georg jetson
Regular Member
Then do it... I've noticed that just about every time you make a claim about the law, you are wrong. Dig deep please...
-
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.
Bad LEO encounter in Holly Springs.
- Thread starter mjd1978
- Start date
Then do it... I've noticed that just about every time you make a claim about the law, you are wrong. Dig deep please...
MSRebel54
Regular Member
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:
techmanchuck
Regular Member
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.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
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.
4angrybadgers
Regular Member
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.)
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:
I've heard of one case on this forum that would better define "or in part" than any other case or opinion I've heard of. Someone was convicted of carrying a concealed knife and supposedly the judge said if it was in a holster on the belt instead of in a pocket it would have been ok. I would love to have a copy of that case to read. Other than that I do not KNOW if anyone has been charged under 97 for anything near carrying in a normal holster. I'm not saying such a charge or court case has never happened just that I have no real knowledge of it. Until that changes I will look to the MS Constitution for interpreting the extent of codified statutes, for that is the only way.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
4angrybadgers:
I appreciate your comment, I really do. Now that's the way to do it, not like some other people. You admit that it's most likely been done, and unless I want to take the time and effort to go digging in court cases, which I could do, almost everyone knows that it has been done. I mean heck, *I* was charged with carrying a concealed weapon under 97-37-1, and it was a knife, not even a gun! I mean do I have to PROVE it? I mean dang, I'll go to the local judge and ask him if you guys INSIST, but that shouldn't even be necessary. It's happened in all kinds of jurisdictions, all over the state of Mississippi. That's what I meant by the sky is blue. It's as plain as day, that's WHY the law is written that way, just so they CAN charge you with it.
Now, if you insist, I WILL go to the judge, and ask him have you ever convicted anyone of carrying a concealed weapon in a holster? I will bet money right now, that I will get a "yes". I mean it's just a couple of miles down the road for me and my Marantz. But are you really going to make me do that, since you KNOW the charge has been levied before? Let's just assume that it has been done, like we assume the sky is blue.
I appreciate your comment, I really do. Now that's the way to do it, not like some other people. You admit that it's most likely been done, and unless I want to take the time and effort to go digging in court cases, which I could do, almost everyone knows that it has been done. I mean heck, *I* was charged with carrying a concealed weapon under 97-37-1, and it was a knife, not even a gun! I mean do I have to PROVE it? I mean dang, I'll go to the local judge and ask him if you guys INSIST, but that shouldn't even be necessary. It's happened in all kinds of jurisdictions, all over the state of Mississippi. That's what I meant by the sky is blue. It's as plain as day, that's WHY the law is written that way, just so they CAN charge you with it.
Now, if you insist, I WILL go to the judge, and ask him have you ever convicted anyone of carrying a concealed weapon in a holster? I will bet money right now, that I will get a "yes". I mean it's just a couple of miles down the road for me and my Marantz. But are you really going to make me do that, since you KNOW the charge has been levied before? Let's just assume that it has been done, like we assume the sky is blue.
Last edited:
4angrybadgers
Regular Member
It seems that you're interchangeably using "charged" and "convicted" in the same paragraph. I don't doubt that someone's been charged (there have been enough similar cases in other states that I'm not surprised), but a conviction is what makes case law, and what matters to our discussion.
Again, you say "almost everyone knows that it has been done", but that isn't the case here. That's why we're asking for proof of your claim - I (and others) haven't read of any actual convictions of an OCer under 97-37-1.
And if you do ask a judge whether he's sentenced anyone for OC under 97-37-1, make sure it's an actual OC case, and not just some gangbanger trying to (really) illegally conceal who accidentally exposed his gun for a minute.
Last edited:
I'd like something I can read or a name of a case that I can try to find.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Ok, no problem. Give me a week to get up with the judge and I'll have your proof. But it'll probably be him SAYING (I'll upload the audio) he's convicted people, I don't know how I'd get written evidence of it.
Court cases and decisions are a matter of public record, so posting an audio of the judge's response would hardly be needed and might be bad form - you only need reference to the cases.
Lower court decisions are not binding on other courts in any event. On the other hand, a decision from an appellate court would have merit.
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Ok, I'll walk around open carrying and pretend I don't have a permit until I get arrested. I hope that will be sufficient.
And if I DON'T get arrested I'll let you know.
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Court cases and decisions are a matter of public record, so posting an audio of the judge's response would hardly be needed and might be bad form - you only need reference to the cases.
Lower court decisions are not binding on other courts in any event. On the other hand, a decision from an appellate court would have merit.
Why not pursue the court records? Should not be too hard to ask for such references if you have that kind of a relationship with the judge.
Not getting arrested under the conditions described proves nothing.
georg jetson
Regular Member
If you have rapport with the judge, then you can ask if he would direct the clerk of court to search for cases of interest to you.
What he says about whether he's convicted ocers under the concealed law is proof of nothing.
MKEgal
Regular Member
Where's the statute saying I'm allowed to breathe?Daylen said:
Or walk around the block?
Or go barefoot?
Why would I be looking for permission from the gov't to do anything?
I should be concerned with the gov't trying to make rules saying I can't do something.
I'm not sure. Some people seem to want a law to point to saying they have permission to do an activity if it is something most people don't do. I suspect it has something to do with taboo.
georg jetson
Regular Member
A conviction does NOT make case law... unless, of course, that conviction leads to an appeal. PUBLISHED decisions at the SUPERVISORY level may be considered stare decisis. However, the facts of a case where an ocer has been convicted OR acquitted may provide some clue as to how a specific court may rule in future cases.
I've searched Google Scholar and the MS. supervisory court's website and found nothing oc relevant. I'm sure I'm not the only one hear to do this so there's no surprise, right? Most cases involving 97-37-1 appear to concern convicted felons in possession of a deadly weapon.
Here's the only case that I found where a person was convicted of 97-37-1 and then had a successful appeal. This case involved a partially concealed handgun in a car, something I think that has been revised by statute since the disposition of the case.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...ealed+mississippi+"97+37+1"&hl=en&as_sdt=4,25
georg jetson
Regular Member
It has o do with people not having a basic understanding of our legal system.
4angrybadgers
Regular Member
Derp, you're right... Thank you for the correction.
Yes, concealed carry in you own vehicle is specifically OK according to 97-37-1.
Last edited:
Derp, you're right... Thank you for the correction.
Yes, concealed carry in you own vehicle is specifically OK according to 97-37-1.
This was not the case at that time. The law changed to allow carry in any fashion in a vehicle regardless of concealment. For a long time the only way to carry concealed was when "on a journey" or when one has a reasonable fear for life and limb. And it seems in his case they used the "on a journey" defense. But of course this case has nothing to do with OC; it does show the decent history of vehicle carry in MS.