The basis of Open Carry - The LAW

[wrightme]

I gave him the benefit of the doubt and figured he was going for disguised guns and could only find weak examples of it. Not everyone's googlefoo is perfect. DeputySheriff has usually held constitutional positions on here and I like to think he would not arrest a woman for liking pink so much she bought a pink gun (no matter how much it hurts me) or arrest someone for simply having horrible taste in color schemes (even if it does defile such a wonderful 1911). So I chose to assume he was simply bringing up the point of disguised firearms since the title of the for official use only document was toygun.

He was quite clear......

<snip>
take a look at these guns and you tell me if they would be considered concealed or not even if they were carried openly. Especially the 1911. Me as a law enforcement officer would consider them concealed <snip>.

He wasn't generalizing about other guns, he was commenting directly about the guns in the image he presented.

 

[MSRebel54]

I didn't think there was any such thing as an "unconcealed" hand gun in MS according to the law. So whatever color schemes these firearms are, they would still have to be considered concealed under MS law if they were on one's person.

Now with that said, to intentionally disguise a firearm to make it look like it's NOT a firearm, could be under the definition of concealed. The definition of concealed is not only to keep from view or hide, but also to keep from being known, or not discernible. If these weapons are "not discernible" as real firearms, then they could be considered concealed.

I can remove the orange tip from an air soft "glock". That doesn't make it a real firearm. I can paint an orange tip on my Glock 17. That doesn't make it a toy. If I see someone wearing what looks like a firearm (pink or not), for my own safety, I'm going to ASSUME that it IS a firearm. If someone dresses up a real firearm to look like a toy, I don't think they have your best interest in mind, or else they're just plain stupid.

But the question was do those guns in the pictures constitute "concealed"? Even if we didn't have the "or in part" in the law, for these particular guns, I would have to say no, they would not be concealed just because they are funny colors. Their shape is still discernible as a hand gun. So if they were being worn in a holster on one's side, I would have to ASSUME that they were firearms. Just as if I were wearing one of the more realistic air soft toys in a holster, NO ONE would assume that it was NOT a firearm.

Now if it is not discernible as a firearm, then it is definitely concealed, as in a camera "concealed" in a digital alarm clock.

I understand where DS is coming from. There are some "fashion statements" that just shouldn't be!

 

[Daylen]

I didn't think there was any such thing as an "unconcealed" hand gun in MS according to the law. ...

According to the MS constitution there MUST be, though I still recommend having a pistol permit for the time being because your thoughts are shared by some who might make an unlawful arrest based on that misunderstanding. Remember any law, including "or in part" is only law and only applicable and enforceable where it conforms with the constitution in both the scope of what powers of lawmaking are granted and items protected from infringement or regulation.

 

[DeputySheriff]

People who have even a small amount of knowledge about handguns could probably fairly easily tell the two Glocks and the Kel Tec are real and I would take certain facts into consideration such as who is carrying them. As for the 1911, if seen in the hands of what appears to be a kid, and we all know how young some criminals are, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the public would think it is a toy. That constitutes concealment. Just my opinion of course.

Besides, anyone (other than maybe Bozo the clown) would be a caliber or two off to not just paint a 1911 like that but to actually carry it!?!?

 

[wrightme]

People who have even a small amount of knowledge about handguns could probably fairly easily tell the two Glocks and the Kel Tec are real and I would take certain facts into consideration such as who is carrying them. As for the 1911, if seen in the hands of what appears to be a kid, and we all know how young some criminals are, I'm willing to bet that the majority of the public would think it is a toy. That constitutes concealment. Just my opinion of course.

Besides, anyone (other than maybe Bozo the clown) would be a caliber or two off to not just paint a 1911 like that but to actually carry it!?!?

Yet that isn't what you were saying, is it.....

 

[MSRebel54]

According to the MS constitution there MUST be, though I still recommend having a pistol permit for the time being because your thoughts are shared by some who might make an unlawful arrest based on that misunderstanding. Remember any law, including "or in part" is only law and only applicable and enforceable where it conforms with the constitution in both the scope of what powers of lawmaking are granted and items protected from infringement or regulation.

I know the Constitutional application. I mean in practice. Just playing a little 'devil's advocate' there.

 

[DeputySheriff]

Yet that isn't what you were saying, is it.....

I am saying that if I see a handgun being carried openly that is painted to make it look like it is a toy gun (like the 1911 in the photo) and the carrier does not have a permit then I will at the very least issue them a citation for carrying a concealed weapon w/o a permit.

I would do the same if I saw someone openly carrying a handgun that had the tip of the barrel painted orange to make it appear to not be a firearm.

 

[bigun220]

I am saying that if I see a handgun being carried openly that is painted to make it look like it is a toy gun (like the 1911 in the photo) and the carrier does not have a permit then I will at the very least issue them a citation for carrying a concealed weapon w/o a permit.

I would do the same if I saw someone openly carrying a handgun that had the tip of the barrel painted orange to make it appear to not be a firearm.

I'd probably do the same if i was a LEO. Only a criminal would paint a real gun to simulate a fake one and carry it. That's just dirty.

 

[Daylen]

I'd probably do the same if i was a LEO. Only a criminal would paint a real gun to simulate a fake one and carry it. That's just dirty.

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the constitution didn't allow for the regulation or prohibition of concealing firearms.

 

[bigun220]

Wouldn't it be so much easier if the constitution didn't allow for the regulation or prohibition of concealing firearms.

We could change that. (Constitutional Carry) Just gotta get the right folks in office.

 

[Daylen]

We could change that. (Constitutional Carry) Just gotta get the right folks in office.

Constitutional changes are very hard to make because of the super majority needed.

 

[wrightme]

Constitutional changes are very hard to make because of the super majority needed.

Constitutional Carry would not require any Constitutional changes. It would simply require repealing the prohibition upon concealed firearms, and enforcing a statewide preemption for such statute.

Repeal 97-37-1, and hold the power to regulate concealment to the state legislature. Voila! Constitutional Carry.

 

[georg jetson]

Constitutional Carry would not require any Constitutional changes. It would simply require repealing the prohibition upon concealed firearms, and enforcing a statewide preemption for such statute.

Repeal 97-37-1, and hold the power to regulate concealment to the state legislature. Voila! Constitutional Carry.

Voila! WRONG!! Repealing 97-37-1 does not mean Constitutional Carry" It just means that the legislature removes it's regulation. What can be fixed by statute can be "broken" again in the future by statute. Removing the legislatures power to regulate concealed weapons REQUIRES an amendment to the constitution.

 

[Daylen]

Voila! WRONG!! Repealing 97-37-1 does not mean Constitutional Carry" It just means that the legislature removes it's regulation. What can be fixed by statute can be "broken" again in the future by statute. Removing the legislatures power to regulate concealed weapons REQUIRES an amendment to the constitution.

Exactly. "Constitutional Carry" implies needing only the constitution to keep a government from infringing upon the right to bear arms be it open or concealed. The MS constitution gives the authority to regulate or prohibit concealed carry to the legislature. If the legislature chooses not to regulate it is still not constitutional carry because more than just pointing at the constitution is needed. As it is we can technically get "Constitutional carry" in MS by removing the taboo around open carry as it is not able to be regulated by the legislature. Constitutional carry in MS is open carry.

 

[wrightme]

Voila! WRONG!! Repealing 97-37-1 does not mean Constitutional Carry" It just means that the legislature removes it's regulation. What can be fixed by statute can be "broken" again in the future by statute. Removing the legislatures power to regulate concealed weapons REQUIRES an amendment to the constitution.

Correct, it CAN be broken again. But, sans regulation regarding concealment, that IS "Constitutional Carry." I do agree that a better route is to remove the power of the legislature to regulate concealment, but without any such regulation, Mississippi residents would have the option to open carry, OR conceal carry, without a permit.

 

[wrightme]

Exactly. "Constitutional Carry" implies needing only the constitution to keep a government from infringing upon the right to bear arms be it open or concealed. The MS constitution gives the authority to regulate or prohibit concealed carry to the legislature. If the legislature chooses not to regulate it is still not constitutional carry because more than just pointing at the constitution is needed. As it is we can technically get "Constitutional carry" in MS by removing the taboo around open carry as it is not able to be regulated by the legislature. Constitutional carry in MS is open carry.

"Constitutional Carry" is permitless carry of the citizen's choice. Open OR concealed. At least that is the overall definition in those states that already have Constitutional Carry. Calling it something different for your state does not change the overall definition as others understand it.

 

[Daylen]

"Constitutional Carry" is permitless carry of the citizen's choice. Open OR concealed. At least that is the overall definition in those states that already have Constitutional Carry. Calling it something different for your state does not change the overall definition as others understand it.

Not according to the MS constitution. In MS unconcealed carry is the only form of carry protected.

 

[wrightme]

Not according to the MS constitution. In MS unconcealed carry is the only form of carry protected.

Look closer at the 2nd Amendment. It has been incorporated against the states, right?

 

[Daylen]

Look closer at the 2nd Amendment. It has been incorporated against the states, right?

the 2nd Amendment hasn't stopped congress from saying there are areas where one can not keep and bear arms. It hasn't stopped congress from saying some of the people can not keep and bear arms. It has not kept the courts from convicting people on those laws. The recent decision has incorporated the privilege to keep approved arms in the home after getting permission from local and state governments and has not done anything for the right to bear arms. If anything incorporation hurt the right because there is no way congress or the courts are going to force states to eliminate their gun control law entirety, thus it is reduced to the meaning it can have in a tyrannical state like Illinois were most voters don't hold bearing arms as anything but a privilege for police and military and keeping arms as a dirty privilege that only some can use. Sorry, I don't see it having anything to do with being able to carry a weapon without a permit by pointing at a constitution and saying "nope you can't stop me or make me ask permission first". The MS constitution has that potential as far as I can see. In

 

[wrightme]

the 2nd Amendment hasn't stopped congress from saying there are areas where one can not keep and bear arms. It hasn't stopped congress from saying some of the people can not keep and bear arms. It has not kept the courts from convicting people on those laws. The recent decision has incorporated the privilege to keep approved arms in the home after getting permission from local and state governments and has not done anything for the right to bear arms. If anything incorporation hurt the right because there is no way congress or the courts are going to force states to eliminate their gun control law entirety, thus it is reduced to the meaning it can have in a tyrannical state like Illinois were most voters don't hold bearing arms as anything but a privilege for police and military and keeping arms as a dirty privilege that only some can use. Sorry, I don't see it having anything to do with being able to carry a weapon without a permit by pointing at a constitution and saying "nope you can't stop me or make me ask permission first". The MS constitution has that potential as far as I can see. In

None of that negates "2A Constitutional Carry."

"SCOTUS" didn't make the Right all-encompassing, nor is it likely to. BUT, it IS a practical argument FOR allowing true Constitutional Carry at the state level, no matter which state or what their constitutions says.

It isn't automatic, it isn't a certainty, but it IS logical.

The term "Constitutional Carry" isn't a thing where a citizen can assert the Right and say "nope you can't stop me or make me ask permission first." It is a thing whereby the state recognizes the Right as such. Should your state decide to do so, it CAN do so.