How can I exercise my Constitutional right to bear arms in Mississippi?

[georg jetson]

imported post

JT wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

I'm going to disagree with your last statement. There is ALWAYS remedy. Would someone here be willing to post a link to the court case causing the trouble? I looked on the MS. SC website, but their online records appear no older than 1997.

You can find the text of the ruling here.

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum32/28581.html

Your right that there is a remedy. It will take a favorable court case or a change of legislation. The frustration of the OP was the unwillingness ofthe powers that be to explain the law as currently applied. They won't at present.

Thanks for the link... Interesting case.

I intend to take some time with this, but I did notice initially that there was NO attempt in the ruling to define "partial concealment". Why would there be, the guns were under the hood!! The concealment matter was taken up in a concurring opinion... which has the same affect in law that the dissenting opinion has... none. It appears to me that Justice Lee was trying to indicate that the statute in question had issues, but only succeeded in confusion. Hey... some attorneys prepare shabby briefs... judges are just robed attorneys. Hell, he had subject / verb agreement issues "This provision and exemption have been a part of our law".

Another point to consider is that "we do not proceed de novo. Rather, our scope of review is limited. We consider all of the evidence before the Youth Court in the light most favorable to the State." This alone can preclude this case as precedent depending on state law. If I were a MS. citizen I would research this point!!

The most glaring issue I see is that Mr. Tucker PD didn't challenge the constitutionality of the statute his clients were being accused of violating. So...

The questions that need to be asked and answered are...

Has the statute in question be challenged as constitutional?

If the Ms. Constitution gives the authority of regulating concealed weapons to the legislature then who gets to define the word "concealed"?

If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, must the citizen be charged with violating said law in order to gain standing to challenge?

These questions are NOT rhetorical.

 

[JT]

imported post

georg jetson wrote:

Has the statute in question be challenged as constitutional?

Not to my knowledge.

georg jetson wrote:

If the Ms. Constitution gives the authority of regulating concealed weapons to the legislature then who gets to define the word "concealed"?

Good question. The dicta from the concurring opinion is most often cited as the authority. The legislature did not define concealment "whole or in part"in the concealed carry statute (§ 45-9-101)or in the crimes statute (§ 97-37-1). The concealed carry statute does contain a statement saying that it cannot be construed to authorized "open and unconcealed carry" of a weapon (Paragraph 18).Once again the terminology is notdefined.

georg jetson wrote:

If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, must the citizen be charged with violating said law in order to gain standing to challenge?

Without a means to gain a declaratory ruling from the statecourts that would appear to be the case. I have yet to find a means for requesting a declaratory ruling under MS law.

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

imported post

JT wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

Has the statute in question be challenged as constitutional?

Not to my knowledge.

georg jetson wrote:

If the Ms. Constitution gives the authority of regulating concealed weapons to the legislature then who gets to define the word "concealed"?

Good question. The dicta from the concurring opinion is most often cited as the authority. The legislature did not define concealment "whole or in part"in the concealed carry statute (§ 45-9-101)or in the crimes statute (§ 97-37-1). The concealed carry statute does contain a statement saying that it cannot be construed to authorized "open and unconcealed carry" of a weapon (Paragraph 18).Once again the terminology is notdefined.

georg jetson wrote:

If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, must the citizen be charged with violating said law in order to gain standing to challenge?

Without a means to gain a declaratory ruling from the statecourts that would appear to be the case. I have yet to find a means for requesting a declaratory ruling under MS law.

Rule 57 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides for declaratory judgment actions in Mississippi state courts. I offer no comment on whom might be the proper parties to name (e.g., the state AG, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs, etc.) as defendants.

 

[georg jetson]

imported post

Below in BOLD...

JT wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

Has the statute in question be challenged as constitutional?

Not to my knowledge.

This should and can be verified.

georg jetson wrote:

If the Ms. Constitution gives the authority of regulating concealed weapons to the legislature then who gets to define the word "concealed"?

Good question. The dicta from the concurring opinion is most often cited as the authority. The legislature did not define concealment "whole or in part"in the concealed carry statute (§ 45-9-101)or in the crimes statute (§ 97-37-1). The concealed carry statute does contain a statement saying that it cannot be construed to authorized "open and unconcealed carry" of a weapon (Paragraph 18).Once again the terminology is notdefined.

Find out who has the legal authority to define a word in the Ms. Const... or any constitution...

georg jetson wrote:

If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, must the citizen be charged with violating said law in order to gain standing to challenge?

Without a means to gain a declaratory ruling from the statecourts that would appear to be the case. I have yet to find a means for requesting a declaratory ruling under MS law.

Geez... I actually looked for this before I posted the question. Didn't find it. This is not the first time I've experienced procedural issues with Ms. law. My first thought is that there are serious due process issues here. Have you checked into this possibility?

 

[georg jetson]

imported post

WVCDL wrote:

JT wrote:

georg jetson wrote:

Has the statute in question be challenged as constitutional?

Not to my knowledge.

georg jetson wrote:

If the Ms. Constitution gives the authority of regulating concealed weapons to the legislature then who gets to define the word "concealed"?

Good question. The dicta from the concurring opinion is most often cited as the authority. The legislature did not define concealment "whole or in part"in the concealed carry statute (§ 45-9-101)or in the crimes statute (§ 97-37-1). The concealed carry statute does contain a statement saying that it cannot be construed to authorized "open and unconcealed carry" of a weapon (Paragraph 18).Once again the terminology is notdefined.

georg jetson wrote:

If the legislature enacts an unconstitutional law, must the citizen be charged with violating said law in order to gain standing to challenge?

Without a means to gain a declaratory ruling from the statecourts that would appear to be the case. I have yet to find a means for requesting a declaratory ruling under MS law.

Rule 57 of the Mississippi rules of Civil Procedure provides for declaratory judgment actions in Mississippi state courts. I offer no comment on whom might be the proper parties to name (e.g., the state AG, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs, etc.) as defendants.

Aahhh... thanks for pointing out our oversight... I'm sure the citizens in Ms. can handle the details...

 

[JT]

imported post

WVCDL wrote:

Rule 57 of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure provides for declaratory judgment actions in Mississippi state courts. I offer no comment on whom might be the proper parties to name (e.g., the state AG, prosecuting attorneys, sheriffs, police chiefs, etc.) as defendants.

Thanks. This is worth looking into.

 

[4angrybadgers]

imported post

Veeeery interesting... I'm rather busy these days but I'll try to read and really comprehend everything that's been posted so far. Perhaps there is hope for getting OC firmly declared legal in the near future.

 

[Chap]

I'm a little confused

I understand everyone who mentions OC wants to OC ie:for FREE because of the MS Constitution. OK I agree 100% Don't infringe on my rights..........

but

Well we have it better than most states in my humble opinion. The cost to get a MS FireArms Permit is APPROX.

$135 divided by 5 years = 27 bucks a year
$27 divided by 12 months = 2 dollars 25 cents a month
$2.25 divided by 28 days = .08 cents a day

For the money we get to conceal carry or plain view conceal carry (ie:in whole or in part) which equal OC. We don't need to worry about imprinting a weapon on our clothing ect......

Pretty sweet if you ask me, all for the cost of .08 cents a day. I'm happy with the wording at least until a Law comes out standardizing all 50 states to one OC/CC rule. :monkey:monkey:banana::banana:

Remember beware of what you ask for, they might take OUT "in whole and in part" then modify the MS Constitution so it says NO OC at all. :banghead::cuss::cuss:

 

[DCKilla]

"But" nothing, holding back becuase in might get worse is worthless. If the legislature throws down more restrictions, we'll fight that much harder. 8 cents a day is too much for liberty.

 

[MedicineMan]

Below in BOLD...

JT wrote:

I think we need to remember that there is BOTH the MS CODE and "Case Law" which has defined "concealed in whole or in part".

What we NEED to do is stop griping about it, and get a BILL passed to change the current Statute.

I'm sure you know some Legislators in your area, and I know some in mine.

Lets get one written up and introduced.
One with COMMON SENSE for a change.

 

[Venator]

I understand everyone who mentions OC wants to OC ie:for FREE because of the MS Constitution. OK I agree 100% Don't infringe on my rights..........

but

Well we have it better than most states in my humble opinion. The cost to get a MS FireArms Permit is APPROX.

$135 divided by 5 years = 27 bucks a year
$27 divided by 12 months = 2 dollars 25 cents a month
$2.25 divided by 28 days = .08 cents a day

For the money we get to conceal carry or plain view conceal carry (ie:in whole or in part) which equal OC. We don't need to worry about imprinting a weapon on our clothing ect......

Pretty sweet if you ask me, all for the cost of .08 cents a day. I'm happy with the wording at least until a Law comes out standardizing all 50 states to one OC/CC rule. :monkey:monkey:banana::banana:

Remember beware of what you ask for, they might take OUT "in whole and in part" then modify the MS Constitution so it says NO OC at all. :banghead::cuss::cuss:

Do you pay for your other rights? A right payed for is a privilege.

And your don't rock the boat, I'm a sheep remark is telling.

 

[Chap]

Maybe you should re read my post

First sentence in my post should not be too hard for you to digest.

"OK I agree 100% Don’t infringe on my rights.........."

What is hard to understand I agree 100% ???

But as MS code exist right now, real world...... we don't have much to complain about considering what other states are subjected too. Read NY or NJ state specifics even for concealed carry permit holders. (glad I don't live there)

MS FireArms Permit holders don't need to concern ourselves with OC/CC or imprinting a weapon on our clothing ect....... If we have a FireArms permit no hassle from cops not even if in a school zone since we are exempt in the state which issued our permit. (please provide me where I’m incorrect in this)

Again read my post, I in no way inferred we should stop trying to get MS Constitution recognized so that we can OC freely for free. I have 100% supported it as stated above.

I just made a real world observation as to how we compare to other states. Not too shabby as I stated earlier. I could care less what you think you read or what you think.

Your welcome to your opinion, I just state facts so if I’m incorrect in any facts please let me know.

Chap

P.S,

What does "And your don't rock the boat, I'm a sheep remark is telling." mean?

 

[MSRebel54]

I think we need to remember that there is BOTH the MS CODE and "Case Law" which has defined "concealed in whole or in part".

What we NEED to do is stop griping about it, and get a BILL passed to change the current Statute.

I'm sure you know some Legislators in your area, and I know some in mine.

Lets get one written up and introduced.
One with COMMON SENSE for a change.

Case law has certainly defined it. And although I don't still have the evidence (I so wish I did), in the early days of email, I actually got a reply from the AG's office that the MS SC had deemed that "partially concealed, was concealed".

However, no one seems to be willing to take this on, either an attorney on an unconstitutional basis, or a Mississippi lawmaker. And believe me, I've done my share of writing congresscritters.

As so many of you have noted, what needs to happen is one very simple little word change to 97-37-1. Simply amend it to remove the words, "or in part". It also would not hurt to change the word "allow" to "deny" in 45-9-101 as it refers to open carry. But one thing at a time. Maybe one day the time will be right, and our legislators will become Constitutionally aware. But I've learned not to hold my breath. I've also learned never to give up, for even a tree can be snapped by a big enough wind.

Some of you have had some EXCELLENT suggestions as to the wording of proposed code. Others have been somewhat convoluted and unnecessary, or redundant. My original post did exactly what it was intended to do, although I must admit it WAS a little emotional, by design. It was intended to call attention to the absurd and illogical way 97-37-1 is written, and the fact that it was written that way SPECIFICALLY to skirt the intention of Article 3 Section 12 of the Constitution. I don't recall the words saying that the legislature may regulate or forbid the carrying of "partly" concealed weapons.

And finally, to answer some of the comments that were off topic, but directed towards me none the less:

I do not CURRENTLY live in a trailer park.

The post WAS designed to get people thinking, and I intended to inject frustration into it.

It appears to have done exactly what it was intended to do, and all I can say is, "ya'll keep up the good work".

Every senator or rep I've written about 97-37-1 has refused to answer, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE ANSWERED ON OTHER TOPICS. Or maybe they're just not capable of answering, I don't know. Maybe you all will have better luck.

 

[MSRebel54]

Just curious, is there a reason you can't get a permit? A legality reason I mean? Or is this a philosophical issue?

I've had a Mississippi Firearms Permit since 1996. That doesn't mean I agree with having to ask the state for permission to exercise a right though. It is merely a convenience for me. Especially when I cross state lines.

No one in this state or any other state should have to ask the government for permission to defend their life, or the lives of those they love. Am I a hypocrite? Probably so. I just see it as a way to keep from spending years in jail while being able to continue to fight the good fight. I will be armed, and I will be carrying. If TPTB want to see a plastic card, so be it, I'll show them one. Because as you well know there are more of "them" than there are of "you", and they have more and bigger guns. Certainly MORE anyway. -Reb

 

[MSRebel54]

georg jetson wrote:
+1, especially on the guy doing his own research. I bet he gets food stamps also....somebody tell me...somebody give me an answer....****!!!

No, I do not get food stamps, not yet anyway. And I am familiar with what little case law there is out there that deals with "partly concealed". It boils down to this: It is either concealed or it's not. You can either tell what it is, or you are none the wiser. Kinda like being partly pregnant. There's no such thing.

So the law is absurd ON IT'S FACE. I don't even have to do research to figure that out. If you "partly conceal" a boat in your garage, do you think I don't know that it's a boat?

It's all a big game. Words in law don't necessarily mean what they mean in common sense. Blue is red, down is left, if you don't define blue or down in no uncertain terms.

I'll really consider applying for food stamps, as per your assumption. That could really help out on the grocery bill, but I doubt I'll qualify. Never hurts to try though, does it?

 

[MSRebel54]

Sorry Shawn, replied to the wrong guy. This was for georg jetson.

No, I do not get food stamps, not yet anyway. And I am familiar with what little case law there is out there that deals with "partly concealed". It boils down to this: It is either concealed or it's not. You can either tell what it is, or you are none the wiser. Kinda like being partly pregnant. There's no such thing.

So the law is absurd ON IT'S FACE. I don't even have to do research to figure that out. If you "partly conceal" a boat in your garage, do you think I don't know that it's a boat?

It's all a big game. Words in law don't necessarily mean what they mean in common sense. Blue is red, down is left, if you don't define blue or down in no uncertain terms.

I'll really consider applying for food stamps, as per your assumption. That could really help out on the grocery bill, but I doubt I'll qualify. Never hurts to try though, does it?

 

[4angrybadgers]

I've had a Mississippi Firearms Permit since 1996. That doesn't mean I agree with having to ask the state for permission to exercise a right though. It is merely a convenience for me. Especially when I cross state lines.

No one in this state or any other state should have to ask the government for permission to defend their life, or the lives of those they love. Am I a hypocrite? Probably so. I just see it as a way to keep from spending years in jail while being able to continue to fight the good fight. I will be armed, and I will be carrying. If TPTB want to see a plastic card, so be it, I'll show them one. Because as you well know there are more of "them" than there are of "you", and they have more and bigger guns. Certainly MORE anyway. -Reb

Not hypocritical, just working within the screwed-up system we have right now. Like you, I'm not keen on the idea of asking and paying for a permission slip, but I have one, because I'd rather be armed than not. Others absolutely refuse to get a permit on principle, and I respect that too.

 

[georg jetson]

I think we need to remember that there is BOTH the MS CODE and "Case Law" which has defined "concealed in whole or in part".

What we NEED to do is stop griping about it, and get a BILL passed to change the current Statute.

I'm sure you know some Legislators in your area, and I know some in mine.

Lets get one written up and introduced.
One with COMMON SENSE for a change.

There is no case law that I know of in MS. defining "concealed" or "concealed in whole or in part."

What ever happened to filing suit for a declaratory judgement?? See post 38 of this thread.

Gettin the law changed would be a productive strategy as well...

Make a 2 pronged attack.

 

[MSRebel54]

Is there any way one of you guys could type out a PDF or word file that explains what we would like in a bill to give "concealed" a definition? I'm not to good with thiskind of thing. That's why I ask.

I would like something so we can walk up to our rep and explain what we would like to happen. Mailing questions is not goodenough anymore.

Definition of concealed: Hidden from view. Not discernible. To prevent from being known or noticed.

Need I say more? There IS NO 'partly concealed'. It is either concealed or it isn't. It's a WORD game they played to circumvent the MS Constitution Article 3 Section 12, and they got slap away with it.

I'm not going to write a PDF or any other such, if a sane man doesn't know the difference between concealed and not concealed, then what business has he being a legislator? I don't think I have to explain the difference to anyone who has common sense.

But I will say this: Now that the "negroes" have all the rights everyone else does, this section of the code should be changed on principle alone.

 

[Daylen]

Actually, the concealed weapons law has nothing to do with racism (one of the very few gun control laws that don't). In the 1800's carrying concealed carry was described in the Alabama Courts as "the evil practice of carrying weapons concealed" (paraphrased). And the MS constitution specifically notes that CC can be controlled or prohibited by the legislature. It's this strange modern time where carrying is kinda taboo and OC is bigger taboo. Interestingly enough the alabama case noted above (Reid vs state) was about a sheriff carrying a concealed weapon (no exceptions for anyone and no permits OC only) and he was convicted.