Mississippi’s open-carry gun law remains a topic of debate across the state.

     The legislation allowing adults to carry a gun that is not concealed without a permit was initially set to take effect July 1 but was halted by Hinds County Circuit Judge Winston Kidd through an injunction on June 28 after concerns from opponents that the bill would put law enforcement officials and citizens in danger.

     However, in Lawrence County, Sheriff Joel Thames has recently become an outspoken opponent to Kidd’s ruling. Thames along with some other Mississippi sheriffs have come forward to voice their opinions on the matter.

     “Myself and other sheriffs are not recognizing his order,” Thames said Tuesday. “We have a constitutional right to bear arms.”

     “I personally feel that as long as people use common sense, this is not going to be an issue,” Thames continued. “We have to be careful when changing our gun laws. These rights are why our country has survived so long so we need to really be careful when it comes to taking that right away.”

     Supporters of House Bill 2, such as District 92 Rep. Becky Currie, say the primary intent of the legislation was to clarify the definition of a concealed weapon.

     “Before, if your coat flew up and exposed your holster you would be in violation of the law,” Currie explained in an interview Tuesday. “This bill was intended to clarify that.”

     Currie also maintained that other than the concealment clarification, HB 2 did not institute any further gun rights that didn’t already exist in the constitution.

     “The legislature didn’t really change anything,” she said. “We have had these rights all along.”

     In response to Kidd’s ruling, Currie commented.

     “His duty is to uphold the constitution as it is mine,” she said. “I don’t believe local judges or anybody else can change the constitution.”

     In an interview Wednesday morning, District 53 Rep. Bobby Moak also commented on the current injunction.

     “I understand real concerns from law enforcement and, unfortunately, there may be some unintended consequences,” Moak said.

     “But it would be hard to make an argument that these rights are not already in our constitution,” Moak continued. “It’s been in statute for a long time.”