• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The basis of Open Carry - The LAW

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

I gotta be honest. I do not think this case says what you all seem to think it does. The language upon which you are hanging your hats is a concurrence in which the judge is remarking upon how ridiculous the interpretation is. He does not bother to cite any authority for the proposition. This is not really law. It is the musing of a judge not applicable to the case (which is a constructive possession case holding that guns under the hood are being "carried" concealed.

You are reading way too much into it.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
imported post

Malum Prohibitum wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
And how does this address open carry?
My point is that it does not.
And I would tend to agree with you, however, having heard enough about how Mississippi courts side with the state over defendants on nearly everything (my wife grew up there), I would be hard pressed to just take my chances unless I knew that the courts makeup had changed considerably to view more correct interpretations of holstered and visible weapons as being unconcealed.
 

Malum Prohibitum

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
947
Location
, ,
imported post

Ok, well, see my other thread in which I post cases regarding partial concealment. There is not a case in Mississippi involving a person arrested because his holster conceals the gun.
 

MedicineMan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Marion, Mississippi, USA
Instead of dreaming and sceming about "transparent holsters" and little pop guns that clip on your belt.....

Maybe we can start a conversation where we plan and organize to change that pesky little portion of the law that makes "any part thereof" covered against the law.

If we spent a few hours a week getting the support and informing others, we could actually make a difference.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
To eliminate those unconstitutional words with a legislative solution (safest), from what I understand, we would have to: write a bill, find a sponsor and get some publicity with others who are for freedom and the rule of law in MS so there can be some pressure applied to other legislators.
 

MR Redenck

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2010
Messages
596
Location
West Texas
Let me get this straight!
You State Constitution only allows for regulating Concealed weapons, but yall have to have a license to open carry?
People, this should be the easiest thing in the world the beat! Get busy!
A open holstered weapon is Open Carrying!
A weapon not visible is Concealed Carrying!
You people have a easier fight than we do in Texas.
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
Let me get this straight!
You State Constitution only allows for regulating Concealed weapons, but yall have to have a license to open carry?
People, this should be the easiest thing in the world the beat! Get busy!
A open holstered weapon is Open Carrying!
A weapon not visible is Concealed Carrying!
You people have a easier fight than we do in Texas.
It has not been conclusively determined whether a concealed carry license is REQUIRED to OC in MS. If you read about halfway up the thread, "Malum Prohibitum" posted the MSSC case that is the reason for our uncertainty on this point.

While we can shout "open is open, concealed is concealed!" til we're blue in the face, changing legal/case precedent isn't necessarily that easy.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
It has not been conclusively determined whether a concealed carry license is REQUIRED to OC in MS. If you read about halfway up the thread, "Malum Prohibitum" posted the MSSC case that is the reason for our uncertainty on this point.

While we can shout "open is open, concealed is concealed!" til we're blue in the face, changing legal/case precedent isn't necessarily that easy.

especially without getting arrested and risking the right to even keep arms.

Also, MS doesn't have a gun toting culture like texas and alabama do. So far though it doesn't seem so bad in MS, I've not had any negative reactions in public.
 

MedicineMan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Marion, Mississippi, USA
No, the part that gets us is the State code which has the words "in whole or in part" added superfluously.

Now the "in part" means that if ANY part is concealed from view, then it's a "concealed weapon".

A holster, string, hand, or other carrying device creates the chargeability.
And on a "whim", even lack of being able to see the "off side" could be argued as concealed in part.
 

DooFster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
445
Location
Nellis AFB, Nevada
Please forgive me ahead of time for stepping on any toes...

I'm going to be taking some classes in Gulfport starting in July, and was wondering if I'm actually allowed (by law) to OC... We can here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), with regards to 1000' from any K-12 school.

Thanks...

Bud
 

4angrybadgers

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2009
Messages
411
Location
Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA
Please forgive me ahead of time for stepping on any toes...

I'm going to be taking some classes in Gulfport starting in July, and was wondering if I'm actually allowed (by law) to OC... We can here in PRK (People's Republic of Kalifornia), with regards to 1000' from any K-12 school.

Thanks...

Bud

This isn't meant to be snarky, but... did you read the prior posts?

  • The MS Constitution, Article 3, Section 12 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but allows the state legislature to regulate concealed weapons.
  • MS Code 97-37-1 defines the crime of carrying a weapon "concealed in whole or in part". No clear definition is made of what "in part" means.
  • MS Code 45-9-101 defines the license required to legally carry such a concealed weapon.
The key here is that 97-37-1 covers "in part", but doesn't specify what "in part" means. The only relevant case law that we seem to have on this definition is "L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992)". See Malum Prohibitum's post on page 1 for the details. Here's the paragraph:
One of the first cases I undertook as a young lawyer was the defense of a man charged with carrying a concealed weapon. I thought his defense would be simple and easy until I learned what the statute meant. To my amazement, I discovered that carrying a concealed weapon in whole or in part even meant that a revolver carried in a holster on a man's hip was a partially concealed weapon, riding a horse with a saddle holster and revolver under a person's leg violated the statute; and that covering a weapon with feet, hands, or clothing meant that the weapon was concealed under the interpretation of the statute. Conceivably, carrying a revolver suspended from the neck by a leather throng could be partially concealing it. (One Western gunfighter used that method.)
Obviously, it's a pretty crummy definition of "concealed in part", and nobody's sure if it would even be considered in a case now.

But that's the rub - there's really no solid statutory or case law definition of "concealed in part".

In a nutshell: OC in MS is hazy. If you decide to OC without a concealed carry license, you may very well end up as the test case that defines "concealed in part". If you do have a license/permit recognized by Mississippi, then OC away, but be prepared for LEO harassment regardless.

As for OCing near schools, I can't find a source immediately, but my assumption is that we have the same 1000' GFSZs as most other states.
 

robbyw

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
39
Location
mississippi
This isn't meant to be snarky, but... did you read the prior posts?

  • The MS Constitution, Article 3, Section 12 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but allows the state legislature to regulate concealed weapons.
  • MS Code 97-37-1 defines the crime of carrying a weapon "concealed in whole or in part". No clear definition is made of what "in part" means.
  • MS Code 45-9-101 defines the license required to legally carry such a concealed weapon.
The key here is that 97-37-1 covers "in part", but doesn't specify what "in part" means. The only relevant case law that we seem to have on this definition is "L.M., Jr. v. State, 600 So.2d 967 (Miss. 1992)". See Malum Prohibitum's post on page 1 for the details. Here's the paragraph:
Obviously, it's a pretty crummy definition of "concealed in part", and nobody's sure if it would even be considered in a case now.

But that's the rub - there's really no solid statutory or case law definition of "concealed in part".

In a nutshell: OC in MS is hazy. If you decide to OC without a concealed carry license, you may very well end up as the test case that defines "concealed in part". If you do have a license/permit recognized by Mississippi, then OC away, but be prepared for LEO harassment regardless.

As for OCing near schools, I can't find a source immediately, but my assumption is that we have the same 1000' GFSZs as most other states.

I open carry in gulfport most of the time with no problem
 

DooFster

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
445
Location
Nellis AFB, Nevada
Now here's another question: I'm AD USAF and my classes are at the NCBC base just outside of town. Does that help me out at all? It'll be 100% obvious that I'm military, even in regular street-clothes...
 

MilProGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
1,210
Location
Mississippi
From the MS Code 45-9-101. License to carry concealed pistol or revolver. Paragraph 18.

(18)
ecblank.gif


ecblank.gif

Nothing in this section shall be construed to require or allow the registration, documentation or providing of serial numbers with regard to any firearm. Further, nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carrying of any deadly weapon as described in Section 97-37-1, Mississippi Code of1972.

"...nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carry of any deadly weapon..."

Thank you for posting this section of the Mississippi Code. This is about as clear and definitive of an answer that anyone could hope for.

Guess I won't be open carrying a handgun anytime soon.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
"...nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the open and unconcealed carry of any deadly weapon..."

Thank you for posting this section of the Mississippi Code. This is about as clear and definitive of an answer that anyone could hope for.

Guess I won't be open carrying a handgun anytime soon.

Clear and definitive of an answer for what? Whether or not this particular statute has ANYTHING to do with OCing? The MS. state constitution guarantees the RIGHT to OC AND FORBIDS THE LEGISLATURE FROM REGULATING SUCH.

This part of the constitution...

"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."

... is CLEAR. It is the LACK of BACKBONE that we citizens have that allows law enforcement to call OCing "in question".

Does no one in MS. understand the relationship of the constitution to the SUBORDINATE statutes enacted by the legislature? It doesn't MATTER what "in part" means because "in part" can NEVER mean ANYTHING that would call a citizens right to bear OPENLY "in question".
 
Last edited:
Top