Local news reports
In one month a law will take effect in Mississippi that has many law enforcement officers, business owners and regular people confused.
House Bill 2, a bill meant to clarify Mississippi’s concealed carry gun laws, defines the word concealed and in doing so says it shall not include weapons being carried upon a person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible.
Gun rights advocates have taken to campaigning for and embracing a new open carry movement. One group in Corinth is hosting an open carry, empty chamber day at Corinth City Park on July 6 once the law goes into affect.
Many law enforcement officials have expressed concern that this will bring more weapons into play in their everyday duties, increasing their call volume and confusion at crime scenes.
Verona Police Chief Anthony Anderson said he is anticipating much discussion on how to enforce this law at the upcoming Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police Conference on June 16.
He said he is a supporter of Second Amendment rights but doesn’t look forward to walking into a gas station where four people have guns on their hips and trying to figure out who is trained to use the firearm and what their intentions are.
When the new law goes into effect, convicted felons will still be prohibited from carrying a firearm, people will still be prohibited from carrying a firearm into an area with posted signs banning firearms unless they have a state-issued enhanced conceal carry permit and anyone using a firearm in the commission of a crime or for intimidation can be held legally responsible.
To carry a firearm in public in Mississippi, a person must be at least 18 years of age.
Typical of the pro-gun movement: ignore the expert opinion of those most familiar with gun violence -- our law enforcement, whose job it is to protect us -- and instead pushing their own selfish fetish on the rest of us.
ReplyDeleteName another right you submit to the police for approval.
DeleteBaldr,
DeleteThe problem with the "experts" is that they are hired as representitives of the city government. So it's unreasonable to expect them to contradict their boss. So this adds some perceived bias.
Even the Police Superintendent of Chicago would be out of a job if we followed Mike's one strike and your out rule.
Shall issue permit laws were enacted as a response to the unequal treatment by law enforcement administrations in the issuing carry permits to only those they deemed "worthy" such as political cronies and celebrities.
So law enforcement has helped shape the current gun laws.
As for your comment regarding pushing a civil right we hold to be important on others, how is this different than the first amendment which allows speech that is aggravating to others, in some cases the majority of others. Two examples that come to mind are the Occupy Movement, and of course the family from the Westboro Church.
He said he is a supporter of Second Amendment rights but doesn’t look forward to walking into a gas station where four people have guns on their hips and trying to figure out who is trained to use the firearm and what their intentions are.
ReplyDeleteWatching traffic go by must make his head spin trying to figure out who’s been through driver’s ed and where they are going. Poor guy.
Because his life would be so much easier if he just didn't know who was carrying. In all seriousness, this article isn't an argument against carry, only against allowing the gun to be seen, even partially.
DeleteWhat this amounts to is saying, "Fine, you can carry your gun, but I don't want to see it. I think having people carry guns is a bad idea, but as long as I don't see them, I can pretend it isn't happening."
Enabling the fantasy life of people who would prefer to pretend that dangers don't exist is a poor reason for a law.
One way to solve this confusion would be to do what Minnesota did when they passes a shall issue permit system. This permit is to carry a handgun, not carry concealed. Granted, most like myself choose to carry concealed. The law was passed that way to remove the possibility of lawful permit holders to be prosecuted due to inadvertent display, be it "printing", or a gust of wind.
ReplyDeleteLaw enforcement also get to lawfully ask to see the permit if they wish. This has worked quite well for us.
As for Chief Anderson, getting used to the change is part of his job description. It happens everywhere.
Open carry is an example of what happens when you control freaks push too hard. You keep telling us that carry of any form is bad, and we're tired of the whining, so we push back.
ReplyDeleteI, for one, would have no objection to a requirement that a weapon be concealed in urban environments, so long as there's a guarantee that my right to possess said weapon is recognized and with the exception of limited, high-security areas, there are no gun-free zones. I'm even willing to accept a shall-issue permitting system. But since your side, Mikeb, won't be reasonable, my side will keep taking whatever we can gain.
Greg,
DeleteMy personal preference is to not limit permitted carry to concealed. There have been instances of abuse of permit holders due to inadvertent exposure, to include arrest. The same problem has occured with the requirement to show the permit upon being stopped. In Minnesota, the law requires permit holders to show their permit upon request.
I agree that the concealed carry requirement should include protections for unintended exposure. I'm just willing to balance public calm against my right to carry by saying that I have to keep the weapon concealed. People don't squawk about what they don't see.
Delete