New Law Concerning Endorsements for Training - House Bill 506 was signed by the Gove

I posted this over at another Forum.
http://www.msgunowners.com/t14386-n...ing-house-bill-506-was-signed-by-the-governor

Just noticed this update to http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/mississippi.pdf (it's on Page two)
It was added to the Mississippi page on - 3/18/11 – New law on carry endorsement and being allowed to carry in more places added.

They mentioned on page 3 " Again this new law does not go into effect till July 1, 2011 "

I hope they write into the law that Military training meets the required training to get the endorsement to my Fire Arms permit. The Law says: an instructional course in the safe handling and use of firearms offered by an instructor certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or by any other organization approved by the Department of Public Safety.

I like the fact that:
If you obtain this endorsement you will be allowed to carry in all places listed as off limits in 45-9-101
except for any police, sheriff or highway patrol station or any detention facility, prison or jail.

I hope this wasn't posted before, I just noticed the update.

Chap

unfortunately they went with the shitty bill instead of the one that allowed the same thing but without the need for an endorsement.

So any news on who these instructors are going to be or locations to go and have this training or how much extra this is going to cost so I can exercise my 2A right?

Permit website mum on subject

No news on this endorsement yet. I have to renew by August 23rd so I hope to learn how to get the endorsement before I have to renew. I check the Highway Patrol permit website every few days to see if they are acknowledging the change but nothing so far. Anyone else know anything more?

offered by an instructor certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or by any other organization approved by the Department of Public Safety.

Click to expand...

The first thing obviously means NRA instructors, and a few others, but the "any other organization approved by DPS" has got me confused. What other organizations? Are they talking about local PD instructors or what? And I as well hope that they consider military training good enough also. This seems like an "unfinished" law to me. It will be interesting to see what happens though.

MSRebel54 said:

The first thing obviously means NRA instructors, and a few others, but the "any other organization approved by DPS" has got me confused. What other organizations? Are they talking about local PD instructors or what? And I as well hope that they consider military training good enough also. This seems like an "unfinished" law to me. It will be interesting to see what happens though.

Click to expand...

I disagree. While I understand some people's desire to give special privileges to military personnel I disagree here. The training is for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in sensitive civilian locations. From what I understand about military training, it is completely foreign to this idea. First, rifles are the primary small arms used in training I'm told in the military, long arm carry is not the same as pistol carry and certainly could not be considered the same as concealed pistol carry. Second, from what I understand the military carries in condition 3 or 4, I have never heard of concealed carry being done in anything other than condition 0 or condition 1. With most concealed carry being done with the pistol needing only the pull of the trigger to discharge it. Again this is a large difference in military vs concealed carry training. I'm not sure even police training would be close enough, but at least they use pistols in condition 0 or condition 1.

Let me clarify things first though I would rather NO ONE need a special endorsement or paid training I was hoping the competing bill would win out. However, without legitimate rationalization simply exempting a group of people is not just for we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law.

Hmmm. Well then, what sort of "other organizations" do you suppose they're talking about?

MSRebel54 said:

Hmmm. Well then, what sort of "other organizations" do you suppose they're talking about?

Click to expand...

Other than maybe police, haven't the foggiest. Who knows what the bureaucrats will come up with when they make regulations for this law. Honest logic does not always apply.

Daylen, If this new law states as written,

The Law says: an instructional course in the safe handling and use of firearms offered by an instructor certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or by any other organization approved by the Department of Public Safety.

Click to expand...

Then your concerns about Military training are without Merit.

Yes, all new recruits are specifically trained with rifles (small arms), and the specific badge awarded shows how well they shot during qualification. But depending on the soldiers MOS, he may then later on be instructed AND have to qualify with a Pistol, with appropriate Badge of Marksmanship again being awarded.

For instance, I was an aircrew member on CH-47 Chinook helicopters. My primary weapon was a Beretta 92F 9mm. I also had to qualify with M-16 Rifle AND M-60 Air Machine gun.

The law, as stated above, says "an instructional course in the safe handling and use of firearms" which I was WELL trained in. The Military is ADAMANT about weapon safety, and 2 tours of combat prove my training.

Granted I was not trained in CONCEAL carry, nor the laws concerning concealed weapons. But if the law only requires what is stated, then certainly Military training qualifies, IF the Military person was trained and qualified with a pistol.

Daylen said:

I disagree. While I understand some people's desire to give special privileges to military personnel I disagree here. The training is for a permit to carry a concealed weapon in sensitive civilian locations. From what I understand about military training, it is completely foreign to this idea. First, rifles are the primary small arms used in training I'm told in the military, long arm carry is not the same as pistol carry and certainly could not be considered the same as concealed pistol carry. Second, from what I understand the military carries in condition 3 or 4, I have never heard of concealed carry being done in anything other than condition 0 or condition 1. With most concealed carry being done with the pistol needing only the pull of the trigger to discharge it. Again this is a large difference in military vs concealed carry training. I'm not sure even police training would be close enough, but at least they use pistols in condition 0 or condition 1.

Let me clarify things first though I would rather NO ONE need a special endorsement or paid training I was hoping the competing bill would win out. However, without legitimate rationalization simply exempting a group of people is not just for we are all supposed to be equal under the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

Certain training that would be considered 'military' would definitely qualify, in my eyes at least.

As for carrying in condition 0-2, I would suppose exactly what type of firearm you're carrying may have something to do with that. I would agree that 3 or 4 is almost defeating the purpose of CC. Well, 4 IS pretty much defeating it.

But not everyone carries a 1911, Daylen. With my normal carry pistol, I CANNOT have the hammer cocked and the safety on at the same time. And it doesn't have a grip safety. So I would carry in what most likely you would call "condition 2". Round in chamber, safety off, hammer down, and opt for the stronger trigger pull on the first round. I could of course carry with the hammer cocked, and safety off, but even with my training, I don't feel comfortable with that.

I know, I know, keep your finger out of the dang trigger guard, but I've known of too many cops who unintentionally shot themselves, or unintentionally discharged a Glock. But for some reason I don't mind carrying a Glock, because I KNOW that it will not fire unless you pull the trigger. But one like I normally carry with a hammer and manual safety on it, I just don't feel good carrying it with the hammer cocked. I guess I just may not 100% trust it, if it were to get accidentally bumped or something like that.

Now, you'd probably advise me to get one I do trust, but I'm perfectly fine with carrying hammer down, and opting for the harder trigger pull on that first round.

And I don't think we're "exempting" a group of people just for elitism or whatever. We can't call everyone a pilot, or a doctor, because we exempt those not trained to fly or practice medicine. By the same token, rights require the responsibility to exercise those rights without infringing on the rights of others. Having the sense not to be dangerous would be one of those responsibilities in my book.

In a perfect world, everyone would exercise their right to keep and bear arms with responsibility. But I've seen some VERY stupid people around guns, and have ducked and jumped on several occasions because of their stupidity. So I think training is a good thing. I don't think it should be REQUIRED, because that, IMO would be unconstitutional, but I do think it should be very much encouraged.

So why is this endorsement Constitutional? Simple. "The legislature may REGULATE or forbid the carrying of concealed weapons"

And again, I do think that (especially certain types of) military training should count. It's just my opinion, which seemed to not sit well in another thread, so I hope that's not a problem here!

MSRebel54 said:

... And I don't think we're "exempting" a group of people just for elitism or whatever. We can't call everyone a pilot, or a doctor, because we exempt those not trained to fly or practice medicine. By the same token, rights require the responsibility to exercise those rights without infringing on the rights of others. Having the sense not to be dangerous would be one of those responsibilities in my book.

In a perfect world, everyone would exercise their right to keep and bear arms with responsibility. But I've seen some VERY stupid people around guns, and have ducked and jumped on several occasions because of their stupidity. So I think training is a good thing. I don't think it should be REQUIRED, because that, IMO would be unconstitutional, but I do think it should be very much encouraged.

So why is this endorsement Constitutional? Simple. "The legislature may REGULATE or forbid the carrying of concealed weapons"

And again, I do think that (especially certain types of) military training should count. It's just my opinion, which seemed to not sit well in another thread, so I hope that's not a problem here!

Click to expand...

If we win out and get OC completely recognized and protected I'll no longer care a lic about this or any other law pertaining to CC. As it is I'm probably just venting a bit because things have been twisted and rights outlawed and privileges protected and enhanced.

Daylen said:

If we win out and get OC completely recognized and protected I'll no longer care a lic about this or any other law pertaining to CC. As it is I'm probably just venting a bit because things have been twisted and rights outlawed and privileges protected and enhanced.

Click to expand...

I agree with that wholeheartedly, and I hope one day soon true OC becomes a reality in MS.

Well I called Jackson today and spoke with a fella at the firearms unit, he said that the legal dept. was working on getting it squared away. Said its still gonna be a while before they get all the detail hammered out. Sounds to me that they're take the maximum time that can like with the permits them selves. 45 days on the nose for the permit to hit the mailbox, July 1 before we can get info on approved training courses and how to get the darn thing. I hope its not gonna be to bad and can just get mabe a duplicate issued with the endorsement in a few minutes at the local station. Driving to Jackson is a heck of a ride for me

thearmysredneck said:

Well I called Jackson today and spoke with a fella at the firearms unit, he said that the legal dept. was working on getting it squared away. Said its still gonna be a while before they get all the detail hammered out. Sounds to me that they're take the maximum time that can like with the permits them selves. 45 days on the nose for the permit to hit the mailbox, July 1 before we can get info on approved training courses and how to get the darn thing. I hope its not gonna be to bad and can just get mabe a duplicate issued with the endorsement in a few minutes at the local station. Driving to Jackson is a heck of a ride for me

Click to expand...

Doesn't surprise me. Par for the course. Their JOB is to make it as inconvenient on you as they POSSIBLY can under the law. Hence the stuff will be in your mailbox on the 45th day, as I've said before.

And as far as endorsements go, I'd look for it to be as muddled as the current open or concealed carry is.

We've got some real geniuses in Jackson representing us.

I have to say not all of them are bad. When i applied for my firearms permit after the guy did my prints he said to remember 2 things. #1 was to not keep my gun in the glove box cause i would have to struggle to get it open the i would have to get my gun out and so it would be useless. #2 an unloaded gun dose you no good. He looked me in the eye to make sure i got what he said. So there is a few of them wanting us to carry loaded guns.

techmanchuck said:

I have to say not all of them are bad. When i applied for my firearms permit after the guy did my prints he said to remember 2 things. #1 was to not keep my gun in the glove box cause i would have to struggle to get it open the i would have to get my gun out and so it would be useless. #2 an unloaded gun dose you no good. He looked me in the eye to make sure i got what he said. So there is a few of them wanting us to carry loaded guns.

Click to expand...

Well...you got a good guy, but that's the exception, rather than the rule. And he only told you that because MS requires no training, and he doesn't want people to be fools with permits. (Not that YOU are you understand) . He's trying to dispense good advice.

I'm all for some places around the state that can get one an endorsement on their FP for training. I seriously have a problem with just anyone that can go give the state some money, and not be a felon, and carry a firearm. I have a real problem with that. It's because I've had so much training, and I've seen people who haven't, and basically don't know which end the bullet comes out of, and can't hit the broadside of a barn, IF they were able to even fire in a life or death situation.

Now I know there are Constitutional issues here, and everyone has the right to bear arms, I'm not disputing that. And responsible people will learn what they need to learn, and not just give the state money just because.

And I don't really even care if you get a stamp on your FP, just put some places around the state that teach safety, law, and skill. Right now, someone can have a permit to carry a firearm who has never before even HELD a firearm!

True, most people will learn on their own, but IMO that leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh, I guess I'll get bashed on this one won't I?

MSRebel54 said:

Well...you got a good guy, but that's the exception, rather than the rule. And he only told you that because MS requires no training, and he doesn't want people to be fools with permits. (Not that YOU are you understand) . He's trying to dispense good advice.

I'm all for some places around the state that can get one an endorsement on their FP for training. I seriously have a problem with just anyone that can go give the state some money, and not be a felon, and carry a firearm. I have a real problem with that. It's because I've had so much training, and I've seen people who haven't, and basically don't know which end the bullet comes out of, and can't hit the broadside of a barn, IF they were able to even fire in a life or death situation.

Now I know there are Constitutional issues here, and everyone has the right to bear arms, I'm not disputing that. And responsible people will learn what they need to learn, and not just give the state money just because.

And I don't really even care if you get a stamp on your FP, just put some places around the state that teach safety, law, and skill. Right now, someone can have a permit to carry a firearm who has never before even HELD a firearm!

True, most people will learn on their own, but IMO that leaves a lot to be desired.

Oh, I guess I'll get bashed on this one won't I?

Click to expand...

Freedom can seem scary at times. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. If you are suggesting training should be mandatory before being able to carry a firearm and thus a permit should be needed for any form of carry; yes you deserve a beating for promoting tyranny. If you are stating your nervousness or unease with some people carrying with no training then I'll certainly not hold anything against you. I'm nervous about idiots carrying arms, but I'll not advocate infringing on their rights because of my nervousness. People legislating their feelings as such is how we have gun bans and that sort of nonsense.

Consider that it's kind of like voting.

I'm REALLY scared to think that there are people out there who can vote, who haven't weighed the issues, considered the individuals running for office, looked up their record, they simply go check a box without ANY thought whatsoever...

Should it be a requirement that they do some research before being allowed to vote? Their choices can have a direct impact on your life!

Daylen said:

Freedom can seem scary at times. I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at here. If you are suggesting training should be mandatory before being able to carry a firearm and thus a permit should be needed for any form of carry; yes you deserve a beating for promoting tyranny. If you are stating your nervousness or unease with some people carrying with no training then I'll certainly not hold anything against you. I'm nervous about idiots carrying arms, but I'll not advocate infringing on their rights because of my nervousness. People legislating their feelings as such is how we have gun bans and that sort of nonsense.

Click to expand...

training should be mandatory before being able to carry a firearm and thus a permit should be needed for any form of carry;

Click to expand...

Absolutely NOT! I don't think I ever suggested any such thing. I AM just stating my nervousness or unease about some people carrying without any training WHATSOEVER. Simply because I've been in the thick of it. We, on this forum ARE the elite, we KNOW how to behave. But you don't want to give a chimpanzee a loaded and cocked revolver, nothing good can happen in that situation. I'm ALL for 2nd Amendment rights, but you should see some of the people I have met.

I know there is some people that don't need to carry, like people with major mental disorders and people that cant control there anger who may shoot a place up. and i think people should get training if they don't know how to handle a gun, i been shooting guns for a while and i only put about 100 rounds thru my handgun i will be carrying but only cause thats all i can afford. cause before i carry i want to make sure i can shoot because "with great power comes great responsibility"