| Author | Post |
|---|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 05:46 am |
|
We hear a lot about original intent in relation to the U.S Constitution but what about the Mississippi Constitution? Are there any documents similar to the Federalist Papers that explain the intent of sections of the Mississippi Constitution. It is interesting to see how the Mississippi Constitution has changed over the years in regards to the right to keep and bear arms. Here's what I mean.
Mississippi Constitution of 1817, Article 1, Section 23.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.
Mississippi Constitution of 1832, Article 1, Section 23.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the state.
Mississippi Constitution of 1868, Article 1, Section 15.
All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.
Mississippi Constitution of 1890, Article 3, 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.
Prior to 1868 the right to "keep" as well as bear arms was not mentioned. Granted the people of that day understood that possesion of arms was implied but can you imagine how the "right to bear arms" would be interpreted in today's climate?
It is obvious that in 1890 the government wanted the power to place restrictions on concealed carry that were not in place before. The question is why? We all know about the bizarre 70's ruling that viewed a holstered firearm as partially concealed but what about the original intent of Article 3, Section 12? It is obvious to anyone who takes Article 3, Section 12 at face value that open carry cannot be not prohibited by the legislature. There had to be some historical rational for the change about concealed carry but the apparent intent is that the government would have the power to make sure that all armed people would be readily identifiable unless given special permission by the legislature. Anyone know of any documentation about the changes in our state constitution?
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 04:46 pm |
|
Yes, the constitutional convention responsible for the current version did, indeed, alter the definition, albeit maybe not for the best.
Why don't you pose some interesting questions to His Highness, Jim Hood, along with some of the muckity mucks in the state legislature, as well as the governor, himself?
Should make for some interesting reading.
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:16 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Why don't you pose some interesting questions to His Highness, Jim Hood, along with some of the muckity mucks in the state legislature, as well as the governor, himself?
That is my ultimate intention but we know what the AG will say already. Just using this forum as a sounding board and thought it might make a good discussion.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 07:41 pm |
|
What WOULD be interesting is to bombard that talk radio station in Jackson, hijack the conversation away from their usual soap opera/Oprah format.
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 10:46 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: What WOULD be interesting is to bombard that talk radio station in Jackson, hijack the conversation away from their usual soap opera/Oprah format.
Not familiar with the station you're referring to. I don't get Jackson talk radio where I'm at unless you are talking about the MPB stations that I don't bother listening to.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Jun 21st, 2009 10:59 pm |
|
I pick it up via the internet.
No, it's not "public" broadcasting.
Later in the week, I'll try to kick it back up.
When I called in a year or so ago, the host was downright hostile to OC, told me to get a permit or "I'll see ya in jail."
Really.
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 02:02 pm |
|
Do you know the station call numbers or frequency? Also is it a specific program and host?
Back on topic. I noticed something between the first two versions of the State Constitution that I thought interresting.
Mississippi Constitution of 1817, Article 1, Section 23.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the State.
Mississippi Constitution of 1832, Article 1, Section 23.
Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the state.
The insertion of the preposition "of" appears to be for the purpose of making a clear distinction between the "defence of himself" and the "defence of the State" as if someone realized that the phrase, "in defence of himself and the State," could be construed to mean that "defence of himself" was only authorized when engaged in "defense of the State." It would be interesting to see documentation concerning the reasons the changes were made. Still looking but haven't found anything.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 02:08 pm |
|
Naw, not sure of the call or freq.
I'll find it, trust me.
EVERY word drafted by a lawyer has a specific meaning. Yes, the additional word added DOES alter the meaning, at least to me.
Reminds me of the time a Louisiana state senator, accused of bribery, stood on the steps of the capitol and said "at NO time did I ever accept illegal money."
True. The money he later was proven to have accepted was NOT "illegal" money, as it was not counterfeit. The money,itself, was quite legal (by today's standard).
It's just that the jury felt he accepted it in an unlawful manner.
But what the senator/lawyer said was accurate.
Lawyers...............
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 03:53 pm |
|
It's a morning show with JT and Dave, "supertalk" is the station's nickname.
Comes on at 10, I believe.
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 06:11 pm |
|
| Thanks, I'll look into it.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 06:25 pm |
|
One of them is VERY anti-OC.
If you want to set a date, we can both call in within minutes of each other.
You lead, I'll follow up behind your call.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:30 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
When I called in a year or so ago, the host was downright hostile to OC, told me to get a permit or "I'll see ya in jail."
Really.
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere."
|
mark edward marchiafava
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 22nd, 2009 08:31 pm |
|
That would aptly describe the whack jobs over at bayoushooters.
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 12:20 am |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: If you want to set a date, we can both call in within minutes of each other.
You lead, I'll follow up behind your call.
Once I know what I'm dealing with I'll give that some thought. I don't want to waste my time arguing with a fence post. It would have to be on a weekend or when I had a day off since I am normally working during that time frame.
I'm beginning to get the idea that finding historical documentation on the "why" of the constitutional changes isn't going to be easy. (At least via the web). My hope was to find some clear documentation that the intent of the 1890 changes wasn't to infringe on open carry. I'm still hoping one of my Mississippi brethren can help point me in the right direction.
|
Johnny_B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 03:22 am |
|
JT wrote:
I'm beginning to get the idea that finding historical documentation on the "why" of the constitutional changes isn't going to be easy. (At least via the web). My hope was to find some clear documentation that the intent of the 1890 changes wasn't to infringe on open carry. I'm still hoping one of my Mississippi brethren can help point me in the right direction.
Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records 
|
JT
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 129 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 04:39 am |
|
Johnny_B wrote: Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records
Yeah, I know we fight an uphill battle with case law but how do we get that changed without a court case or a constitutional amendment? The legislature and governor would at minimum need to change the law to define concealed carry properly. My hope is that when we write our state legislators and governor concerning the needed change we can point out more than just the common sense aspects. I haven't even been able to find the full text of the ruling that defined "partially concealed" outside the bounds of three dimensional vision.Last edited on Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 04:40 am by JT
|
Johnny_B
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 23rd, 2009 05:40 am |
|
JT wrote: Johnny_B wrote: Wish I could help ya, but court law isn't on our side, and the internet doesn't like Mississippi that much for records
Yeah, I know we fight an uphill battle with case law but how do we get that changed without a court case or a constitutional amendment? The legislature and governor would at minimum need to change the law to define concealed carry properly. My hope is that when we write our state legislators and governor concerning the needed change we can point out more than just the common sense aspects. I haven't even been able to find the full text of the ruling that defined "partially concealed" outside the bounds of three dimensional vision.
I haven't found the full case opinion from the SCOMs, but I'm pretty sure they've ruled that way knowing how backwoods backwards this place can be sometimes
|
Current time is 02:41 am | |
|
