Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Senate Bill 2469

  1. #1
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527

    Senate Bill 2469

    This bill is backed by the NRA. I'm not sure what to think about that. This is, from my searches, the only bill still alive that might do some good. Appart from the changes in 45-9-53, it seems ok. It's just the fact there were much better bills out there that didn't get backing from the NRA. Why no support?

    http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/201.../SB/SB2469.xml

  2. #2
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411
    Veeerryyy interesting.

    Here were some changes I noticed on a quick reading of the amended text:

    • Removed the prohibition against CC in churches
    • Reduced the college/jr college/university CC ban to the "secured areas"
    • Removed the prohibition against CC in establishments primarily serving alcohol, unless the owner posts it as off-limits

    There's more, those are just the ones I noticed first and that would probably affect most people, most often.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    This Bill Improves upon Mississippi Law, BUT it does NOT go far enough for Firearm Rights.

    Better Versions were Filed before The Mississippi Legislature (Particually: HB475 AND HB1003):
    http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/201...5/00090101.xml
    Last edited by aadvark; 02-03-2011 at 02:00 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Mississippi/Tennessee
    Posts
    102
    While certainly not as much as we would like to see, campus carry is a pretty big step. I do wish, however, that public universities were prohibited from making anti-firearm policies. It will be interesting to see how those are dealt with if this bill makes it all the way. Removing the prohibition against church carry is also something many carriers would find advantageous.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Yes, church carry is a big one for me as well.

  6. #6
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    I've read through the bill again. 45-9-53, as amended in this bill, looks pretty good. I wish there was full preemption, but better than nothing. On the other hand, 97-37-17 and 45-9-101, as amended, might be in conflict over students who have permits carrying on college/university campuses. I'm thinking students with permits would be barred from carrying on their campus. Also, "any school, college or professional athletic event not related to firearms" will still be in 45-9-101's prohibited places. So, there is still plenty of stuff to work on even if this is signed into law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    I thought it was a fine fix for CC. Just need three words taken out of 97-37 to help out OC almost as much.

  8. #8
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    SB2469 is in Judiciary B. Will it survive intact?

  9. #9
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Died in committee

  10. #10
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    Died in committee
    Why am I NOT surprised?

  11. #11
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    SB2469 removed and clarified instead of adding and complicating things like HB506. IMO, SB2469 was far superior. Don't get me wrong, HB506 is ok, but in the wrong courtroom you're screwed.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    The worst part about the house bill that passed is it doesn't do anything for those of us from out of state. In the end though it really just means effort needs to be put forth to return the carrying of arms, with the exception of concealed arms, back to unlicensed and unlimited by the state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    SB2469 removed and clarified instead of adding and complicating things like HB506. IMO, SB2469 was far superior. Don't get me wrong, HB506 is ok, but in the wrong courtroom you're screwed.
    I was reading the bill, SB2469, and I am still am not completely clear on what constitutes "the secured area", had the bill passed. For example, where I live the schools have actual city police officers in the school during school hours. Would that mean that the ENTIRE school would be considered a "secure area"? Or would it mean that the cop(s) would have to be "screening" each individual that entered the school? I tend to think the latter would be the usual interpretation, but I'd like a second opinion.

  14. #14
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    If you look at the security at airports, there a two sections. One is secured and the other is not. Guess which one is secured. Of course, it's the one where they screen everyone. I think your definition of "secured area" is correct.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Unless it was drastically changed from the last time I read it, the secured area is where each person is searched by passive or active means to ensure they are not carrying any prohibited items.

Posting Permissions

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