Mississippi Supreme Court Rules that Gun Law Means What it Says (open carry)

[Dean Weingarten]

Open carry at a rally protesting IRS abuse in Arizona


This is a blow for reason and the rule of law in Mississippi. The injunction against House Bill 2 should never have occurred. You can read some background here. From wreg.com:

The judge ruled the bill was unconstitutionally vague.

The Supreme Court decided that decision was incorrect.

House Bill 2 would allow people without a permit to carry firearms as long as they are within sight. Concealed weapons still require a permit.

Here is some history of the Mississippi Constitution and how it has been gutted in the past.

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/mississippi-supreme-court-rules-that.html

©2013 by Dean Weingarten Permission to share granted as long as this notice is included.

 

[Fryerpower]

OK, I'm confused. The SC says that open carry is legal and that you need a permit for CCW. What is the problem?

Jim

 

[NickEllis]

Yep, we need some clarification. OP wasn't entirely clear on the effect of the SC ruling.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

A county court issued an injunction against a clarification of the concealed carry law, which said that concealed was concealed; that if the firearm was not concealed, then it was not concealed.

Previous judicial decisions had said if "any part" of the firearm were concealed, even in the case of a pistol hanging from a thong around the neck, the thong "concealed" part of the pistol, therefore it was concealed.

The county judge, of a anti-gun political faction, ruled that the law was "vague" and issued an injunction against the law taking effect!!!

Insane. The rights of people in Mississippi were violated for another couple of weeks while the Supreme Court heard this.

 

[Fryerpower]

Ok, but it is all better now, right?

 

[Dean Weingarten]

Yes, it appears so. It looks as though the Mississippi Constitution will be enforced. There are lots of details in the links, which were posted previously.

 

[Outlaw Man]

I'm still stuck at someone wearing a thing around their neck...

If I understand this right, they were trying to say that if you were open carrying and part of your shirt covered it up, or it was an IWB holster, it was partially, and by law, fully concealed and required a permit?

Glad the SC fixed that!

 

[420Stainless]

I'm still stuck at someone wearing a thing around their neck...

If I understand this right, they were trying to say that if you were open carrying and part of your shirt covered it up, or it was an IWB holster, it was partially, and by law, fully concealed and required a permit?

Glad the SC fixed that!

Yes. The old interpretation of the law was that if any part of the gun was covered (pretty much by anything), then that did not constitute open carry and one needed a CCW permit. So if you tried to open carry in an uncovered belt holster, the claim was that the holster partially covered the gun and therefore the bearer was making some sort of attempt to conceal it! Hopefully now this is settled from a legal standpoint though I'm not sure to what extent it was ever used by law enforcement against upright citizens. All the MS law enforcement I've encountered seem to do a good job exercising discretion.

 

[Outlaw Man]

That sounds like something our attorney general would say. Crazy.

 

[BullSlinger]

Really?

Glad it was cleared up. Sounds like if a gun was attached to a chain or string thru the trigger guard then it would be partially covered and there for not open carry. Could get a lot of folks in trouble even at the range.