Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mississippi Supreme Court Upholds End to 'Hiding in Plain Sight' ^ | 19 September, 2013 | John Frazer

Posted on 10/17/2013 5:19:06 AM PDT by marktwain

JURIST Guest Columnist John Frazer argues that the Mississippi legislature's amended definition of a "concealed" weapon is not unduly confusing or vague...

A recent decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court may finally have laid to rest the state's status as home to one of the nation's most rigidly interpreted concealed weapons laws, as well as ending one of the oddest recent episodes of gun-related litigation in the US.

At the beginning of 2013, Mississippi—like most states—prohibited the carrying of handguns and certain other weapons concealed without a permit.

However, unlike any other state's "concealed" carry statute, Mississippi's statute prohibited carrying a weapon concealed "in whole or in part," a provision that had been read absolutely literally since the Mississippi Supreme Court's 1908 decision in Martin v. State. Under Mississippi law, as Attorney General Jim Hood noted in a 2012 opinion, the law prohibited concealing any part of a weapon whatsoever.

Mississippi precedent was so severe that it drew a sharp comment from Chief Justice Roy Noble Lee in the 1992 case of L.M., Jr. v. State. Lee recounted his experience as a young lawyer researching the case law while preparing to defend a client charged under the statute:

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...)

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Mississippi
KEYWORDS: banglist; constitution; guncontrol; ms; opencarry; secondamendment
While this article is nearly a month old, it is extremely well written. It explains the "controversy" better than any other, including what I have written.
1 posted on 10/17/2013 5:19:06 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WKB; Islander7; Black Agnes; wardaddy; mrsmel; LibLieSlayer; marktwain


2 posted on 10/17/2013 5:24:33 AM PDT by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Well, I read the whole article and while it is well written and I am fairly well versed in reading legal text... I still do not know the answers to these questions:

What is the law concerning ‘Open Carry’ of a gun in Mississippi?

What is the law concerning ‘Concealed Carry of a gun in Mississippi’...

The article discusses the semantics of the ruling and associated background material - but does not state what the law is in understandable terms — not that I could find.

3 posted on 10/17/2013 5:33:51 AM PDT by ICCtheWay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Quite possibly, the supreme court found the trial judge's errors so obvious that no elaboration was needed.

Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Winston L. Kidd

4 posted on 10/17/2013 5:42:52 AM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ICCtheWay; All

Open carry is now legal, as long as the gun or holster is visible by ordinary observation.

Concealed carry has not been changed, except that now you do not have to worry about your gun being exposed, at least not in a legal sense.

5 posted on 10/17/2013 5:57:19 AM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

You would think that this decision would be welcomed by ALL gun owners and enthusiasts but you’d be wrong. I participate in a forum where many ridicule anybody wanting to open carry and even post photos of open carriers with both handguns and long guns so that the other “experts” (or “operators” as I’m sure they fancy themselves) may ridicule the open carriers and anyone else that supports open carry. The worst part is these are “experts” with many teaching qualifications (and they are quick to let you know how skilled they are and how many matches they’ve won). They are NRA certified teaching experts and feel that unless you’ve completed their courses and have their blessings you are nothing more than a threat to society as a whole. Their attitude and arrogance borders on disgusting and I can’t believe the NRA would certify such “teachers”. Some of these “experts” are LEO or ex LEO.

6 posted on 10/17/2013 6:05:28 AM PDT by 762X51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 762X51
I've seen a guy open-carrying in my local WalMart, without it causing comment. I don't open-carry, mainly to avoid making the hoplophobes nervous, but I like open-carry being legal for cases where the concealed gun becomes accidentally visible.

In some places without open-carry, allowing your concealed gun to be visible is treated as "brandishing a weapon" and can get you arrested if anybody becomes alarmed.

7 posted on 10/17/2013 6:20:42 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

It still points out that any laws attempting to regulate or control weapons just amount to burdensome and expensive hairsplitting.

Arizona is such a marvelous, pristine, and efficient extreme that it illuminates the entire nation. No licensing or control over guns at all. Complimentary licensing for those who travel to the many states that have reciprocity with Arizona.

The cost to the state of doing almost nothing is insignificant.

Importantly, controls over guns are not needed. For the exceptions, controls exist over prohibited persons owning guns. Felons and the severely mentally ill are much easier to regulate and police. If they have guns, they have committed a crime. If they do not, they have not. Simple.

How much money would Mississippi have saved had they the same law as Arizona? Hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars not wasted? This is a golden opportunity for red states to save a lot of money.

Nothing quite like the example of a successful peer to give good legislators ideas.

8 posted on 10/17/2013 7:23:25 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Welfare is the new euphemism for Eugenics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Is an IWB holster considered illegal?

9 posted on 10/17/2013 8:11:34 AM PDT by B4Ranch (AGENDA: Grinding America Down ----- <<
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I love these articles, thanks for the post.

10 posted on 10/17/2013 10:18:36 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh; All

You are welcome. I am attempting to do the job that the MSM does not want anyone to do.

11 posted on 10/17/2013 11:05:22 AM PDT by marktwain (The MSM must die for the Republic to live. Long live the new media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Dang onyx, I sure thought I was on your Mississippi ping list. Please add me dear lady.

12 posted on 10/17/2013 2:26:57 PM PDT by houeto (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson