Honorable Roy Noble Lee, Jr.
Office of the Attorney GeneralAugust 11, 1993
1993 WL 346010 (Miss.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1 Opinion No. 93-0484
*1 August 11, 1993
Re: Weapons and Electronic Devices
*1 Honorable Roy Noble Lee, Jr.
*1 Attorney
*1 Scott County
*1 Board of Supervisors
*1 P.O. Box 370
*1 Forest, Mississippi 39074
Dear Mr. Lee:
*1 Attorney General Mike Moore has received your request for an official opinion from this office and has assigned it to me for research and reply. In your letter you state:
*1 The Board of Supervisors of Scott County has requested me to seek an opinion regarding the following matters:
*1 1. Does the Board of Supervisors have the authority to restrict weapons, (knives, pistols, etc) from the Board Room, as well as other parts of the courthouse, regardless of whether or not the person carrying said weapon has been legally licensed or permitted by the State of Mississippi to have said weapon?
*1 2. Does the Board of Supervisors have the authority to restrict the use of tape recorders, cameras, or video cameras from use in the Board Room while the Board is in session during a public meeting?
*1 In response to Question 1, Mississippi Code Section 45–9–101 Subsection (13) states:
*1 No license issued pursuant to this section shall authorize any person to carry a concealed pistol or revolver into ... any meeting place of the governing body of any governmental entity....
*1 Therefore, no one having a permit may lawfully carry a concealed pistol or revolver into the board meeting. As to other weapons the concealed carrying of the same is prohibited and a permit does not authorize the carrying of such a weapon as a switchblade. The same code section also allows the judge to determine who may carry weapons into the courtroom. As to unconcealed weapons generally section 45–9–53 limits the authority of a political subdivision regarding firearms; however, subsection (f) allows a political subdivision to regulate the carrying of firearms at a public meeting of a governmental entity.
*1 In response to your second question concerning regulation of the use of tape recorders and cameras at a public meeting of the board, this office has previously stated its view that while a board may promulgate reasonable rules concerning taping of public meetings, the flat prohibition of taping meetings is unreasonable. See attached opinions to Hugh Warren dated May 12, 1993, and Leslie Scott, dated November 20, 1991. As to cameras, we are of the opinion that unless the board finds, consistent with fact, that the presence and use of a camera, or several cameras, would be disruptive, then the board cannot prohibit cameras. See attached opinion to Henry Lackey, dated September 6, 1990. The determination of the disruptiveness of cameras is a determination of the facts of each case which must be made by each governmental entity.
Note
TO RETRIEVE THE FULL TEXT OF THE ATTACHED OPINION(S) SET FORTH AT THIS POINT, ENTER THE FOLLOWING FIELD SEARCH:
DA(9–6–1990) & PR(Henry +2 Lackey)
DA(5–12–1993) & PR(Hugh +2 Warren)
DA(11–20–1991) & PR(Leslie +2 Scott)
1993 WL 346010 (Miss.A.G.)
| End of Document |