I have spoken to several police officers , sitting court justices in Mississippi where I reside , the open carry law passed in July 2014 to clear up any confusion with the CCP statue that remained on the books , the problem was that Ms didn't ban open carry the state never defined Ccp only so it was left to local interpretation by who ?the officer when in most cases the judge assigned to the situation threw it out . So my discussion with local authorities simply revealed one answer . The authorities are not worried about the gun they can see or the law abiding citizens ! The gun they don't see is the problem ! The person who feels like the world is his or hers or theirs for the taking it doesn't matter wether black , white yellow or red , the individual that doesn't work ,doesn't have any regard for human life or the basic laws and principals this land was founded on . They are the culprit and truly whY this debate is about . That's my research
In case it hasn't been said, welcome to ODCO!! (open carry dot org)
What you've related above (bolded) is a version of something OCers identified ages ago. Here is the quick explanation:
The foundational theory of government in this country is that power originates with the people, who then delegate that authority to government. A legislature passes a law against something. The cop has authority to enforce the law.
If something is not clearly illegal, then the cop has no authority to arrest. Which is to say, unless a cop can clearly say to himself that such-and-such conduct is definitely illegal, he cannot possibly know whether he even has authority to arrest that person.
So, this isn't really a case of cops being afraid of the gun they can't see, no matter what they told you. It is a case of some police being willing to violate other human beings by taking law enforcement action against them without knowing to a dead moral certainty they have the authority to take that action. And, violating one of the most basic principles of government and rights in this country.
In a landmark case in the late 1960's,
Terry v Ohio, the US Supreme Court quoted an earlier case. Its one of my all-time favorites:
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Union Pacific Rail Co. vs Botsford.
No right more sacred. Free from
all restraint, and even interference. Unless by
clear and unquestionable authority of law. "Left to local interpretation" is not clear and unquestionable authority of law.
Now, I don't have the old MS statute in front of me, so if the foregoing doesn't apply, please disregard.