MilProGuy
Regular Member
My apologies for muddying the waters by posting irrelevant information about Mississippi.
I'll learn from the error of my ways.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OC in Church
- Thread starter Steeler-gal
- Start date
My apologies for muddying the waters by posting irrelevant information about Mississippi.
I'll learn from the error of my ways.
Steeler-gal
Regular Member
This thread did go in an interesting direction, huh?
TFred
Regular Member
Your post didn't bother me in the least. 1, it makes me glad I don't live in Mississippi, and 2, it's always good to know how we compare to other states, if for no other reason to be on the look-out for what the anti's might try to take away from us next.
TFred
Baked on Grease
Regular Member
Actually, what I read from your cite was that conceal carry of a firearm is illegal in a place of worship, not carry in general. Unless Mississippi has another law pertaining to OC (Va has NO laws that cite OC at all, only CC and carry in general) then i'd argue that OC would be legal as there would be law against it.
Just like exceptions in the law for LEO, if it's not enumerated in the law specifically then it applies to all. If it specifically enumerates CC, then OC is not covered under that law.
At least, that's how I understand things, IANAL, so feel free to educate me.
Sent using tapatalk
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
I read it the same way. On another note I doubt milproguy will be educating anyone.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
Really, it's a matter of logical deduction and common sense.
If it is illegal to bring a firearm into a house of worship when the bearer is wearing his shirttail on the outside of his trousers,
...then is is just as illegal to bring a firearm into a house of worship if it is openly carried.
The issue is about the legality of bringing a weapon into a house of worship, not whether a shirttail is covering the weapon or not.
This is just one man's logical, methodical method of deduction concerning this matter.
All other insights and opinions are welcome and the proffer will be given mutual respect if his or her opinion differs from mine.
If it is illegal to bring a firearm into a house of worship when the bearer is wearing his shirttail on the outside of his trousers,
...then is is just as illegal to bring a firearm into a house of worship if it is openly carried.
The issue is about the legality of bringing a weapon into a house of worship, not whether a shirttail is covering the weapon or not.
This is just one man's logical, methodical method of deduction concerning this matter.
All other insights and opinions are welcome and the proffer will be given mutual respect if his or her opinion differs from mine.
thebigsd
Founder's Club Member
No it is really not a matter of logical deduction and common sense. In fact, you are flat out wrong. As has been previously mentioned here is an example to prove my point. Up until a year ago it was ILLEGAL to CONCEAL carry in a restaurant that served alcohol in VA. At that same time it was LEGAL to OPEN carry at a restaurant that serves alcoho in VAl. Stop trying to apply logic to government activity, it will never work.
Statutory Construction:
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others")Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.
In other words Concealed doesn't mean concealed and open.
Baked on Grease
Regular Member
My thoughts were more toward anyone who knows better than I in general, not necessarily Milproguy.
Thanks for the the legal definiton Peter.
Mil, what we are getting at is that if the law says concealed, it means concealed. So if the item in question is not concealed then the law does not apply. You seem to be trying to say thay if the law restricts carry at all in any way then all carry is therefore restricted, and that is not so.
If they want to ban all carrying of a firearm they would leave out that one term of concealed, but as long as they say concealed only concealed carry is prohibited.
What they refer to as the Va tuck is that in Va it was illegal to CC in a restauraunt that serves alcohol. So people would tuck their shirts in behind the firearm so they are now OC and therefore it was legal. Stupid I know, but that's the way the law was written and held up in courts that way, isfaik. (changed now thank God)
Sent using tapatalk
mobeewan
Regular Member
I did not disagree with the possibility that your perception would be the one with which an officer or a fellow churchgoer might side.
If anything, this exchange only further illustrates that "definitions" are not definitive. In a brief search of the state code I could find no entry for "religious purposes" but I would not personally consider choir practice nor a board meeting as such.
Perhaps we should ask the AG to issue an opinion on that, too.
When asking, he should also be asked if it is the governments business telling someone what they can and cannot do in church. A lot of people always scream about the "separation of church and state" (although it does not exist in the constitution). Why would this be any different? Why is it the governments business to protect church goers separately when the church itself can ban guns on premises as private property rights? Leave it up to the church leaders.
At one time in Virginia it was the business of the government to tell people what to do in church, and what church they could go to and what ones they could not. And as a part of that business the government made a law about carrying firearms in churches:
http://www.virginia1774.org/History1.html
See Act LI -
For those who have a difficult time understanding the King's English, let me translate: Anybody who is not prohibited from bearing arms must bring a gun to church or be punished every time they do not; if a servant is not allowed by his master (employer) to bring a firearm the master will pay a fine; and the servants punished (whipped, put in the stocks, or some other punishment) if their master allows it but they don't bring a gun.
When Virginia got a little bit more civilized and a lot more populated the law was changed - mostly due to a) the reduced threat of Indian attacks, and b) the discontinuation of militia muster and drill immediately following church service and immediately before the reopening of the taverns. (Blue laws came later.) An additional issue has been suggested by some - that after the population reached a certan size there was not enough room for the storage of guns in the church and it was considered "impolite" for folks to be sitting in the pews while holding guns.
Thus, "for good and sufficient reason". Nowadays it may not be Indians, but there are threats of massacre still out there.
stay safe.
grylnsmn
Regular Member
Except it doesn't say that it is illegal to bring a firearm into a house of worship. It simply says that the posession of a carry permit does not authorize it.
That is no different than Virginia's law (18.2-308(O)) that states that the possession of a CHP does not authorize a person to carry in a place otherwise prohibited by law. My CHP doesn't authorize me to carry in a school, but not because 18.2-308(O) makes it illegal, but because it is otherwise prohibited by law (in 18.2-308.1). Saying that a permit doesn't authorize you to do something isn't the same thing as saying that it is illegal to do. By default all things are legal unless explicitly prohibited. Just because one law does not authorize something doesn't make it prohibited by that same law. It requires an explicit prohibition to be illegal.
Your citation does not provide that explicit prohibition.
Skeptic
Founder's Club Member
However in certain parts of Virginia, be careful how you brandish ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H fold your hands to pray
(mostly kidding.. )
architect
Regular Member
Errors of logic WRT carrying can be avoided by remembering that a "license," "permit," etc. is not permission to carry, but to legally conceal that fact.
MilProGuy
Regular Member
HardChrome
Regular Member
I always carry in church, either concealed or open because I always have good and sufficient reason.
Elkad
Regular Member
OK, Act L stumped me.
I get the gist of the law, but what is dringinge?
And as an aside, what's with the complaining about a cite instead of a quote? Milproguy had a link in there (unless edited in by a mod later?). And even without it, just pasting a phrase into your favorite search engine is quick and easy (except on a phone maybe). He gave good information and identified where he trimmed text off. Strikes me as the same hard-headedness that convinces people to whine about clips vs mags, or which version of CCW/CPL/CHC/LTC/CWP/whatever is correct. My first permission slip was a CHL (Oregon), so I often default to that.
This nit-picking probably comes off fairly hostile to new users.
I get the gist of the law, but what is dringinge?
And as an aside, what's with the complaining about a cite instead of a quote? Milproguy had a link in there (unless edited in by a mod later?). And even without it, just pasting a phrase into your favorite search engine is quick and easy (except on a phone maybe). He gave good information and identified where he trimmed text off. Strikes me as the same hard-headedness that convinces people to whine about clips vs mags, or which version of CCW/CPL/CHC/LTC/CWP/whatever is correct. My first permission slip was a CHL (Oregon), so I often default to that.
This nit-picking probably comes off fairly hostile to new users.
Because it is both useful, courteous and an OCDO rule.
"CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc. "
Elkad
Regular Member
Milpro posted the law quote (post #33) at 11-08-2011, 12:27 PM, (and edited it the same minute). Even if the link wasn't there, he had "Section 95-3-1, Mississippi Code of 1972" in the quote. But the link IS there, so unless a mod put it in later (invisibly), it was there the whole time.
Then he got asked for a cite (timestamped several minutes later)
He gave the link again, and got asked for a cite a 2nd time.
So the question remains. Was the link there originally (in post #33), or was it edited in after the fact, with no identifying time/date stamp? If it was edited in, by who?
Then he got asked for a cite (timestamped several minutes later)
He gave the link again, and got asked for a cite a 2nd time.
So the question remains. Was the link there originally (in post #33), or was it edited in after the fact, with no identifying time/date stamp? If it was edited in, by who?
It's not worth looking back to see who put what where.
Milpro cited a law concerning Concealed weapons when the discussion was carrying weapons in any manner but especially OC (Why would we discuss OC on an OC board).
He was told his cite wasn't applicable to OC and asked for a cite that was..he said something like "I just did".
Again he was asked for an applicable cite. There isn't one that covers OC.
The discussion was also a Va Statute. As Grapeshot pointed out, knowing what other states are doing is important so we can avoid their mistakes or follow their good laws. Other than that, it's inconsequential what they do.
We spent a lot of time trying to validate a Mississippi law that has no bearing on Virginia.