overview of Mississippi's new open carry law

Discussion in 'Mississippi Gun Forum' started by DCriswell, May 6, 2013.

  1. The1Monster

    The1Monster New Member

    33
    0
    0
    Again, the people who open carry don't tend to fit your racial profiling. You're doing nothing but making yourself look like an *** for trying to beat this horse.

    There are blacks and Hispanics everywhere. Open carriers tend to be middle class white people.
     
  2. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,150
    1
    0
    Funny enough, a buddy of mine was expressing a similar concern to your example to a deputy last week and then related the conversation to me. Third hand translation: Any "suspicious person" can be questioned/"interviewed" now, and will remain subject to a similar interrogative even when they are allowed by law to "open carry" a firearm. IOW, if a deputy passes a row of people displaying "colors", gang signs, gang tattoos (presumably not butterflies), and similar "gang activity" items, that deputy can stop and chat the guys up and fish for a reasonable reason to run their ID's for warrants and such.

    I don't know about the Hispanic farm hands; I guess they will watch for guys with 5 gallon buckets and chicken cages? :p
     

  3. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    We should get a final answer today if Kidd doesn't try to drag this out any longer.
     
  4. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    He put a permanent injunction on it so now a new bill would have to be written & quite possibly suffer the same fate. "Unconstitutionally vague" is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while. It's all about money, the justice system needs criminals & open carry would sure put a dent in it.
     
  5. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,150
    1
    0
    I'm still not 100% clear on how a circuit court judge in Hinds county can put the whole state on hold, legally?

    I wonder what the latest is on Tate County (lived there, booooring), since their Sheriff had said he would go ahead with the open carry allowance? http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/22726702/desoto-and-tate-co-to-allow-open-carry
     
  6. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    I think he stirred up a legal hornets nest. There were 350 to 400 pissed off people protecting he first time & the majority open carried to the event. I'll be damned if one person decides what's good enough for the whole but then again, I've been damned plenty.
     
  7. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    Aside from the justice system I think they're worried that nobody will buy permits anymore. What's unconstitutional is having to pay to exercise a right.
     
  8. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    I just called the Bateville Highway Patrol Office to verify whether or not if it's ok to open carry with a permit, she said no. Is she misinformed or am I?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2013
  9. The1Monster

    The1Monster New Member

    33
    0
    0
    She is. Contact a lawyer.
     
  10. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    I just got off the phone with with DA's office, she says I can. Seems though that it'd be troublesome depending on how informed a cop might be about it. Still, I didn't get a G21 to sit in the safe.
     
  11. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,150
    1
    0
    Given that article about Desoto and Tate County Sheriff's going ahead with OC, it sounds like your little corner of MS, at least, is ready to go ahead.

    I don't know if I would start with that G21; they might confiscate it in error and then not be able to figure out which one was yours and which was theirs. ;)


    I still think I will get a western rig and carry my black powder revolver sometimes. :D
     
  12. The1Monster

    The1Monster New Member

    33
    0
    0
    Unfortunately many cops simply don't know (all) the laws they're tasked with enforcing. Sometimes this is a failing on them or their department, sometimes they allow personal opinion to get in the way (I think that should be illegal, so it must be!), but usually it's the simple fact that there are so many laws on the books that it's impossible to know them all. Even lawyers, who's job sometimes means life or death, quite literally, for a client, use massive volumes of reference materials, assistants, and request opinions, help, and pick the minds other lawyers on legal matters where they may have more experience. This is also why you have family law attorneys, real estate attorneys, criminal law attorneys, personal injury attorneys, divorce attorneys (not always falling into the family law category), and so on. To expect any one single cop to know all the laws of their jurisdiction would just not be fair. But then...I could go on for days about how they should be able to and the real problem is that we're all over regulated and over legislated.

    Kudos for double checking with the DA. Bear in mind, that would be the one to press charges against you on the public's behalf if you walk the wrong side of the line, so having their opinion is a damn good idea.

    With such a hot topic current event for your state though, you would think she'd (at the highway patrol) have already been informed. That would just be responsibly prudent.
     
  13. Gizord1

    Gizord1 New Member

    859
    0
    0
    It got blocked, again.
     
  14. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo Active Member

    1,488
    0
    36
    Hopefully I'm not going too far off topic by asking, are we allowed a backup? How many is one allowed on his person?
     
  15. Gizord1

    Gizord1 New Member

    859
    0
    0
    I wondered the same thing
     
  16. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,539
    7,302
    113

    Attached Files:

  17. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,150
    1
    0
  18. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,539
    7,302
    113
    The status of the Mississippi ‘open carry’ law as of August 8, 2013. For those not familiar with Mississippi counties, Hinds county is the county that the city of Jackson is in.

    ellis

    http://www.mississippigunnews.com/ms-open-carry-law-is-now-in-the-hands-of-the-state-supreme-court/

    MS “open carry” law is now in the hands of the State Supreme Court

    August 8, 2013 - By Dana, Laws and Legislation -

    Now we wait

    Attorney Lisa Mishune Ross who represents DA Robert Shuler Smith and the handful of Hinds County Constables who have been “confused” by House Bill 2, filed a rambling and mostly irrelevant brief with the MS Supreme Court supporting Judge Winston Kidd’s injunction against House Bill 2. After reading her brief I am concerned that we are left completely uninformed of Ms Ross’ stand on dueling.

    Ms Ross proposes to address three issues in her brief:
    A. Whether the phrase “called not be called into question” [ I believe she means "shall not be called into question"] means the Mississippi Legislature cannot place reasonable restrictions, consistent with public safety and Article 3, § 12, on the right to keep and bear arms in public?

    B. Whether House Bill 2 is unconstitutionally vague on its face as a matter of law? .

    C. Whether Judge Kidd violated the Separation of Powers Doctrine?

    Ms Ross begins her argument with the MS Constitution Article 3, Section 12;
    “[T] he right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in the aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called into question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.”

    She spends a great deal of time on the phrase “shall not be called into question” and attempts to make a point that this phrase does not limit the government from placing “reasonable limitations consistent with public safety on the right to keep and bear arms.” She continues further to site several court cases where the U.S. Supreme Court has issued opinions supporting governments ability to impose limitations on the “right to keep and bear arms” Her point seems to be that she and her clients are distraught because House Bill 2 did not outline limitations on citizens right to keep and bear arms.

    They and Judge Kidd want the Legislature to outline in the bill who can and can not carry weapons openly. The problem with this is that House Bill 2 does not address open carry of weapons, it simply defines “concealed”. Other laws address the issue of who can and can not carry a weapon.

    The second point in Ms Ross’ brief is her attempt to show that House Bill 2 is “unconstitutionally vague”. Her first point on this matter is a claim that there has been confusion among the population on House Bill 2. She quotes Attorney General Hood in an interview where he stated, there has been, “quite a bit of confusion” about House Bill 2. The problem with that is Judge Kidd, Ms Ross and her clients are the source of that confusion. This I believe has been their tactic all along. They spread ideas about House Bill 2 that they know are false and cry on TV about how confused they are, then go to court and claim the bill is confusing.

    She goes on to propose that House Bill 2 is vague when it states that a weapon is not concealed if the “pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible.” Ms Ross states that she believes this is confusing because she can not determine if this applies to the pistol or the holster being “wholly or partially visible”, although she does not seem to have any problem understanding the old definition that reads “wholly or partially concealed”. In her argument she is taking one phrase out of context and then claiming it is not clear.

    The entire section she is referring too states:

    For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and shall not include any weapon listed in subsection (1) of this section, including, but not limited to, a loaded or unloaded pistol carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.

    I am not an english teacher but when I read this definition in context of the entire bill it is apparent to me that “wholly or partially visible” is referring to the weapon. I’ve been told that the subject of this sentence is “weapon” so it is reasonable to assume and grammatically correct to assume “wholly or partially visible” is referring to the weapon.

    Ms Ross ends her brief with a defense of Judge Kidd’s actions and counters the claim that he has violated the separation of powers principle. In her defense she list several past opinions of the Court that emphasis the importance the Court places on judicial independence. She argues that the judicial branch has the authority to “say what the law is” and that is what Judge Kidd has done. But it seems to me that Judge Kidd did not say what the law is but rather stated what he wants to law to be. He told the Legislature that he did not like the law they passed and insist that they change it to meet his qualifications.

    My question is, If Judge Kidd’s ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, does the Legislature need to ask Judge Kidd if any revision to House Bill 2 is acceptable to him before anything is passed next legislative session?
     
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,150
    1
    0