• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

The ONLY way to TRULY "open carry" in Mississippi...

Neo

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
181
Location
Huntsville, AL, ,
Hmmm...I've never thought of that. I really like it, but it make take a court appearance to hash out the details! :)



Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
That clause doesn't mean that a Mississippi resident can claim Alabama privileges while OCing or whatever in MS. It just means that, say, my LA marriage license should be recognized as valid in MS (and any other state), and entitle me to whatever privileges a person with a MS marriage license would have.

edit: Wikipedia explains it better than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Constitution#Article_Four:_States.27_powers_and_limits
 
Last edited:

stungun

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
26
Location
South Mississippi
4angry...

Had you read past the second sentence on that Wikipedia page, you would have seen the fourth sentence that talks about Article 4, which is MUCH larger than the one line that I quoted.

The relevant Wikipedia line would be this one... Look again...

The "privileges and immunities" clause prohibits state governments from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of resident citizens (e.g., having tougher penalties for residents of Ohio convicted of crimes within Michigan).
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
4angry...

Had you read past the second sentence on that Wikipedia page, you would have seen the fourth sentence that talks about Article 4, which is MUCH larger than the one line that I quoted.

The relevant Wikipedia line would be this one... Look again...
I did read it before, and I stand by my assertion. The state is not discriminating against residents of other states in favor of its own residents.

Your stated scenario was to claim MS residency inside a car, and AL residency outside a car. It doesn't work like that. Holding licenses/IDs from multiple states opens up a whole can of (possibly illegal) worms, such as being able to vote multiple times in elections, and I seriously doubt you could manage to get a second state's license without the first one being invalidated. Also, for tax purposes you can only have one primary residence, so trying to claim multi-state residency is dicey and will be looked upon with much suspicion.

So then you're left with only being a resident in Mississippi (only a Mississippi ID/license). If MS prohibits OC (just assume it does for the sake of discussion), then it's prohibited for MS residents as well as residents of other states. Privileges & Immunities would only be an issue if MS allowed OC to its own residents, but made it a crime for other states' residents to OC just because they weren't MS residents.

See this relevant paragraph from the P&I page:
The Court went on to explain that the laws of one state would not become effective in another: "It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States." These sections of Paul v. Virginia are still good law, and were relied upon, for example, in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). Other portions of Paul v. Virginia were reversed in U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944). The Court has never deviated from the principle stated in Paul that the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV of the Constitution has no bearing on how a state treats its own citizens. In-state residents "have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause." United Building & Construction Trades Council v. Mayor and Council of Camden, 465 U.S. 208 (1984).

Emphasis mine.

The P&I clause has no bearing on how MS treats MS residents. It only affects how a state treats residents from another state. Therefore it's inapplicable to your theoretical situation.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
In regards to holding multiple licenses, see the MS Code 63-1-103, Article V (emphasis mine):
Upon application for a license to drive, the licensing authority in a party state shall ascertain whether the applicant has ever held, or is the holder of a license to drive issued by any other party state. The licensing authority in the state where application is made shall not issue a license to drive to the applicant if:

(1) The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been suspended by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such suspension period has not terminated.

(2) The applicant has held such a license, but the same has been revoked by reason, in whole or in part, of a violation and if such revocation has not terminated, except that after the expiration of one year from the date the license was revoked, such person may make application for a new license if permitted by law. The licensing authority may refuse to issue a license to any such applicant if, after investigation, the licensing authority determines that it will not be safe to grant to such person the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on the public highways.

(3) The applicant is the holder of a license to drive issued by another party state and currently in force unless the applicant surrenders such license.
 

stungun

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
26
Location
South Mississippi
4angry...

The Privileges & Immunities clause is not inapplicable to this theoretical situation, so long as people realize that ONLY THEY can choose where they are a resident of, or to what societies they might belong. It is NEVER the judgment of any corporate government franchise, nor any employee thereof. This right of yours comes from the First Amendment, and has been affirmed thru numerous Supreme Court cases.

Also... what is to stop you from getting an ID in Alabama? You shouldn't need a DL at all, if you knew how to exercise your right to travel... but that's a topic that we'll save for another decade, because this is a gun forum.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
4angry...

The Privileges & Immunities clause is not inapplicable to this theoretical situation, so long as people realize that ONLY THEY can choose where they are a resident of, or to what societies they might belong. It is NEVER the judgment of any corporate government franchise, nor any employee thereof. This right of yours comes from the First Amendment, and has been affirmed thru numerous Supreme Court cases.
You can choose what state you are a resident of, subject to that state's rules on residency. You cannot claim to be a MS resident inside your car, step outside the car, and immediately claim you are now an AL resident. The very idea is absurd, and if tested in court you'd be shot down faster than you can blink.

Also... what is to stop you from getting an ID in Alabama? You shouldn't need a DL at all, if you knew how to exercise your right to travel... but that's a topic that we'll save for another decade, because this is a gun forum.
A state-issued ID relies on the same rules as a DL, other than the obvious ones such as not requiring a driving test. Again, the state-issued ID (including a DL) allows you to pass ID checks for voting, etc. which you cannot do in multiple locations. So no, I wouldn't expect you to be able to get multiple state-issued IDs claiming residency in multiple states.


I was interested in discussing your ideas until you flew outside the bounds of reason with this talk of changing residency at will, and talk about "corporate government franchises". Good luck with that, because you wouldn't have anything but luck on your side if you tried to argue these points in court...
 
Last edited:

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
Don't be so sure....

And, btw... Since anybody with half a braincell would be willing to see my way, then I'm sure I'd be able to convince ONE person on a jury of 10-12 to find me not guilty of any criminal offense of which there was no injured party.

Not a gamble I'd be willing to take. Having lived in MS for almost 2 years, I'd be willing to bet that a jury of twelve could be convened with only half a braincell between them.
 

NRAMARINE

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
523
Location
Anywhere but here.
I'm sorry, but I don't need to ask for permission to carry a TOTALLY unconcealed gun on my person.

I DO NOT!!

It straight up says in the U.S. Constitution that I have the RIGHT. (A definition of a "RIGHT", btw, is something that you need NOT ask permission for... THAT would be a privilege, which is what people are doing when begging for a CCW permit.) It straight up says in the Mississippi Consitution that I have the RIGHT, yet Congress has the right to regulate concealed carry, which they do quite well.

Nowhere would a police officer, sheriff's deputy, prosecutor, jailer, judge, governor, etc. be capable of pointing to me the authority that states carrying a gun, which is TOTALLY unconcealed and open for all, is illegal without a CCW. Anybody with half a braincell knows that they should just outlaw open carrying if that's what they really want to do.

And, btw... Since anybody with half a braincell would be willing to see my way, then I'm sure I'd be able to convince ONE person on a jury of 10-12 to find me not guilty of any criminal offense of which there was no injured party.

I'm looking forward to the experience of open carrying in MS without a permit, but I'd still like to know whether you think the NAA w/ 1" or 1.5" barrel would be better for open carrying with the folding grip?? I just can't decide... :dude:

Agreed 100%. I would personally choose the belt buckle one for oc. (I carry a g19, or a Tauras judge myself depending on my environment, but that's me.) The uninitiated would simply assume it's a cool buckle and not think twice. Most wouldn't even notice it, IMHO. The folding handle one strikes me more as a pocket pistol. My opinion. ( What you actually asked for right?)
 

stungun

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
26
Location
South Mississippi
The thing is... I just couldn't fathom carrying any caliber weapon EVERY DAY besides a .22.

And if you're not going to carry it every day, then why carry at all??

I want to be prepared for all situations. Protecting my basic rights to life, liberty, & property are just extra benefits that come from carrying ANY gun for self-defense.

If you want to carry a .40 or .45 EVERY DAY... then go ahead. But it's just not my style.
 
Last edited:

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
The thing is... I just couldn't fathom carrying any caliber weapon EVERY DAY besides a .22.

And if you're not going to carry it every day, then why carry at all??

I want to be prepared for all situations. Protecting my basic rights to life, liberty, & property are just extra benefits that come from carrying ANY gun for self-defense.

If you want to carry a .40 or .45 EVERY DAY... then go ahead. But it's just not my style.

Then don't. I carry a P99 every day, works just fine.
 

stungun

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
26
Location
South Mississippi
Hmm... somebody deleted their post.

Right, I don't carry a gun every day. But if I did.... it would be a 22lr. And when I carried that 22lr, I promise you I would not be "asking permission" to do it.

I would simply ask the cop... are you questioning my right. If he questions my right to open carry, he has broken THE LAW.

SECTION 12.
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.

It's as simple as that. The second you ask for permission, YOU LOSE YOUR RIGHT!!! If I were in the habit of open carrying every day... and then I lost my wallet w/ weapons permit inside... YOU CANNOT "LEGALLY" OPEN CARRY UNTIL YOU GET A REPLACEMENT!!! That's just a joke to me. I'll go with section 12 of the MS Bill of Rights any day I so choose. Thanks for your opinion, tho. Your viewpoint on the capabilities of mankind -- government creating all life, all liberty, and all property -- is quite enlightening. :p
 

BudParker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Mechanicsburg, Mississippi, USA
ghglc.jpg

-OR-
NAABBG_1.jpg


. . . .

Why on earth would I PAY hundreds of $$$$ for a PRIVILEGE to own a PERMIT... when I already have the RIGHT to bear arms??

P.S. -- Did you know that we all have the Constitutional Right to form a militia??

Nobody would dare dispute that we have that right... but they want to dispute the issue over whether or not we have the right to protect ourselves and those around us?!?

Sadly, every level of government learned many, many years ago how to extract money out of their citizens pockets and place it into their coffers. Tax everything in sight, create permits for everything imaginable, fees, sales tax, and so forth. Most of us have no clue how much money we dole out to government every year. Many taxes are "built in" to products so you won't really know you're paying them. Oh, yea. Traffic fines. That is why judges rule that a holster is carrying a concealed weapon. They want a $250 fee for the privilege of exorcizing your rights.
 

BudParker

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
15
Location
Mechanicsburg, Mississippi, USA
Our Lack of Freedom

At some point we must come to the conclusion that most of our citizens tend to believe what any government official or entity can imagine in their conniving minds. This "Follow the Leader" mentality has us in the bind we are currently in. Our Constitutional rights have been ever so slowly dissolved by various and sundry elected and appointed officials. What happens is that a handful of politicians get together and create laws without regard of the unconstitutional actions they perpetrate upon the citizens. The citizens cannot come together to oppose these sitting usurpers of our rights.

A good example is our currency dilemma in America. In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act violated the Constitution by allowing a private corporation to control our money, rather than Congress. Soon, no more gold and silver standard. No wonder gold sells for nearly $2,000 an ounce when it used to sell for $20 from the late 1700's to around 1913. Our Second Amendment Rights have been whittled down for nearly one hundred years. What day in history did some revelation proclaim that you could not walk around armed? We still belly-ache about it, but can't seem to come together and correct the illegal actions of elected officials. Look at the criminal actions we tolerate in Washington, DC! Think what they could do if we were disarmed entirely. Oh, we will puff out our chests and bloviate about what we will do, but sadly we will do nothing. History since the Civil War shows us that.

So my point is this. What, exactly, precisely, do we do?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
---snip--- judges rule that a holster is carrying a concealed weapon.

Have always wanted to ask one of these judges, "when is carrying a gun not carried concealed."

Whether carried in a holster or by hand, hung by a string or laid on a table, part of the gun is concealed/not in view. No three dimension object can be viewed in total via a single glance.

Even if a gun is placed in a mirrored box, 100% will not be in view. :banghead:
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Hmm... somebody deleted their post.

Right, I don't carry a gun every day. But if I did.... it would be a 22lr. And when I carried that 22lr, I promise you I would not be "asking permission" to do it.

...

You would really trust your safety to a rim fire? A 22lr at that? I'd hope it would at least be a revolver. I'm glad you have a good understanding of the English language and constitution, we need more people to have a good understanding of both.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
That is why judges rule that a holster is carrying a concealed weapon.

That is simply not true! One judge has tried to inject such an opinion, this was not a majority opinion meaning it is not binding. The only thing binding about that case is the overall judgement which was that weapons concealed anywhere in a vehicle were considered concealed as far as 97-37-1 and that the defendants were not "on a journey". If you know of a real judgement stating that carrying openly where a casual observer can see the weapon, in a holster is considered concealed and needs a permit to be legal please help us out by pointing us to it. If you are simply repeating hearsay please stop.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
Have always wanted to ask one of these judges, "when is carrying a gun not carried concealed."

Whether carried in a holster or by hand, hung by a string or laid on a table, part of the gun is concealed/not in view. No three dimension object can be viewed in total via a single glance.

Even if a gun is placed in a mirrored box, 100% will not be in view. :banghead:

Thankfully, every judge that has tried to rule as such is retired and can be counted double on one hand with room to spare.

Edit: Well in MS anyway.
 
Last edited:

bigun220

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2011
Messages
67
Location
Soso, MS
Well, If one is concerned about the holster partially concealing their handgun, then they could just carry it in a zip lock bag. Which would look retarded, but unconcealed.
 
Top