“Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant signed a bill that would allow residents to carry a concealed gun in a purse, briefcase or other fully enclosed satchel without a state-issued license,” wreg.com reports. While I’m against off-body carry on principle (safety), the Hospitality State is doing its level best to be hospitable to its residents’ gun rights. The same bill lowers the permit from $100 to $80, and drops the renewal fee from $50 to $40. Yes, I know: we Constitutionalists don’t need no stinkin’ permits! But it enables reciprocity with other states and, besides, when was the last time the government reduced a tax? More good news . . .
The bill also specifies that disabled veterans, people on active-duty military service and current or honorably retired law enforcement officers don’t need a license to carry a concealed weapon . . .
Bryant also signed a bill which allows active duty military, veterans and honorably retired law enforcement officers to substitute their military service for the state-required eight-hour training course to obtain the enhanced carry endorsement.
In Mississippi, permit holders that complete the training course and receive an endorsement can bring their handguns everywhere except for police stations, jails, courtrooms and federal property regardless of gun free zone signs.
The bill, which takes effect immediately, allows Mississippians to legally own commonly used rifle ammunition for hunting, target shooting and self-defense regardless of any potential ban implemented by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Both bills were supported by the National Rifle Association.
As with Texas’ forthcoming move to permitted open carry, any move towards restoring Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is a good thing, not a bad thing. [h/t Capn Crunch]
![By Larry Keane President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them. It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal. Blaming the ‘Resistance’ President Biden was joined by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams for a “Gun Violence Strategies Partnership” meeting to talk about how to solve the crime surge, particularly those involving firearms. Instead of real solutions, the focus devolved into blaming law-abiding gun owners and again pushing a gun control agenda. “Enough is enough,” President Biden said. “Because we know we can do things about this, but for the resistance, we’re getting from some sectors of the government and the Congress and the state legislatures, and the organizational structures out there.” That “resistance” the president spoke of is the American people. Over the past two years they’ve become fed up with police defunding policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, like Manhattan’s Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They’ve invested in their own safety. The “resistance” is the 21 million lawful gun buyers in 2020, including more than 8.4 million first-time buyers, and the 18.5 million gun buyers in 2021, with more than 5.4 million first-timers. The ”resistance” has backstopped Congress from passing federal gun control that don’t address crime. It also stopped President Biden’s nominations of paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and banking activist Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency because not even all U.S. Senate Democrats could support them. They would have turned those agencies into bludgeons to hammer the firearm industry to achieve a special interest, gun control agenda. Favorite Falsehoods The president turned his aim from lawful gun owners towards the firearm industry and repeated a lie he’s rehearsed several times before. “Imagine had we had a liabil… [sic] they’re the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. Only one,” the president protested. “Why the gun manufacturers?… It’s got to end. They’ve got to be held responsible for the things they do that are irresponsible.” He repeated the claim for emphasis. “And I find that outrageous.” This is flatly false. The president knows by now, or his speechwriters do and they don’t bother with the facts. CNN, Politicfact and Washington Post have all checked President Biden on his remark, including after he said it in the White House Rose Garden. CNN cleanly rebuked it. “This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.” Politifact rated it “false.” Washington Post wasn’t kinder, saying, “Biden is wrong to claim the gun industry is totally immune.” The firearm industry has liability protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), bipartisan legislation enacted under former President George W. Bush. The firearm industry cannot be held liable when unaffiliated third-parties, in this case criminals, misuse a legal, lawfully sold product. It’s fundamental tort law and is similar to an individual attempting to hold Ford and Budweiser responsible for drunk driving deaths. The law was passed in direct response to lawsuits filed against the industry by control groups and municipalities like the city of New York and the state of New York. These type of lawsuit continue to be filed, now even by foreign governments represented by the same gun control group, the Brady Center. Colonial-Era Error President Biden continued to ignore facts on the Second Amendment and its history. He even erred when speaking about the Revolution-era days and why the right to keep and bear arms was so sacrosanct. “When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” President Biden remarked. “You couldn’t buy a cannon, and when – the – when this, uh, this amendment was passed.” It did, and does, say the right of the People “shall not be infringed.” Even The Washington Post was brutal in their assignment of “Four Pinocchio’s” to this statement. “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.” In fact, the Constitution of early America – before the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, was even ratified – granted and encouraged “special waivers” to American merchants and sailors, “allowing private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it.” Americans given waivers and who owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to buy a cannon today. It is the presidents’ fundamental misunderstanding and blatant lying about the Second Amendment that informs his gun control agenda and misguided approach to solving the crime problem. Millions of law-abiding Americans took ownership of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, understanding the president won’t. Instead of mangling the meaning of the right and pushing for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, the president should keep it simple. Take on the criminals and punish them for breaking the law.](https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/download-26-218x150.jpeg "Mainstream Media Lies to Cover for Kamala")
Thank god I live in ole miss…..
Represented by that good ol’ boy Thad, amirite?
I like that part about the ammo. That’s a nice middle finger to the .gov.
State’s Rights FTW.
That is a very interesting middle finger.
O.K., the state won’t charge you. Good.
Could the Feds still charge you?
(The Feds giving the state a finger of their own… Like they do with Pot laws.)
The feds are the most aggressive and hostile jerks on the planet. They don’t give a rat’s ass what any state law says, they will do their own thing, just like they did (and are probably still doing) in California with the medical pot dispensaries.
If a state is truly interested in restoring the individual’s exercise of the right to keep and
bearconsume weed then they ought to just strike the state laws against it. Since there would be no registration, no licensing, no taxation, etc… the feds will have a tougher time going after individuals. It would be a whole lot easier for people to be free when they only have to worry about federal jack boots and not local jack booted task forces too. This is not dissimilar to gun registration. If there is no paper trail, the feds have a much more difficult task of figuring out whose door to kick in. Isn’t that a big reason we don’t want gun owner databases? It’s the same logic.Kind of a “niche” exception to the permit requirement, wonder what’s the official reasoning behind it ? Wouldn’t mind seeing that in Texas, I bought a holster ‘fanny pack” years ago at a pregnancy help center fundraiser.
There are wonderful things happening in the free states. Kansas is now ConCarry, and New Hampshire and Maine seem like they’re about to do the same. The fact is that this may be the start of a new Golden Age for POTG.
The slave states remain what they are.
This is great news! Legislation that supports the right to carry is a win-win, for honest law abiding citizens who wish only to defend themselves and they’re loved ones. It is also a deterent to crime which is a plus for law enforcement as it is less crime or smaller crimes that will hopefully not be occuring thus they wil not have to waste time and resources on such.
Didn’t think to ask, is this for residents only? I personally think it’s unconstitutional to have one set of criminal laws for ‘residents’ and another for “visitors”, but apparently that’s the case sometimes.
Massad Ayoob with a purse. There’s an image I won’t soon forget.
He said it belongs to “one” of his girlfriends.
The bill also specifies that disabled veterans, people on active-duty military service and current or honorably retired law enforcement officers don’t need a license to carry a concealed weapon . . .
That’s not good news, that’s a carve out. Everyone needs the same amount of skin in the game. How in the hell can you call that part good news, RF?
Perhaps because it’s a start?
I don’t disagree with your carve-out assessment, nor with your concern with carve outs. But…consider…in this context, a carve-out MIGHT be ( I don’t know ) a starting point to restoration of rights.
This strikes me as different than a new law that prohibits something except “carve outs.”
But to call it “good news” in the article?!?!
See my comment below: the reporting was inaccurate in that it doesn’t negate the need for a permit: just the cost associated with it. It’d suit me to do that for all of us, but they also lowered the cost for the rest of us in the process. I’m happy with it.
“But to call it “good news” in the article?!?!”
Again, a fair point.
This may be a case of reading between the lines to see what is wanted to be seen, but I took RF’s “good news” as simply a short-hand way of saying “On a Relative Scale…compared to what is happening OTHER places.”
All of these laws and debates have a “scrutiny” issue. Ideally, we’d like “Strict Scrutiny” equivalent which is “absolute improvement.”
Sometimes, we have to settle for “improvement for THAT state.” Sometimes we have to settle for “At least that’s better than that other state over there.”
“Good News” could reflect any of those. Maybe there’s a better, more precise phrase, but in general, I’m happy calling almost any ground gained in the fight against gun control ‘good news.’
That does not imply that it’s wrong or improper to point out specifics, as you have done here, regarding the shortcomings that remain and where further ground needs to be gained.
Slave States.
The roles have reversed. The few slave states that are left are mostly what was considered the Yankee states and it’s their enslaved populations that need to be freed. But the truly bizarre Twilight Zone Quality is that the most of those slaves feel morally superior and advanced over those “barbarians” in the South and in flyover country.
Well, the only way such a small group of psychopaths called politicians can control so many is if those many believe they should be peasants, peons and outright slaves.
How they must hate themselves to allow themselves to be treated with such contempt.
The few slave states that are left are mostly what was considered the Yankee states
Northern New England, as Yankee as you can get, is trending Constitutional Carry. Vermont is, Maine and New Hampshire are shall issue but may adopt ConCarry. The times they are a-changing.
The main anti-gun states are Rhode Island, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, California and Illinois. Guess what they have in common.
Add up the populations of NH, VT, and Maine. It will be lucky to equal a Borough in NYC. Ma, NY, Ct, Md and NJ are absolutely oppressive.
They have some of the highest combined income and sales tax rates in the country?
New York 12.8 %
New Jersey 12.4%
Connecticut 12.3%
California 11.2%
Wisconsin 11.1%
Can’t count “shall-issue” Illinois on the other side anymore.
Funny how Maryland managed to be a slave state in the truest sense of the word (i.e., human chattel slavery) in the 19th century, and then in the 20th and 21st century, it has decided to oppose the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for everyone.
Oh, yeah, and Spiro Agnew, too. Seriously — has anything good, politically, come out of that state since 1650?
Others mentioned Maryland in their responses, but none pointed out that Ralph did not include MD in his list. Ralph, do you have a reason for that, or was it just an oversight?
There are degrees of bad. Apparently NJ is orders of magnitude suckier than CA on gun laws.
And Illinois is going to be an interesting sociological laboratory. We have an intensely hoplophobic area (Chicago) that has succeeded in forcing its hoplophobia on the rest of the state for generations now. (Much like the situation in New York State.) There are generations of Chicagoans who have been conditioned to regard guns as an evil that no one other than trained professionals should even think about carrying, lest their evil contaminate ordinary minds.
But now Chicago has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into a shall-issue regime. What effect will a few years of “shall issue” have in such a hoplophobic social millieu? If it’s a positive effect, would nationwide reciprocity have the same effect?
SB 2394 negates the need for a carry permit for disabled vets, active-duty personel, or retired LEOs…just the cost. SB 2619 only allows for them to get an enhanced carry permit without taking an NRA safety course based on their prior military/LEO firearm training, and it waives the residency requirement for active military personnel with a valid permit from their home state. But they still have to have one to carry on-body. The cited news source was inaccurate.
Constitutional carry was put forward, but the bill was written rather poorly. I expect a true constitutional carry bill to be signed into law by this time next year. Hopefully they’ll also take the occasion to streamline our rather byzantine weapons law. All told, I’m gratified to see one more step in the right direction in our state. And, in the meantime, this should empower a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t for fear of being in violation of the law.
Crap, typo: “SB 2394 *does not negate* the need for a carry permit for disabled vets, active-duty personnel, or retired LEOs…just the cost.”
And they reinstated permitless open carry last year.
Thank god that was his girls purse, because I was really hoping it wasn’t a European Shoulder Bag.
“In Mississippi, permit holders that complete the training course and receive an endorsement can bring their handguns everywhere except for police stations, jails, courtrooms and federal property regardless of gun free zone signs.”
The sad thing about this, is it actually had to be signed into law. At this point in Washington State it is still illegal for any member of the “public” concealed license or not to take their firearm into these places.
“The bill also specifies that disabled veterans, people on active-duty military service and current or honorably retired law enforcement officers don’t need a license to carry a concealed weapon . . .”
Disabled vets?? What about Honorably discharged Vets….?????
Apparently in MS your “free” permit should cost you an arm and a leg, perhaps literally. (Just having risked them and not having Murphy, God of the Battlefield, collect is not sufficient.)
I mean no disrespect to any veteran by that, but Mississippi is giving its $100 break only to those who got disabled, apparently. A huge price paid for a teeny tiny break. Given that no one in MS (or anywhere else) should NEED that break…
This bill sounds like a miscellany of minor improvements to the state of affairs in MS. If you are annoyed that you aren’t one of the people it got improved for, good, because enough of that anger might suffice to get things fixed there.
This is sort of a stopgap because the Constitutional Carry amendment was poorly-worded and will be reintroduced with better language next session.
In response to Johannes above:
A lot of ships came out of the Bethlehem Steel Shipyard during WWII, the Star Spangled Banner and Edgar Allen Poe but that’s about all I can think of.
With the possible exception of the Star Spangled Banner, none of those are specifically political achievements, so his point, in the guise of a rhetorical question, still stands.
Ok, but actually of the three items listed I’d say cranking out a new warship everyday had more of a political impact than the Star Spangled Banner.
So I could carry in a Bagmaster Belt Pack without a permit, which is basically a square belt holster with a zipper?
http://www.buyholsters.com/files/1871775/uploaded/Bagmaster%20Belt%20Pistol%20Pack%20Medium.jpg
As an out of state visitor… Does concarry apply to me?
Comments are closed.