Mississippi Passes Off-Body Constitutional Carry

“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]


  1. avatar damarius ilion says:

    Thank god I live in ole miss…..

    1. avatar B says:

      Represented by that good ol’ boy Thad, amirite?

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I like that part about the ammo. That’s a nice middle finger to the .gov.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      State’s Rights FTW.

      That is a very interesting middle finger.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        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.)

        1. avatar Bob says:

          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.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          If a state is truly interested in restoring the individual’s exercise of the right to keep and bear consume 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.

  3. avatar Another Robert says:

    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.

  4. avatar Ralph says:

    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.

  5. avatar John Franco says:

    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.

  6. avatar Another Robert says:

    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.

  7. avatar Model66 says:

    Massad Ayoob with a purse. There’s an image I won’t soon forget.

    1. avatar BlueBronco says:

      He said it belongs to “one” of his girlfriends.

  8. avatar John in Ohio says:

    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?

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      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.”

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        But to call it “good news” in the article?!?!

        1. avatar Shwiggie says:

          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.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “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.

  9. avatar ThomasR says:

    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.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      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.

      1. avatar BlueBronco says:

        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.

      2. avatar Daily Beatings says:

        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%

      3. avatar johannes paulsen says:

        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?

      4. avatar SteveInCO says:

        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.

      5. avatar SteveInCO says:

        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?

  10. avatar Shwiggie says:

    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.

    1. avatar Shwiggie says:

      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.”

  11. avatar stateisevil says:

    And they reinstated permitless open carry last year.

  12. avatar mlloyd says:

    Thank god that was his girls purse, because I was really hoping it wasn’t a European Shoulder Bag.

  13. “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.

  14. avatar SwampDaddy says:

    “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….?????

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      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.

      1. avatar Brann says:

        This is sort of a stopgap because the Constitutional Carry amendment was poorly-worded and will be reintroduced with better language next session.

  15. avatar Wiregrass says:

    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.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      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.

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        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.

  16. avatar Alan W. Rose says:

    So I could carry in a Bagmaster Belt Pack without a permit, which is basically a square belt holster with a zipper?


  17. avatar thomas says:

    As an out of state visitor… Does concarry apply to me?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email