?

3. Demanded your firearm permit? Or, you volunteered it?

4. You complied with everything demanded and/or requested without politely, verbally withholding your consent while complying?

5. And, answered at least one police question without invoking your 5th Amendment right to silence and 6th Amendment right to counsel?

You consider the police were nice about the call? You see, I disagree that the police were nice about the call. I think you were misled by politeness on the part of the police. See the posts that follow.

You were tricked. If the police were all that intent on the neighbors minding their own business, the police wouldn't have bothered you in the first place.

Basically, even though the police felt "the neighbors should mind their own business", the police 1) felt the need to bother and pester you anyway, and apparently 2) the police don't feel they should mind their own business and leave peaceable citizens alone.

Regarding minding their own business and leaving peaceable citizens alone, here is a quote from a US Supreme Court case:

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.

No right. More sacred. More carefully guarded. Free from all restraint. Free from all interference. Unless by both clear and unquestionable authority of law.

Re-read that part about free from all interference. Translation: mind your own business and leave peaceable people alone unless you have both clear and unquestionable authority of law.

The quoted material was quoted again in the very Supreme Court case from which police derive authority to temporarily seize (detain) someone to investigate them for crime. This later case is called Terry vs Ohio. It is noteable that the Supreme Court could have omitted the quote from Terry. Or, they could have written their own and watered it down. But, they did neither.

Terry vs Ohio: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.html

Have YOU got it all straight, Citizen?

Citizen said:

Let me make sure I understand this.

1. Police came onto your private property while you were mowing your grass?

2. The police detained you, meaning seized you temporarily, for the purposes of the 4th Amendment?

3. Demanded your firearm permit?

4. You complied with everything demanded and/or requested without politely, verbally withholding your consent while complying?

5. And, answered at least one police question without invoking your 5th Amendment right to silence and 6th Amendment right to counsel?

6. And you consider the police were nice about the call?

Have I got all that straight?

Click to expand...

I don't know what you read, Citizen, bot I didn't read 1 thru 3 in the OP. Sounds to me like robbyw had a respectful interaction with law enforcement and everybody ended up happy.

ARADCOM said:

I don't know what you read, Citizen, bot I didn't read 1 thru 3 in the OP. Sounds to me like robbyw had a respectful interaction with law enforcement and everybody ended up happy.

Click to expand...

yes i thank they were just doing thier job answering the call from nabors

ARADCOM said:

I don't know what you read, Citizen, bot I didn't read 1 thru 3 in the OP. Sounds to me like robbyw had a respectful interaction with law enforcement and everybody ended up happy.

Click to expand...

Niether did I read 1-3 in the OP, that is why I asked it as questions. I learned a long time ago that OCers routinely omit information necessary to determine the legality of an encounter with police.

At least I knew I was making deliberate assumptions in the way I framed the questions.

robbyw said:

yes i thank they were just doing thier job answering the call from nabors

Click to expand...

Thank you. If you will answer my questions, the rest of us will be able also to judge whether they were doing their job.

Separately, I cannot reconcile the police comment that the neighbors should mind their own business with the idea that the police were just doing their job.

Self-defense/self-preservation is almost as fundamental a human right as there is. Right up there with food and shelter. Why on earth would police have any legitimate interest in whether a person is carrying a gun on his own property while doing yard work? Are the police going to come and check a phone report that, "A man is fixing his roof." Or, "Oh, my god! Come quick! I see a man tending vegetables in his garden!"

The police comment about neighbors minding their own business was a misdirection, a mis-assignment of responsibility. The police are just as responsible for their actions as anybody else. The dispatcher could have asked, "Where is the gun?" "What is he doing with it?" And so on. Also, the cops could have just observed the OP from a distance. For all their comment that the neighbors should mind their own business, the police were certainly willing to be the agents injecting the neighbor's concern into yours.

robbyw said:

i was cutting my lawn the other day.when i got hot andtook off my shirt.i was carrying my glock in a holster on my side.someone must have sean it and called the police.when they arrived they wanted to why i was cutting gaass wearing my gun .itold them i had a permite to carry and just took off my shirt when i got hot they checked my perment they said i was legal to carry in a holster out in the open.they told me to have a nice day and left the gulfport police was nice about the call and said the nabors shuld mind there on business.

Click to expand...

robbyw said:

yes i thank they were just doing thier job answering the call from nabors

Click to expand...

When I was growing up in Arkansas, and we were criticized for being 49th out of 50 states when it came to education, the standard reply was: "Thank God for Mississippi!"

For some strange reason, that anecdote just came to mind...

Welcome to OC.ORG!

Hey, I know how to promote OC and also how to get newcomers to be a active part of the movement and forums.

Let's find find a nice little story that somebody tells on their 2nd post. And then we can have someone with 8,600+ posts and another guy with 1,800+ posts just give them grief and run them down. Yeah, that ought to do it!

ARADCOM said:

Hey, I know how to promote OC and also how to get newcomers to be a active part of the movement and forums.

Let's find find a nice little story that somebody tells on their 2nd post. And then we can have someone with 8,600+ posts and another guy with 1,800+ posts just give them grief and run them down. Yeah, that ought to do it!

Click to expand...

You have a point, although it is obscured by at least as much unpleasantness of which you accuse me. Run him down? Give him grief?

Although not sugar-coated, my first post is hardly running him down or giving him grief. I did not say, "You stupid hick, the cops walked all over your rights and you did not even recognize it." I did not say, "Thanks a lot, boob, for exercising your 2nd Amendment rights while completely ignoring your 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment rights, and letting the cops get away with it unchallenged so they can continue on any other poor citizens they encounter." I did not say, "Oh, thanks a lot for lurking on the forum until you have a police encounter for your first post; and writing it up with little punctuation and no capitalization, and with insufficient detail for anybody else to know what really happened." Lots of ways to actually run him down and give him genuine grief.

However, like I said, you have a point. I will go back and edit that first post to make it a little more inviting.

gutshot said:

SNIP...If not, your 4th amendment rights were violated.

Click to expand...

We can't quite say that, yet. We would have to know whether he consented to the encounter. So far, it seems he might have consented every step of the way.

gutshot said:

Are you required to have a permit to OC on your own property? If not, your 4th amendment rights were violated. That might be OK with you, but I don't want to give up any of my rights. They don't have to be mean and nasty to violate your rights, they can do it even if they are polite and friendly. That is a tactic they often employ to get by with it.

Click to expand...

Permit is not required. See MS Code 97-37-1 (Deadly weapons; carrying while concealed; use or attempt to use; penalties):

(2) It shall not be a violation of this section for any person over the age of eighteen (18) years to carry a firearm or deadly weapon concealed in whole or in part within the confines of his own home or his place of business, or any real property associated with his home or business or within any motor vehicle.

Click to expand...

Now, the statute covers weapons "concealed in whole or in part". One could argue that Chief Justice Lee's vague statements about "in part" could mean that OC in a holster is "concealed in part". That has not been tested directly in court, to my knowledge. If the "OC = concealed in part" angle is invalid, the state laws do not mention OC at all, and therefore it is not prohibited.

In summary, in MS a person can carry however he/she wants, open or concealed, on their own property without any permission slip from the state.

4angrybadgers is SPOT ON.

No permit required to OC or CC on your own property.

Police should have never even stopped when they saw you mowing instead of causing a disturbance.

I place the initial responsibility of this incident escalating to the level it did with the person who received the call from the neighbor about a MWAG. The dispatcher should have asked where the person with the firearm was located at the time, what they were doing, and what they were doing with the firearm. If the OP was just mowing and had his firearm holstered, this whole incident could have been avoided if the dispatcher who called officers to check out the OP had known the law and had done his/her job correctly. As often as LE do encounters with MWAG calls, this is one part of the Penal Code they should be thoroughly familiar with through their training. It should be drilled into their heads. In my opinion, from the dispatcher receiving the calls to the officers sent to do an investigation of MWAG calls, LE has absolutely no excuse for fouling up on these situations. It places "law-abiding citizens" at risk of being seriously injured or killed by over-reactive police who miss-evaluate a situation or are high on adrenalin and not thinking completely rationale, which causes certain citizens to make questionable movements that they would not ordinarily make when not under duress.

This whole incident makes me want to :banghead:.

marionmedic said:

4angrybadgers is SPOT ON.

No permit required to OC or CC on your own property.

Police should have never even stopped when they saw you mowing instead of causing a disturbance.

Click to expand...

I agree.
The only reason I could see is if the property owner/occupant/renter, etc. was known by the local law enforcement agency to be someone who could not legally possess a handgun.

A call that a neighbor is mowing his own lawn with a holstered sidearm in and of itself is not enough for a stop and ID. I would probably stop and talk to the caller to try to find out why they are so concerned, there may be more than what dispatch was told. If it was only because a sidearm was seen, then I would explain that I have no suspicion that any laws are being broken.

Depending on the circumstances, I may try to speak to the lawnmower guy and ask him if he minded telling me why he was carrying. Of course he wouldn't have to answer, but he may tell me that his neighbor threatened him bodily harm or something, he may have an extremely good reason to carry while mowing.

One thing I have learned while being a deputy is the good guys don't always look like the good guys, the bad guys don't always look like the bad guys and sometimes people will try to use law enforcement agencies to harass people they don't like.