Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: Bad LEO encounter in Holly Springs.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    33

    Bad LEO encounter in Holly Springs.

    I had my first bad LEO encounter last night. I was pumping gas and noticed that 5 officers were dealing with a drunk couple across the parking lot. I was minding my own business when one of the officers approached me .
    officer: I noticed that you are carrying a gun.
    Me: Yes Sir I am
    Officer: Why do you have a gun?
    Me: It is my Constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense
    Officer: Do you have a permit?
    Me: Yes Sir ( I show it to him)
    Officer: You can't carry it in the open like that, it has to be concealed
    Me: No sir. The law states that if it is concealed whole or in part that I must have a permit.
    Officer: Your gun isn't concealed
    Me: Ms. courts say that a gun in a holster is partially concealed therefore legal with a permit.
    Officer: Only officers can carry that way. You have to conceal it.
    Me: (pulling my shirt over the gun) There, it's concealed. You happy now? Do me a favor and show me the law that says I can't openly carry.

    The officer gets on his phone and finds some website that he says is a law enforcement website. He shows me something about " what to do if a person is carrying a concealed weapon" . Guess he was just looking for the word concealed. I just said " Whatever you say" and left.

    I need to find the ruling that says a gun in a holster is partially concealed. Anyone know where it is?

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Start here:
    "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster in Mississippi."
    http://www.opencarry.org/ms.html

    Then read here:
    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/037/0001.htm

    And
    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/45/009/0101.htm
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by mjd1978 View Post
    I had my first bad LEO encounter last night. I was pumping gas and noticed that 5 officers were dealing with a drunk couple across the parking lot. I was minding my own business when one of the officers approached me .
    officer: I noticed that you are carrying a gun.
    Me: Yes Sir I am
    Officer: Why do you have a gun?
    Me: It is my Constitutional right to carry a weapon for self defense
    Officer: Do you have a permit?
    Me: Yes Sir ( I show it to him)
    Officer: You can't carry it in the open like that, it has to be concealed
    Me: No sir. The law states that if it is concealed whole or in part that I must have a permit.
    Officer: Your gun isn't concealed
    Me: Ms. courts say that a gun in a holster is partially concealed therefore legal with a permit.
    Officer: Only officers can carry that way. You have to conceal it.
    Me: (pulling my shirt over the gun) There, it's concealed. You happy now? Do me a favor and show me the law that says I can't openly carry.

    The officer gets on his phone and finds some website that he says is a law enforcement website. He shows me something about " what to do if a person is carrying a concealed weapon" . Guess he was just looking for the word concealed. I just said " Whatever you say" and left.

    I need to find the ruling that says a gun in a holster is partially concealed. Anyone know where it is?
    NOOOOOO!!! That is very counterproductive and very unhelpful to OC! Point out that ONLY a firearm concealed in whole or part NEEDS a permit. Meaning if he says its not concealed then you do not even need a permit or license to carry it. Cite the constitution! If he thinks carrying openly in a holster is not concealed please don't try to convince him otherwise for it is wrong and very unhelpful.

    Other than that I think you handled yourself very well. Its too bad he was misinformed about "only officers can carry like that".

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Start here:
    "As the Mississippi courts have said that a handgun in a holster is concealed in part, a License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver is required to openly carry a handgun in a holster in Mississippi."
    http://www.opencarry.org/ms.html

    Then read here:
    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/97/037/0001.htm

    And
    http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/45/009/0101.htm
    The courts have not said that. One Judge has said that. Please do not perpetuate that myth that open carry is concealed carry in MS. Its good to have the permit, it can potentially keep a person out of jail if others are misinformed about MS law and MS constitution, but such a statement goes against our constitution.

  5. #5
    Regular Member autosurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Lawrence, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    3,845
    I bet he knew you were legal.. he was just asserting his authority. Next time don't cover up also know your states applicable statutes front and back.

    Finally say as little as possible remember anything you say will be used against you so the less that passes your lip the better!

    Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
    Anything I post may be my opinion and not the law... you are responsible to do your own verification.

    Blackstone (1753-1765) maintains that "the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

  6. #6
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    You guys KNOW I have to weigh in on this don't you? I'm agreeing with Daylen, if it's not "concealed" make the OFFICER say it's concealed. Gently remind him that it is not illegal to carry an 'unconcealed' side arm in MS. And if he insists, ask him to call his supervisor, and respectfully tell him you've studied the law, and that you want a supervisor to make the decision. Sooner or later they're going to go about their business, OR inform you that your weapon is 'partially concealed'. At which point you show him a license to 'partially conceal' it.

    No disrespect intended, but most LEO's are not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, when it comes to the law. But at the same time you can't hold court on the side of the street, so you have to handle yourself appropriately.

    Make the cop TELL you it's concealed. Otherwise ask him are you violating any law by carrying unconcealed. And what law is that officer? Be nice, don't get in their face, that will only cause trouble. We have the law on our side, and if we know how to use it, we can back them down EVERY time. (except for the corrupt ones).

    We're having an OC get together in Oxford in August, Holly Springs is not that far away, I'd love for you (the original poster) to join us! See the other thread.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    33
    This is some confusing stuff! Section 97-37-1 states----Except as otherwise provided in section 45-9-101, any person who carries a weapon concealed in whole or in part upon conviction shall be charged. I know that section 45-9-101 is the section that deals with permits. which I take it to mean that if you have a permit you can carry concealed in whole or in part.

    This statement in section 45-9-101 is what throws me for a loop.

    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.

    Does this kill my case for open carry?

  8. #8
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    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.

    Does this kill my case for open carry?
    Absolutely not! That language is meaningless. It means nothing. When you are carrying openly you are actually carrying concealed via 97-37-1, which you now have a permit to do via 45-9-101.

    I know, it's ridiculous, but you've got to play their game until we get it changed. But seriously, don't worry about the above quote, because it is absolutely meaningless in Mississippi law. It just says that 45-9-101 does not ADVOCATE or encourage that you carry openly. Again, it's meaningless. It just says, "I'm not going to approve of this".

    No worries.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by mjd1978 View Post
    This is some confusing stuff! Section 97-37-1 states----Except as otherwise provided in section 45-9-101, any person who carries a weapon concealed in whole or in part upon conviction shall be charged. I know that section 45-9-101 is the section that deals with permits. which I take it to mean that if you have a permit you can carry concealed in whole or in part.

    This statement in section 45-9-101 is what throws me for a loop.

    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.

    Does this kill my case for open carry?
    It sounds confusing if someone is looking for permission to carry openly and unconcealed. That statement is simply clearly defining 45-9-101 as dealing with concealed carry thus eliminating any constitutional contradiction. For no regulation nor prohibition of openly carried and unconcealed weapons is allowed by the constitution.

    It does not kill the case for open carry, it strengthens and highlights its constitutional protection. Just remember even the law admits that permits do not have anything to do with open carry. A permit can be useful if a LEO is confused and thinks openly carrying in a holster is concealed carry.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by autosurgeon View Post
    I bet he knew you were legal.. he was just asserting his authority. Next time don't cover up also know your states applicable statutes front and back.

    Finally say as little as possible remember anything you say will be used against you so the less that passes your lip the better!

    Sent from my Droid Flipside using Tapatalk
    I disagree very strongly, he very well might have kept himself from being arrested by covering up. If after stating the law and that he is not violating the law the cop wants to assert his authority and say something as simple as "you can't carry like that", an arrest might be his next move, which would be bad for the carrier and potentially bad for the rest of us in MS. If covering up makes him happy I'm all for doing so and then stopping by the the office to file a complaint. Foreseeable arrests are the dumbest arrests for if you can see it coming you can avoid it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    +1, yes, avoid the arrest and file a complaint.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    The courts have not said that. One Judge has said that. Please do not perpetuate that myth that open carry is concealed carry in MS. Its good to have the permit, it can potentially keep a person out of jail if others are misinformed about MS law and MS constitution, but such a statement goes against our constitution.
    That's all fine and well, but do you have any cites to authority declaring that a handgun in a holster is NOT a partially concealed weapon, in whole or in part?

  13. #13
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    Mississippi laws are retarded...haha...my head just exploded reading there codes.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by DKSuddeth View Post
    That's all fine and well, but do you have any cites to authority declaring that a handgun in a holster is NOT a partially concealed weapon, in whole or in part?
    Do you have any cite to authority with a case where a person carrying a handgun in a holster was convicted under 97-37-1 or not having a permit on him under 45-9-101? Or are you referring to the weak opinion that tries to establish hearsay as law? If the latter please don't continue perpetuating the hearsay we are having to fight against here.

    The reason a handgun in a holster can not be considered concealed in part is simple. If it is then carrying such would be prohibited in general, by 97-37-1, and when allowed it is under heavy state regulation, by 45-9-101. If this is the case then

    The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

    is completely meaningless and worthless so why bother putting it in? Such is not the case as the code in many places recognizes that there is a way to OC. A holster is the least concealed way to carry without holding the pistol in ones hand and that can not be the only constitutional way to carry.

    Please read the law, including the MS constitution before posting hearsay it is most unhelpful to MS. I imagine some of you are looking at the opencarry.org map and thinking that is the furthest research that needs to be done. If so you are as wrong as the information on that map; just because something is published on the internet does not make it correct.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Please read the law, including the MS constitution before posting hearsay it is most unhelpful to MS. I imagine some of you are looking at the opencarry.org map and thinking that is the furthest research that needs to be done. If so you are as wrong as the information on that map; just because something is published on the internet does not make it correct.
    Apologize for my contribution to exactly that in my post (#2 above) My bad.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training. Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Do you have any cite to authority with a case where a person carrying a handgun in a holster was convicted under 97-37-1 or not having a permit on him under 45-9-101? Or are you referring to the weak opinion that tries to establish hearsay as law? If the latter please don't continue perpetuating the hearsay we are having to fight against here.

    The reason a handgun in a holster can not be considered concealed in part is simple. If it is then carrying such would be prohibited in general, by 97-37-1, and when allowed it is under heavy state regulation, by 45-9-101. If this is the case then

    The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the Legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.
    I'm not sure where you're going here Daylen, you know there have been people convicted under 97-37-1 for "carrying concealed" without a permit, while carrying in a holster on their side. I can't pull one off the top of my head, but I'm sure that if I dug deep enough, I could come up with one.

    I think the poster was simply fishing for information, i.e. is carrying in a holster 'partially concealed'? The answer is yes, if they want to charge you with it, it can be, and I'm very well aware of Article 3 Section 12. The 'or in part' is how they skirt the Constitutional mandate.

    The law may defy reason, but reason can never defy the law. But I'm with you on the education part of it, people need to know what it is they're getting into, what the law is, and what their options are. And especially LEO's need to be educated on this. Until we get it changed, we have to deal with what we've got, no matter how silly it is.

    So if I read your post right, I'm going to have to disagree and say that carrying in a holster CAN BE 'concealed' under MS law, and has been used as such before. Having a permit will certainly throw a thorn in that, but if you don't have one, they can pretty much have their way with you.

  17. #17
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    I disagree very strongly, he very well might have kept himself from being arrested by covering up. If after stating the law and that he is not violating the law the cop wants to assert his authority and say something as simple as "you can't carry like that", an arrest might be his next move, which would be bad for the carrier and potentially bad for the rest of us in MS. If covering up makes him happy I'm all for doing so and then stopping by the the office to file a complaint. Foreseeable arrests are the dumbest arrests for if you can see it coming you can avoid it.
    Agreed on the behavior part. But doesn't the LEO have to have at least an IDEA of what law the person might be breaking before he can make an arrest? I mean he's got to be charged with something. The officer can't just say you're under arrest because I said so. That don't fly too well in court. Next, they'll be arresting people because they don't like how you look.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    NOOOOOO!!! That is very counterproductive and very unhelpful to OC! Point out that ONLY a firearm concealed in whole or part NEEDS a permit. Meaning if he says its not concealed then you do not even need a permit or license to carry it. Cite the constitution! If he thinks carrying openly in a holster is not concealed please don't try to convince him otherwise for it is wrong and very unhelpful.

    Other than that I think you handled yourself very well. Its too bad he was misinformed about "only officers can carry like that".
    Exactly on point

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Apologize for my contribution to exactly that in my post (#2 above) My bad.
    Don't get your feelings hurt Grapeshot... the first quote in your post is MISLEADING and UNTRUE. I'm sure that's what prompted the clarification
    Last edited by georg jetson; 06-05-2011 at 09:35 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by DKSuddeth View Post
    That's all fine and well, but do you have any cites to authority declaring that a handgun in a holster is NOT a partially concealed weapon, in whole or in part?
    Ahhhh.. someone who understands how easy it is to prove a negative... (tic)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    I'm not sure where you're going here Daylen, you know there have been people convicted under 97-37-1 for "carrying concealed" without a permit, while carrying in a holster on their side. I can't pull one off the top of my head, but I'm sure that if I dug deep enough, I could come up with one.
    Then do it... I've noticed that just about every time you make a claim about the law, you are wrong. Dig deep please...

  22. #22
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Then do it... I've noticed that just about every time you make a claim about the law, you are wrong. Dig deep please...

    I don't know what you expect of me. Do you want me to go to the local Justice Court judge with a tape recorder and ask him if he's ever found anyone guilty of carrying a concealed weapon in a holster? As far as I know, people's individual misdemeanor records are not available to just pull up on line. You KNOW it's been done, that's the reason for the law so it CAN be done. I mean I shouldn't have to go any further than that. I could spend my time and money to find you a case, but I don't think I want to, unless I NEED to in a court of law. Any reasonable person will conclude that it has been used since the writing of the law. Why are you challenging me at every turn? Go challenge your politicians with that kind of vigor, maybe we'll finally be able to get something done with georg jetson hounding them constantly.

    Oh, wait, I noticed you don't even LIVE in Mississippi, so you can't hound MS politicians from afar. So I guess in fact, since you don't even live in Mississippi, anything you say is pretty much "opinion", and you know what they are like.
    Last edited by MSRebel54; 06-05-2011 at 10:57 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18
    Here is a question for all. Why fight and get hostel with each other? Im sure we all what the same thing, the right to carry a gun if its concealed or not without a permit no matter where we live in a place or just traveling there. I will fight in MS and other states with just as much fight, i think gun laws are unconstitutional due to 2nt amendment. so rather than fight each other lets fight the unconstitutional gun laws no matter what state the laws are in.

  24. #24
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by techmanchuck View Post
    Here is a question for all. Why fight and get hostel with each other? Im sure we all what the same thing, the right to carry a gun if its concealed or not without a permit no matter where we live in a place or just traveling there. I will fight in MS and other states with just as much fight, i think gun laws are unconstitutional due to 2nt amendment. so rather than fight each other lets fight the unconstitutional gun laws no matter what state the laws are in.
    I'm not hostile. Did I sound hostile? I mean sure, what you said is what we're all here for, and I have a problem doing that when some ******* is constantly challenging every word I write, with a 'prove it prove it prove it', like a first grader. And then I look and he's in the Mississippi forum and he's not even IN Mississippi? I mean I'm the last one that wants a confrontation, or to be hostile, but damn, lay off you know? Why pick apart every word a fellow says, and intentionally try to make him look bad. I mean just nuts, like can you cite me a court case that says the sky is blue? Well, I didn't happen to bring one along, but I think everyone KNOWS the sky is blue.

    I'm not going to put up with it. If I can't contribute to the forum, and YES some of it WILL be opinion, then I'll just shut up and go away, go do something else, and not waste everyone's time.


    ..................--Moderator Statement--
    OCDO does not limit in what state forum a user may post. Opinions and ideas from others indeed is part of what makes us strong.
    The important thing is that the subject be addressed, not the personality.

    Cites are good, even encouraged, but not always viable unless supported by law, study or other recognized source. This does not take away from a well organized personal opinion. We pull together or we pull apart - not going to let the latter happen
    .

  25. #25
    Regular Member 4angrybadgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    411
    Quote Originally Posted by DKSuddeth View Post
    That's all fine and well, but do you have any cites to authority declaring that a handgun in a holster is NOT a partially concealed weapon, in whole or in part?
    There is no solid ruling either way. As was stated before, and has been said in several threads before, the only ruling anyone can find that relates to concealment is a concurring opinion that tangentially mentions what the judge thought was really concealment. I'll wager you won't find a court case or law in most states defining concealment - it's one of those things that is generally understood. (That's my opinion, not a statement of fact.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    I'm not hostile. Did I sound hostile? I mean sure, what you said is what we're all here for, and I have a problem doing that when some ******* is constantly challenging every word I write, with a 'prove it prove it prove it', like a first grader. And then I look and he's in the Mississippi forum and he's not even IN Mississippi? I mean I'm the last one that wants a confrontation, or to be hostile, but damn, lay off you know? Why pick apart every word a fellow says, and intentionally try to make him look bad. I mean just nuts, like can you cite me a court case that says the sky is blue? Well, I didn't happen to bring one along, but I think everyone KNOWS the sky is blue.
    There's a difference between saying "the sky is blue" - something we can all see for ourselves - and saying "people have been convicted under 97-37-1 while OCing" - which is NOT commonly known, unlike the prior statement. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference between the two.

    Saying that people have been arrested for violating 97-37-1 while OCing is believable - after all, cops sometimes cook up some really dumb reasons for arrests. But saying that people have been convicted for violating 97-37-1 while OCing is a statement of fact that should be backed up with some citation(s). If you can't find anything at all to back it up, then it's completely unverifiable and doesn't contribute to the discussion.

    Participation in discussion is great, but we must all take care that when we claim to state facts, we back them up, or else the discussion tends towards "useless".
    Last edited by 4angrybadgers; 06-06-2011 at 09:19 AM.

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
  •