Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: New permit. looking for carry tips

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Lucedale, MS
    Posts
    18

    New permit. looking for carry tips

    I just got my permit in the mail today. I haven't yet OCed. I know the laws mostly good just wondering if anyone had tips if i am approached by the cops. I live in Lucedale but i go to the coast and AL often.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Don't talk to the police. Know the law and remember you can always file a complaint. Be respectful and firm when talking with LEOs. If you feel unconfortable ask if you are being detained. If the answer is "no," walk away. I would recomend that you carry a good voice recorder.

  3. #3
    Regular Member 10-79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Southaven, MS
    Posts
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by DCKilla View Post
    I would recomend that you carry a good voice recorder.
    ...In the pocket opposite your firearm, of course

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Don't get arrested.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DCKilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Wet Side, WA
    Posts
    527
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Don't get arrested.
    +1, short and to the point.

  6. #6
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Don't get arrested.
    {This is written as a "what if" scenario. I am in no way encouraging people to get themselves arrested on purpose...just in case that wasn't clear to begin with}

    Actually, DO get arrested. I'd like to know what they are going to arrest you FOR? There has never been a case that I can find, and I've searched meticulously, for someone being arrested for carrying in a holster on their side with a firearms permit. I'd hate to be the officer who arrested you for NOT breaking the law. First time test case. He don't want that on his record. There is actually NOTHING they can arrest you for, you're not breaking the law.

    Now I agree with everyone else who says KNOW the law, and know it well. Read 97-37-1 and 45-9-101 until you dream about it. You can't deal with the uniform and the badge, unless you know from whence you come. And I'm not saying get an attitude with them, just know the law and your rights.

    I OC around my neighborhood, but have been CC'ing when I go downtown. I have made myself a PROMISE that I will OC everywhere I go in the month of July, as a precursor to this thing we're planning in August. (See North MS get together) forum. As such, I am prepared to meet the boys in blue. There is absolutely nothing they can do (legally) because I have a pistol on my side in plain view. They can't arrest me for anything, because I'm not breaking the law. They may not LIKE it, they may hum haw around and get on the radio and all sorts of stuff, but in the end you will say "have a nice day, officer". He can't arrest you for a damn thing. And don't let him "trick" you with weasel words. That's why I say know the law until you dream about it. Do NOT let him steer the conversation off to anything other than you having a side arm in plain view. Do NOT let him do that. That's where he might bite you if you let that happen.

    Anyway, if I have any encounters with the local boys in blue, I'll be posting. But I'm 100% confident they will not do a thing, other than detain me for 5 minutes and go on about their business.
    Last edited by MSRebel54; 06-27-2011 at 03:41 PM. Reason: disclaimer

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Actually, DO get arrested. I'd like to know what they are going to arrest you FOR? There has never been a case that I can find, and I've searched meticulously, for someone being arrested for carrying in a holster on their side with a firearms permit. I'd hate to be the officer who arrested you for NOT breaking the law. First time test case. He don't want that on his record. There is actually NOTHING they can arrest you for, you're not breaking the law.

    Now I agree with everyone else who says KNOW the law, and know it well. Read 97-37-1 and 45-9-101 until you dream about it. You can't deal with the uniform and the badge, unless you know from whence you come. And I'm not saying get an attitude with them, just know the law and your rights.

    I OC around my neighborhood, but have been CC'ing when I go downtown. I have made myself a PROMISE that I will OC everywhere I go in the month of July, as a precursor to this thing we're planning in August. (See North MS get together) forum. As such, I am prepared to meet the boys in blue. There is absolutely nothing they can do (legally) because I have a pistol on my side in plain view. They can't arrest me for anything, because I'm not breaking the law. They may not LIKE it, they may hum haw around and get on the radio and all sorts of stuff, but in the end you will say "have a nice day, officer". He can't arrest you for a damn thing. And don't let him "trick" you with weasel words. That's why I say know the law until you dream about it. Do NOT let him steer the conversation off to anything other than you having a side arm in plain view. Do NOT let him do that. That's where he might bite you if you let that happen.

    Anyway, if I have any encounters with the local boys in blue, I'll be posting. But I'm 100% confident they will not do a thing, other than detain me for 5 minutes and go on about their business.
    Such sentiments have led to two arrests and CONVICTIONS in Alabama. Yes, its not MS, but OC has a long history of support in the courts over here. Police can arrest for anything right or wrong and many times the municipal judges will protect the city and police, from civil claims, by issuing a guilty verdict. Arrests can have serious consequences especially when they are on a persons record for life.

    Arrests and any civil court actions bring negative attention to OC, this is not good. It stirs up police organizations and opposition to OC. MS barely has OC as it is, we need to secure it in the legislature first if at all possible; followed by court challenges to the law at the MS supreme court if needed and if we know it will go in our favor.

    Don't fight a battle unless you know you will win. For if you can't win you are not ready for the battle.

    Edit for clarity: I'm not suggesting anyone not OC, for it is a right and I'd hate to discourage its exercise. I am simply advocating the exercise of prudence and for thought in not getting arrested. That could mean not actively going out of ones way to confront LEOs, not arguing with them, covering up at a LEOs request or even firmly reminding an officer of ones rights and possibly the law. Determining what actions will keep an arrest from happening is of course up to each person in a situation.
    Last edited by Daylen; 06-27-2011 at 12:30 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Such sentiments have led to two arrests and CONVICTIONS in Alabama. Yes, its not MS, but OC has a long history of support in the courts over here. Police can arrest for anything right or wrong and many times the municipal judges will protect the city and police, from civil claims, by issuing a guilty verdict. Arrests can have serious consequences especially when they are on a persons record for life.

    Don't fight a battle unless you know you will win. For if you can't win you are not ready for the battle.
    Yes, muni courts CAN attempt to "protect" the municipality that pays it, which is why the appeal process must be followed through.

    Part of the preparation for battle is have you appeal ready to file before your initial case is disposed... AND of course make sure that you and your attorney are making the proper challenges in the initial case so that you can perfect your appeal. Some challenges CANNOT be brought up FIRST on appeal.

    One last thing, in most states, appeals from muni courts are usually de nova. You'll have a better chance of success at that level so... be ready to sustain the fight.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    One last thing, in most states, appeals from muni courts are usually de nova. You'll have a better chance of success at that level so... be ready to sustain the fight.
    this can easily run up a 10k tab in lawyer + court fees.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    this can easily run up a 10k tab in lawyer + court fees.
    Typically, the court fees are insignificant compared to attorney fees. In addition, most courts allow a defendant to appeal "in forma pauperis".

    There are ways of mitigating attorney costs. These should be discussed. It's all part of being ready for the fight.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    It's still a fight that need not happen. I believe there will be an election this year. Helping representatives that will protect the MS constitution is far safer and far more likely to yield good results than picking a legal fight in a criminal court.

    Edit: and I'm not sure about you but 10k or even 5k in lawyers fees for a potentially unnecessary court case is not desirable.
    Last edited by Daylen; 06-27-2011 at 06:21 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    It's still a fight that need not happen. I believe there will be an election this year. Helping representatives that will protect the MS constitution is far safer and far more likely to yield good results than picking a legal fight in a criminal court.

    Edit: and I'm not sure about you but 10k or even 5k in lawyers fees for a potentially unnecessary court case is not desirable.
    Daylen, there will never be a court case, there never has been one. Do you actually think they want to change the words, "in whole or in part"? Here's a reply from one of my representatives:

    "Thanks, Dennis. I hope to continue to push this bill and will look at the recommendation you have made on getting rid of "in whole or in part" as well, should my bid for re-election be successful.
    Mark"


    That's the kind of thing I'm talking about! Until now, we've never had a forum like this, we have an untold opportunity to come together like never before. We can actually get this thing done. And I'm not saying it's going to happen overnight, but we've got to work together for the common goal. I've never been on a forum where so many people are respectful of one another, and are all in it for the means to the same ends. I am really amazed at how nice everyone is to one another.

    As you can see from above, I'm trying to get the legislators to realize the stupidness of "in whole or in part". I'm probably not going to have a great deal of luck, unless ya'll get with me.

    Every year someone introduces a Constitutional carry bill, but it never passes. But that is totally rewriting 97-37-1, and I don't think that's the way to go. I need to get a sponsor that will remove those five little words "in whole or in part", and then we will have done what we set out to do. In the meantime, if you have a MS firearms permit, you can CC or OC, no matter where you are in MS. If they have a brain in their head they know this to be true. If you have a firearms permit, and are OCin'g they cannot arrest you for anything. However, if the officer asks you to cover it up, I would, just not to be confrontational. You can always go down the street and uncover it, and start the whole process over again. They CAN NOT arrest you for open carry if you have a firearms permit. It's stupid, but that's the way it is, until we get it changed.

    I'm thinking the thing in Oxford will be a major deal, and will draw attention to the fact that people CAN legally carry a side arm openly in Mississippi. This will only give us cannon fodder to harp on our representatives about removing "in whole or in part" from 97-37-1 We are just now at the beginning, but with your help, and all the people on this forum, I have a feeling we can do some good. And we may even meet our goal.

    Hope to see you in August, Daylen,

    Dennis

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Why do you want to get rid of "in whole" ? I liked that part, by itself it would be even more clear about what concealed means for those who do not understand English very well.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Why do you want to get rid of "in whole" ? I liked that part, by itself it would be even more clear about what concealed means for those who do not understand English very well.
    Add the word "intentionally" and you've got yourself a respectable statute...

    Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who INTENTIONALLY carries, wholly concealed, ...

  15. #15
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Why do you want to get rid of "in whole" ? I liked that part, by itself it would be even more clear about what concealed means for those who do not understand English very well.
    That part really doesn't matter, but I think everyone knows the meaning of the word "concealed". It means hidden from view, not visible. In fact, you can't actually "conceal" something "in part", or it wouldn't be concealed, now would it? To remove those words, then 97-37-1 would read like this:

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed , 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.....blah blah yak yak.

    Now we could argue about the definition of "concealed", but 49 other states seem to know what it means. And I'm not sure about throwing "intentionally" in there either. I mean how do you UNINTENTIONALLY conceal a pistol or revolver on your person? We could leave the words "in whole" but I don't think it's necessary. Concealed is concealed.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    That part really doesn't matter, but I think everyone knows the meaning of the word "concealed". It means hidden from view, not visible. In fact, you can't actually "conceal" something "in part", or it wouldn't be concealed, now would it? To remove those words, then 97-37-1 would read like this:

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed , 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.....blah blah yak yak.

    Now we could argue about the definition of "concealed", but 49 other states seem to know what it means. And I'm not sure about throwing "intentionally" in there either. I mean how do you UNINTENTIONALLY conceal a pistol or revolver on your person? We could leave the words "in whole" but I don't think it's necessary. Concealed is concealed.
    I've explained this before. It would make it necessary for the prosecution to PROVE that you INTENDED to conceal.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 06-28-2011 at 08:20 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    That part really doesn't matter, but I think everyone knows the meaning of the word "concealed". It means hidden from view, not visible. In fact, you can't actually "conceal" something "in part", or it wouldn't be concealed, now would it? To remove those words, then 97-37-1 would read like this:

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in Section 45-9-101, any person who carries, concealed , 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.....blah blah yak yak.

    Now we could argue about the definition of "concealed", but 49 other states seem to know what it means. And I'm not sure about throwing "intentionally" in there either. I mean how do you UNINTENTIONALLY conceal a pistol or revolver on your person? We could leave the words "in whole" but I don't think it's necessary. Concealed is concealed.
    Um, it seem in MS the word concealed is hard to understand. Evidence: the words "or in part" are in the law in the first place!

  18. #18
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    Um, it seem in MS the word concealed is hard to understand. Evidence: the words "or in part" are in the law in the first place!
    Yes, but WHY? Concealed is still concealed. It is/was a weasel worded way to get around Article 3 Section 12 of the MS Constitution. And it's pretty much worked so far. At least until 45-9-101 came along and sorta threw a monkey wrench into it kinda. Concealed is really not that difficult a concept, either the practical meaning or the legal meaning, which SHOULD be one and the same. As Jetson pointed out, those words not technical in nature under the law fall to the practical meaning, and "concealed" is certainly not legalese. I mean I'm no one to decide, I just don't think it's necessary to have a paragraph for every word that's in the paragraph.

    At SOME point the adults are going to have to come out of the wood work and start invoking common sense. I realize that's asking a lot these days, because we are all taught exactly the opposite. But it's getting to the point that even those going along with the government program are getting perturbed. It's getting about time we call a spade a spade.

  19. #19
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    I've explained this before. It would make it necessary for the prosecution to PROVE that you INTENDED to conceal.
    Really, I'm not trying to be a smart ant here, but how do you accidentally conceal a firearm on your person? If you are in your vehicle it doesn't matter, if you are in your home, on your property, or your business, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is concealed on your person while not on your own property or in your vehicle. The way I see it, is that you can't conceal without intending to? (Yes question mark.) Unless you're talking about this "in whole or in part" crap, which I've dismissed as actually not being "concealed" long ago. To conceal something "in part" is not really concealing it. Now don't go jumping on me about the law, because I'm very familiar with it, I just meant from a common sense point of view. That's what we're trying to get changed, so the law makes more common sense.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Really, I'm not trying to be a smart ant here, but how do you accidentally conceal a firearm on your person? If you are in your vehicle it doesn't matter, if you are in your home, on your property, or your business, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is concealed on your person while not on your own property or in your vehicle. The way I see it, is that you can't conceal without intending to? (Yes question mark.) Unless you're talking about this "in whole or in part" crap, which I've dismissed as actually not being "concealed" long ago. To conceal something "in part" is not really concealing it. Now don't go jumping on me about the law, because I'm very familiar with it, I just meant from a common sense point of view. That's what we're trying to get changed, so the law makes more common sense.
    It AINT about whether or not you can conceal WITHOUT intending to do so, it's about making it HARDER for the prosecutor to prosecute such a crime. Remember, the "reason" that society doesn't want people to conceal their weapons is because of the propensity for criminals to want to hide their intentions. we don't want to be prosecuted because our shirt became un-tucked and accidentally covered our sidearm. However, a convicted felon with the handle of a handgun sticking out of his pocket can be shown to have an INTENTION to conceal because he's not supposed to be possessing a firearm in the first place.
    Last edited by georg jetson; 06-29-2011 at 09:10 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Yes, but WHY?...
    I wish I knew. Perhaps the reason is similar to people not understanding that "shall not be infringed" means no restrictions or in other words, its absolute. Simple and clear is no longer enough to keep some from weaseling around protections. Perhaps its the same reason why the fine print, on many corporate legal documents, is longer than the document or larger than the product. Some even try to cast doubt on what the word "is" means.

  22. #22
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    It AINT about whether or not you can conceal WITHOUT intending to do so, it's about making it HARDER for the prosecutor to prosecute such a crime. Remember, the "reason" that society doesn't want people to conceal their weapons is because of the propensity for criminals to want to hide their intentions. we don't want to be prosecuted because our shirt became un-tucked and accidentally covered our sidearm. However, a convicted felon with the handle of a handgun sticking out of his pocket can be shown to have an INTENTION to conceal because he's not supposed to be possessing a firearm in the first place.
    Exactly. Your felon is INTENDING to conceal it. Maybe he let it slip and it was seen, but that was not his intention, he was intending to not let you know he had it to begin with. And I find the shirt becomes un-tucked and accidentally covers your piece, unlikely at best. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying it's very unlikely. I mean I know it wouldn't happen to me. I would say that it would be EXTREMELY difficult to prove in a court, that you didn't INTEND to conceal a firearm on your person. It comes down to what I was saying before.... either it IS concealed, or it isn't. I mean really, that's not rocket science.

    But I'm not being confrontational here, and I understand that to you, words don't necessarily mean what they actually mean, and most of it is all a big lawyer game they play with words and so called laws. I understand that. And as such, we've got a long row to hoe, to get something refined down to this is it, and that's the way it is, the words mean what they say.

    Take a look at 'thearmysredneck' video channel. This guy actually has some sense. Albeit 'common sense' it still is refreshing to me to hear someone talk like that. Lots of folks would say damned ole Mississippi redneck, but if you get down to the deeper meaning of what he's saying, he's absolutely right. And that's what it's going to come down to. We can't fight these people with words, THEY HAVE GUNS. I mean sure, we can get laws changed and things like that, but what are you going to do when someone steps on your rights? Just LET them? Sue them? Take them to court? That's what THEY'RE counting on you to do. How about standing up for your rights for a change? Tell them to go piss off, and they won't even know how the hell to react. They'll probably be stunned and call their supervisor, and words will be said back and forth, and eventually, you'll get to go on about your business with your rights intact. But you have saved your RIGHTS. Regardless of how much riffraff it took. It's a start.

    I mean come on... there comes a time when we have to take back what Thomas Jefferson envisioned.

    absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    I mean more brilliant words have never been said. And this is the man that basically invented our form of government. And he's providing a blueprint, he's telling us what worked and what didn't work.

    And what is going on today, he certainly would say does not work. In fact, he's probably spinning in his grave faster than a 350 chevy on nitro.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    A confrontational approach will make fixing legislation harder. There are laws beyond "or in part" that need fixing. When laws are not clear to most people it is not the time to be confrontational and be arrested. If you get belligerent with police they win because now they can charge you with disorderly conduct, this is something they are VERY used to and will not be shocked and will not call a supervisor. Supervisors might get called if the citizen is calm, knowledgeable and emphatic about their rights and the law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by MSRebel54 View Post
    Exactly. Your felon is INTENDING to conceal it. Maybe he let it slip and it was seen, but that was not his intention, he was intending to not let you know he had it to begin with. And I find the shirt becomes un-tucked and accidentally covers your piece, unlikely at best. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I am saying it's very unlikely. I mean I know it wouldn't happen to me. I would say that it would be EXTREMELY difficult to prove in a court, that you didn't INTEND to conceal a firearm on your person. It comes down to what I was saying before.... either it IS concealed, or it isn't. I mean really, that's not rocket science.

    But I'm not being confrontational here, and I understand that to you, words don't necessarily mean what they actually mean, and most of it is all a big lawyer game they play with words and so called laws. I understand that. And as such, we've got a long row to hoe, to get something refined down to this is it, and that's the way it is, the words mean what they say.

    Take a look at 'thearmysredneck' video channel. This guy actually has some sense. Albeit 'common sense' it still is refreshing to me to hear someone talk like that. Lots of folks would say damned ole Mississippi redneck, but if you get down to the deeper meaning of what he's saying, he's absolutely right. And that's what it's going to come down to. We can't fight these people with words, THEY HAVE GUNS. I mean sure, we can get laws changed and things like that, but what are you going to do when someone steps on your rights? Just LET them? Sue them? Take them to court? That's what THEY'RE counting on you to do. How about standing up for your rights for a change? Tell them to go piss off, and they won't even know how the hell to react. They'll probably be stunned and call their supervisor, and words will be said back and forth, and eventually, you'll get to go on about your business with your rights intact. But you have saved your RIGHTS. Regardless of how much riffraff it took. It's a start.

    I mean come on... there comes a time when we have to take back what Thomas Jefferson envisioned.

    absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    I mean more brilliant words have never been said. And this is the man that basically invented our form of government. And he's providing a blueprint, he's telling us what worked and what didn't work.

    And what is going on today, he certainly would say does not work. In fact, he's probably spinning in his grave faster than a 350 chevy on nitro.
    This is the single most convoluted,nonsensical post I've ever read here at OCDO.

  25. #25
    Regular Member MSRebel54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Northern Mississippi, ,
    Posts
    238
    This is a very easy to understand post. I was talking about standing up for your rights, like the other guy did, when he told the LEO, he didn't think he wanted to go put his firearm in the car. And he ended up not putting it in the car. The part about Jefferson and freedom simply means that they will take however much of our original freedoms away as we let them.

    absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their DUTY, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    i.e. elect people that will follow the Constitution, and maybe even repeal, or at least modify some of these laws to be more in line with the Constitution. I didn't think that needed explanation, but I guess it might.

    The first part of the message was in response to 'unintentionally concealing' a firearm on your person. I'll stick with one answer or one subject. And I was refering in an indirect way to thearmysredneck's video channel in the message. It may also have been somewhat convoluted from lack of sleep on my part. I'll be more concice.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •