MS & The Open Carry Debate

rts99 · July 2, 2013, 05:29 PM

Apparently MO has a new CCW law that was supposed to go into effect this week or next (sorry class I can't find a link to the new statute). Unfortunately an appeals judge issued an injunction because the bill allows for unlicensed open carry in addition to permitted Concealed Carry, or so the argument goes. Apparently there's some confusion over whether the law actually provides for unlicensed open carry according to the judge.

In any event, the judge imposed the injunction because the "Constitution doesn't protect open carry, only concealed carry....". Talk about your spin doctor. The 2nd, 4th, & 9th have all stated categorically that Concealed Carry is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. Apparently only the right to NOT CARRY is protected by the "right to bear" arms. There's no way the right to carry open AND carry concealed are BOTH PROHIBITED by the 2nd Amendment. This is how the antis interpret the SC ruling in McDonald.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 2, 2013, 07:44 PM

No mode of carry is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, and no mode of carry is specifically called out by name as protected/guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is a fundamental right and that the states may not prohibit it.

The SCOTUS further said that the states may regulate the mode of carry, but the SCOTUS didn't go beyond that. This means that a state may license and charge exorbitant fees for concealed carry, or may even prohibit concealed carry entirely, if they leave open carry available to everyone. But the opposite is also true. A state could, within the boundaries established by the SCOTUS, ban open carry and allow concealed carry by everyone.

hermannr · July 2, 2013, 07:46 PM

Not MO, MS. It was Mississippi that had the new carry law passed that defined what was always legal by the Mississippi state constitution (but ruled illegal in court) as legal.

Years ago a Mississippi court ruled that a pistol in a holster, even if carried open on a person's hip, was "concealed" by the holster and therefore was not legal unless the person had a license to carry a concealed weapon.

This legislation corrected that misinterpretation by specifically defining what was OC and therefore did not require a license, and what was actually concealed. (among other things, but this was the main point of the legislation)

A bunch of "D"s that did not like this legislation waited until the last minute (literally) to file for an injunction from a circuit court judge that had the same political views as they did, to block the implementation of the new law. Those game players are about to get shut down by the Mississippi Supreme Court and that was what I was looking for when I found your post.

vranasaurus · July 2, 2013, 08:29 PM

Apparently the MS Supreme court refused to lift the injunction on procedural grounds according to this article. There is a hearing set for July 8th. If you want to know exactly what's going on those in the Jackson area should attend the hearing.

http://www.wlox.com/story/22746834/m...y-law-in-limbo

July 2, 2013, 05:29 PM	#1
rts99 Member Join Date: April 20, 2012 Posts: 40	MS & The Open Carry Debate Apparently MO has a new CCW law that was supposed to go into effect this week or next (sorry class I can't find a link to the new statute). Unfortunately an appeals judge issued an injunction because the bill allows for unlicensed open carry in addition to permitted Concealed Carry, or so the argument goes. Apparently there's some confusion over whether the law actually provides for unlicensed open carry according to the judge. In any event, the judge imposed the injunction because the "Constitution doesn't protect open carry, only concealed carry....". Talk about your spin doctor. The 2nd, 4th, & 9th have all stated categorically that Concealed Carry is NOT protected by the 2nd Amendment. Apparently only the right to NOT CARRY is protected by the "right to bear" arms. There's no way the right to carry open AND carry concealed are BOTH PROHIBITED by the 2nd Amendment. This is how the antis interpret the SC ruling in McDonald. Last edited by Tom Servo; July 2, 2013 at 09:41 PM. Reason: Removed inappropriate language

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

July 2, 2013, 07:44 PM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,458	No mode of carry is prohibited by the 2nd Amendment, and no mode of carry is specifically called out by name as protected/guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. The SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is a fundamental right and that the states may not prohibit it. The SCOTUS further said that the states may regulate the mode of carry, but the SCOTUS didn't go beyond that. This means that a state may license and charge exorbitant fees for concealed carry, or may even prohibit concealed carry entirely, if they leave open carry available to everyone. But the opposite is also true. A state could, within the boundaries established by the SCOTUS, ban open carry and allow concealed carry by everyone.

July 2, 2013, 07:46 PM	#3
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	Not MO, MS. It was Mississippi that had the new carry law passed that defined what was always legal by the Mississippi state constitution (but ruled illegal in court) as legal. Years ago a Mississippi court ruled that a pistol in a holster, even if carried open on a person's hip, was "concealed" by the holster and therefore was not legal unless the person had a license to carry a concealed weapon. This legislation corrected that misinterpretation by specifically defining what was OC and therefore did not require a license, and what was actually concealed. (among other things, but this was the main point of the legislation) A bunch of "D"s that did not like this legislation waited until the last minute (literally) to file for an injunction from a circuit court judge that had the same political views as they did, to block the implementation of the new law. Those game players are about to get shut down by the Mississippi Supreme Court and that was what I was looking for when I found your post.

July 2, 2013, 08:29 PM	#4
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	Apparently the MS Supreme court refused to lift the injunction on procedural grounds according to this article. There is a hearing set for July 8th. If you want to know exactly what's going on those in the Jackson area should attend the hearing. http://www.wlox.com/story/22746834/m...y-law-in-limbo