Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
12/6/2019 7:27:02 PM
Posted: 12/5/2013 5:32:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/6/2013 2:35:08 AM EST by miker84]
Link to full opinion letter:
http://www.ago.state.ms.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Opinion-to-Clarify-Gun-Carry.pdf


Story:

http://www.wjtv.com/story/24143399/ag-hood-issues-an-opinion-to-clarify-gun-carry

"Our office has been asked to issue a series of opinions regarding the open carry, concealed carry and enhanced carry of firearms,” said Attorney General Hood. "I think this most recent opinion was a good effort to summarize our convoluted gun laws, and particularly our enhanced carry statutes. It contains a concise list of places a person with an enhanced carry permit may carry. I hope it will serve as a guide to advanced permitees, public officials and law enforcement."

The opinion, written to the City of Corinth, outlines the following places where the Mississippi statutes authorize a person with an enhanced permit to carry regardless of signage posted by a state governmental entity:

1. Any polling place. – (Other than the Section 45-9-101(13) prohibiting regular permit holders from carrying in polling places, Mississippi Code Sections 23-15-895 (relating to armed candidates) and 97-13-29 (military officer keeping armed troops within one mile of an election) are the only other state law restrictions regarding firearms in polling places.)

2. Any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity. – (It is the opinion of this office that the phrase meeting place means the room in which a meeting transpires as opposed to the entire building. Thus, although an enhanced permit holder would be entitled to carry a concealed pistol or revolver into a meeting place, that individual would not have unfettered gun carrying access to places within the building that are not generally open to the general public. See MS AG Op. Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013)).

3. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof. – (Notwithstanding this language, it is the understanding of this office that the House and the Senate have each passed rules or regulations restricting the right of individuals to carry weapons at meetings of the Legislature or its committees.)

4. Any school, college or professional athletic event not related to firearms. – (This provision authorizes an enhanced permit holder to carry a stun gun, concealed pistol or revolver into non-firearm related events even if signage is posted pursuant to Section 45-9-101(13). However, if signage were posted relating to afirearm related school, college or professional event, enhanced permit holders would not be authorized to carry their weapons.)

5. Any portion of an establishment, licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, that is primarily devoted to dispensing alcoholic beverages. -- (This provision would only have applicability to governmental entities to the extent that such entities owned an establishment that was primarily devoted to consuming alcoholic beverages.)

6. Any portion of an establishment in which beer or light wine is consumed on the premises, that is primarily devoted to such purpose. -- (This provision would only have applicability to governmental entities to the extent that such entities owned an establishment that was primarily devoted to consuming beer or light wine.)

7. Any elementary or secondary school facility. – (See MS AG Op. Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013)).

8. Any junior college, community college, college or university facility.

9. Inside the passenger terminal of any airport. – (Any person may bring a weapon into a passenger terminal if brought in for the purposes of properly lawfully checking or shipping such weapon. An enhanced permit holder could of course still be arrested under federal law for possessing a weapon in areas prohibited by federal law.)

10. Any church or other place of worship. (Practically speaking this provision would not apply to public entities who do not own or control places of worship. This provision has little practical value because private land owners can generally always allow or disallow anyone from carrying a weapon on their private property regardless of whether the state has granted a license. – See MS AG Op. Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013)).

11. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law. – (This provision can only be read to mean that an enhanced permit holder carrying a weapon on prohibited federal property would not be subject to prosecution for state law violations. The federal government certainly could and probably would prosecute anyone bringing a weapon into an unauthorized area regardless of the person’s possession of a state permit.).

12. In a parade or demonstration for which a permit is required.

13. In courthouses except in courtrooms during a judicial proceeding. --

(The right to carry in courthouses except in courtrooms during judicial proceedings is granted to enhanced permit holders expressly by Section 97-37-7 without reference to Section 45-9-101(13). Section 45-9-101(13) states that regular permit holders may not carry in "courthouses” or "courtrooms” with the caveat that nothing contained therein precludes a judge from determining who "will” carry a weapon "in his courtroom.” Presumably under this authority, a judge has authority to determine who will, who can and who cannot carry a weapon in his courtroom. However, the governing authority of the jurisdiction, whether municipal or county could restrict a regular permit holder from initial entry into the courthouse, as opposed to the courtroom, by posting a sign. However, such signage could not prevent an enhanced permit holder from entry into the courthouse. Under no interpretation of the law would either a regular or enhanced permit holder be authorized to carry a firearm into a courtroom during a judicial proceeding unless authorized by the judge. Likewise, as noted above, an individual would not have unfettered gun carrying access to places within the building that are not generally open to the general public. See MS AG Op. Cantrell (Oct. 1, 2013).

This opinion does not affect the rights of property owners or custodians as follows:

1. Private landowners may post signs or otherwise prevent carrying of onto weapons onto their private property.

2. State or local governmental entities may prohibit concealed carry by enhanced permit holders into areas posted with no weapons signage if the place is not one of the 13 enumerated places above.

3. Federal installations and buildings can prohibit the carrying of weapons regardless of these state statutes.

The opinion likewise points out that an enhanced permit holder who carries a weapon onto property in a place not listed in the 13 places above in violation of a posted sign could be charged for criminal trespass

The following list identifies places which by statute you cannot carry regardless of the type of permit you have:

1. Any place of nuisance defined in Section 95-3-1 which would include "any place . . . in or upon which lewdness, assignation or prostitution is conducted, permitted, continued or exists or any other place . . . or upon which a controlled substance as defined in section 41-29-105 . . . is unlawfully used, possessed, sold or delivered and the personal property and contents used in conducting or maintaining any such place for any such purpose. See Miss. Code Ann. Section 95-3-1 (as amended).

2. Any police, sheriff or highway patrol station.

3. Any detention facility, prison or jail

Link Posted: 12/5/2013 6:19:16 AM EST
Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't understand this part.

However, if signage were posted relating to a firearm related school, college or professional event, enhanced permit holders would not be authorized to carry their weapons

If the school is having a shooting event you can't carry? Is the spirit of this derived from the schools safety SOP for the event? Nobody can have a loaded firearm is their rule so that would supercede enhanced carry?

Or am I just way the hell off on this one?
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 7:38:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/5/2013 7:40:10 AM EST by AKengineer]
Hood keeps bringing up this "areas where people would commonly have access" thing and I don't see it anywhere in the law. He still isn't addressing campus carry for students on the crime ridden campuses where even the police chief is breaking the law.
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 7:52:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 8:29:04 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Hood keeps bringing up this "areas where people would commonly have access" thing and I don't see it anywhere in the law. He still isn't addressing campus carry for students on the crime ridden campuses where even the police chief is breaking the law.
View Quote


Wouldn't number 8 give students the go-ahead? Even if they could still face expulsion for it?
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 8:58:46 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dux29:


Wouldn't number 8 give students the go-ahead? Even if they could still face expulsion for it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dux29:
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Hood keeps bringing up this "areas where people would commonly have access" thing and I don't see it anywhere in the law. He still isn't addressing campus carry for students on the crime ridden campuses where even the police chief is breaking the law.


Wouldn't number 8 give students the go-ahead? Even if they could still face expulsion for it?
That's a big deal for some, especially students that would be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they got the boot. Since the school is state owned, state run, and state funded I don't see how they can threaten to expel IC permitted students, especially when the armored car guy open carries into the Union every week to refill the ATMs.
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 10:28:48 AM EST
That makes everything perfectly clear. Where did I set the bottle of Bayer?
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 11:03:35 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
That's a big deal for some, especially students that would be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they got the boot. Since the school is state owned, state run, and state funded I don't see how they can threaten to expel IC permitted students, especially when the armored car guy open carries into the Union every week to refill the ATMs.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Originally Posted By dux29:
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
Hood keeps bringing up this "areas where people would commonly have access" thing and I don't see it anywhere in the law. He still isn't addressing campus carry for students on the crime ridden campuses where even the police chief is breaking the law.


Wouldn't number 8 give students the go-ahead? Even if they could still face expulsion for it?
That's a big deal for some, especially students that would be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they got the boot. Since the school is state owned, state run, and state funded I don't see how they can threaten to expel IC permitted students, especially when the armored car guy open carries into the Union every week to refill the ATMs.


Exactly. I don't see how the dean of students' opinion trumps state law
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 11:53:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dux29:


Exactly. I don't see how the dean of students' opinion trumps state law
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By dux29:
Originally Posted By AKengineer:
That's a big deal for some, especially students that would be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they got the boot. Since the school is state owned, state run, and state funded I don't see how they can threaten to expel IC permitted students, especially when the armored car guy open carries into the Union every week to refill the ATMs.


Exactly. I don't see how the dean of students' opinion trumps state law
Because until someone higher then he is or a court order tells him it doesn't trump state law he can do whatever he wants. Just like the LEO that told a IC permit holder "I am the law" and denied him entry into a ballgame recently. Colleges are very political animals and nobody gets to be in the hierarchy without some serious political hook ups. If you want Mark Keenum to do something don't talk to Mark Keenum, talk to Phil Bryant.
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 5:52:14 PM EST
Nolo,

Am I interpreting this correctly? This interpretation appears to allow municipalities to ban firearms from any location other than airports, courthouses, etc.

Harrison County has been throwing no carry signs up all over the place, including jogging tracks and I think public parks.

This means those signs are now legit and I can be charged with a misdemeanor for carrying there with an IC permit?

This sucks!
Link Posted: 12/5/2013 10:39:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/5/2013 10:40:38 PM EST by miker84]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewB:
Nolo,

Am I interpreting this correctly? This interpretation appears to allow municipalities to ban firearms from any location other than airports, courthouses, etc.

Harrison County has been throwing no carry signs up all over the place, including jogging tracks and I think public parks.

This means those signs are now legit and I can be charged with a misdemeanor for carrying there with an IC permit?

This sucks!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewB:
Nolo,

Am I interpreting this correctly? This interpretation appears to allow municipalities to ban firearms from any location other than airports, courthouses, etc.

Harrison County has been throwing no carry signs up all over the place, including jogging tracks and I think public parks.

This means those signs are now legit and I can be charged with a misdemeanor for carrying there with an IC permit?

This sucks!

That is how I read it too.
2. State or local governmental entities may prohibit concealed carry by enhanced permit holders into areas posted with no weapons signage if the place is not one of the 13 enumerated places above.


That is why we need a state preemption law with teeth.



Link Posted: 12/6/2013 1:43:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/6/2013 9:14:40 AM EST
Thanks Nolo.
Link Posted: 12/7/2013 11:01:30 AM EST
While we're on the subject, is carrying in casino legal since booze & beer is served there. Even better, going to a concert say like the Hard Rock in Biloxi, allowed or not?




Link Posted: 12/7/2013 11:51:06 AM EST
Well, darn. It seems we take one step forward and two steps backwards.
Link Posted: 12/8/2013 10:27:45 PM EST
Does a county posting a sign banning weapons on a jogging track it owns violate state preemption?
Link Posted: 12/9/2013 2:51:40 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AndrewB:
Does a county posting a sign banning weapons on a jogging track it owns violate state preemption?
View Quote


If it does, then there is no penalty for it.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:14:56 PM EST
Sure, but that's the question: does it? I don't trust Harrison County deputies to not charge me with trespassing out of the goodness of their hearts should my concealed pistol be somehow brought to their attention while I'm jogging at a track with a sign posted.

I noticed today that the sign appears to have been updated. It's no longer the one with the picture of an AK, knife, and hand grenade.
Top Top