Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: The ONLY way to TRULY "open carry" in Mississippi...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26

    The ONLY way to TRULY "open carry" in Mississippi...


    -OR-


    Which one??

    I'm thinking about going with No. 1 -- the folding grip.

    As far as I'm concerned, Open Carry is very limited in Mississippi, while concealed carry is allowed in a "motor vehicle" by anyone who isn't a felon. Nothing must be covering it to be considered Open Carry on your person... including a holster, or even a string!! Nothing covers either one of these guns, but the handle is "protecting" the trigger... in no way is it concealing the reality of the revolver.

    I wonder what judge would tell me that I could OC it on my belt if it is unfolded... but not when the trigger concealed like that. . . .

    Why on earth would I PAY hundreds of $$$$ for a PRIVILEGE to own a PERMIT... when I already have the RIGHT to bear arms??

    P.S. -- Did you know that we all have the Constitutional Right to form a militia??

    Nobody would dare dispute that we have that right... but they want to dispute the issue over whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves and those around us?!?
    Last edited by stungun; 09-28-2010 at 06:47 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    I've thought about putting a clip on the slide of my 1911 so I can clip it on something and not have a holster or anything conceal it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member fozzy71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Roseville, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    863
    Really, without a concealed license you cant use a holster?

    http://www.clipdraw.com/
    "I like users who quote smellslikemichigan in their signature lines." - fozzy71

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    16,850
    Double-check your statute on carrying concealed. In VA the concealed carry statute includes language about hiding the true nature of the weapon, thus the belt-buckle would be questionable as to legality. VA Code 18.2-308.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by fozzy71 View Post
    Really, without a concealed license you cant use a holster?

    http://www.clipdraw.com/
    Yes... really...

    Even that clip draw that you linked me to is ILLEGAL without a permit. If you have to put the gun IWB.. it's concealed in part, therefore, illegal without permit.

    It starts with the MS Constitution...

    Article 3. Section 12. Right to bear arms.

    The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.
    Then the MS statutes...
    97-37-1

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed in whole or in part, any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, slingshot, pistol, revolver, or any rifle with a barrel of less than sixteen (16) inches in length, or any shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen (18) inches in length, machine gun or any fully automatic firearm or deadly weapon, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not it is accompanied by a firearm, or uses or attempts to use against another person any imitation firearm, shall upon conviction be punished as follows:

    (a) By a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six (6) months, or both, in the discretion of the court, for the first conviction under this section.

    ....

    (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.

    (3) It shall not be a violation of this section for any person to carry a firearm or deadly weapon concealed in whole or in part if the possessor of the weapon is then engaged in a legitimate weapon-related sports activity or is going to or returning from such activity. For purposes of this subsection, "legitimate weapon-related sports activity" means hunting, fishing, target shooting or any other legal sports activity which normally involves the use of a firearm or other weapon.
    Essentially, that "concealed in whole or in part" bit is what is screwing us over from "true" open carry. There have been MS Supreme Court decisions that state "if a string is over the gun, then it's concealed".

    I should really know that case by now, but I'm sure anybody can find it if they want.

    The point is that Open Carry is not just lawful in MS, but it's LEGAL as well. It's just gotta be levitating on your hip... with either a folding grip & built-in clip, or a belt buckle. Your choice...
    Last edited by stungun; 09-29-2010 at 12:01 AM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26

    I was wrong...

    There's THREE ways to legally open carry in MS *without* a permit...

    1) folding grip w/ clip
    2) belt buckle

    *and*

    3) a clear holster

    Got that last tip from this thread.

    Not that these are surefire and/or dummy proof... but I do believe that I will be able to handle myself appropriately during any intercourse with MS officials.

    I think I'm gonna go for the folding grip w/ clip, myself...

  7. #7
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by stungun View Post
    There's THREE ways to legally open carry in MS *without* a permit...

    1) folding grip w/ clip
    2) belt buckle

    *and*

    3) a clear holster

    Got that last tip from this thread.

    Not that these are surefire and/or dummy proof... but I do believe that I will be able to handle myself appropriately during any intercourse with MS officials.

    I think I'm gonna go for the folding grip w/ clip, myself...
    How you carry your pistol or revolver is up to you. Mississippi doesn't care as long as you have a permit and don't handle the firearm. There is no loop hole you can jump through. There are three real options: 1) Carry with a permit 2) Carry without a permit and fight the charges in court 3) Don't carry

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    I'm sorry, but I don't need to ask for permission to carry a TOTALLY unconcealed gun on my person.

    I DO NOT!!

    It straight up says in the U.S. Constitution that I have the RIGHT. (A definition of a "RIGHT", btw, is something that you need NOT ask permission for... THAT would be a privilege, which is what people are doing when begging for a CCW permit.) It straight up says in the Mississippi Consitution that I have the RIGHT, yet Congress has the right to regulate concealed carry, which they do quite well.

    Nowhere would a police officer, sheriff's deputy, prosecutor, jailer, judge, governor, etc. be capable of pointing to me the authority that states carrying a gun, which is TOTALLY unconcealed and open for all, is illegal without a CCW. Anybody with half a braincell knows that they should just outlaw open carrying if that's what they really want to do.

    And, btw... Since anybody with half a braincell would be willing to see my way, then I'm sure I'd be able to convince ONE person on a jury of 10-12 to find me not guilty of any criminal offense of which there was no injured party.

    I'm looking forward to the experience of open carrying in MS without a permit, but I'd still like to know whether you think the NAA w/ 1" or 1.5" barrel would be better for open carrying with the folding grip?? I just can't decide...
    Last edited by stungun; 09-29-2010 at 02:49 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Next thing you're gonna be telling me, DCkilla, is that I must get a marriage license in order to marry the girl of my dreams. And I must register our child with THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. And I must have a license to travel in a private automobile.

    You'd be wrong. You consent to relinquishing your rights anytime you APPLY, REGISTER, SUBMIT to the government. You're either begging for help, as if the nanny state were your actual keeper... or you're straight up giving ownership of your property, when you register it, to THE STATE.

    That's why THE STATE can take your child if they so please. They cannot take a child away from an Amish family, tho. It's all about consent... and, really, the government using words that you probably don't understand.
    Last edited by stungun; 09-29-2010 at 03:00 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by stungun View Post
    I'm sorry, but I don't need to ask for permission to carry a TOTALLY unconcealed gun on my person.

    I DO NOT!!

    It straight up says in the U.S. Constitution that I have the RIGHT. (A definition of a "RIGHT", btw, is something that you need NOT ask permission for... THAT would be a privilege, which is what people are doing when begging for a CCW.) It straight up says in the MS Consitution that I have the RIGHT, yet Congress has the right to regulate concealed carry, which they do quite well.

    Nowhere would a police officer, sheriff's deputy, prosecutor, jailer, judge, governor, etc. be capable of pointing to me the authority that states carrying a gun, which is TOTALLY unconcealed and open for all, is illegal without a CCW. Anybody with half a braincell knows that they should just outlaw open carrying if that's what they really want to do.

    And, btw... Since anybody with half a braincell would be willing to see my way, then I'm sure I'd be able to convince ONE person on a jury of 10-12 to find me not guilty of any criminal offense of which there was no injured party.

    I'm looking forward to the experience of open carrying in MS without a permit, but I'd still like to know whether you think the NAA w/ 1" or 1.5" barrel would be better for open carrying with the folding grip?? I just can't decide...
    As I said, carry your pistol/revolver however you wish to carry it. I think the Mississippi law is screwed up with this "in part" BS. If you choose to OC without a permit, great. I will support your decision. If charged for CC while OCing without a permit, I'll back you if that happens. IMO you should be able to carry any way you wish if you can purchase a firearm without a permit.

    Instead of that pea shooter, pick up a 24/7, M&P, SR9, or Glock. We carry for self defense not squirrel hunting. Well, in Sqrlh8r's case, who knows?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    The only way I would be capable of carrying every day is thru every day carry... and that only comes in with lightweight guns.

    That's why the NAA mini revolvers are so popular. Most people use them as a backup gun... but it's ALWAYS with them, unlike their primary guns.

    I probly should go with the 22 magnum version, but maybe on my next go around... I want to keep the 22LR frame, because it's a few ounces lighter and the folding grip for the 22LR frame is a bit smaller than the 22mag.

    I feel like I should go with the 1.5", just because they're more rare than the 1" barrels... and the longer barrel makes it more obvious what it is.

  12. #12
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    523
    Quote Originally Posted by stungun View Post
    The only way I would be capable of carrying every day is thru every day carry... and that only comes in with lightweight guns.

    That's why the NAA mini revolvers are so popular. Most people use them as a backup gun... but it's ALWAYS with them, unlike their primary guns.

    I probly should go with the 22 magnum version, but maybe on my next go around... I want to keep the 22LR frame, because it's a few ounces lighter and the folding grip for the 22LR frame is a bit smaller than the 22mag.

    I feel like I should go with the 1.5", just because they're more rare than the 1" barrels... and the longer barrel makes it more obvious what it is.
    1.5 inch would be more accurate as well. Just to let you know, I OC just about everywhere with my SR9. I don't feel strained or discomfort. I find that a good belt helps a lot.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    406
    Stungun, I have a feeling that NAA belt buckle revolver would be considered "concealed" more than a Glock, etc. sitting in a hip holster.

    Also, read Chief Justice Lee's concurring opinion in L.M., Jr. v. State regarding concealment.
    ...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.
    By that measure, a belt buckle revolver is covered on its back side by the buckle, and would still be considered "concealed in part". Same for a clear holster - part of the gun is hidden against your body. I don't see how you expect a belt buckle revolver to clear this screwy law if a "normal" pistol in a holster wouldn't.

    Also, you're barking at DCKilla for explaining the very legal snags that you quoted in your OP. You stated yourself that anything covering the gun is considered concealment, but then you claim a partially concealed revolver will be exempt. Until the language in L.M., Jr. v. State is struck down in another case, there is the very real possibility that any sort of carry will be considered concealed in whole or in part, and therefore requires a permit under state law.
    Last edited by 4angrybadgers; 09-29-2010 at 08:56 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Yea.. you're right about the belt buckle idea after reading the decision again.

    So, I guess the new questions are...

    1) Are you concealing a handgun if it's in a clear holster?
    2) Are you concealing a handgun if you are facing a different direction than a police officer that is, say, behind you? But would smile at him if you turned around and he were walking toward you? Is that concealment?

    Does this really depend on the torso / hips /legs of the man being invisible, as well?? I hope not. But I'm willing to find out first-hand.

    I think the wording of this should just be changed if that's how they're going to interpret it. Open carry is impossible if the understanding that the man must be invisible. The entire thing is irrational. There's no way one could be punished for not understanding that he must be a ghost, because he's not. He's a man. He has rights that are granted by his Creator. His government even reaffirms those rights, but then the statutes violate that right by redefining the term concealed...

    But it still necessarily hasn't been completely redefined. We don't know if they would presume that his torso/ hips/ legs must be invisible as well.

    I would almost presume from the Sup. Ct. decision that a clear holster on a hip would be acceptable. Wouldn't you?
    Last edited by stungun; 09-29-2010 at 03:39 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Perhaps I should just open carry *two* folding grip NAAs w/ clips... one for each side of me, so that it can be seen from all angles.



    OK, that was a joke. But I want to see a new decision that states clear holsters are illegal, because if they're illegal... then what the Sup. Ct. judges are doing is UNLAWFUL, because then there would be *NO* LAWFUL carry, which there clearly is.
    Last edited by stungun; 09-29-2010 at 03:53 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    406
    Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather thong could be partially concealing it.
    While it's a stretch, if it were taken seriously by a judge, that sentence would invalidate a clear holster, since the "concealment" is the carrier's body "concealing" one side of the gun.

    I agree, it's a ridiculous standard for concealment. The best way to end this confusion would be a definition of concealment in the statute, similar to what Citizen quoted from the VA code; or a court decision striking down this convoluted decision by Chief Justice Lee that has given so many people migraines.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by 4angrybadgers View Post
    While it's a stretch, if it were taken seriously by a judge, that sentence would invalidate a clear holster, since the "concealment" is the carrier's body "concealing" one side of the gun.
    I called the police dept., and the person I got ahold of essentially said the same thing.

    I asked about the clear holster, and he said... well, is the other side of the gun concealed?

    Well, that would depend on the angle of the officer standing next to me. It would also depend upon the officer's ability to see in greater than 3-dimensions.

    The entire point that I'm trying to make... is that if a NAA folding grip w/ clip is considered concealed, or a handgun in a clear holster is considered concealed... then THE MS LEGISLATURE HAS STEPPED OUTSIDE THEIR BOUNDS IN REGULATING CONCEALED WEAPONS, BY RE-DEFINING THE TERM CONCEALED.. SO THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR ONE TO PROTECT THEIR PERSON, AS PROMISED IN THE MS CONSTITUTION!!!

    If the Constitution says that my right to protect my person cannot be called into question... yet neither the Legislature, nor the enforcement officers are capable of providing one scenario in which I can carry without asking for their permission... then THEY ARE VIOLATING MY RIGHTS!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by 4angrybadgers View Post
    I agree, it's a ridiculous standard for concealment. The best way to end this confusion would be a definition of concealment in the statute, similar to what Citizen quoted from the VA code; or a court decision striking down this convoluted decision by Chief Justice Lee that has given so many people migraines.
    And that's what I'm here for.

    The Mississippi Legislature is very keen on vague definitions, and I don't think that will change any time soon.
    Last edited by stungun; 09-30-2010 at 01:28 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    Continuing on with my opinion of Justice Lee's opinion...

    That case had to do with some kids with loaded guns under the hood of their car, who it seems were actually shooting at other black kids.

    Justice Lee's own opinion states: "The reasons for the strict interpretation of the statute were that many years ago people carried firearms for their protection-usually partially concealed as in holsters. People were also prone to settle their differences by fist fights and it was fairly common to see such incidents occur in public places. If a person was prone to provoke a fight with a seemingly unarmed man, he could easily be killed or injured in the event his adversary was carrying a concealed weapon. If the weapon had been visible probably no altercation would have occurred."

    His entire opinion is based upon a fistfight, which had nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    If all decisions are based upon fistfights, then having the gun completely visible from my front would be considered UN-concealed... while having the gun completely visible from my back would be considered concealed.

    Opinions are still opinions... Law is still the Law... Statutes are still statutes, inferior to the Law... Men are still men... Rights are still rights...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    well seems someone will have to test the law, either by reasonable OC or by bringing suit against the state on constitutional basis. I doubt a legislative solution is possible, but its probably worth a try as well.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    There is another way to OC in Mississippi without a permit, and that's to go next door to Alabama and get an ID from there....

    Then you can claim to be a dual resident. A Mississippian while you're in your car, and an Alabaman while you're outside of your car.

    God Bless the uSA!!

    Have you guys ever read Article 4, Section 2 of the uSA Constitution??

    Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
    Because of that, I'm not even sure the Alabama ID is even necessary... but it sure couldn't hurt.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Huntsville, AL, ,
    Posts
    169
    Hmmm...I've never thought of that. I really like it, but it make take a court appearance to hash out the details!



    Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

    The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

  22. #22
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    406
    That clause doesn't mean that a Mississippi resident can claim Alabama privileges while OCing or whatever in MS. It just means that, say, my LA marriage license should be recognized as valid in MS (and any other state), and entitle me to whatever privileges a person with a MS marriage license would have.

    edit: Wikipedia explains it better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Cons...ers_and_limits
    Last edited by 4angrybadgers; 10-05-2010 at 03:54 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    South Mississippi
    Posts
    26
    4angry...

    Had you read past the second sentence on that Wikipedia page, you would have seen the fourth sentence that talks about Article 4, which is MUCH larger than the one line that I quoted.

    The relevant Wikipedia line would be this one... Look again...

    The "privileges and immunities" clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens (e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of crimes within Michigan).

  24. #24
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by stungun View Post
    4angry...

    Had you read past the second sentence on that Wikipedia page, you would have seen the fourth sentence that talks about Article 4, which is MUCH larger than the one line that I quoted.

    The relevant Wikipedia line would be this one... Look again...
    I did read it before, and I stand by my assertion. The state is not discriminating against residents of other states in favor of its own residents.

    Your stated scenario was to claim MS residency inside a car, and AL residency outside a car. It doesn't work like that. Holding licenses/IDs from multiple states opens up a whole can of (possibly illegal) worms, such as being able to vote multiple times in elections, and I seriously doubt you could manage to get a second state's license without the first one being invalidated. Also, for tax purposes you can only have one primary residence, so trying to claim multi-state residency is dicey and will be looked upon with much suspicion.

    So then you're left with only being a resident in Mississippi (only a Mississippi ID/license). If MS prohibits OC (just assume it does for the sake of discussion), then it's prohibited for MS residents as well as residents of other states. Privileges & Immunities would only be an issue if MS allowed OC to its own residents, but made it a crime for other states' residents to OC just because they weren't MS residents.

    See this relevant paragraph from the P&I page:
    The Court went on to explain that the laws of one state would not become effective in another: "It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States." These sections of Paul v. Virginia are still good law, and were relied upon, for example, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). Other portions of Paul v. Virginia were reversed in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944). The Court has never deviated from the principle stated in Paul that the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the Constitution has no bearing on how a state treats its own citizens. In-state residents "have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause." United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984).
    Emphasis mine.

    The P&I clause has no bearing on how MS treats MS residents. It only affects how a state treats residents from another state. Therefore it's inapplicable to your theoretical situation.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    406
    In regards to holding multiple licenses, see the MS Code 63-1-103, Article V (emphasis mine):
    Upon application for a license to drive, the licensing authority in a party state shall ascertain whether the applicant has ever held, or is the holder of a license to drive issued by any other party state. The licensing authority in the state where application is made shall not issue a license to drive to the applicant if:

    (1) The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been suspended by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such suspension period has not terminated.

    (2) The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been revoked by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such revocation has not terminated, except that after the expiration of one year from the date the license was revoked, such person may make application for a new license if permitted by law. The licensing authority may refuse to issue a license to any such applicant if, after investigation, the licensing authority determines that it will not be safe to grant to such person the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways.

    (3) The applicant is the holder of a license to drive issued by another party state and currently in force unless the applicant surrenders such license.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •