| Author | Post |
|---|
93sr20det
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Gulfport, USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21st, 2007 11:41 pm |
|
| Hello everyone this is my first post. I am a relative new comer to the board but not to guns. i am 25 and some of my earliest memory's were of me and my dad cleaning and shooting guns (i must have been 3-4) and i have recently gotten back into them after a short hiatus. the other day a uniformed gulfport pd officer came into my store and asked if we had a few items and while i was helping him i asked him his "opinion" on open carry and he said "well as long as you have the permit it is ok". i said "no that is for concealed carry if I am not mistaken and i was wondering about open carry". he looked at me and i said "you know right there on your hip out there in the open... just like you guys" and he was kinda shocked. he said he was not aware of any law in gulfport but other cities could be different.
|
openryan
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 1602 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 21st, 2007 11:50 pm |
|
93sr20det wrote: Hello everyone this is my first post. I am a relative new comer to the board but not to guns. i am 25 and some of my earliest memory's were of me and my dad cleaning and shooting guns (i must have been 3-4) and i have recently gotten back into them after a short hiatus. the other day a uniformed gulfport pd officer came into my store and asked if we had a few items and while i was helping him i asked him his "opinion" on open carry and he said "well as long as you have the permit it is ok". i said "no that is for concealed carry if I am not mistaken and i was wondering about open carry". he looked at me and i said "you know right there on your hip out there in the open... just like you guys" and he was kinda shocked. he said he was not aware of any law in gulfport but other cities could be different. Laws are made to illegalize or outlaw things/actions. If there is no law pertaining to it, it can be deduced to be legal...
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 12:27 am |
|
93sr20det,
Welcome to OCDO.
It wouldn't be your first thought, but we've learned the hard way that police are not a reliable source for gun law or opinion. Unless you know the officer well and respect his opinion.
Some lie, some have it sideways, some seem to make it up, some seem to deliberately give misleading answers to discourage carry in some way or another.
Its best to look up the law yourself. If you have any questions about what you find, seek clarification from genuinely knowledgeable gun-rights people or an attorney.
One problem is an absence of law. It can take some looking to find something that isn't there. If your own search isn't turning up anything, then ask trustworthy sources.
|
Lonnie Wilson
State Researcher
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 09:51 am |
|
As far as I know, the caselaw in Mississippii pretty much states that a holster which conceals any part of the gun means that it's concealed and requires a MS Firearms Permit. To me, this makes MS a licensed open carry state on foot, completely legal in car without license due to extended domain laws there.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 04:58 pm |
|
Instead of starting a discussion with "case" law, why not start with the "supreme" law, the state constitution ?
Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."
How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.
|
93sr20det
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Gulfport, USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 05:20 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."
How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.
thank you for your reply you bring up a very good point. i need to print out article 3 and and have it if i ever decide to open carryLast edited on Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 05:21 pm by 93sr20det
|
openryan
State Researcher
| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | Indiana USA |
| Posts: | 1602 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Instead of starting a discussion with "case" law, why not start with the "supreme" law, the state constitution ?
Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."
How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.
I don't think there is anything wrong with citing the constitution for understanding the meaning of the law. However, I believe that case law will give you the insight as to how the judges rule on certain aspects. Case law can give you valuable learning experience at no expense to yourself.
|
Comp-tech
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 936 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 07:32 pm |
|
openryan wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote: Instead of starting a discussion with "case" law, why not start with the "supreme" law, the state constitution ?
Article 3, sec 12, clearly states every citizen has the *right* to bear arms. Note: it doesn't read "privilege." Once sec 12 lays it out in plain English that we have the right to bear arms, it THEN goes on to talk about *concealing* arms, two totally different animals. A weapon, in a holster, clearly visible AS a weapon, is not "concealed."
How this can be confusing to anyone is beyond me.
I don't think there is anything wrong with citing the constitution for understanding the meaning of the law. However, I believe that case law will give you the insight as to how the judges rule on certain aspects. Case law can give you valuable learning experience at no expense to yourself.
+1 ......I would also add that the Constitutions of most states allow legislative regulation of the RTKBA so long as they don't "regulate the right away"....ie, one law prohibiting CC and another prohibiting OC.
IMHO, it is the wording of the MS laws that seem to cause all the confusion......"concealed in whole or in part" seems to imply that one would need a MS permit to OC since a holster conceals "in part"......not that I agree but, even if you OCed on a lanyard and wore it like a necklace, the side next to your chest would not be visible and therefor "concealed" in some peoples point of view.
Again, IMHO, the MS laws need to be re-worded as to make concealed and unconcealed, as we know it to be, clearly individual concepts.
Just my .02....YMMV
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 22nd, 2007 11:11 pm |
|
| There is NOTHING confusing about the Mississippi state constitution's wording. Matter of fact, it's better than most !!! What part of "shall not be called into question" is confusing? Again: the constitution is talking about a right, not a privilege. AFTER it declares the RIGHT to bear arms, it delves into the PRIVILEGE of concealing arms, two toally different animals. If you were to believe the Mississippi attorney general's office, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to bear arms, only the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. The only problem from where I sit is the folks in Mississippi state government don't want you knowing/exercising the RIGHT to bear arms, which they damned well know exists.
|
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 12:36 am |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: If you were to believe the Mississippi attorney general's office, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to bear arms, only the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. The only problem from where I sit is the folks in Mississippi state government don't want you knowing/exercising the RIGHT to bear arms, which they damned well know exists.
Isn't this just about a guaranteed outcome of letting the gov't determine various questions and issues regarding rights?
The rights were put there on the presumption that government will take them away or erode them as it seeks greater and greater power.
We know they're going to try it in some way, shape, or form. Just the fact that any of the rights are written down tells you the gov't is going to try to erode or take them away, otherwise there wouldn't have been any reason to write them down.
What would be surprising is if a government didn't try to erode rights.
Which just means we have to keep alert to prevent whatever erosion they've got planned for next Tuesday, and work to undo the erosions they've already perpetrated.
Last edited on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 12:37 am by Citizen
|
Comp-tech
State Researcher
| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2007 |
| Location: | Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 936 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 04:09 am |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: There is NOTHING confusing about the Mississippi state constitution's wording. Matter of fact, it's better than most !!! What part of "shall not be called into question" is confusing?
If you would re-read my post, you will notice I said the way the LAWS were worded makes them confusing, not the Constitution.
Again: the constitution is talking about a right, not a privilege. AFTER it declares the RIGHT to bear arms, it delves into the PRIVILEGE of concealing arms, two toally different animals.
That was my point....the way that CC laws are written, "in whole or in part", may well require a permit to OC
because a holster "conceals in part"....which, BTW, I disagree with in principal.
Please read and try to understand what was said before you attack.....I agree with you.
If you were to believe the Mississippi attorney general's office, there is no such thing as a RIGHT to bear arms, only the PRIVILEGE to bear arms. The only problem from where I sit is the folks in Mississippi state government don't want you knowing/exercising the RIGHT to bear arms,
Which may very well be the reason for the wording in the CC laws.
which they damned well know exists.
|
CPL_in_WA
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jul 11th, 2007 |
| Location: | Mississippi USA |
| Posts: | 93 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 08:49 am |
|
This thread has all (I think) of the applicable MS laws/codes regarding firearms/carry. They are reproduced for your viewing pleasure...
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum32/294.html
Alas... even the inside of the firearm would be concealed from view... so go figure. You wouldn't even be able to touch it, because your slightest touch would render that portion hidden from view and therefore, concealed in part. Crazy...
|
dave1289
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 09:07 pm |
|
+ ......I would also add that the Constitutions of most states allow legislative regulation of the RTKBA so long as they don't "regulate the right away"....ie, one law prohibiting CC and another prohibiting OC.
IMHO, it is the wording of the MS laws that seem to cause all the confusion......"concealed in whole or in part" seems to imply that one would need a MS permit to OC since a holster conceals "in part"......not that I agree but, even if you OCed on a lanyard and wore it like a necklace, the side next to your chest would not be visible and therefor "concealed" in some peoples point of view.
Again, IMHO, the MS laws need to be re-worded as to make concealed and unconcealed, as we know it to be, clearly individual concepts.
Just my .02....YMMV
You would think that article III, section 12 would make that law null and void. The way I look at it, that law is unconstitutional. I haven't found any court cases regarding open carry in this state. I might not be looking in the right places.
I would also like to add, I asked the Chief of Police in a town nearby, who is a good friend of mine, what he thought of open carry. He said that as far as he knew, it is legal and he himself would not confront anyone for doing it.
-Dave
Last edited on Wed Dec 19th, 2007 09:22 pm by dave1289
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 09:14 pm |
|
| I, for one, prefer not to depend on somone's "interpretation" of the law, but the rule of law. What Wain Penton may or may not do is how you end up in jail.
|
93sr20det
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jul 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Gulfport, USA |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 09:44 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
I, for one, prefer not to depend on somone's "interpretation" of the law, but the rule of law. What Wain Penton may or may not do is how you end up in jail.
i agree unless it is in writing (i.e. state law) i would not trust him even if he is a friend
also does anyone know of any specific cities that have specific ordinances against open carry?Last edited on Mon Jul 23rd, 2007 09:53 pm by 93sr20det
|
picarl
Member
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2007 07:45 am |
|
Gulfpot Police said as a CCW Permited person we can open carry?
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31st, 2007 09:33 am |
|
According to the office of the MS AG, there's no such thing as "open carry." THEIR interpretation is any weapon being carried is concealed, in part or whole. To do so requires a concealed carry permit. THAT is the reason you were told a CCW permit holder can "open carry." They want EVERYONE carrying to submit to their permit system. That being said, do you now consider what you are doing to be a right or a privilege?
|
blackdog
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:14 am |
|
 a cop in biloxi told me it was legal to open carry with a firearms permit  Last edited on Thu Oct 30th, 2008 04:37 am by blackdog
|
blackdog
Member
| Joined: | Wed Oct 29th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 05:20 am |
|
Has anyone in the orange grove /gulfport area been or plain to open carry
|
picarl145
Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 29th, 2008 08:01 am |
|
Hello:
Carl here i live in Orange Grove area i am also CCW permitted. I carry Turus pt111 9 MM.
So have u opened here? my e-mail is picarl@cableone.net. I do security & P.I..
Carl P.I.
|
Current time is 09:09 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
