-
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.
-
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.
CCW permit
- Thread starter Gohogs1
- Start date
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Well, as far as I know, having an expired license or tag is not a CRIME. And I hear they do take you to jail for that these days. Crimes are under MS code Section 97. Expired or no license is not one of them! I mean up until recently one had to commit a CRIME to be taken to jail. I was talking about enforcing unconstitutional laws, or those laws which we can find no basis in constitutional law to have ever been enacted. Now before I go further, I want to let you know that my lifelong friend since first grade is a current deputy sheriff. And we get along fine, so what we're talking about here is ideas, not being confrontational. Without knowing you, I would never disrespect you as a person, no matter what your job is. And actually, I have SOME idea of where you're coming from, based on stories my friend has told me. We go round and round all the time, and he has actually changed my mind, as I have his. Constructional discussion is a hell of a drug. (to plagiarize).
I'm only expanding on the subject of this forum. I believe, and have espoused more than once that 97-37-1 is as unconstitutional as the day is long. Yet there are LEO's that arrest people without a permit for "open carry" being being concealed carry without a license. When they have done NOTHING else, but be ignorant of the law and think MS was a true OC state.
And I never said I should be riding around with an expired license and tag, I only meant I should not be ARRESTED for it, because it's not a crime, no individual has filed a complaint, and I've harmed no one. Yes, I broke the rules, and when you break the rules of the game you get punished. In hockey, football, any game. Infractions are IMHO different from "crimes". Most of the time, if you don't like the rules of the game, or the punishment for breaking them, you can opt not to play the game, but not in this case. At least carrying concealed is under section 97 "CRIMES", no or expired DL is under section 63 traffic REGULATIONS, not crimes. So what gives ANY officer the right to cuff and stuff me for having an expired or EVEN a suspended DL? Suspended I can kinda more go along with because it's a contractual situation, but if my license is expired, then the contract is also expired. But most people don't get thrown in jail, at least not immediately, for violating the terms of a contract. Most times, that's more or less a civil case. Now, I'm going to be very careful here when I go on, and again, it's just being put out there for your consideration and for people to think about, not to be a smart ass, or to be "in your face".
Now you say you are not violating anyone's rights. I'll take your word for that. But lets say A cop gave me a ticket, or worse yet arrested me, for NO drivers license. Not expired, not suspended, never have had one.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense (6th amendment to the United States Constitution)
What is the nature of the accusation? Having no drivers license is not the nature, it is the accusation. It's not a crime, it's not under section 97 "CRIMES", it's not a CIVIL case, you're not suing me, it's not Maritime, so WHAT is it?
Well, I suppose you could call it an "infraction" under section 63. You broke the rules. These are the rules, and you broke one, so here's your fine. But now they take you to JAIL for no driver's license. I thought they could only take you to jail for committing a CRIME. Having no drivers license is not a crime.
So now we come full circle. Does the MS Constitution Article 3, Section 12 COUNT? Does ANY of it count? Or does the (mostly) unconstitutional MS code count? The Bill of Rights names rights for ALL people of ALL states, all people everywhere in fact, but I'm not going to argue that federal law supersedes state law, since the fed is a creation of the states.
Even so, look to the Mississippi Constitution, and find in it where every MS code is sanctioned, and justified by it. The one's you can find, that's just fine, arrest the heck out of some folks. The one's you can't......seems to me an oath is not being upheld.
And I've taken basically the same oath, but fortunately my job does not require me to even worry about violating it. I fix computers.
As for insurance, these days, it's a good idea, especially if you can afford it. I was born in Dwight D. Eisenhower's FIRST term, and growing up, no one had insurance on their vehicle, I mean NO one, that I knew of anyway.
And I have to admit, that you were far less likely to get your car replaced then than now. But does the government have the right to FORCE you to buy something, that's the question.
Ok, I've made this long enough, I'm sure we'll talk more.
PT111
Regular Member
I also grew up during DDE's first term and around here everyone always had insurance on their cars. They may not in MS but in SC we did have liability and comprehensive but many did not collision. I think liabiity should still be required with none of this no fault stuff and if someone is driving around without it then they should be charged, possibly locked up, and their car impounded until they can prove they have it. If you cannot afford liability insurance you shouldn't be driving.
You are correct about there is no law against having an expired tag, permt, drivers license or any other kind of document. People let tags, license and permits expire all the time. There is nothing wrong with letting it expire. However when it expires it is the same as not having one at all. The only thing is that once it expires you cannot keep doing what ever it was that the permit covered. If your tag expires then you don't have one, just like it was before you got the first one. I am really tired of subsidizing all these people riding around with no insurance and nothing to lose and driving like they don't care if they cause a wreck or not. They know that if they hit you and put you in the hospital they don't have to worry about it as they don't have anything you can sue for. While you spend weeks in the hospital they just go get another car and drive some more.
You are correct about there is no law against having an expired tag, permt, drivers license or any other kind of document. People let tags, license and permits expire all the time. There is nothing wrong with letting it expire. However when it expires it is the same as not having one at all. The only thing is that once it expires you cannot keep doing what ever it was that the permit covered. If your tag expires then you don't have one, just like it was before you got the first one. I am really tired of subsidizing all these people riding around with no insurance and nothing to lose and driving like they don't care if they cause a wreck or not. They know that if they hit you and put you in the hospital they don't have to worry about it as they don't have anything you can sue for. While you spend weeks in the hospital they just go get another car and drive some more.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
You may have read into that a little more than what I meant. I don't advocate driving around without insurance, in fact it's a law in this state that you have at least a certain amount of liability. The question was does the government have the RIGHT to force you to buy a product from a retail for profit organization? i.e State Farm, Progressive, whatever.
Typically, if they REQUIRE something, it's in the form of fees or taxes that are incorporated into whatever it is that you are purchasing/using. They don't usually FORCE me to buy something from an individual or a corporation.
If you drive a car on public roads you are expected (required) to help maintain and build those roads. So, if I put fuel in my vehicle, a certain amount of what I paid for that fuel goes for that purpose. I am not forced to pay abc or xyz paving company a monthly or yearly fee, in case a pothole develops on my road. Taxing the gasoline does not benefit the for profit company, Shell, Texaco etc. and everyone pays their relative share of road upkeep.
The same thing could easily be done with liability ins. Add a fee to the car tag. That way EVERYONE who drives a car pays, and it would be a lot less since everyone would do it, and it wouldn't be a for profit company.
The charge for driving without a tag or an expired tag? Public endangerment, which IS a crime.
The fine? Whatever that tag would have cost you to begin with plus a reasonable administrative fee. From that fine, you would automatically be issued a tag/insurance, and the government gets to keep the administrative fee. And your car is held in impound until the fine is paid. Problem solved.
I admit, it's a different time today than it was then. You can't get a new car for $3000 anymore, or visit the doctor for $25, so unless you're really wealthy, insurance is pretty much a necessity these days. Until Jan 1, 2001, MS did not require that a motor vehicle have insurance on it.
Typically, if they REQUIRE something, it's in the form of fees or taxes that are incorporated into whatever it is that you are purchasing/using. They don't usually FORCE me to buy something from an individual or a corporation.
If you drive a car on public roads you are expected (required) to help maintain and build those roads. So, if I put fuel in my vehicle, a certain amount of what I paid for that fuel goes for that purpose. I am not forced to pay abc or xyz paving company a monthly or yearly fee, in case a pothole develops on my road. Taxing the gasoline does not benefit the for profit company, Shell, Texaco etc. and everyone pays their relative share of road upkeep.
The same thing could easily be done with liability ins. Add a fee to the car tag. That way EVERYONE who drives a car pays, and it would be a lot less since everyone would do it, and it wouldn't be a for profit company.
The charge for driving without a tag or an expired tag? Public endangerment, which IS a crime.
The fine? Whatever that tag would have cost you to begin with plus a reasonable administrative fee. From that fine, you would automatically be issued a tag/insurance, and the government gets to keep the administrative fee. And your car is held in impound until the fine is paid. Problem solved.
I admit, it's a different time today than it was then. You can't get a new car for $3000 anymore, or visit the doctor for $25, so unless you're really wealthy, insurance is pretty much a necessity these days. Until Jan 1, 2001, MS did not require that a motor vehicle have insurance on it.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Yeah, renewed mine in '08 and it looks the same. So I don't think they've changed the look of it, unless it's been very very recently. The main changes I do know of they've made in recent years, is that they are now good for 5 years instead of 4, and they must get them to you within 45 days instead of 120 days. Of course renewal is on the spot, and can even be done by mail now.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Agreed. That's what I said. Read the code, educate yourself ESPECIALLY on procedure, because procedure is everything to the process. I'm not saying become a lawyer, just KNOW the laws. You would be AMAZED how many cops do not know the law. Now I really hate to admit this, but I had one (cop) who is studying for his Lt. test ask ME to find a certain law for him, because he knew I knew it off the top of my head. For me, reading the MS code is just a hobby, or something I enjoy. I obliged him, and I wish the Sgt. good luck on his Lt. test.
READ THE CODE! How can you ever hope to be informed when lobbying your senators and representatives when you can't back up what you say? "Well, I don't think this is right" don't always get it. They don't pay that any attention. What they DO pay attention to is that if you know how bills are written, and you know the MS code, and you point out a PROCEDURAL mistake to them, or suggest an amendment, because it won't fly the way it is.
THEN they listen to you. But if it's only ME doing it, they still may not pay attention. Well, this is only ONE dude, so we're going to vote this way anyway. The best I can say is that I got one legislator to withdraw his bill, I haven't convinced anyone else to repeal or change anything yet. They are very tough nuts to crack, and it takes a LOT of hammers, not just me.
If you don't want to do it the other way, (and I think you know what I mean), then by all means EDUCATE yourselves, and bear down on your legislators like ugly on ape. We are too complacent. We can sit here in this forum all day long and talk to each other. That's a good thing as far as information is concerned, but we need to impart that information to our lawmakers.
How many here have posted in this forum, but NEVER written their senator or representative? I would bet it would be a bunch.
Read the code. Write your representatives. If that don't work............oh well...
97-37-1 is constitutional for the most part, it has three words that need to go because they cause confusion and get close to being illegal. The MS constitution does not protect the carrying of concealed weapons; it specifically grants the power of regulation or prohibition to the state over such activity. The State of Mississippi has its own independent constitution. Just because the Federal one is obviously a hands off type deal doesn't mean the states were bound as such. Although, things got confusing when the bill of rights and other privileges started being applied to states.
An enlightening way to look at it is this: I have the right to have a firearm on my side in a holster nice and comfy. This is protected by the constitutions, what is not protected is me covering up that firearm and engaging in the practice of being secretive about my armed nature.
An enlightening way to look at it is this: I have the right to have a firearm on my side in a holster nice and comfy. This is protected by the constitutions, what is not protected is me covering up that firearm and engaging in the practice of being secretive about my armed nature.
Chap
Regular Member
I understand what the MS constitution says
I agree the MS constitution should be all we need to cite for open carry.
Sure wish this issue would get cleared up by our regulation writers. We need a Definition for: ( Concealed ) or ( concealed in whole or in part ) or ( Open )as it relates to carring in Mississippi.
SEC. 45-9-101. License to carry concealed pistol or revolver.
(18) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or allow the registration, documentation or providing of serial numbers with regard to any firearm. Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972.
SEC. 97-37-1. Deadly weapons; carrying while concealed; use or attempt to use; penalties.
(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:
So we can't carry Open in Mississippi.
So does a pistol in a holster meet the definition of Concealed or Concealed in whole or in part or Open? - these are the simple questions I'd like our regulation writers to answer.
Any comments or observations?
Chap
I agree the MS constitution should be all we need to cite for open carry.
Sure wish this issue would get cleared up by our regulation writers. We need a Definition for: ( Concealed ) or ( concealed in whole or in part ) or ( Open )as it relates to carring in Mississippi.
SEC. 45-9-101. License to carry concealed pistol or revolver.
(18) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or allow the registration, documentation or providing of serial numbers with regard to any firearm. Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972.
SEC. 97-37-1. Deadly weapons; carrying while concealed; use or attempt to use; penalties.
(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:
So we can't carry Open in Mississippi.
So does a pistol in a holster meet the definition of Concealed or Concealed in whole or in part or Open? - these are the simple questions I'd like our regulation writers to answer.
Any comments or observations?
Chap
They are both written badly and the 45 law possibly by people that do not want open carry to be done. Strictly speaking the license in 45 CAN NOT permit the carrying openly of any weapon in 97 because of two things. First, the constitution does not allow for it to have been illegalized and is thus beyond the regulation of the legislature. Second 97 only illegalizes concealed carry of those items, so that is the only thing 45 can deal with. The wording in 45 is either to make sure it is clear that the legislature is not trying to require a permit for something they can not regulate or they are trying to confuse and scare people into not carrying openly.
And remember,
"nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972."
can be replaced with,
"nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the kissing of pretty girls and lusty women"
and have the same effect.
If something is legal and never made illegal it does not NEED permission. Laws say what can NOT be done. I still contend that "or in part" does not cover normal open carry. The only court case getting close to it was silly ramblings were some guy went on about "what used to happen", but nothing was cited it was all conjecture and I don't think it was at a fairly low court.
And remember,
"nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of 1972."
can be replaced with,
"nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the kissing of pretty girls and lusty women"
and have the same effect.
If something is legal and never made illegal it does not NEED permission. Laws say what can NOT be done. I still contend that "or in part" does not cover normal open carry. The only court case getting close to it was silly ramblings were some guy went on about "what used to happen", but nothing was cited it was all conjecture and I don't think it was at a fairly low court.
Chap
Regular Member
Thanks
Ok that makes some sense.
I've always felt Open carry was OK. I have a MS Fire Arms Permit so I'm Playing by the rules as I understand them.
Shame it's not cut and dry in the MS Code. example: ( Open carry is legal, possession of a Fire Arms permit required to Conceal Carry.) Plain English would be nice.
I CC and don't mind if my pistol prints or shirt lifts up. I hear about LEO who approach open carriers on the different forums I frequent. Then I start second guessing myself about open carry or "concealed in whole or part".
Between citizens and LEO being confused by the MS Code wording I'm surprised MS regulation writers haven't addressed the confusion.
Thanks for your insight, now lets see if anyone else has a different spin on this.
Chap
Ok that makes some sense.
I've always felt Open carry was OK. I have a MS Fire Arms Permit so I'm Playing by the rules as I understand them.
Shame it's not cut and dry in the MS Code. example: ( Open carry is legal, possession of a Fire Arms permit required to Conceal Carry.) Plain English would be nice.
I CC and don't mind if my pistol prints or shirt lifts up. I hear about LEO who approach open carriers on the different forums I frequent. Then I start second guessing myself about open carry or "concealed in whole or part".
Between citizens and LEO being confused by the MS Code wording I'm surprised MS regulation writers haven't addressed the confusion.
Thanks for your insight, now lets see if anyone else has a different spin on this.
Chap
Last edited:
DCKilla
Regular Member
I think this "or in part" crap is engrained in the minds of our LEOs. They believe that carrying with a permit is the only way. It's indoctrinated right from the beginning. It's hard to beat something like that. I might be generalizing, but can't explain any other way.
False rumor and hearsay can be hard to quell.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Geez... enough already...
Ok... what if the law said "concealed or carried openly"? What would you Ms. people do then? Would you continue to b*tch about this or would ya'll get together and form a plan to get the OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional law declared void?
I spend a good bit of time in MS. and would be glad to help get this thing rolling. I most certainly would be up for donating money for an attorney to at least get the process started.
See Rule 57 of the MS. code of civil procedure.
http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/rules/msrulesofcourt/rules_of_civil_procedure.pdf
Let's just get this done!!!
Last edited:
MSRebel54
Regular Member
The problem is that SOMEBODY has to get arrested and get their weapon confiscated. I mean even in this forum, I don't see too many volunteers. And then you have to have a lawyer standing by to challenge constitutional law. Yes, I know it's unconstitutional, but that's what you have to prove.
Who wants to volunteer for that? Anyone? Anyone?
And if you DO volunteer, are you already lawyer-ed up?
Best thing is to write the senators and representatives so they'll realize how retarded the law is, and change it. But it will take a bunch of people from every district in the state to get it done.
DCKilla
Regular Member
"Not I." said the fly:uhoh:
georg jetson
Regular Member
NO!! That's not the problem!!! The problem is that your nose has been rubbed in the law and you STILL wont READ it!!
NO ARREST is necessary for someone to file suite for declaratory judgement. Reading is FUNdamental.
4angrybadgers
Regular Member
From the Rules of Civil Procedure that georg linked, snippets from the comments of Rule 57, emphasis added by me:
Looks like I have some new bedtime reading.
Looks like I have some new bedtime reading.
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
This is nothing new... Mississippi's Rule 57 was brought up over a year ago and nothing has been done yet. See post 38 of this thread... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...bear-arms-in-Mississippi/page2&highlight=rule
What the hell are ya'll waiting for? Read up and get busy. I'm volunteering any assistance I can give. For those of you putting pressure on your legislative members to change the law... great! keep it up! I guarantee that if a lawsuit is filed challenging the law, it will turn up the heat on the senators and reps. A two pronged attack.
What the hell are ya'll waiting for? Read up and get busy. I'm volunteering any assistance I can give. For those of you putting pressure on your legislative members to change the law... great! keep it up! I guarantee that if a lawsuit is filed challenging the law, it will turn up the heat on the senators and reps. A two pronged attack.
DeputySheriff
Regular Member
I haven't done any digging but I have heard that there was a recent court case somewhere that said a holster DOES NOT make a handgun partially concealed and that a normal and reasonable person could easily recognize that while the gun was in the holster, that they could easily tell it was a handgun and not a phone, multitool etc.
I know this is all hearsay and we are supposed to post links but I haven't had the chance to dig as of yet... Be legal, Be safe and Carry On!
If you could substantiate such a claim I would be greatly indebted and you would be my hero! Actual proof of common law adhereing to the MS consitution would be wonderful.