| Author | Post |
|---|
DKSuddeth
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 8th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bedford, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:07 pm |
|
Mike wrote: mark edward marchiafava wrote: Of all the absurd, illogical, idiotic court decisions in this country (and there's no shortage to choose from), this has got to be at least in the top 10. The state constitution clearly tells you that you and every other citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of person and property, but then this stupid, yes, stupid, judge turns around and says "only in your motor vehicle." Just how do you bear arms in defense of your own person once you set foot off your property and out of your "motor vehicle?" Unlike "hizzoner," I am a product of the government run schools and somehow cannot fathom just how you bear arms as described in the constitution AND not be arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without the required state permit. 1 + 1 now = 3. At least in Mississippi, the Magnolia state.
Only this part is the court opinion: E.g., L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967, 971 (Miss. 1992) ("[A] revolver carried in a holster on a man's hip was a partially concealed weapon. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather throng could be partially concealing it."), Lee, J., concurring.
so has the MS supreme court changed enough hands to do away with that seriously screwed up definition of a concealed weapon? or is it just as antigun now as it seems to have been back then.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:36 pm |
|
| What needs to happen is what most people think the NRA(negotiate rights away) does. A group needs to be formed to join forces and money to take one area at a time and reclaim the lost right to bear arms. It wouldn't take that much money with a nationwide support group to shoulder the financial load. After you take one of these intentionally ignorant "law enforcement" agencies to federal court and collect a few bucks, you plow those dollars back into the cause. It wouldn't take long to "conquer" some territory, the old take and hold technique. Word would get around, cops would learn there IS an immediate downside to their criminal misbehavior, things WOULD improve.
|
MedicineMan
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 9th, 2008 04:47 pm |
|
Pa. Patriot wrote: A gun in a holster is readily and easily identified as a gun. Therefor it is not concealed.
Do these court own a dictionary?
Maybe in PA, but in MS you can hang it from a string on the trigger guard, and the "part thereof" covered by the string is "concealed".
It all goes back to the "reconstruction" period and the "Jim Crow" laws.
They were written to disarm Negroes but to leave enough "wiggle room" so that cops could overlook the "good ol boys".
Go to http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/toc.htm
and search out the MS laws.
There has to be something there we aren't seeing.
Other than the fact that the State Constitution only authorizes regulation of "Concealed carry".
But in the past 12 years of studying on this, your definition hasn't been found a single time.
They seem to be using "Hemingway's 1917" exclusively for definitions.
|
bassinvol
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 01:56 pm |
|
I live in North Mississippi and have open carried throughout North Mississippi and the Memphis metro area with no problems at all. I don't go walking into a store with a "chip" on my shoulder just waiting for someone to question me. Most people don't even seem to notice and if they do they usually treat me with a little more courtesy. I know that one day I will have to deal with someone who questions open carry and I will try to educate them, but I am not going to go and force my will upon them. It is OK if they don't want to carry a gun. I choose to. It seems that some people on this forum just go looking for the confrontation. Notice that the Mississippi permit is a "Firearms Permit" not a "Concealed Carry Permit". 
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:44 pm |
|
Do you have a permit?
|
bassinvol
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:59 pm |
|
| Yes I do, do you?
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 03:43 pm |
|
No, I don't. The state constitution clearly guarantees the right to bear arms. A right is not subject to a permitting/licensing process. Since I want to openly carry, it defies logic I should need a permit.
|
bassinvol
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 05:47 pm |
|
Mark, I agree with you about the constitution and that it does not cover open carry. I have a permit because I carry in other states that do require a permit. The misguided court decision affects me and other people in Mississippi. The one thing that I think that you are not looking at is the fact that you are not a "Citizen" of Mississippi. So, If the courts overruled the previous decision and the Mississippi "Citizen" did not have to have a permit to open carry, they could still declare that a non-resident must have a permit. That would not be against the constitution. IANAL, but I have a feeling that the decision will never be overturned, so get a permit and open carry like I do.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 06:13 pm |
|
Article 3 sec 12 states "EVERY" citizen. That includes persons from other states. I do not need to be a "resident" of Mississippi. NO body has every asserted that concept, and for a very good reason.
Naw, no permit for me, thank you. I refuse to ask, no, BEG permission from a paid public servant to do anything guaranteed as a right.
Hope you enjoy life on the plantation.
|
Current time is 10:46 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
