Previous Post
Next Post

Mississippi Governor Bryant sign Church Protection Act (courtesy

Gun Reform Groups React to Mississippi Law Allowing Guns in Church‘s headline proclaims. Before passing on the glad tidings of the Magnolia State’s transition to full Constitutional Carry (no permit required) and “allowing” church members to undergo firearms training to provide armed security for their congregations, a quick word about ABC’s word choice. Gun reform? Are we to assume that guns go bad and that they can be reformed? No. Of course not. But rebranding gun control as “gun reform” is the worst kind of agitprop. The kind to which George Orwell gave his name. OK, so, let’s celebrate gun control groups’ freak out at Mississippi’s gun rights restoration via the enactment of HB 786, the Church Protection Act . . .

In a statement to ABC News, the Mississippi chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America called the law “extreme” and accused the governor of “dramatically expanding the right to carry” guns.

“Our Governor failed us today….” said volunteer chapter leader Shirley Hopkins Davis. “Dismantling the system that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public flies in the face of public safety and common sense.”

Davis said she fears Mississippi will “go back to the wild, wild West.”

Wait. Is Mississippi even in the West? Not according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Back in the day, but not for a whole lot of years, anything west of the Mississippi River was called “the West.” As Mississippi lays to the east of the Mississippi River, I’m thinking nope, it’s a southern state and a southern state only.

Not to mention the fact that the “wild, wild West” wasn’t nearly as “wild” as the urban hellholes on the East Coast [see: Gangs of New York]. Hellholes to which racist Southern gun control was transplanted and found fertile ground – to no appreciable positive effect. Save the loss of individual liberty. Which the South is busy reclaiming for all its citizens regardless of race or creed. Where was I? Right. Gloating.

Everytown for Gun Safety said in a statement: “There’s simply no good reason to pass a law that makes Mississippi less safe from the threat of gun violence.”

Everytown Survivor Network member Arnita Spencer, whose 20-year-old son Lamar was shot and killed in Jackson in 1996, said there are some people who are in “no position to carry a concealed handgun” in public.

“Families like mine know all too well what can happen when a dangerous person has his hands on a loaded gun,” Spencer said.

Everytown’s right! There is “no good reason to pass a law that makes Mississippi less safe from the threat of gun violence.” Which is why Mississippi got rid of the gun control laws that do exactly that. Clearly, Everytown doesn’t “do” irony.

The law even drew opposition from a Mississippi police association. Ken Winter, executive director of the Mississippi Association of Chiefs of Police, told the Associated Press on April 1 that the provision lowering requirements to carry concealed guns would make it harder for law enforcement to stop people who appear to be engaged in wrongdoing. He also said the law could raise the “threat level” to officers.

Good to see that ABC is happy to re-fight a lost battle after it’s lost. While I don’t expect a “nothing happened” follow-up to this story in, say, a month’s time, at least they end with a quote from the NRA.

“Gov. Bryant stood strong for the Second Amendment by signing this significant bill, in spite of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s attempts to spread lies about it,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “It’s a great day for law-abiding gun owners in Mississippi. This will allow them to carry firearms for personal protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

Can I get an amen?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “accused the governor of “dramatically expanding the right……”

    Sad day for our country when expanding rights is a bad thing.

    “Davis said she fears Mississippi will “go back to the wild, wild West.””

    Yeah, just like all the other states with Constitutional carry. Oh, wait……..

    “law that makes Mississippi less safe from the threat of gun violence.””

    Don’t be a thug and you won’t get shot, simple as that.

    ““Families like mine know all too well what can happen when a dangerous person has his hands on a loaded gun,” Spencer said.”

    And even with that first-hand experience, you still choose to remain unarmed. That’s your right to do so, but I choose to protect myself by any means necessary. Dangerous people will always be dangerous, gun or no gun.

    “would make it harder for law enforcement to stop people who appear to be engaged in wrongdoing”

    If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail or something like that. Unless a person has drawn their gun and is firing it wildly in a public area, I’m pretty sure there is no wrongdoing. I’m pretty sick of this “you’re guilty until proven innocent” BS. And makes their job harder? I would think it makes it easier because that’s just one less stupid law for them to enforce!

  2. Amen…I’m wondering how they didn’t have church carry? My NW Indiana church(Hammond Baptist) is loaded with guns. CC,open carry,security guys & cops aplenty too. Guys with NRA hats and shirts too. I love it. Yeah I hope a few heathen pop some blood vessels over this…

    • In Virginia it’s fine if the pastor/priest/etc. says so. I always carried in church, especially when I would go with the pastor to deposit the collection funds after church on Sundays. He would actually ask me to be sure I was carrying when we went.

      Not sure, but I think that might be called . . . common sense.

  3. The “permitless carry” provision has some odd language.

    “A license under this section is not required for a loaded or unloaded pistol or revolver to be carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster or in a purse, handbag, satchel, other similar bag or briefcase or fully enclosed case if the person is not engaged in criminal activity other than a misdemeanor traffic offense, is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a pistol or revolver under state or federal law, and is not in a [prohibited] location. . . .”

    I’m guessing that a pocket holster would be a “sheath” within the meaning of this section, but that’s just a guess. But if you stuff your snubby in your pocket, do you need a license? What about “Thunderwear” or similar types of carry devices? Are they sheaths? Is a “FlashBang?”

    If I lived in the Magnolia State, I’d want some answers.

    • That does seem odd, but I doubt very seriously any officer would enforce (or even be aware of) the possible discrepancy.

  4. 11 jurisdictions now. 12 if you count Puerto Rico. That’s over 20% of the states. This is a good trend.

    • In the case of Puerto Rico, I wouldn’t count your chickens until they are cooked and on the dinner table. The territorial government has vowed to fight to the bitter end. Until then, I expect they will continue to enforce the laws that have just been invalidated. Assuming the Supreme Court ultimately rules against them, vindication won’t make up for years spent unjustly imprisoned.

    • Does this make 11 states? I was thinking just ten, but I could be wrong. Either way, you’re right, this is hardly an “extreme” law as the antis claim. We’re talking about 20% or more of states with this same provision.

      True, those states combine for only about 7% of the U.S. population. Most of them are fourth and fifth tier in terms of population size. That is, they rank in the 30s and 40s among the 50 states, though Arizona’s 6.6 million or so souls ranks about 15th, based on 2013 estimates.

      Still, we’re talking about hundreds of legislators in both chambers of these states, plus their governors, representing tens of millions of Americans, who’ve all reached a consensus that this is proper. (Well, WV’s governor’s veto had to be overridden by an even larger percentage of the legislature, but that fact may actually strengthen the point here.) Characterizing this as extreme just isn’t a plausible stance. That’s pure spin, right up there with calling this incremental retreat from infringement a “dramatic” anything.

  5. God, this makes me so happy. Wasn’t that long ago that only 4 states had Constitutional Carry. All in all, we’re moving in the right direction, and moving FAST. Despite occasional setbacks (Colorado after Sandy Hook, or more recently, Washington state), the overall direction for the country (liberal strongholds notwithstanding) is a very positive one.

    • I see the tide turning back in this state very soon. Everyone’s so focused on recreational pot stores and such, it shouldn’t be hard to get an overturn on the mag cap and UBC’s.

      • My understanding from friends in CO, outside of Denver, that the mag “ban” isn’t even paid lip service. More like outright defied. No comment on the UBC issue though.

        • Bad laws that aren’t enforced may actually be worse than bad laws that are enforced, as that tends to erode overall credibility of the rule of law. If the government passes laws that are selectively enforced, then there are two major problems that develop.

          One is that people’s right to equal protection of the law (yes, even a bad law) starts to crumble. It’s not fair to target some people, some times, and not others at other times. It replaces rule of law with government by whim of whichever state agent’s selective enforcement the citizen has the misfortune of running into that day.

          Also, passing draconian, freedom-infringing laws with a wink and a nod that they won’t really be enforced, conditions the citizenry to acquiesce in the face of future rights-snatching, though supposedly faux laws. Laws on paper only, aren’t really only ever just on paper. Being on paper means they can be activated and acted upon whenever the government wants. Once enough paper laws are on the books, who’s to say the government wouldn’t suddenly start enforcing them, with feeling? In that way, today’s passed and ignored law may become tomorrow’s Trojan horse statute, prosecuted to the fullest extent.

          After all, many of the original gun control laws, racist in origin were they all, technically applied to everyone from the start. However, the expectation and reality, then, was that they would only actually be wielded against minorities. Yet here we are today, with those 2A-violating laws across the country applying now to everyone. Given that Monday is the federal income tax filing deadline, it’s a timely reminder that the federal income tax was passed under the guise that it would only be applied to the “wealthy.” I guess we’ve come a long way and we’re all wealthy now, because the federal income tax reaches quite a few people more than one would otherwise surmise.

          The government does us no favors by blurring the legal lines through capricious enforcement as to what’s legal or not, nor by setting us up for future crackdowns once accumulating laws reach critical mass for mass enforcement and civilian disarmament.

  6. Sooo, it’s “gun reform”? What happened to “gun safety”? Wasn’t quite cutting it, obfuscation-wise? (Honestly, most rational people would see the term “gun safety” and think of something like a hunter education class, as in “don’t try to climb over a fence while carrying your gun” I would think). And that “blood in the streets, Wild West OK Corral” biz again. It’s so damn tiresome, they always say it and it never happens, and they never ever get called out on the fact that it never happens. Anyway–good news, wish Texas would come around.

  7. So, is it still a felony violation to have a gun of any type in a vehicle parked on school grounds in Mississippi?

  8. “Our Governor failed us today….” said volunteer chapter leader Shirley Hopkins Davis. “Dismantling the system that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public flies in the face of public safety and common sense.”

    To quote the Dude “Thats like, just your opinion man..”

  9. Whats up with church carry being such a special thing? Separation of Church and State? If the church leadership is ok with carrying guns then it should be allowed. I never understand why some states ban it and now Mississippi has constitutional carry unless you want to carry in a church in which case you’ll need training.

    • I’m of the same mind. Where I come from, churches are private property, not part of the state-controlled public arena. If whoever is in control of the property (board of trustees, deacons, pastor, whoever) says it’s OK, you can carry guns there. If not, it’s like any other property where the owner does not want guns around.

    • It’s a southern thing. Much like most gun laws, it no doubt stemmed from wanting to keep Blacks from defending their churches from being burnt down.

  10. 8 realy constitunal states ( i would not count resident limited states as idaho and wyoming) now 🙂

    Now mississipi must covered the enhanced permit holder places permitless and passed an knife preemption !!

    Thats the priorities for 2017.

  11. I wonder how our resident troll 2Asux will respond to this since he seems to think the antis are winning the hearts and minds war. This is proof his side is losing. Sounds like someone is polishing the brass on the Titanic to me. But I’m sure he will go hug his unicorn to stop the cold prickly bad feels.

  12. I want to know if they’re completely scrapping the carriers permit all together or if we can still have and get them still? I travel and that would piss me off if they done away it.

  13. Your comment about the use of language is probably the most important take-away from this article.

    I think it is important to use such terms as “civil rights” and “gun reform” ourselves in self-descriptors. While we can’t control what the leftist media might say, when we make comments online or discuss these ideas with others, we should talk about them that way. This is, of course, most effective with people who are “in the middle”: I’ve encountered examples in my own life where people have been persuaded, little by little. The use of language to clarify is one means to help the cause of liberty.

Comments are closed.