The basis of Open Carry - The LAW

[georg jetson]

And that is what I have been stating all along. But, if you start with your state, you can get permitless carry, without a constitutional amendment.

I was speaking of the legislature at the federal level.

I'm on an OC site interested in OCing only. We already have CONSTITUTIONAL carry here in MS. and in La.

 

[georg jetson]

the exception does not prove the rule......

what!!??

 

[wrightme]

NO!! In La. specifically, the legislature has passed legislation that attempts to regulate OCing in certain instances... some of these UNCONSTITUTIONAL have NOT been challenged... yet...

The reality is that the LEGISLATURE CANNOT regulate. That's NOT an IDEAL!! That's FACT! This is getting off the subject. Permit-less carry is permit-less carry and that's just the way it is... IN REALITY!!

AGAIN!!! There are issues with using SCOTUS to secure a right so we must be carefull. This may backfire and that is the REALITY of things.

The reality is that they do regulate. As long as regulations have been implemented and followed, YES, they have regulated. Claiming it is unconstitutional and not challenged does not alter the bare reality that the constitutions have NOT prevented regulation. "Prevention" does imply actually stopping an event from transpiring. If events that are supposedly "prevented" do transpire, the prevention was not adequate.

 

[wrightme]

what!!??

Exactly.




GFSZ is an exception. It doesn't "prove" a rule. It shows that there is an exception to the rule. The rule is that some states HAVE implemented permitless carry. There are prohibited locations, even though no permit is required to carry.


Or, more specifically, the exception you list to permitless carry does not prove that no state has implemented permitless carry. It is an exception that prevents permitless carry in specific locations where permitless carry is otherwise completely legal.


You must have meant to claim that "no state has implemented permitless carry to all locations within the state's boundaries."

 

[georg jetson]

The reality is that they do regulate. As long as regulations have been implemented and followed, YES, they have regulated. Claiming it is unconstitutional and not challenged does not alter the bare reality that the constitutions have NOT prevented regulation. "Prevention" does imply actually stopping an event from transpiring. If events that are supposedly "prevented" do transpire, the prevention was not adequate.

I'm done explaining.

 

[georg jetson]

Exactly.




GFSZ is an exception. It doesn't "prove" a rule. It shows that there is an exception to the rule. The rule is that some states HAVE implemented permitless carry. There are prohibited locations, even though no permit is required to carry.


Or, more specifically, the exception you list to permitless carry does not prove that no state has implemented permitless carry. It is an exception that prevents permitless carry in specific locations where permitless carry is otherwise completely legal.


You must have meant to claim that "no state has implemented permitless carry to all locations within the state's boundaries."

Just take the number of schools in a particular state, multiply that by 1000ft squared. You will see that the specific locations are significant in area making this more of a rule than an exception, depending on where in the state one lives.

 

[wrightme]

Just take the number of schools in a particular state, multiply that by 1000ft squared. You will see that the specific locations are significant in area making this more of a rule than an exception, depending on where in the state one lives.

I thought.....

I'm done explaining.

The fact remains that at least four states DO haver permitless carry. And, yes, school zones do create areas where that permitless carry cannot be lawfully conducted. Yet the state itself DOES have what you claim it does not have. Pointing out the exception once again does not change the statement of fact, it only shows that it is not a complete capability. But, I am positive you do understand this, so I wonder why you take such effort to "prove" that there is an exception.

As I mentioned already, there was a more accurate statement you could have made. Yet you chose not to. And you stubbornly cling to your "exception proves the rule" argument.


Besides, if you want to continue that silly "add the schoolzones" argument, don't forget to factor in overlaps.

 

[georg jetson]

I thought.....
The fact remains that at least four states DO haver permitless carry. And, yes, school zones do create areas where that permitless carry cannot be lawfully conducted. Yet the state itself DOES have what you claim it does not have. Pointing out the exception once again does not change the statement of fact, it only shows that it is not a complete capability. But, I am positive you do understand this, so I wonder why you take such effort to "prove" that there is an exception.

As I mentioned already, there was a more accurate statement you could have made. Yet you chose not to. And you stubbornly cling to your "exception proves the rule" argument.


Besides, if you want to continue that silly "add the schoolzones" argument, don't forget to factor in overlaps.

You need a STATE ISSUED permit to carry in those areas. Those areas are significant in highly populated areas. The only thing silly here is you trying to differentiate whether the permit is required by the state or the fed. It is a permit requirement none-the-less.

Well... we can say that those states are permit-less... except, of course, where permits are required. (tic) Geeeez...

 

[wrightme]

You need a STATE ISSUED permit to carry in those areas. Those areas are significant in highly populated areas. The only thing silly here is you trying to differentiate whether the permit is required by the state or the fed. It is a permit requirement none-the-less.

Until that post, NO ONE HERE has been trying to differentiate whether a permit is required by a state or the fed.

Well... we can say that those states are permit-less... except, of course, where permits are required. (tic) Geeeez...

Yes, you exactly CAN say that. It is really ridiculous to attempt to say that this means that no states have permitless carry. THEY MOST DEFINITELY DO have permitless carry. Why you continue to go on about exclusion areas is beyond me.

 

[georg jetson]

Until that post, NO ONE HERE has been trying to differentiate whether a permit is required by a state or the fed.


Yes, you exactly CAN say that. It is really ridiculous to attempt to say that this means that no states have permitless carry. THEY MOST DEFINITELY DO have permitless carry. Why you continue to go on about exclusion areas is beyond me.

It appeared to me you were trying to differentiate between fed or state. Ok... you're not... Then your arguments are pointless...

It is because those exclusion areas require a permit... thereby rendering an otherwise permit-less state to be a permit state. As schools are built, those exclusion areas increase. So let me ask you... how significant does the exclusion area have to be before one reaches the point of being a permit state?

It's the same BS that occurs when you attempt to call permit-less legislation "constitutional carry" Its NOT CORRECT. Permit-less means NO PERMIT...

Also, the LACK of state permit drives the EXCLUSION areas to the point where there is NO option because the ability to get a permit is removed.

 

[wrightme]

It appeared to me you were trying to differentiate between fed or state. Ok... you're not... Then your arguments are pointless...

Correct, I am not attempting to differentiate between fed or state. No, my arguments are not pointless. They just do not meet your chosen outcome. You know, the outcome where permitless carry isn't permitless carry.

It is because those exclusion areas require a permit... thereby rendering an otherwise permit-less state to be a permit state.

No, that is just your opinion of the matter. The reality is that four states DO have permitless carry. And, each of those four states (along with all the other states) DO have exclusion areas. Noting that there ARE exclusion areas does not change a permitless state into a permit state.

As schools are built, those exclusion areas increase.

Yes. So? Go battle that one in the legislature, state or federal.

So let me ask you... how significant does the exclusion area have to be before one reaches the point of being a permit state?

That isn't my position.

It's the same BS that occurs when you attempt to call permit-less legislation "constitutional carry" Its NOT CORRECT. Permit-less means NO PERMIT...

No, it is a very simple concept that you just do not desire to recognize. Those states where either existing permitless carry is in place, or where permitless carry is being pursued, it IS referred to as "Constitutional Carry."

I have already agreed with you that the term is deceptive. So? You can go ahead and wage a one-man battle upon the very common use of the term, and it will not change the reality that those in the states with it or working towards it DO call it what you do not like.

Also, the LACK of state permit drives the EXCLUSION areas to the point where there is NO option because the ability to get a permit is removed.

Only ONE of those states does not make that available.
Permitless Carry does not require the excision of a process whereby a permit can be attained.
Alaska will issue permits.
Arizona will issue permits.
Wyoming will issue permits.

 

[rickward]

Mississippi attorney general just weighed in on open carry

ISSUE (requested by a Mississippi police chief)

Is there a law in Mississippi that requires a permit holder to completely cover his weapon in public by means of a shirt, jacket or other piece of clothing?

RESPONSE
.
Yes. The authority to legally carry a pistol or revolver is derived from Section 45-9-101 of the Mississippi Code which provides in the first sentence: "(1 )(a) The Department of Public Safety is authorized to issue licenses to carry stun guns, concealed pistols or revolvers to persons qualified in this section."

This provision does not authorize a person to carry a pistol "concealed in part", but requires that it be totally concealed. This conclusion is succinctly set forth in Section 45-9-101 (18): " ... Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any stun gun or deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1.
Mississippi Code of 1972."

Section 97-37-1 prohibits the carrying of listed weapons "concealed in whole or in part":

(1) switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, slingshot, pistol, revolver, or any rifle with a barrel of less than sixteen (16) inches in length, or any shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen (18) inches in length, machine gun or any fully automatic firearm or deadly weapon, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not it is accompanied by a
firearm, or uses or attempts to use against another person any imitation firearm, shall upon conviction be punished as follows:

Thus, it is illegal to carry the weapons described in Section 97-37-1(1) without securing a license as provided in Section 45-9-101, which license authorizes the carrying of a concealed pistol or revolver. The securing of the 'enhanced" permit provided in Section
97-37-7 does not abrogate the requirement that the weapons be carried totally concealed.

 

[4angrybadgers]

45-9-101 does not require you to cover up. (18) just specifies that the permit described in that section only covers (pun intended) concealed carry and not open carry. It is merely defining the scope of the permit - it does not proscribe actions that are outside the purview of the state concealed carry permit.

Nowhere in state law is there a blanket requirement that a weapon be concealed/covered.

edit: Also, see the forum rules, specifically:

(5) CITE TO AUTHORITY: If you state a rule of law, it is incumbent upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when available,is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.

You do not provide any source to back up your claimed AG opinion.

 

[rickward]

Hey bubba, i agree, but the ag has issued the opinion - trying to upload copy

45-9-101 does not require you to cover up. (18) just specifies that the permit described in that section only covers (pun intended) concealed carry and not open carry. It is merely defining the scope of the permit - it does not proscribe actions that are outside the purview of the state concealed carry permit.

nowhere in state law is there a blanket requirement that a weapon be concealed/covered.

Edit: Also, see the forum rules, specifically:

You do not provide any source to back up your claimed ag opinion.

i just tried to upload a copy but the website said the file is too big, give me an e-mail address and i will send you a copy of the ag opinion.

 

[rickward]

New to this site, not sure if the attachment (AG Opinion) made it, if not, send email

45-9-101 does not require you to cover up. (18) just specifies that the permit described in that section only covers (pun intended) concealed carry and not open carry. It is merely defining the scope of the permit - it does not proscribe actions that are outside the purview of the state concealed carry permit.

nowhere in state law is there a blanket requirement that a weapon be concealed/covered.

Edit: Also, see the forum rules, specifically:

You do not provide any source to back up your claimed ag opinion.

ag opinion attached

 

[4angrybadgers]

I see the attached image from your second try, thanks.

If you read over the opinion a few times, you'll notice the SAAG contradicts himself. He says open carry falls under 97-37-1/45-9-101 because it's partially concealed, but then suddenly it's treated as open and not partially concealed, making it supposedly illegal under the terms of the permit. Either a weapon concealed (wholly or partially) or it's not!

I noticed also that the SAAG references Chief Justice Lee's dissent in L.M.Jr. v. State - that dissent is the only legal or quasi-legal text that anyone has been able to find regarding "concealed in part". I'll try to look later for the discussions we've had about it, but in short, that dissent is pretty much useless since concealment "in part" wasn't a factor in the case at all.

In short, that AG opinion has no logical reasoning to back it up, and the English language itself is proof against the opinion. While I'm not a lawyer, I strongly suspect that it would get torn to shreds if it was brought up against an OCer in court.

 

[FedFirefighter]

I know I am fairly new to this forum, and I am not a lawyer, but the MS Constitution and concealment laws don't seem that confusing to me, unless you are carrying without a permit. So my holster covers part of my weapon, uh-oh, it's concealed in part! yeah... Here's my permit, have a nice day. I know it sucks having to go through the hassle of getting one and the cost, but that's another debate. Am I missing something? If you have a permit, you're permited to carry it concealed in whole, or in part, right?

 

[rickward]

I AGREE BUT PARAGRAPH 18 in 45-9-101 DOESN'T HELP EITHER

I see the attached image from your second try, thanks.

If you read over the opinion a few times, you'll notice the SAAG contradicts himself. He says open carry falls under 97-37-1/45-9-101 because it's partially concealed, but then suddenly it's treated as open and not partially concealed, making it supposedly illegal under the terms of the permit. Either a weapon concealed (wholly or partially) or it's not!

I noticed also that the SAAG references Chief Justice Lee's dissent in L.M.Jr. v. State - that dissent is the only legal or quasi-legal text that anyone has been able to find regarding "concealed in part". I'll try to look later for the discussions we've had about it, but in short, that dissent is pretty much useless since concealment "in part" wasn't a factor in the case at all.

In short, that AG opinion has no logical reasoning to back it up, and the English language itself is proof against the opinion. While I'm not a lawyer, I strongly suspect that it would get torn to shreds if it was brought up against an OCer in court.

We need to get a lot of reaction to this.

 

[georg jetson]

I see the attached image from your second try, thanks.

If you read over the opinion a few times, you'll notice the SAAG contradicts himself. He says open carry falls under 97-37-1/45-9-101 because it's partially concealed, but then suddenly it's treated as open and not partially concealed, making it supposedly illegal under the terms of the permit. Either a weapon concealed (wholly or partially) or it's not!

I noticed also that the SAAG references Chief Justice Lee's dissent in L.M.Jr. v. State - that dissent is the only legal or quasi-legal text that anyone has been able to find regarding "concealed in part". I'll try to look later for the discussions we've had about it, but in short, that dissent is pretty much useless since concealment "in part" wasn't a factor in the case at all.

In short, that AG opinion has no logical reasoning to back it up, and the English language itself is proof against the opinion. While I'm not a lawyer, I strongly suspect that it would get torn to shreds if it was brought up against an OCer in court.

But what it does do is make a court battle more likely... making Mississippians even more "gun shy" about carrying opencly even with a concealed permit.

 

[rickward]

Not according to this ag opinion

I know I am fairly new to this forum, and I am not a lawyer, but the MS Constitution and concealment laws don't seem that confusing to me, unless you are carrying without a permit. So my holster covers part of my weapon, uh-oh, it's concealed in part! yeah... Here's my permit, have a nice day. I know it sucks having to go through the hassle of getting one and the cost, but that's another debate. Am I missing something? If you have a permit, you're permited to carry it concealed in whole, or in part, right?

This says you are REQUIRED to completely cover it (not in whole or in part). Not saying I agree, just being the messenger.