And I'm attempting to encourage people to, not try and represent themselves. Instead, seek legal competent representation. When ones future freedom is at stake it is no time to try and gain experience maneuvering through and fighting the legal and court systems; its time to hire someone who has done so and won cases (don't hire a looser to protect your future).
-
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.
Arrested for OC in MS....
- Thread starter rmodel65
- Start date
And I'm attempting to encourage people to, not try and represent themselves. Instead, seek legal competent representation. When ones future freedom is at stake it is no time to try and gain experience maneuvering through and fighting the legal and court systems; its time to hire someone who has done so and won cases (don't hire a looser to protect your future).
georg jetson
Regular Member
Requiring an attorney in certain circumstances is no excuse to remain ignorant of the legal process in general...
In any case the question still stands... If charged with a crime in Ms, what is proper process and what does one do if proper process is denied?
I've never heard of clear Kydex, but I believe polycarbonate would be a good candidate for a clear holster. Its stiff enough to handle the weight of a firearm.Reading through the posts in that thread on GPDO so far, apparently there's a Mississippi court ruling that being in a holster is considered "concealed in whole or in part", so requires a permit.
(They recognize a GA permit, so the person arrested should be good to go.)
But that got me to thinking... Is there such a thing as clear Kydex?(I'd buy one.)
Or could plexiglass be shaped into a workable holster?
Worst case, how about several layers of heavy vinyl?
If not being able to see all the pistol = concealment, then someone needs to come up with a clear holster so people in backward states like that can carry openly w/ no permit until the laws catch up with common sense.
georg jetson
Regular Member
I can't access the thread at Georgiapacking anymore... I guess they decided it would be best to have the defendant's posts removed from public viewing. Reasonable...
MSRebel54
Regular Member
Same here. It wants me to register as a member. I guess it was getting so many hits, they saw it as a way to get more membership.
Eeyore
Regular Member
Don't bother
We've kicked this idea around before, but I think it's a waste of time. A lawyer could argue that the side of the weapon towards your body is "partially hidden from view" and therefore qualifies as concealed. You have to remember, the problem isn't with our equipment, it's with the wording of the law. I have three theories on this:
1. Perhaps the wording is so bad because the law was written by graduates of the Mississippi "school" system (i.e. semi-literate morons). Regardless....
2. Judge Lee's written court opinion was a backhanded slap to the legislature saying, "Hey, look how stupidly-worded your law is. You might want too fix it." The legislature didn't get the hint, probably because they are the same semi-literate morons who wrote the bill in the first place. Or maybe....
3. They don't mind it being vague because the vagueness allows local law enforcement and prosecutors to "exercise their discretion" about who gets thumped on the head and hauled away to jail and who doesn't. If you're carrying a gun and you're the "wrong" person--and especially if you're the "wrong-colored" person--you get charged. If you're one of the good ol' boys whom the LEOs know from 'way back, well, we'll look the other way cuz we know he ain't meanin' no harm to nobody.
So nothing will change unless somebody gets charged and has enough money and determination to take it as far as it needs to go (i.e. void for vagueness in the MS Supreme Court) or somebody has enough money and influence in Jackson to mobilize lawmakers.
Unfortunately, I think neither of these is a likely possibility. I could point out that the fundamental creed of politicians is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, find a way to make money off the dysfunction." But that might make me sound cynical. ;-)
We've kicked this idea around before, but I think it's a waste of time. A lawyer could argue that the side of the weapon towards your body is "partially hidden from view" and therefore qualifies as concealed. You have to remember, the problem isn't with our equipment, it's with the wording of the law. I have three theories on this:
1. Perhaps the wording is so bad because the law was written by graduates of the Mississippi "school" system (i.e. semi-literate morons). Regardless....
2. Judge Lee's written court opinion was a backhanded slap to the legislature saying, "Hey, look how stupidly-worded your law is. You might want too fix it." The legislature didn't get the hint, probably because they are the same semi-literate morons who wrote the bill in the first place. Or maybe....
3. They don't mind it being vague because the vagueness allows local law enforcement and prosecutors to "exercise their discretion" about who gets thumped on the head and hauled away to jail and who doesn't. If you're carrying a gun and you're the "wrong" person--and especially if you're the "wrong-colored" person--you get charged. If you're one of the good ol' boys whom the LEOs know from 'way back, well, we'll look the other way cuz we know he ain't meanin' no harm to nobody.
So nothing will change unless somebody gets charged and has enough money and determination to take it as far as it needs to go (i.e. void for vagueness in the MS Supreme Court) or somebody has enough money and influence in Jackson to mobilize lawmakers.
Unfortunately, I think neither of these is a likely possibility. I could point out that the fundamental creed of politicians is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, find a way to make money off the dysfunction." But that might make me sound cynical. ;-)
I know its a waste of time for OC. I was suggesting a different material for a holster. Polycarbonate just happens to be clear. A prosecutor could argue that the bluing or finish on a firearm conceals it in part. I think the "or in part" comes from when a criminal would cover (with clothing) the exposed portion of a firearm while holstered, thus only the holster is visible to the public. Depending on the holster design, it could blend in with clothing.
It would seem that a holster doesn't conceal a firearm in part because a holster is readily recognized as something associated with a firearm. But a shirt tail covering the exposed portion of a holstered gun would conceal it in part since a shirt isn't readily recognized as a firearm accessory. That's my theory on 97-37-1's origin. It seems reasonable.
DocDaddy
Regular Member
G.J. and MSRebel54,
His lawyer advised him to remove the thread as he had way too much detail posted for all to see. As with most cases, once a lawyer gets involved, they normally advise whoever it is to remove public posting and/or edit information that is released about a case.
His lawyer advised him to remove the thread as he had way too much detail posted for all to see. As with most cases, once a lawyer gets involved, they normally advise whoever it is to remove public posting and/or edit information that is released about a case.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Anybody know what happened to this gentleman. Is there a disposition in the case? Has a lawsuit been filed?
EDIT - It appears his case was dismissed... the thread was re-activated here:
http://georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=62481&start=440
Last edited:
4sooth
Regular Member
Louisiana had this "partially concealed" foolishness for many years. State v Bias (1885) said that partially concealed was "concealed". This lasted until 1975 when State v Fluker 311 So. 2nd 863, came along. Under La. Revised Statutes (1950) the legislature changed the law to "Illegal Carrying of a Weapon". Note "weapon" and not firearm. In this case the trial judge said that given the dark color of the gun and the holster, the time of day (dark), the mans body was bladed away from the officer, that the gun was effectively concealed. Under the new statute the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that "if an object can be identified for what it is, it is not concealed." For a judge to rule that something is concealed just because ALL of it cannot be seen is so ludicrous as to question their mental capacity. In State v Bias, this was never enforced against whites--only blacks. As time went along, it was used to keep anyone not politically connected from bearing arms--period. Mississippi's law would change with a challenge which shook the real issue above the states' head. Miss. constitution recognizes an individual right--since SCOTUS has ruled several times that when a right is recognized the citizen must have a way to "freely" exercise the right. No fees, licenses, permits, or schemes. Since Miss has a permit system for concealed carry--then the free option would be "open carry". To fight this in the court system would be expensive--but I believe once the state sees they can't win the law will change.