Greetings, new to OC

MSRebel54 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Really?? Ms. disturbing the peace laws includes "intent"? Show me...
Disturbing the peace is typically at the county or municipal level.

MSRebel54 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I am more than willing to try it and find out in Oxford, Rebel!

georg jetson said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Daylen said:

Disturbing the peace contains no intent language. But far better it defines actions not possessions.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... another case of someone typing without checking their facts... misinformation is MORE dangerous than ignorance.

Daylen said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Daylen said:

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.

Click to expand...

"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.

10-79 said:

I am more than willing to try it and find out in Oxford, Rebel!

Click to expand...

Thank you! That's the attitude I like! Even if they come, once they find out who we are and what we're doing, I THINK they'll go on about their business. I'd bet on it.

Absolutely man! But hey, don't waste the effort on Jetson, doesn't even live in Mississippi for crying out loud, he just came over to our thread to troll

georg jetson said:

Ok... how do you intend to get "constitutional carry"... assuming that you don't already have it?

Click to expand...

Every year a Constitutional carry bill is introduced in the legislature, and every year it "dies in committee". The bill introduced would null and void 97-37-1. As if it didn't even exist. Some even modify 97-37-1 but they always die in committee. There's your problem right there. It's not that the bills are not being introduced, its that WE are not holding our legislators feet to the fire.

I write every time, but I'm only one person.

MSRebel54 said:

Every year a Constitutional carry bill is introduced in the legislature, and every year it "dies in committee". The bill introduced would null and void 97-37-1. As if it didn't even exist. Some even modify 97-37-1 but they always die in committee. There's your problem right there. It's not that the bills are not being introduced, its that WE are not holding our legislators feet to the fire.

I write every time, but I'm only one person.

Click to expand...

What committee? Its hard to write without knowing who to write.

MSRebel54 said:

"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.

Click to expand...

It is CONDUCT "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace". Conduct does not = intent

Disorderly conduct is NOT disturbing the peace, which is what you brought up initially. Disorderly conduct is tied to failing to obey a lawful command from an leo.

There you go being sensitive again... I don't care how I look... what I care about is people educating themselves... and rebutting those who seem to have comprehension issues.

MSRebel54 said:

Every year a Constitutional carry bill is introduced in the legislature, and every year it "dies in committee". The bill introduced would null and void 97-37-1. As if it didn't even exist. Some even modify 97-37-1 but they always die in committee. There's your problem right there. It's not that the bills are not being introduced, its that WE are not holding our legislators feet to the fire.

I write every time, but I'm only one person.

Click to expand...

I have friends in Ms. If you are keeping you finger on the pulse of this particular issue, then give us a heads up and we can increase constituent participation.

Keep in mind that nullifying 97.37.1 or parts thereof does nothing to combat 18 USC 922(q)2 which is the Fed gun free school zone law. This affects us all regardless of state of residence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

Daylen said:

What committee? Its hard to write without knowing who to write.

Click to expand...

You write YOUR representative or senator, whoever that may be. I also write the author of the bill sometimes, letting them know they have my support. In most cases they don't represent my district, but just to let them know people are paying attention.

georg jetson said:

It is CONDUCT "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace". Conduct does not = intent

Disorderly conduct is NOT disturbing the peace, which is what you brought up initially. Disorderly conduct is tied to failing to obey a lawful command from an leo.

There you go being sensitive again... I don't care how I look... what I care about is people educating themselves... and rebutting those who seem to have comprehension issues.

Click to expand...

Look, you're saying 6 is not a half dozen. If my actions were "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace", then it was my INTENT to breach the peace. If the peace was breached and I hadn't calculated a method to do so, then it was unintentional. You're just dancing around with words. Like saying there are not three lights on the traffic light, but there are more than two but less than four.

MSRebel54 said:

Look, you're saying 6 is not a half dozen. If my actions were "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace", then it was my INTENT to breach the peace. If the peace was breached and I hadn't calculated a method to do so, then it was unintentional. You're just dancing around with words. Like saying there are not three lights on the traffic light, but there are more than two but less than four.

Click to expand...

Not really... and after doing a bit of reading on Ms. rules of statutory construction, I believe our discussion is not pointless... see... http://www.michie.com/mississippi_p...s&fn=document-frame-chapter.htm&2.0#JD_1-3-65
§ 1-3-65. Construction of terms generally.
All words and phrases contained in the statutes are used according to their common and ordinary acceptation and meaning; but technical words and phrases according to their technical meaning.

I couldn't find the term "intent" defined so it appears "common and ordinary acceptation and meaning" applies.

I reread 97-35-15 and would like to point this out...
"or by conduct either calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, or by conduct which may lead to a breach of the peace"

Even if I concede that "calculated to provoke a breach of the peace" does indeed imply "intent", the conjunction "or" includes "by conduct which may lead to a breach of the peace". This other phrase clearly removes the necessity of intent or even the necessity for it to ACTUALLY "lead to a breach of the peace". In effect what this would say is with "intent" OR "without "intent", which would equate to NO intent. It appears they wanted to cover all basis...

georg jetson said:

I have friends in Ms. If you are keeping you finger on the pulse of this particular issue, then give us a heads up and we can increase constituent participation.

Keep in mind that nullifying 97.37.1 or parts thereof does nothing to combat 18 USC 922(q)2 which is the Fed gun free school zone law. This affects us all regardless of state of residence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

Click to expand...

I will be very happy to do so. The MS legislature meets in January of each year, so it's too late for this year, but I will be sure and let everyone know the next time Constitutional carry bills are introduced! Maybe next time we can get some letters rolling! Thanks.

MSRebel54 said:

You write YOUR representative or senator, whoever that may be. I also write the author of the bill sometimes, letting them know they have my support. In most cases they don't represent my district, but just to let them know people are paying attention.

Click to expand...

If I don't know the bill, committee, or sponsors its hard to write. If I know where it is I can at least watch closer. Also, I don't have a representative! I'm in Alabama. I'll be writing as a neighbor not constituent, so I might as well write the committee members.

MSRebel54 said:

I will be very happy to do so. The MS legislature meets in January of each year, so it's too late for this year, but I will be sure and let everyone know the next time Constitutional carry bills are introduced! Maybe next time we can get some letters rolling! Thanks.

Click to expand...

That would be awesome.

georg jetson said:

Keep in mind that nullifying 97.37.1 or parts thereof does nothing to combat 18 USC 922(q)2 which is the Fed gun free school zone law. This affects us all regardless of state of residence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

Click to expand...

We have MS laws, besides 97-37-1 to worry about before getting to that one. However, I'd rather not write about the other illegal laws on an open forum just yet.

Daylen said:

We have MS laws, besides 97-37-1 to worry about before getting to that one. However, I'd rather not write about the other illegal laws on an open forum just yet.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But this forum IS about the effort to get OC legal in MS, and I don't mean with the stupid permit, I mean legal as in Article 3 Section 12. Constitutional carry would certainly be all the better, but remember only three states have it now. It's a HARD thing to get done, unless just the right people are elected. That doesn't mean it CAN'T be done though.

Daylen said:

If I don't know the bill, committee, or sponsors its hard to write. If I know where it is I can at least watch closer. Also, I don't have a representative! I'm in Alabama. I'll be writing as a neighbor not constituent, so I might as well write the committee members.

Click to expand...

AH! That's a different story. My bad. If I'm still around next time the legislature meets, I'll be sure and keep you informed and up to date!