*House Bill 2, sponsored by state Representative Andy Gipson (R-Brandon) in the House and managed by Ward in the Senate, addresses a recent opinion by state Attorney General Jim Hood (D) that has caused confusion and concern among carry permit holders and Second Amendment advocates. According to this opinion, it is now unlawful for both regular and enhanced carry permit holders to carry holstered, partially-visible pistols on their person. Additionally, any permit holder who temporarily or accidentally displays their pistol - when removing or adjusting a suit jacket or sport coat, for example - would be violating the law.
HB 2 will eliminate confusion by striking the phrase “in whole or in part” after the word “concealed” where it appears in Section 97-37-1 of Mississippi law prohibiting the carrying of certain firearms or other deadly weapons. It also more clearly defines the term “concealed” for carry permit holders and non-permittees alike. Without the changes in HB 2, Mississippi laws that are supposed to protect the right to carry firearms for personal defense instead set legal traps for otherwise law-abiding citizens: a firearm carried by a person without a carry permit cannot be obscured, and any part of a pistol carried by a permit holder cannot become visible.*
Also, the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the right to carry a concealed weapon. The government is selectively granting that right; thus, the constitutional issue.
To review:
JFP = private business = does not equal government: therefore, not governed by 1st Amendment
Government = government = governed by 1st Amendment
no1: No one has deleted posts that were already opened, unless the system is doing it (which it occasionally does.) The only posts on this thread that we have not opened has been some troll calling Fondren a "pot full of p*ss," or some such for no apparent reason that the fact that I work here as far as I could tell. That was trash, and it has no place on this site.
Secondly, the Jackson Free Press is not a governmental entity. Thus, the First Amendment has nothing to do with whether we allow people to post on our site. We never moderate out comments based on respectful disagreement, only for trash talk, libelous statements or ad hominem attacks; [see our user agreement to get acquainted with the rules][1] for the privilege of posting here. Adhere to them, and you're good.
Otherwise, I've explained my logic. Trying to insult me isn't exactly going to prove me wrong.
No, thank YOU, Bouncer for helping me prove my point: Both the First and Second Amendments can be and are regulated to protect public safety -- including speech, assembly, press and the right to bear arms and have a "well-regulated" militia.
Besides, we're not talking about whether you get to bear an arm in the blog post above. Pay attention. ;-)
*"Jackson United to Elect Regina Quinn Mayor" IS our political campaign. It is NOT a separate fundraising arm of the campaign. I repeat, it is the campaign. All monies contributed go to that entity and all disbursements are made by that entity because it is the campaign. It has not and will not make any political contributions.Therefore, the $1000 limit on corporations making political contributions simply do not apply.*
So, what's up with the Fondren bashing? Yawn. There is a huge variety of people who live and work around Fondren: ages, races, political stripes. Some of y'all's obsession with Fondren as a liberal bastion is so goofy.
Beyond that, "Hatchet," how would the media *know* if someone used a concealed weapon to commit a crime. Even with the 45-day waiting period, it's near impossible in our state and city to get more information on guns used in crimes. We're already not exactly transparent.
Your last point makes a degree of sense on this particular issue: The government would indeed have less of a First Amendment concern about transparency if it wasn't putting itself in the position to choose who is "law-abiding" and trustworthy enough to carry a weapon secretly. I'm not saying I prefer your option, but it would get them away from this special privilege problem.
As you for, Bouncer, there's not a whole lot to say back to that rant. The Constitution specifically provides for freedom of the press, and for good reason. I have no need to argue that point with you at all.
"Snooping" is the whole point of government information acts, dude. Or, better yet, watchdogging. We must watch how the government allows concealed weapon permits and to whom. (I thought a lot of y'all gun types don't trust the government; hmmm). And it's in the public interest (and individuals and parents) to know who has a gun and where so we can avoid them if we choose to.
*People who jump through the hoops of getting a permit don't commit crimes.*
We have no way of knowing this without access to knowledge of who gets them. Otherwise, this is just wishful thinking. And many, many gun crimes and suicides are committed by "law-abiding citizens." That phrase has long been a red herring. Many of our worst crimes in history have been committed by so-called law-abiding citizen. That is basically a meaningless phrase used by people to fight gun regulation.
And what do you think the NRA is?! It's a trade organization for the gun industry that holds political figures hostage with Second Amendment rhetoric and by stoking fear. And the point is to SELL as many guns as possible. Defend guns all you won't, but don't be naive about the motive of the NRA and other industry groups.
OK, here's what we found about the language change:
Original language:
*(8) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times, to all law enforcement agencies through the Mississippi Crime Information Center. However, the records of the department relating to applications for licenses to carry stun guns, concealed pistols or revolvers and records relating to license holders shall be exempt from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of the issuance of the license or the final denial of an application.*
New language of HB 485, which Bryant signed:
*(8) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times, to all law enforcement agencies through the Mississippi Crime Information Center. However, the records of the department relating to applications for licenses to carry stun guns, concealed pistols or revolvers and records relating to license holders shall be exempt from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 * * *, and shall be released only upon order of a court having proper jurisdiction over a petition for release of the record or records.*
The house bill changes
*for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of the issuance of the license or the final denial of an application.*
to
*and shall be released only upon order of a court having proper jurisdiction over a petition for release of the record or records.*
donnaladd says...
BTW, no1, here is what the NRA says about HB2:
*House Bill 2, sponsored by state Representative Andy Gipson (R-Brandon) in the House and managed by Ward in the Senate, addresses a recent opinion by state Attorney General Jim Hood (D) that has caused confusion and concern among carry permit holders and Second Amendment advocates. According to this opinion, it is now unlawful for both regular and enhanced carry permit holders to carry holstered, partially-visible pistols on their person. Additionally, any permit holder who temporarily or accidentally displays their pistol - when removing or adjusting a suit jacket or sport coat, for example - would be violating the law.
HB 2 will eliminate confusion by striking the phrase “in whole or in part” after the word “concealed” where it appears in Section 97-37-1 of Mississippi law prohibiting the carrying of certain firearms or other deadly weapons. It also more clearly defines the term “concealed” for carry permit holders and non-permittees alike. Without the changes in HB 2, Mississippi laws that are supposed to protect the right to carry firearms for personal defense instead set legal traps for otherwise law-abiding citizens: a firearm carried by a person without a carry permit cannot be obscured, and any part of a pistol carried by a permit holder cannot become visible.*
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 22 March 2013, 3:41 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Also, the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the right to carry a concealed weapon. The government is selectively granting that right; thus, the constitutional issue.
To review:
JFP = private business = does not equal government: therefore, not governed by 1st Amendment
Government = government = governed by 1st Amendment
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 22 March 2013, 3:27 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
no1: No one has deleted posts that were already opened, unless the system is doing it (which it occasionally does.) The only posts on this thread that we have not opened has been some troll calling Fondren a "pot full of p*ss," or some such for no apparent reason that the fact that I work here as far as I could tell. That was trash, and it has no place on this site.
Secondly, the Jackson Free Press is not a governmental entity. Thus, the First Amendment has nothing to do with whether we allow people to post on our site. We never moderate out comments based on respectful disagreement, only for trash talk, libelous statements or ad hominem attacks; [see our user agreement to get acquainted with the rules][1] for the privilege of posting here. Adhere to them, and you're good.
Otherwise, I've explained my logic. Trying to insult me isn't exactly going to prove me wrong.
[1]: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/user-ag…
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 22 March 2013, 3:24 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
You're right, robbie. I wrote that, and I've said that wrong for years. Thanks for pointing it out.
On Should Mayor Harvey Johnson attend all mayoral debates and forums?
Posted 22 March 2013, 12:19 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
No, thank YOU, Bouncer for helping me prove my point: Both the First and Second Amendments can be and are regulated to protect public safety -- including speech, assembly, press and the right to bear arms and have a "well-regulated" militia.
Besides, we're not talking about whether you get to bear an arm in the blog post above. Pay attention. ;-)
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 22 March 2013, 11:25 a.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
Regina Quinn also sent this email:
*"Jackson United to Elect Regina Quinn Mayor" IS our political campaign. It is NOT a separate fundraising arm of the campaign. I repeat, it is the campaign. All monies contributed go to that entity and all disbursements are made by that entity because it is the campaign. It has not and will not make any political contributions.Therefore, the $1000 limit on corporations making political contributions simply do not apply.*
On Update: Secretary of State Validates Quinn Campaign's Incorporation
Posted 21 March 2013, 6:43 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
So, what's up with the Fondren bashing? Yawn. There is a huge variety of people who live and work around Fondren: ages, races, political stripes. Some of y'all's obsession with Fondren as a liberal bastion is so goofy.
Beyond that, "Hatchet," how would the media *know* if someone used a concealed weapon to commit a crime. Even with the 45-day waiting period, it's near impossible in our state and city to get more information on guns used in crimes. We're already not exactly transparent.
Your last point makes a degree of sense on this particular issue: The government would indeed have less of a First Amendment concern about transparency if it wasn't putting itself in the position to choose who is "law-abiding" and trustworthy enough to carry a weapon secretly. I'm not saying I prefer your option, but it would get them away from this special privilege problem.
As you for, Bouncer, there's not a whole lot to say back to that rant. The Constitution specifically provides for freedom of the press, and for good reason. I have no need to argue that point with you at all.
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 21 March 2013, 6:18 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
"Snooping" is the whole point of government information acts, dude. Or, better yet, watchdogging. We must watch how the government allows concealed weapon permits and to whom. (I thought a lot of y'all gun types don't trust the government; hmmm). And it's in the public interest (and individuals and parents) to know who has a gun and where so we can avoid them if we choose to.
*People who jump through the hoops of getting a permit don't commit crimes.*
We have no way of knowing this without access to knowledge of who gets them. Otherwise, this is just wishful thinking. And many, many gun crimes and suicides are committed by "law-abiding citizens." That phrase has long been a red herring. Many of our worst crimes in history have been committed by so-called law-abiding citizen. That is basically a meaningless phrase used by people to fight gun regulation.
And what do you think the NRA is?! It's a trade organization for the gun industry that holds political figures hostage with Second Amendment rhetoric and by stoking fear. And the point is to SELL as many guns as possible. Defend guns all you won't, but don't be naive about the motive of the NRA and other industry groups.
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 21 March 2013, 4:42 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
So ... no accountability now.
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 21 March 2013, 4:30 p.m. Suggest removal
donnaladd says...
OK, here's what we found about the language change:
Original language:
*(8) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times, to all law enforcement agencies through the Mississippi Crime Information Center. However, the records of the department relating to applications for licenses to carry stun guns, concealed pistols or revolvers and records relating to license holders shall be exempt from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of the issuance of the license or the final denial of an application.*
New language of HB 485, which Bryant signed:
*(8) The Department of Public Safety shall maintain an automated listing of license holders and such information shall be available online, upon request, at all times, to all law enforcement agencies through the Mississippi Crime Information Center. However, the records of the department relating to applications for licenses to carry stun guns, concealed pistols or revolvers and records relating to license holders shall be exempt from the provisions of the Mississippi Public Records Act of 1983 * * *, and shall be released only upon order of a court having proper jurisdiction over a petition for release of the record or records.*
The house bill changes
*for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of the issuance of the license or the final denial of an application.*
to
*and shall be released only upon order of a court having proper jurisdiction over a petition for release of the record or records.*
On State Government Over-reaching to Protect Concealed Weapon Carriers
Posted 21 March 2013, 4:29 p.m. Suggest removal