NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Fri Jul 19, 2013 10:42 pm

I am being told that 2014 will be the year of the gun in our legislature. I have been asked by several political activist groups to help put together legislation for the upcoming session. I have already submitted my Christmas list to a couple of them but thought I would share them with you to consider and offer me comment also. Please, lets don't turn this into a shouting match, but submit constructive criticism as we go. The groups may choose the top 3 of these or may push all of them, I don't know but these are the problems I see.

1. Delete the following from Mississippi Code, Section 45-9-53:

"To regulate the use of firearms in cases of insurrection, riots and natural disasters in which the city finds such regulation necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the lawful possession of firearms in the home, place of business or in transit to and from the home or place of business."

2. There are a number of problems with 45-9-101:

Paragraph 1, DPS is “authorized” to issue permits for pistols, revolvers AND “Stun guns” but stun guns are non-lethal weapons and do not fall into the deadly weapons statute of 97-37-1.

Comment: I don’t think we should be regulating non-lethal weapons which include, night sticks, pepper spray, even flashlights with intensity bright enough to temporarily blind or disorient, and so on.

Paragraph 13, Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by law. (This sentence should be left out. The state has no authority to restrict carry in federal facilities and it only makes for confusion like the recent Summit City Ordinance that prohibits carrying in a federal building.)

Paragraph 20, The commission is AUTHORIZED to issue rules and regulations. (They should be required to do so). i.e. The commission SHALL….

a.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to the public obtaining a permit.
b.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to instructors teaching permitees.
c.  Utilize the list of instructors to send out blast e-mails of all proposed rule changes.
d.  Post all rules, regulations and changes thereto on the Secretary of State website for public comment in
  accordance with the Administrative Records Act, prior to implementation, giving those concerned a 30 day
    opportunity to submit comments.
e. Evaluate instructor requests for approval of the classroom portion presented online as an option and require
    students to take a comprehensive exam upon arrival for the range portion of the training.

3. 45-9-101 Also a senior member of the legislature told me he is in favor of all new applicants for BASIC permits being required to take the training, grandfathering all those who currently have the BASIC Permit but requiring all recipients to re-take the training after 5 years. If that is done, it will require some language adjustment in 97-37-7 also.

4. 45-9-101 "Any person without a permit who is charged with any misdemeanor crime as a result of a gun charge, may voluntarily take the enhanced course and upon completion of the course, present a certificate of completion to the court for a one time dismissal of charges. That person will then be eligible for the Enhanced Carry Endorsement, if he has, or applies for a regular permit within 90 days of course completion."

5. 45-9-101 We need to do away with the permit all together and just put an endorsement on the back of our driver's license that says "Enhanced Carry" or Basic Carry. Maybe even color the front of it a certain color so police officers stopping you will no immediately without even flipping it over that you are authorized concealed carry. In either case, we DON'T need a permit that looks almost identical to a DL when the DL could do the same thing and save money as well as time...and the cost savings may be passed on to us!

6. Section 97-37-1 needs more work. It was amended this year with “lawyerly written” confusing language in paragraph (4) as to what concealed means. Some of the legislators are saying this is where a great deal of the so-call confusion is coming from according to law enforcement. In my opinion it should read something like this:

“For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and out of the eye of the public. However, if a sufficient portion of the weapon shows that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is a weapon, it is not considered concealed. Any firearm may be carried in a visible holster or inside a waistband as long as enough of it is showing to allow identification as a weapon. Further, no weapon carried completely covered in a case obviously designed for that purpose shall be considered concealed, regardless of the fact that no part of it is showing without opening the case.”

7. Also “or deadly weapon” needs to be deleted from paragraph (1) as it leads one to believe any full-length shotgun or rifle falls into this category when the legislature had no intent to make a hunting gun a “deadly weapon” unless it was used as one, in which they would be charged with a much more serious violation making the misdemeanor of carrying a concealed weapon a moot point anyway.

8. Also, we need to either take out “slingshot” and replace it with the original term of “slungshot” or delete it all together.

9. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-5:

    (1)  It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.
Comments:  Maybe we should define the word “possess.” Here’s the problem. A man gets convicted of a felony. He can’t possess a gun, not even a butcher knife in his house. A snitch tells the cops he has seen 3 weapons in the house. They get a search warrant, find the weapons and charge him with them. Maybe he owned them before his conviction. Can he not give them to his spouse? Maybe they are new and were purchased by his spouse.  So do his transgressions transfer to the spouse or other adult members of the household? Do they lose their right to self-defense because of his conviction? Can a spouse or other member of the household possess a weapon? Maybe the term should be “possess on his person.” Further, I am not so sure every felon should lose his constitutional rights to defend his person, home or property. Maybe it should be violent felons. For example, a little old lady bookkeeper embezzles $1,200 from a small business she works for.  Should that take away her right to defend her life? What about the murderers and other violent criminals that the governors have pardoned that can own guns? I know this would be federal issue especially with buying guns.

10. Also, I think we need to throw law enforcement a bone here. Since they are worried about not even being able to question someone openly carrying to determine if they are a felon, why don’t we double the punishment (now up to 3 years) of a felon carrying a firearm with no possibility for early release. With the criminal facing twice the punishment and no parole, if he gets caught with a gun, he will be less likely to carry (in theory anyway).

11. Also, we should consider throwing LE another bone by including authorization for them to carry statewide off duty since LEOSA doesn’t help in this state and they currently are not authorized by statute to carry 24/7 like we are with a permit. They could get a permit, but is that necessary? Maybe we could use this last two for bargaining chips to get them to cut the crap with the signage thing.

12. I believe either 97-17-97 or 97-23-17 should address the trespassing issues further:

If police are called to enforce a trespassing violation, over a NO GUN sign, the owner, operator or senior employee must sign charges alleging the violation of trespass and provide the court clerk with a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses, to include employees and patrons. The person signing the charges and all witnesses will be subpoenaed to appear in court and offer testimony to the offense when the trespass is based on carrying firearms unlawfully.

Comments:  This will take the burden off the police for having to serve as the businesses’ bouncer or security guard. If they know they have to sign the charges themselves and appear in court, they will be less likely to call the police.

13. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-9:

Under the Defenses for carrying concealed weapons (add)

That he was a retired law enforcement officer from another state carrying in accordance with the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA).

Also do away with the language in the last paragraph about permits issued by the Secretary of State prior to 1974. They aren’t valid now anyway.

14. NEW STATUTE: I am also working on a new statute that would force cities and counties to justify making a building “Sensitive” (No Guns), listing certain criteria while defining “sensitive” and conducting a Threat Assessment, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Assessment/Threat Analysis with a requirement to bolster security where we are disarmed.

I would like to know your thoughts about these specific statutes or any others that are gun related that need to be changed. We have to get through this other hurdle in the Supreme Court for now and may need other legislation depending upon how that is ruled on.

Rick Ward

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rcowanjr on Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:27 am

Rick,

Here are my thoughts:

1. AGREE

2. Paragraph 1: AGREE

2. Paragraph 13: DISAGREE- The code actually says 'federal law'.  While I understand that the state has no authority to restrict carry in federal facilities, I don't see a problem with that fact being spelled out.  I don't think it would have made any different in the Summit City Ordinance.  If they want to pretend that they can restrict carry in a federal facility, more power to them.

2. Paragraph 20: AGREE

3. DISAGREE - This is a tough one.  While I believe that every responsible gun owner/carrier should know how to handle a gun correctly and be aware of the laws regarding it's use in a self defense situation, I am against a mandate to require it.  This is mostly because if we submit to training now, what will they want next?  I didn't mind the training requirement to relax the restrictions on concealed carry.  I thought it was a smooth way to encourage training, while in no way penalizing those who weren't interested.  Another way to encourage the training is to reduce the cost of the permit if you take an authorized course.  For instance, when you renew or receive a permit for the first time, how about paying for the fingerprints and you're done? Wink

4. Without more information, I have to DISAGREE.  If you do something stupid with a gun, maybe you should have received training to learn how to not be stupid, thereby avoiding the charge.  Gun carriers should be responsible from the moment you walk out the door -- not allowed to be stupid one time and then get a mulligan.  If you were more specific on a misdemeanor as it relates to guns, I might change my mind.

5. AGREE

6. Slightly DISAGREE - I think the new language in paragraph 4 is clear enough.  I don't think it is confusing to the legislators (they approved it) or law enforcement.  I believe their argument about paragraph 4 is a smokescreen to try to prevent folks from carrying openly.  Having said that, I do like the first two sentences of your alternate text.  But sentence 3, which starts with "Any firearm" does not, in my opinion, belong in the text, as the entire sentence relates to open carry, and not concealed carry.  

Maybe if it was reworded to something like this: "Any firearm carried in a visible holster or inside a waistband/pocket, where enough of the firearm is visible allowing a reasonable person to identify it as a weapon, is not concealed."

As for the last sentence in the alternate text, I think it could cause problems.  So maybe there is another way to describe what you want.  I'm thinking of the holsters like the 'Bulldog', which might be obvious to other gun owners, but not to the general public.  A person could use that sentence in its current form to justify concealing inside a 'Bulldog'.  That could create a mess, legally.

7. AGREE

8. I'm definitely ignorant on this one.  I don't understand the significant difference.

9. AGREE - This is another tough one.  I think we all know that if this is the case, then the felon will just say the weapons belong to another member of the house.  However, as long as he can't leave the house with them, then they can only be used in the defense of the home, which should be every person's right.  The argument will be that if the felon is allowed to be in the same house with the guns, then he doesn't have to work to find a gun to commit another felony.  While I see that as true, the law shouldn't punish other law abiding folks who live there by limiting THEIR right to bear arms.  I mean, isn't that all that gun control will accomplish?  To punish law abiding citizens when those who choose to be criminals will just ignore the laws anyway?

10. AGREE.  Why not up the penalty to 5 years or 10 years?  I wouldn't have a problem with that.

11. AGREE.  To be honest, I didn't realize a police officer couldn't carry while off duty.  Of course, as a result of HB2, they can carry openly off duty.  I like the idea of using the language as a bargaining chip.

12. AGREE

13. AGREE

14. AGREE

As for other suggestions, I would like to see language that specifies law enforcement may not stop a person for just carrying a weapon, or ask for proof that they are not a felon.  I know it is in the AG's opinion of 13 Jun 2013, but having it codified would be better.

Thanks for all you do for the gun owner community.  You ARE appreciated!  clap

rcowanjr
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 152
Join date: 2010-11-21
Age: 40
Location: Wiggins, MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sat Jul 20, 2013 5:23 am

rwcowanjr:

Thanks for your quick and detailed response. I will keep your suggestions in mind as we move forward and discuss these matters. I understand your concerns about some of them. As for number 8, somewhere around the turn of the 20th century a clerk didn't know what a slungshot was and changed the u to an i making it a slingshot. A slungshot is still found in a lot of state codes. It is an old weapon like a bolo with 3 balls woven into twine with a wrist attachment, used to swing and hit somebody in the head. There was no other purpose for it but a head bashing weapon, made by sailors in the 19th and maybe earlier century. An Ole Miss law professor approached this subject years ago with the legislature and didn't get anywhere because other states, as they often do, had copied our statutes and had slingshots in their codes.

Rick

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Dave1289 on Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:36 am

rickward wrote:
11. Also, we should consider throwing LE another bone by including authorization for them to carry statewide off duty since LEOSA doesn’t help in this state and they currently are not authorized by statute to carry 24/7 like we are with a permit. They could get a permit, but is that necessary? Maybe we could use this last two for bargaining chips to get them to cut the crap with the signage thing.

All of that looks good Rick but, I thought LE could already carry off duty.

45-9-101 Paragraph 13
A law enforcement officer as defined in Section 45-6-3, chiefs of police, sheriffs and persons licensed as professional bondsmen pursuant to Chapter 39, Title 83, Mississippi Code of 1972, shall be exempt from the licensing requirements of this section.

Also, didn't realize that LEOSA didn't cover home state.

Dave1289
Full Poster
Full Poster

Posts: 34
Join date: 2011-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:11 am

They are exempt from the permit statute that you mentioned and many of them think they are cops 24/7, but any of the statutes you read about them refers to in the line of duty. I made an earlier Supreme Court posting about that titled Shirley v State.

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by sand_man on Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:48 am

Would it be possible to lower the costs involved in the permit process and the enhanced class? Could the permit process be sped up instead of waiting 45 days? You can get a DL in one day so why not a permit? Some of us have to drive for an hour or more to a location that accepts permit applications. Can't a regular DL office print them up?

I am on fixed income and by the time I spend gas driving to Hattiesburg or Gulfport and then paying for the permit, that is money I need for a bill or something else. For some spending $300 on getting a permit is no big deal but for people like me that's 1/4 of my monthly income.

sand_man
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 6431
Join date: 2009-05-24
Age: 58
Location: Shipman

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bucmeister on Sat Jul 20, 2013 8:53 am

Good work Rick.  Have not digested it all yet though.  One thing did reach out to me though in the proposed wording in item #6

"However, if a sufficient portion of the weapon shows that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is a weapon, it is not considered concealed." 

That will still end up being a judgement call with "sufficient portion" and "reasonable person" being grounds to put it into court nearly as easily as the "in part" of the old law did.  I have had concerns about that type of wording even in HB 2 as it exists now.  Your intent is is clear to me, but then I do not find HB 2 vague, so maybe I am overly reasonable or rather maybe I just have a good dose of common sense!  Not sure how to define it otherwise though, so this may be as good as it can be gotten.

As far as requiring the training for all permits I see good and bad in that.  The main good is that our permits would be accepted in more states and the arguments I get from many about no training necessary to have a permit would be negated.  Of course, those that are going on about no training want mandatory training for OC also, then when you ask how that would be verified they either don't know or say the law should be able to stop and verify at all times, that that would be the price for exercising open carry.  I then ask them how many driver's license checks a week would they be willing to go through in order to have those driving without a license taken off of the road?  Vehicles kill more people than guns and a number of the deadly crashes involve people that are unlicensed or driving under suspension.

bucmeister
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 651
Join date: 2010-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by oO_Rogue_Oo on Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:12 am

Probably not a popular opinion but I think that LEOs SHOULD be required to go through the same permit process as we do for off-duty concealed carry. Perhaps at reduced cost or even better, department / employer sponsored. This is especially true when you include bondsmen etc in the mix.

As far requiring training for a permit goes I have lived in states that had that requirement and it opened the door for them to restrict permits by way of changing who was authorized to give the training and when and how often the training was available. So although I feel strongly that anyone who carries a firearm (be it open or concealed) should have training I would rather not see it be a requirement.

oO_Rogue_Oo
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 372
Join date: 2011-08-07
Location: Pearl, MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Q-Tip on Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:22 am

Very in favor of suggestion 1. Cities should not be able to touch firearms at all. I would add that cities cannot ban firearms in any of their own property as well (unless they follow my last suggestion).

I would be in favor of allowing off-duty police to carry IF they were still limited to the places that IC permit holders can carry. I.e, they still can't carry past signs.

I love the idea of the DL and FP being on a single card. The IC endorsement could also be on that card without being a sticker. This should lower the price too.

I'm opposed to a training requirement, unless the only permit has the same limits as what is now the "Enhanced" permit.

This is my own addition. I believe there should only be two limitations on where we can carry firearms, whether openly or concealed. One is a private business that posts a sign. The other is a place (referring to government buildings specifically) that provides sufficient armed security, AND stores your weapon for you as you enter the building. If a state, local, or federal government is so worried about "sensitive" places, they need to fund armed security, and there is no reason they can't store weapons safely while a person is doing their business inside.

Q-Tip
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 533
Join date: 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by TheGreatGonzo on Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:40 am

[quote="Dave1289"]
rickward wrote:

Also, didn't realize that LEOSA didn't cover home state.

LEOSA does cover a LEO's home state as far as general carry goes.  I may have not made that very clear in another thread and I tried to correct my wording in an edit.  However, a LEO in his/her home state (or any other state) is still restricted by state law in two specific areas.  LEOSA does not  supersede a home state law regarding:

     1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
     2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

However, under LEOSA, a LEO may carry off duty in any state (including his/her own) while observing the above restrictions as cited in state law.
Gonzo

TheGreatGonzo
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 1173
Join date: 2009-07-09
Location: ...a bar in far Bombay.

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Sluggo on Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:45 am

It should not matter whether the person who sees your weapon is "reasonable" or not, if they can recognize it as a weapon then it is not concealed. The reasonable person phrase can be misused by law enforcement who might claim that only they are professional enough to recognize a pistol by seeing just the handle. Therefore, a reasonable person would not notice it so it is concealed.

This is exactly the same crap they pulled with the "in whole or in part" phrase.

What we need is to follow the Arkansas model of constitutional carry. Having a weapon, open or concealed should not be a crime. It should only be a crime if you harm or threaten to harm others. Arkansas law will handle people carrying guns the same way many state laws handle possession of “tools of burglary”. Normally, you can get away with carrying common hand tools anywhere you otherwise have a right to be. But if you are caught trying to use them in an attempt at breaking and entering or even trespassing you can be charged with a crime based on obvious intent to use that tool in furtherance of a crime. This is an excellent way to deal with people carrying guns. As long as you are not harming, or attempting to harm others with a weapon then possession alone should not be a crime.

The burden of proof has shifted to the accuser (the state) who now has to prove that you are up to no good rather than you simply have the POTENTIAL for crime based on ready access to a weapon. This is the model Mississippi should follow.

Sluggo
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 724
Join date: 2013-03-09

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by TheGreatGonzo on Sat Jul 20, 2013 9:48 am

rickward wrote:They are exempt from the permit statute that you mentioned and many of them think they are cops 24/7, but any of the statutes you read about them refers to in the line of duty. I made an earlier Supreme Court posting about that titled Shirley v State.

Rick,
Just so I'm clear, it is your contention that any local, county, or state law enforcement officer in the state of Mississippi that is currently carrying a concealed firearm off duty is doing so in violation of state law?
Gonzo

TheGreatGonzo
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 1173
Join date: 2009-07-09
Location: ...a bar in far Bombay.

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bar306 on Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:33 am

This may be getting slightly off subject, but just wondering as it popped into my simpleton mind - What might be the legalities involved with uniformed (on-duty or off-duty) military law enforcement (MP)/military installation civilian contractor security personnel carrying openly off military installation as well as out-of-uniform military law enforcement/military installation civilian contractor security personnel carrying concealed while off the military installation?  

I'm sure military reservation regulations supercede state law while on the installation, but wondering about when a military law enforcement officer leaves the installation in performance of official duty and also when not on offical duty?  

Are MP and civilian security contractor personnel allowed to carry personal firearms in addition to any that may be issued to them for duty purposes?  

Few military law enforcement personnel and none of the contractor personnel actually reside within the installation where they are assigned or perform their official duty.  I think there are a few military police types among the membership here who might provide some interesting comments.

bar306
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 335
Join date: 2013-02-14

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bbenea on Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:36 am

Military police on duty are treated no differently than any other LEO.

bbenea
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 168
Join date: 2013-06-07
Age: 44
Location: Columbus

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by jackruff on Sat Jul 20, 2013 11:46 am

Interesting comments about off-duty law enforcement officers carrying concealed weapons. A friend of mine is an officer in a large city in another state. He says it is his department's policy that he be armed at all times no matter where he is, although I guess a law in this or another state could trump that policy.

jackruff
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 216
Join date: 2012-01-24
Location: Pearl River County

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bucmeister on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:03 pm

One potential issue with combining the concealed carry/IC and Driver's license revolves around the duration of each.  At my last DL renewal I opted for the 8 year license so if the concealed permit were added to it while still on a 5 year cycle there could be complications.

bucmeister
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 651
Join date: 2010-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Jarrado on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:50 pm

How would that relate to military members as far as conceal carry then?

And I have a slight issue with number 12. Requiring a business owner to file charges if they call the police is going to far, it could be seen as discouraging or intimidation as far as calling LE. I think that making the business owner post a sign for open carry and a different one for concealed, so as to completely make their intent known, would be best. I mean, if they don't want guns inside, we shouldn't be in there anyway. Its just pushing the issue in a bad way. I do find it a bit 2 face, in a sense, to allow yourself [business owner] or your employees to carry but not your customers. If guns are the problem, the entire premises should be devoid of firearms. If its people then permit holders should be allowed.

I'll agree 100% that CC/EC permits should be easier and cheaper to obtain. Its one of the reasons I haven't applied. I simply do not have the ability to do it right now.

Jarrado
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 395
Join date: 2013-07-11

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Glock1701D on Sat Jul 20, 2013 12:59 pm

The combined license brings up a discussion brought up before. Do you hand over both on routine traffic stop or only "on demand " by LEO?
I do think required training, while a good idea, and permits are a way that can be used to discourage carry.

Glock1701D
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 416
Join date: 2013-04-12

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bucmeister on Sat Jul 20, 2013 1:03 pm

As it relates to trespass, I absolutely think the owner/manager should have to do the filing just as I would have to do on my hunting or house land.  If I am unwilling to file an affidavit against a person for trespass the law officer will not file on my behalf.

bucmeister
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 651
Join date: 2010-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rmse9 on Sat Jul 20, 2013 4:45 pm

Lot of good discussion on this. I agree with several others about required training for the basic permit. I feel as a law abiding citizen that passes a background check I would not like to see any additional constraints in the process of obtaining a permit. I also agree with others that everyone should properly know how to use a firearm, but making training a requirement to obtain the permit should not happen.

Read an article in NRA America's Freedom today that Texas previously required training prior to issuing a permit and now they passed amendment to remove that requirement.

Don't think the framers of our State or National Constitution had any inkling of requiring training to keep and bear arms.

I also do not think a certified law enforcement officer active or retired should have a requirement for a permit for off duty carry.

rmse9
Established Poster
Established Poster

Posts: 128
Join date: 2013-06-02
Age: 66
Location: North MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Dave1289 on Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:28 pm

TheGreatGonzo wrote:
LEOSA does cover a LEO's home state as far as general carry goes.  I may have not made that very clear in another thread and I tried to correct my wording in an edit.  However, a LEO in his/her home state (or any other state) is still restricted by state law in two specific areas.  LEOSA does not  supersede a home state law regarding:

     1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
     2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

However, under LEOSA, a LEO may carry off duty in any state (including his/her own) while observing the above restrictions as cited in state law.
Gonzo

Thanks for clearing that up Gonzo. Spent 45 minutes reading and re-reading 922B trying to figure out how it didn't cover carry in home state.

Dave1289
Full Poster
Full Poster

Posts: 34
Join date: 2011-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Jarrado on Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:11 pm

bucmeister wrote:As it relates to trespass, I absolutely think the owner/manager should have to do the filing just as I would have to do on my hunting or house land.  If I am unwilling to file an affidavit against a person for trespass the law officer will not file on my behalf.

Ah, I see now. Your right, the property owner should be the only one who can file charges. LEO should have absolutely no power to do so. I read it wrong and though that it meant: If a LEO is called to the scene, then the property owner MUST file charges.


Jarrado
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 395
Join date: 2013-07-11

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by stewbaby on Sat Jul 20, 2013 7:56 pm

Thanks for the above and beyond effort Mr. Rick.

stewbaby
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 1140
Join date: 2012-05-01
Location: Pelahatchie

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Squeezer on Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:21 am

I like a lot of the proposed changes. I would also like to see 45-9-53 section (f) updated. I think there is a conflict between "(f) To regulate the carrying of a firearm at: (i) a public park or at a public meeting of a county, municipality or other governmental body; (ii) a political rally, parade or official political meeting; or (iii) a nonfirearm-related school, college or professional athletic event; or" and the enhanced conceal carry permit which allows one to carry in these places.

Squeezer
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 388
Join date: 2011-04-06

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:29 am

rickward wrote:
3. 45-9-101 Also a senior member of the legislature told me he is in favor of all new applicants for BASIC permits being required to take the training, grandfathering all those who currently have the BASIC Permit but requiring all recipients to re-take the training after 5 years. If that is done, it will require some language adjustment in 97-37-7 also.

I would like to know your thoughts about these specific statutes or any others that are gun related that need to be changed. We have to get through this other hurdle in the Supreme Court for now and may need other legislation depending upon how that is ruled on.

Rick Ward

I told you guys some dingleberry would try to make a requirement of "training" to get a permit.
This is just the kind of "INFRINGEMENT" on the 2A rights we don't need.

http://www.msgunowners.com/t43449p20-two-types-of-ccw-holders-will-pose-problems-for-the-majority-of-ccw-holders#406781

It's already a shame we have to jump through hoops and pay out TAXES to exercise our rights.
Now they want some self proclaimed "expert" to collect more fees to give you a paper.

Whoever supports this is a lowlife and a traitor.

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Ripsaw on Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:25 pm

rickward wrote:I am being told that 2014 will be the year of the gun in our legislature. I have been asked by several political activist groups to help put together legislation for the upcoming session. I have already submitted my Christmas list to a couple of them but thought I would share them with you to consider and offer me comment also. Please, lets don't turn this into a shouting match, but submit constructive criticism as we go. The groups may choose the top 3 of these or may push all of them, I don't know but these are the problems I see.

1. Delete the following from Mississippi Code, Section 45-9-53:

"To regulate the use of firearms in cases of insurrection, riots and natural disasters in which the city finds such regulation necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the lawful possession of firearms in the home, place of business or in transit to and from the home or place of business."

The reason this is in there to begin with, is to control the overthrow of a corrupt government by the people. Of course, get rid of anything that says insurrection. That is how we became America....insurrection. The constitution says it is our duty to abolish corrupt (tyrannical) government. Of course the government does not want to take it out, to protect themselves and their cash cow, otherwise, they would have to get real jobs and actually do some work.

2. There are a number of problems with 45-9-101:

Paragraph 1, DPS is “authorized” to issue permits for pistols, revolvers AND “Stun guns” but stun guns are non-lethal weapons and do not fall into the deadly weapons statute of 97-37-1.

DPS is not authorized to issue permits or regulate anything......period. They just took it upon themselves to do so. It is not legal because of it's conflict with the constitution, therefore, null and void of law.

Comment: I don’t think we should be regulating non-lethal weapons which include, night sticks, pepper spray, even flashlights with intensity bright enough to temporarily blind or disorient, and so on.

Noone should be attempting to regulate anything.

Paragraph 13, Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by law. (This sentence should be left out. The state has no authority to restrict carry in federal facilities and it only makes for confusion like the recent Summit City Ordinance that prohibits carrying in a federal building.)

Finally, something correct.

Paragraph 20, The commission is AUTHORIZED to issue rules and regulations. (They should be required to do so). i.e. The commission SHALL….

a.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to the public obtaining a permit.
b.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to instructors teaching permitees.
c.  Utilize the list of instructors to send out blast e-mails of all proposed rule changes.
d.  Post all rules, regulations and changes thereto on the Secretary of State website for public comment in
    accordance with the Administrative Records Act, prior to implementation, giving those concerned a 30 day
    opportunity to submit comments.
e. Evaluate instructor requests for approval of the classroom portion presented online as an option and require
    students to take a comprehensive exam upon arrival for the range portion of the training.

3. 45-9-101 Also a senior member of the legislature told me he is in favor of all new applicants for BASIC permits being required to take the training, grandfathering all those who currently have the BASIC Permit but requiring all recipients to re-take the training after 5 years. If that is done, it will require some language adjustment in 97-37-7 also.

4. 45-9-101 "Any person without a permit who is charged with any misdemeanor crime as a result of a gun charge, may voluntarily take the enhanced course and upon completion of the course, present a certificate of completion to the court for a one time dismissal of charges. That person will then be eligible for the Enhanced Carry Endorsement, if he has, or applies for a regular permit within 90 days of course completion."

5. 45-9-101 We need to do away with the permit all together and just put an endorsement on the back of our driver's license that says "Enhanced Carry" or Basic Carry. Maybe even color the front of it a certain color so police officers stopping you will no immediately without even flipping it over that you are authorized concealed carry. In either case, we DON'T need a permit that looks almost identical to a DL when the DL could do the same thing and save money as well as time...and the cost savings may be passed on to us!

6. Section 97-37-1 needs more work. It was amended this year with “lawyerly written” confusing language in paragraph (4) as to what concealed means. Some of the legislators are saying this is where a great deal of the so-call confusion is coming from according to law enforcement. In my opinion it should read something like this:

“For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and out of the eye of the public. However, if a sufficient portion of the weapon shows that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is a weapon, it is not considered concealed. Any firearm may be carried in a visible holster or inside a waistband as long as enough of it is showing to allow identification as a weapon. Further, no weapon carried completely covered in a case obviously designed for that purpose shall be considered concealed, regardless of the fact that no part of it is showing without opening the case.”

7. Also “or deadly weapon” needs to be deleted from paragraph (1) as it leads one to believe any full-length shotgun or rifle falls into this category when the legislature had no intent to make a hunting gun a “deadly weapon” unless it was used as one, in which they would be charged with a much more serious violation making the misdemeanor of carrying a concealed weapon a moot point anyway.

8. Also, we need to either take out “slingshot” and replace it with the original term of “slungshot” or delete it all together.

9. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-5:

Again, the commission is not AUTHORIZED to do anything, unless you want them too, or ask them too. Just don't ask them.
    (1)  It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.
Comments:  Maybe we should define the word “possess.” Here’s the problem. A man gets convicted of a felony. He can’t possess a gun, not even a butcher knife in his house. A snitch tells the cops he has seen 3 weapons in the house. They get a search warrant, find the weapons and charge him with them. Maybe he owned them before his conviction. Can he not give them to his spouse? Maybe they are new and were purchased by his spouse.  So do his transgressions transfer to the spouse or other adult members of the household? Do they lose their right to self-defense because of his conviction? Can a spouse or other member of the household possess a weapon? Maybe the term should be “possess on his person.” Further, I am not so sure every felon should lose his constitutional rights to defend his person, home or property. Maybe it should be violent felons. For example, a little old lady bookkeeper embezzles $1,200 from a small business she works for.  Should that take away her right to defend her life? What about the murderers and other violent criminals that the governors have pardoned that can own guns? I know this would be federal issue especially with buying guns.

The key word here is possess. The law says "under your control" which is even more vague. All of it is a moot point anyway, given the certificate of rehabilitation and relief from disabilities act. Nobody may take away your right to defend your own life, no matter what you may have been charged or convicted with/of.

10. Also, I think we need to throw law enforcement a bone here. Since they are worried about not even being able to question someone openly carrying to determine if they are a felon, why don’t we double the punishment (now up to 3 years) of a felon carrying a firearm with no possibility for early release. With the criminal facing twice the punishment and no parole, if he gets caught with a gun, he will be less likely to carry (in theory anyway).

11. Also, we should consider throwing LE another bone by including authorization for them to carry statewide off duty since LEOSA doesn’t help in this state and they currently are not authorized by statute to carry 24/7 like we are with a permit. They could get a permit, but is that necessary? Maybe we could use this last two for bargaining chips to get them to cut the crap with the signage thing.

A badge does not confer extra rights in this country. They already have the same right to carry as we do, anywhere, anyhow, anytime they see fit. They do not need to be on duty to do so. Remember, our rights are what we say they are. Not some gibberish some lawyer (legislators) scribbled on a piece of paper somewhere.

12. I believe either 97-17-97 or 97-23-17 should address the trespassing issues further:

If police are called to enforce a trespassing violation, over a NO GUN sign, the owner, operator or senior employee must sign charges alleging the violation of trespass and provide the court clerk with a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses, to include employees and patrons. The person signing the charges and all witnesses will be subpoenaed to appear in court and offer testimony to the offense when the trespass is based on carrying firearms unlawfully.

You can not be charged with criminal trespass until you have been verbally warned. A sign does not get it done.

Comments:  This will take the burden off the police for having to serve as the businesses’ bouncer or security guard. If they know they have to sign the charges themselves and appear in court, they will be less likely to call the police.

13. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-9:

Under the Defenses for carrying concealed weapons (add)

That he was a retired law enforcement officer from another state carrying in accordance with the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA).

Also do away with the language in the last paragraph about permits issued by the Secretary of State prior to 1974. They aren’t valid now anyway.

14. NEW STATUTE: I am also working on a new statute that would force cities and counties to justify making a building “Sensitive” (No Guns), listing certain criteria while defining “sensitive” and conducting a Threat Assessment, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Assessment/Threat Analysis with a requirement to bolster security where we are disarmed.

I would like to know your thoughts about these specific statutes or any others that are gun related that need to be changed. We have to get through this other hurdle in the Supreme Court for now and may need other legislation depending upon how that is ruled on.

Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many Citizens, because of their respect for what appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights due to ignorance.” US v Minker, 350 US 179 at 187(1956)

Suffice it to say that all of these so called laws, which in fact are mostly statutes, not voted into law, therefore not really laws, are just slight of hand by the legislators and government to control you. See below.......

"The state citizen is immune from any and all government attacks and procedure, absent contract." see, Dred Scott vs. Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 or as the Supreme Court has stated clearly, “…every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.”
CRUDEN vs. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 2 S.E. 70

If you do not consent to all this nonsense, you do not have to be a part of it.

"The rights of the individuals are restricted only to the extent that they have been voluntarily surrendered by the citizenship to the agencies of government." City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425, (1886) "An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."

Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486,489 "The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."

“To take away all remedy for the enforcement of a right is to take away the right itself. But that is not within the power of the State.” Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270, 303 (1885).

Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748,(1970) "Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness."

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401 (1958). "No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it." The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents."


Rick Ward

Ripsaw
New Member
New Member

Posts: 11
Join date: 2013-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bigun220 on Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:11 pm

Here are my suggestions:
I would like to see the legislature pass complete preemption of ALL firearm laws with civil and criminal penalties for cities/counties violating preemption. Florida is a good example to follow. Additionally, MS needs to follow Utah on the school carry issue. Colleges shouldn't be able to place sanctions against employees and students for exercising a right.


bigun220
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 417
Join date: 2011-04-24
Age: 25
Location: Soso, MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by sand_man on Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:44 pm

Our legislature should be making it easier and cheaper for us to carry, not the other way around. If these courses become mandatory then who will pay for them? This thing is going in the wrong direction!

sand_man
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 6431
Join date: 2009-05-24
Age: 58
Location: Shipman

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Q-Tip on Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:21 pm

marionmedic wrote:
I told you guys some dingleberry would try to make a requirement of "training" to get a permit.
This is just the kind of "INFRINGEMENT" on the 2A rights we don't need.

It's already a shame we have to jump through hoops and pay out TAXES to exercise our rights.
Now they want some self proclaimed "expert" to collect more fees to give you a paper.

Whoever supports this is a lowlife and a traitor.


I know you weren't referring to my post saying that I would be ok with training for a single permit that had the benefits of the Enhanced permit, but I wanted to clarify something about it. The whole Carry Permit process, even as it stands now, is a privilege. The carry right we have in MS for now is the right to open carry. But I guess I'm getting into semantics. Of course, our goal needs to be full Constitutional Carry.

Q-Tip
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 533
Join date: 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by Q-Tip on Sun Jul 21, 2013 3:29 pm

Also, Rick, on point #12 (trespassing), I think it would pass much easier if the business owner had to press charges for trespass of any reason, not just specifically ignoring a No Guns sign.

Perhaps it could read something like "Owners of a private business open to the public shall file trespass charges themselves, show up to court, bring witnesses, etc." With more fancy words and such.

Q-Tip
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 533
Join date: 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by JMILLER on Sun Jul 21, 2013 4:55 pm

I FEEL AS OTHERS HERE DO. IF WE SUBMIT TO
FINGERPRINTING AND BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED TO START "COMPROMISING"
AND GIVING IN.

JMILLER
New Member
New Member

Posts: 8
Join date: 2013-02-19
Age: 59
Location: Laurel

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:02 pm

I have read all the comments and will take all of them into consideration as we move on. Obviously you can't please all the people all the time and although I would like to comment on each one, I don't have the time. Some are repeating what I have already said, some are in total disagreement that we have valid laws at all, some don't want any laws at all, some think permits should be cheaper and they probably will be if we get it down to one card with an endorsement on it. Some have offered some very good comments and alternative ideas.

Right now though as the number of responses increase, if one were to try and agree on something, it would be so difficult it wouldn't happened. If you have 5 guys in a room, they could all probably agree on pizza for lunch, but when the numbers increase, somebody will want hamburgers while others will want chicken or Chinese food.

Maybe instead of arguing each point, we should establish a group within, that is made up of reasonable people who are realistic in their goals of getting laws passed. Bashing the system, the legislators, or the laws will get us nowhere. Banning together in numbers and getting one or more legislators on our side willing to look at common sense approaches, while willing to support him (them) will get us there if anything will. We have to understand we are not going to get everything we want.

Maybe we could set up a membership poll and get votes on each law that we concur with, then back those that the majority agrees with.

I would be willing to lead a group towards that goal if they were realistic and willing to be proactive and positive.

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:13 pm

RIPSAW:

Why hide your identity and profile? If you are that knowledgeable and right about everything you say, as well as motivated and passionate as you seem, we need to know if you are real and willing to work with us rather than end all government, laws and the world as we know it?

I find it hard to take a new member with no profile and no way of us knowing your background, position, or anything else credible. You are making some pretty strong allegations here, some of which I already don't agree with, short of any proof otherwise. It seems you want to live an a lawless society. Could somebody else chime in here and tell me if I am the only one that feels this way?

Rick Ward
601 665 6088

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:42 pm

Q-Tip wrote:
marionmedic wrote:
I told you guys some dingleberry would try to make a requirement of "training" to get a permit.
This is just the kind of "INFRINGEMENT" on the 2A rights we don't need.

It's already a shame we have to jump through hoops and pay out TAXES to exercise our rights.
Now they want some self proclaimed "expert" to collect more fees to give you a paper.

Whoever supports this is a lowlife and a traitor.


I know you weren't referring to my post saying that I would be ok with training for a single permit that had the benefits of the Enhanced permit, but I wanted to clarify something about it. The whole Carry Permit process, even as it stands now, is a privilege. The carry right we have in MS for now is the right to open carry. But I guess I'm getting into semantics. Of course, our goal needs to be full Constitutional Carry.

Don't know you and you were furthest from my mind when I posted I think.
Glad you want Constitutional Carry.

I was referring to the "senior member of the legislature" in the quoted post.... WHOMEVER that may be.
Self defense is NOT a "privilege", it is a RIGHT.
The ONLY "carry" that can be regulated in any manner is "concealed".
But I am opposed to ANYONE who thinks addition of ANY more fees or requirements is needed or wanted.

I stand by my assessment of ANYONE who seeks to limit and place more hoops as a "lowlife and traitor".
Traitor to the CONSTITUTION, not some jackboot government or it's tyrants.
And I never rescinded my oath "against ALL enemies", even the "domestic" ones.

The word INFRINGEMENT is easily defined and understood.
It means "limitations, requirements, or anything that prevents or hinders".

So now I guess I need to apologize if there are any who fit my "specs" and get offended.
So, if I did offend......

"I oughta be ashamed of myself..... I'm not, but I guess I oughta be. And I'm sorry they are lowlifes and traitors."

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:52 pm

JMILLER wrote:I FEEL AS OTHERS HERE DO. IF WE SUBMIT TO
FINGERPRINTING AND BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
WE DON'T NEED TO START "COMPROMISING"
AND GIVING IN.

Bravo !!!
We need to go forward, not lose ground.... not even a MILLIMETER.

My "line in the sand" was changed to a "line in reinforced concrete" years ago.

I have carried for many years.
I only got my Permit to try and be a "good boy" for a change, instead of an outlaw.
In the long of it, I am STILL going to carry no matter what. But it's nice to be an "in-law" for a change.

The last thing needed is to make being "legal" harder for a man. It creates more problems than it solves.

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bar306 on Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:56 pm

Poll thing on ideas for proposals sounds like a good way to go. It's impossible to create from a constantly evolving discussion.

bar306
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 335
Join date: 2013-02-14

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:03 pm

Like it or not, laws are political. Refusal to compromise will never get you anywhere. I will continue to move forward on what I am doing and will not work with anybody with that attitude. Comments received and understood.

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:05 pm

Bar306:

You are exactly right, thanks.

Rick

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by sand_man on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:18 pm

Keep up the good work Rick. Any way I can help let me know.

sand_man
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 6431
Join date: 2009-05-24
Age: 58
Location: Shipman

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:37 pm

rickward wrote:Like it or not, laws are political. Refusal to compromise will never get you anywhere. I will continue to move forward on what I am doing and will not work with anybody with that attitude. Comments received and understood.

Sorry you feel that way.
I will work with anyone who is trying to promote freedom.

The spectrum goes from far left to far right, as we all know.
Those of us who believe in no compromise are the right side anchor.

I thought we were still allowed our own beliefs, and am surprised more than a little at the "attitude" that folks like me are somehow inferior to those who have no firm position.
Just cause a person does not choose to wear out the knees of his/her trousers, or flitter about like a feather on the wind, does not mean we are wrong.

I'm just glad the "3%" did not "go with the flow to get along" back 230+/- years ago.
I hate "hot tea", and think those English accents are annoying.

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:43 pm

Never said you were wrong, just won't work with anybody who has that attitude.

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:03 pm

OKayy...

Hope I'm misreading you, cause we AGREE on too many issues 110%.
Would hate to not be able to support one another when needed.

I relent cause when we argue amongst ourselves we accomplish little against our enemies, or for ourselves.

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by sand_man on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:08 pm

Politicians have to be convinced that what we need them to do is really their idea to begin with. It takes special knowledge to make that happen.

sand_man
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 6431
Join date: 2009-05-24
Age: 58
Location: Shipman

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by marionmedic on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:23 pm

sand_man wrote:Politicians have to be convinced that what we need them to do is really their idea to begin with. It takes special knowledge to make that happen.

I know, but it's hard to drive finish nails effectively when you are a sledgehammer.
I'll leave that job to folks like Rick.

marionmedic
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 182
Join date: 2010-12-01
Location: Marion, MS

http://www.dixiepreparedness.org

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by CinBrandon on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:28 pm

I just read this article. It's not a complete bill like I would want. But it is an idea.
http://www.guns.com/2012/03/16/kansas-house-passes-concealed-carry-government-buildings-bill/

Thanks Rick for working on this and the time you put into it.

CinBrandon
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 1060
Join date: 2011-07-15
Location: Rankin County, MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by rickward on Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:58 pm

You can't go to any bargaining table without flexibility. Many of the legislators have caught a lot of flack over this "open carry" issue. Many feel that anybody and everybody will pick up a gun and be a danger to themselves as well as others whether they intend to or not. They have to go back to their constituents with something to ease their mind. I think that is their intention with the training requirement. I don't know what will or will not be approved, but I can guarantee you that the paragraph that talks about holstered guns will be the hottest topic in the legislature and will change.

rickward
Site Sponsor
Site Sponsor

Posts: 746
Join date: 2012-04-30
Age: 61
Location: Brandon, MS

http://www.concealedweaponcarry.com

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bar306 on Sun Jul 21, 2013 11:49 pm

I'm not as concerned about any future OC regulations as I am about future regulations that might impair a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a CCW permit and being able to use this privelege everywhere and anywhere it might be possibly needed for self-protection from bodily harm or worse.

bar306
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 335
Join date: 2013-02-14

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by bigun220 on Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:32 am

Based on some of the comments I have read, I am a little concerned that gun rights are going to be curbed some due to irrational fear. As for the OC issue, I think the legislature should just leave it alone and let all the fear die down.

Rickward, thank you for your hard work on gun rights in MS.

bigun220
Veteran Poster
Veteran Poster

Posts: 417
Join date: 2011-04-24
Age: 25
Location: Soso, MS

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by 94LEVERFAN on Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:23 pm

rickward wrote:I am being told that 2014 will be the year of the gun in our legislature. I have been asked by several political activist groups to help put together legislation for the upcoming session. I have already submitted my Christmas list to a couple of them but thought I would share them with you to consider and offer me comment also. Please, lets don't turn this into a shouting match, but submit constructive criticism as we go. The groups may choose the top 3 of these or may push all of them, I don't know but these are the problems I see.

1. Delete the following from Mississippi Code, Section 45-9-53:

"To regulate the use of firearms in cases of insurrection, riots and natural disasters in which the city finds such regulation necessary to protect the health and safety of the public. However, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the lawful possession of firearms in the home, place of business or in transit to and from the home or place of business."

2. There are a number of problems with 45-9-101:

Paragraph 1, DPS is “authorized” to issue permits for pistols, revolvers AND “Stun guns” but stun guns are non-lethal weapons and do not fall into the deadly weapons statute of 97-37-1.

Comment: I don’t think we should be regulating non-lethal weapons which include, night sticks, pepper spray, even flashlights with intensity bright enough to temporarily blind or disorient, and so on.

Paragraph 13, Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by law. (This sentence should be left out. The state has no authority to restrict carry in federal facilities and it only makes for confusion like the recent Summit City Ordinance that prohibits carrying in a federal building.)

Paragraph 20, The commission is AUTHORIZED to issue rules and regulations. (They should be required to do so). i.e. The commission SHALL….

a.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to the public obtaining a permit.
b.  Issue rules and regulations applicable to instructors teaching permitees.
c.  Utilize the list of instructors to send out blast e-mails of all proposed rule changes.
d.  Post all rules, regulations and changes thereto on the Secretary of State website for public comment in
    accordance with the Administrative Records Act, prior to implementation, giving those concerned a 30 day
    opportunity to submit comments.
e. Evaluate instructor requests for approval of the classroom portion presented online as an option and require
    students to take a comprehensive exam upon arrival for the range portion of the training.

3. 45-9-101 Also a senior member of the legislature told me he is in favor of all new applicants for BASIC permits being required to take the training, grandfathering all those who currently have the BASIC Permit but requiring all recipients to re-take the training after 5 years. If that is done, it will require some language adjustment in 97-37-7 also.

4. 45-9-101 "Any person without a permit who is charged with any misdemeanor crime as a result of a gun charge, may voluntarily take the enhanced course and upon completion of the course, present a certificate of completion to the court for a one time dismissal of charges. That person will then be eligible for the Enhanced Carry Endorsement, if he has, or applies for a regular permit within 90 days of course completion."

5. 45-9-101 We need to do away with the permit all together and just put an endorsement on the back of our driver's license that says "Enhanced Carry" or Basic Carry. Maybe even color the front of it a certain color so police officers stopping you will no immediately without even flipping it over that you are authorized concealed carry. In either case, we DON'T need a permit that looks almost identical to a DL when the DL could do the same thing and save money as well as time...and the cost savings may be passed on to us!

6. Section 97-37-1 needs more work. It was amended this year with “lawyerly written” confusing language in paragraph (4) as to what concealed means. Some of the legislators are saying this is where a great deal of the so-call confusion is coming from according to law enforcement. In my opinion it should read something like this:

“For the purposes of this section, “concealed” means hidden or obscured from common observation and out of the eye of the public. However, if a sufficient portion of the weapon shows that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that it is a weapon, it is not considered concealed. Any firearm may be carried in a visible holster or inside a waistband as long as enough of it is showing to allow identification as a weapon. Further, no weapon carried completely covered in a case obviously designed for that purpose shall be considered concealed, regardless of the fact that no part of it is showing without opening the case.”

7. Also “or deadly weapon” needs to be deleted from paragraph (1) as it leads one to believe any full-length shotgun or rifle falls into this category when the legislature had no intent to make a hunting gun a “deadly weapon” unless it was used as one, in which they would be charged with a much more serious violation making the misdemeanor of carrying a concealed weapon a moot point anyway.

8. Also, we need to either take out “slingshot” and replace it with the original term of “slungshot” or delete it all together.

9. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-5:

    (1)  It shall be unlawful for any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, any other state, or of the United States to possess any firearm or any bowie knife, dirk knife, butcher knife, switchblade knife, metallic knuckles, blackjack, or any muffler or silencer for any firearm unless such person has received a pardon for such felony, has received a relief from disability pursuant to Section 925(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code, or has received a certificate of rehabilitation pursuant to subsection (3) of this section.
Comments:  Maybe we should define the word “possess.” Here’s the problem. A man gets convicted of a felony. He can’t possess a gun, not even a butcher knife in his house. A snitch tells the cops he has seen 3 weapons in the house. They get a search warrant, find the weapons and charge him with them. Maybe he owned them before his conviction. Can he not give them to his spouse? Maybe they are new and were purchased by his spouse.  So do his transgressions transfer to the spouse or other adult members of the household? Do they lose their right to self-defense because of his conviction? Can a spouse or other member of the household possess a weapon? Maybe the term should be “possess on his person.” Further, I am not so sure every felon should lose his constitutional rights to defend his person, home or property. Maybe it should be violent felons. For example, a little old lady bookkeeper embezzles $1,200 from a small business she works for.  Should that take away her right to defend her life? What about the murderers and other violent criminals that the governors have pardoned that can own guns? I know this would be federal issue especially with buying guns.

10. Also, I think we need to throw law enforcement a bone here. Since they are worried about not even being able to question someone openly carrying to determine if they are a felon, why don’t we double the punishment (now up to 3 years) of a felon carrying a firearm with no possibility for early release. With the criminal facing twice the punishment and no parole, if he gets caught with a gun, he will be less likely to carry (in theory anyway).

11. Also, we should consider throwing LE another bone by including authorization for them to carry statewide off duty since LEOSA doesn’t help in this state and they currently are not authorized by statute to carry 24/7 like we are with a permit. They could get a permit, but is that necessary? Maybe we could use this last two for bargaining chips to get them to cut the crap with the signage thing.

12. I believe either 97-17-97 or 97-23-17 should address the trespassing issues further:

If police are called to enforce a trespassing violation, over a NO GUN sign, the owner, operator or senior employee must sign charges alleging the violation of trespass and provide the court clerk with a list of names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses, to include employees and patrons. The person signing the charges and all witnesses will be subpoenaed to appear in court and offer testimony to the offense when the trespass is based on carrying firearms unlawfully.

Comments:  This will take the burden off the police for having to serve as the businesses’ bouncer or security guard. If they know they have to sign the charges themselves and appear in court, they will be less likely to call the police.

13. There are a couple of problems with 97-37-9:

Under the Defenses for carrying concealed weapons (add)

That he was a retired law enforcement officer from another state carrying in accordance with the Law Enforcement Officer’s Safety Act (LEOSA).

Also do away with the language in the last paragraph about permits issued by the Secretary of State prior to 1974. They aren’t valid now anyway.

14. NEW STATUTE: I am also working on a new statute that would force cities and counties to justify making a building “Sensitive” (No Guns), listing certain criteria while defining “sensitive” and conducting a Threat Assessment, Vulnerability Assessment and Risk Assessment/Threat Analysis with a requirement to bolster security where we are disarmed.

I would like to know your thoughts about these specific statutes or any others that are gun related that need to be changed. We have to get through this other hurdle in the Supreme Court for now and may need other legislation depending upon how that is ruled on.

Rick Ward

Rick, here goes, sorry it is not more posative, but it is my OPINION. We all know what they are like, lol.

1.Would like to see that, but seriously doubt its gonna happen.  If it did, time they got done with it, it would probably be worse than it is now.
2. Opening a LARGE can of worms.  It would get all effed up.

3. DITTO.

4. Don't understand this one.  Someone charged with a gun crime and you go get a permit?  Don't see it happening.

5. I personally LIKE my permit.  Some places require 2 forms of ID.  I plop my DL and CCP down and I'm good.  @ forms of state issued picture ID.  Just my $.02 on that.

6. I am not a lawyer, and I understood it the first time I read it.  Was not too much legaleese.  If the democrats try and fix this, it will be YEARS before it gets sorted out

7. Why?  Opening another can of worms.

8. Agreed, delete it.

9. Can nof worms.

10. Might be mistaken, but thought the penalty was already 5 yrs mandatory.  

11. LE should be able to carry 24-7  (as should we).

12. It will come out worse than it is now.

13. No opinion on this one, will let LE chime in on it.

14. Sorry, but if it would pass, it would be 15 pages long and probably MORE RESTRICTIVE  than it is now.


Not trying to be a spoilsport, but you gotta eat an elaphant 1 bite at a time.  My opinion, let AG Hood try his case and see what happens.  If we and the media had not raised so much hype over HB2, we would not be where we are today.  That being said, I apprecciatte what you are trying to do.  Just scared you are gonna poke a hornets nest, and there are a BUNCH of STUPID hornets involved in this.  Wait and see.  Good luck.  Willin to help, not trying to make you mad.  Just want you to look at the big picture and realize one thing.  HB2 only changed 2 or 3 paragraphs by a few sentences.  You see the damn Sh!t storm stirred up by this.  Too many democrats in legislature that don't read bills or are too stupid to comprehend what they say.  Again, thanks for your efforts.  Bruce.

94LEVERFAN
Distinguished Poster
Distinguished Poster

Posts: 2542
Join date: 2009-09-13
Age: 56
Location: north clinton

Back to top Go down

Re: NEW PROPOSED GUN LEGISLATION FOR 2014

Post by A. Patriot on Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:07 pm

It would be nice to consolidate all gun laws (existing and anything new) into one section of the code laid out in a logical manner.

Also, if "We the Public" violate these laws, there are consequences for us.  There should also be consequences for police and public officials that violate these laws and our rights.  (like violating the premption law)

A. Patriot
Established Poster
Established Poster

Posts: 144
Join date: 2011-08-05
Location: Brandon, MS

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum