Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 66

Thread: Greetings, new to OC

  1. #1
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35

    Greetings, new to OC

    Good evening ladies and gents,

    New to OC, Desoto County resident, applied for my MS firearm permit at the beginning of May, still waiting by the mailbox, hoping for it to show up someday soon Anyways, wanted to introduce myself to the forum, I'll dig into the threads and get caught up with the issue at hand here.
    Last edited by 10-79; 05-30-2011 at 10:08 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    Im waiting for mine to.... I'm 3 weeks in so prob 3 more to go.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    I would be oh-so-happy if I received it within 6 weeks! I have heard from some it took them over 90 days, and heard from others they received theirs within 45 days of applying

  4. #4
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by 10-79 View Post
    I would be oh-so-happy if I received it within 6 weeks! I have heard from some it took them over 90 days, and heard from others they received theirs within 45 days of applying
    The law used to be 120 days, now it's 45 days. They have an uncanny ability to have it in your mailbox right on that 45th day.

  5. #5
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    on that 45th day.
    June 23rd will be a very happy day for me then! Perhaps followed by a trip to wal-mart, in an OC fashion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    44
    Yep got mine last week and it was 45 days in the nose. Amazing how they time that so well huh? But I've been OCing all over my part here in DeSoto, both wally worlds, Target, sportsman warehouse, gas stations, all over. Some strange looks here and there but that's about it. No LEO attention yet, kinda waiting on that one. Just hope its not in southaven, the guys on that side of 55, well not to friendly in day to day interactions from my experience.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    What makes me so mad about the whole thing is they already printed it. All they have to do is a criminal background check and give it to you.... but the idoits that make the laws wont let that happen. But be even better if we had constitutional carry

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    What makes me so mad about the whole thing is they already printed it. All they have to do is a criminal background check and give it to you.... but the idoits that make the laws wont let that happen. But be even better if we had constitutional carry
    MS constitutional carry or 2nd amendment constitutional carry? I'd go for either one.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    What makes me so mad about the whole thing is they already printed it. All they have to do is a criminal background check and give it to you.... but the idoits that make the laws wont let that happen. But be even better if we had constitutional carry
    Ok... how do you intend to get "constitutional carry"... assuming that you don't already have it?

  10. #10
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    Constitutional carry would be awesome if State of MS adopted it. Neighboring Tennessee has a bill circulating its legislature as we speak regarding the matter. They (State of TN) speculate they would stand to lose 4.7 million dollars in revenue if they pass it, and, if I know MS, they are not going to like that one bit, what, with them cutting teachers and their pay left and right.
    Last edited by 10-79; 05-31-2011 at 01:00 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by 10-79 View Post
    Constitutional carry would be awesome if State of MS adopted it. Neighboring Tennessee has a bill circulating its legislature as we speak regarding the matter. They (State of TN) speculate they would stand to lose 4.7 million dollars in revenue if they pass it, and, if I know MS, they are not going to like that one bit, what, with them cutting teachers and their pay left and right.
    The bill you link to speaks of "authorization" and endorsements for permits. What the heck does that have to do with "Constitutional Carry"??!! Constitutional carry is EXACTLY what is says it is... a provision in the state or federal constitution that PROTECTS the RIGHT to bear arms.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    I am writing letters to day today to all my congressmen and senators at state and federal level as well as the AG of ms. I am going to fight for constitutional carry of CC. I know in MS it is legal to OC by the state constitution tho they tried to stop it with the "concealed in part" crap. If i don't know how many people would want to do this but we could start local clubs and fight for it together.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    I am writing letters to day today to all my congressmen and senators at state and federal level as well as the AG of ms. I am going to fight for constitutional carry of CC. I know in MS it is legal to OC by the state constitution tho they tried to stop it with the "concealed in part" crap. If i don't know how many people would want to do this but we could start local clubs and fight for it together.
    What is it exactly, that you are asking your congressmen to do?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    well i think one of the first things is take out the "concealed in part" and also define concealed as the pistol or revolver being covered by clothing and if is fully or partly outside the clothing it can not be considered concealed

  15. #15
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    If i don't know how many people would want to do this but we could start local clubs and fight for it together.
    Well, I guess we add up how many MS members we have in this forum, as well as the ms gun owners forum, with that number, I suspect we would have a good start of maybe 100 members. If we pool our efforts together, we could effectively spam our senate at any given point with our agenda

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    well i think one of the first things is take out the "concealed in part" and also define concealed as the pistol or revolver being covered by clothing and if is fully or partly outside the clothing it can not be considered concealed
    Ok... that'd be a good start, but be carefull about asking the legislature to define "concealed" by statute. In La., part of of our illegal carry law is the element of "intent" as part of the crime. In other words, the prosecution needs to prove that the defendant INTENDED to carry concealed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    i thought about that one day and thats why i left that word out, "intended" would be very bad

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    i thought about that one day and thats why i left that word out, "intended" would be very bad
    You missed the boat my friend... Including the element of "intent" in a statute burdens the prosecution... not the defendant. Not only must it be shown that the weapon WAS concealed, but that concealment was the INTENT.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    sorry i thought all they had to do was show intent and that was easier, i was mistaken

  20. #20
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    You missed the boat my friend... Including the element of "intent" in a statute burdens the prosecution... not the defendant. Not only must it be shown that the weapon WAS concealed, but that concealment was the INTENT.
    Yet those in the know, charge you with "disturbing the peace", and that must include "intent" as well. It's just easier to get by with, as it's not black and white, as is whether your gun is visible or not visible. They can always charge you with that, (disturbing the peace) and worry about the "intent" later. Because you made a couple of people "nervous", you disturbed their peace. You see, we got a long row to hoe. And I appreciate everyone on this forum doing what they do, and willing to at least talk about it.

    If this Oxford thing happens this summer, every one of us will be putting ourselves up for arrest. Not necessarily for "concealed carry without a license", for anything else they can think of. But that's the price you got to pay if you're in the game. You just can't sit back and type on a keyboard an not get out there and do what you believe in, and what you know is legal and right.

    I've talked about cameras before, and no one commented. If it's up to me, I'll make sure there are at least THREE cameras, once edited will make for a great Youtube video, but mostly to just CYA. Cops won't confiscate all three of them. I really don't think they'll be a problem with Oxford cops anyway, but just CYA, cause you never know. It also depends on how many is there. 6 vs. 2 is a big deal. Do we really want to arrest these SIX people who are claiming to be perfectly LEGAL? Probably not.

    Anyway, I have all kinds of pokers in the fire. I know the Chief personally, several of the OPD officers, and could even probably pre-arrange it. But the key word here is "probably" and can you trust them to keep to their word. I truly do not know. But I'm willing to take a chance, if anyone else is. I do know they've dealt with a single person OC'ing, but I don't know how they'd react to several doing so. It's just unpredictable.

    I'm posting this in the other thread as well.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Yet those in the know, charge you with "disturbing the peace", and that must include "intent" as well. It's just easier to get by with, as it's not black and white, as is whether your gun is visible or not visible. They can always charge you with that, (disturbing the peace) and worry about the "intent" later.
    Really?? Ms. disturbing the peace laws includes "intent"? Show me...
    Disturbing the peace is typically at the county or municipal level.

    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Because you made a couple of people "nervous", you disturbed their peace. You see, we got a long row to hoe. And I appreciate everyone on this forum doing what they do, and willing to at least talk about it.
    Listen, if ocers in Ms. are going to start writing to their legislature, then y'all had better at least figure out what it is that you want them to do... Ignorance will get NO respect.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 06-01-2011 at 09:43 AM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    I am more than willing to try it and find out in Oxford, Rebel!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Really?? Ms. disturbing the peace laws includes "intent"? Show me...
    Disturbing the peace is typically at the county or municipal level.



    Listen, if ocers in Ms. are going to start writing to their legislature, then y'all had better at least figure out what it is that you want them to do... Ignorance will get NO respect.
    Disturbing the peace contains no intent language. But far better it defines actions not possessions.

    97-35-15. Disturbance of the public peace or the peace of others; exception.

    (1) Any person who disturbs the public peace, or the peace of others, by violent, or loud, or insulting, or profane, or indecent, or offensive, or boisterous conduct or language, or by intimidation, or seeking to intimidate any other person or persons, or by conduct either calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or by conduct which may lead to a breach of the peace, or by any other act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six (6) months, or both.

    (2) The act of breast-feeding shall not constitute a breach of the peace.

    (3) The provisions of this section are supplementary to the provisions of any other statute of this state.

    Now that being said. In Alabama recently people have been charged and convinced in municipal courts (its now in the appeals process) of our version of this law for exercising a well documented right. Not all courts or LEOs go by precedent, constitutions or the law. Some simply use laws as an excuse to enforce their unlawful will. Thankfully, this seems to be the exception not the majority.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Disturbing the peace contains no intent language. But far better it defines actions not possessions.
    Hmmm... another case of someone typing without checking their facts... misinformation is MORE dangerous than ignorance.



    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Now that being said. In Alabama recently people have been charged and convinced in municipal courts (its now in the appeals process) of our version of this law for exercising a well documented right. Not all courts or LEOs go by precedent, constitutions or the law. Some simply use laws as an excuse to enforce their unlawful will. Thankfully, this seems to be the exception not the majority.
    Glad to hear you guys in Alabama are fighting... Some people here have indicated their intent to contact their legislators. It would be a benefit for them to have hashed out exactly what it is that the ocer wants his or her rep to do

  25. #25
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Disturbing the peace contains no intent language. But far better it defines actions not possessions.

    97-35-15. Disturbance of the public peace or the peace of others; exception.

    (1) Any person who disturbs the public peace, or the peace of others, by violent, or loud, or insulting, or profane, or indecent, or offensive, or boisterous conduct or language, or by intimidation, or seeking to intimidate any other person or persons, or by conduct either calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or by conduct which may lead to a breach of the peace, or by any other act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not more than six (6) months, or both.

    (2) The act of breast-feeding shall not constitute a breach of the peace.

    (3) The provisions of this section are supplementary to the provisions of any other statute of this state.

    Now that being said. In Alabama recently people have been charged and convinced in municipal courts (its now in the appeals process) of our version of this law for exercising a well documented right. Not all courts or LEOs go by precedent, constitutions or the law. Some simply use laws as an excuse to enforce their unlawful will. Thankfully, this seems to be the exception not the majority.
    "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" - If that doesn't infer intent, I don't know what the hell does.

    Also check 97-35-7 "disorderly conduct" - It also includes "intent" language. It even uses the word "intent".

    Now back off Jetson, you're looking bad trying to make someone else look bad.
    Last edited by MSRebel54; 06-01-2011 at 12:43 PM. Reason: added info

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •