Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

[SavageOne]

The date keeps getting pushed back!

Many things in this bill, it's a 2A casserole. The part about OC doesn't take anything away from citizens, it just places more limits on government to stop some abuses. So that helps.

Any effort to remove all local state and fed infringements on our rights, that would be even better. For 2A and other rights; they all have been trampled for a long time. So I don't see much of an argument. We need that too. I hope to see that. Until then we have this.

The main part of this bill is intended to provide a layer of protection too. It's probably not very strong. But every bit helps...if they ever pass it. And if they don't over revise it.

I'm afraid you and I view the OC portion of the bill differently. You seem to view it as limiting local governments from restricting OC for the citizens of Missouri. It does not. If this bill passes any jurisdiction can still pass anti OC ordinaces, they just won't apply to those who have chosen to aquire state permission and received a CCW. All the OC portion of this bill does is increase the perks that the Legislature bestows on those who have jumped through the hurdles they have established to confer the privilege of a state concealed carry permit( though it would then more correctly be a state issued carry permit). I view this as an increase of government power.

 

[SavageOne]

This bill will permit those who wish to do so in political subdivisions that ban OC to OC.

In the vast majority of the state OC is not banned. But, this is not the real intent of this bill in my view. This bill is one step closer to striking the OC ban in 21.750.3. That was attempted two years ago and it went no where.

The reality is a vast majority of our fellow Missourians are not all that interested in the 2A here in Missouri, look to the CC endorsements issued to this point. Of those CC endorsements issued how many OC?

OC is not a issue in Jeff City. If OC were a big deal then the veto override last year would have occurred. If OC is a big deal 21.750.3 would have been "fixed." If the 2A were a big deal we would have constitutional carry. If Jeff City gave a rip about the 2A there would be no "gun laws."

Not quite true, this bill only allows those who have a valid CCW to OC in those areas where OC is banned.

Nothing in this bill stops any new jurisdictions from putting OC bans in place. You may be correct that there are not that many CCers who choose to OC, and what better way to further stop OCers than to require a CCW to OC. There are plenty of people who OC because they don't wish to involve the state in the exercising of their rights, It is not unimaginable that local governments might seek to curtail OC by placing that obstacle in peoples way.

 

[OC for ME]

Not quite true, this bill only allows those who have a valid CCW to OC in those areas where OC is banned.

Nothing in this bill stops any new jurisdictions from putting OC bans in place. You may be correct that there are not that many CCers who choose to OC, and what better way to further stop OCers than to require a CCW to OC. There are plenty of people who OC because they don't wish to involve the state in the exercising of their rights, It is not unimaginable that local governments might seek to curtail OC by placing that obstacle in peoples way.

No arguments from me.

This bill does not change what has not been occurring already. 21.750.3 has been around a long time and OC bans are rarely enacted. Troy's mayor rejected a attempt to ban OC a couple of years back.

Some towns already permit endorsement holders to be exempt from their OC ban, Wentzville is one.

This bill is not a major step forward by any stretch of the imagination but it is a step nonetheless. Every year I submit to my senator and house rep the below.

21.750.3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, [strike]or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction,[/strike] provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.

I keep this in a text file and copy it into my e-mail to them both.

The minor element that I think is of more import is the restriction on LE when interacting with a OCer. The goal of any "OC legislation" is to limit the state's response (options) to a OCer. OCing on a endorsement is not my focus. Restricting LE is my focus.

3. (1) Except as provided in subdivision (2) of this subsection, nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243. No ordinance may be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.

Not needed in my view given the language of RSMo 563, but it's in here.

(2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:

(a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;

(b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;

(c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and

(d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.

We will need to wait and see how this one plays out on the street. RSMo 544:

544.180. An arrest is made by an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise. The officer must inform the defendant by what authority he acts, and must also show the warrant if required.

The wording of the 3(2)(c) in the proposed bill is problematic in my view. But, we will not know until the bill is passed and signed into law.

 

[Redbaron007]

I'm afraid you and I view the OC portion of the bill differently. You seem to view it as limiting local governments from restricting OC for the citizens of Missouri. It does not. If this bill passes any jurisdiction can still pass anti OC ordinaces, they just won't apply to those who have chosen to aquire state permission and received a CCW. All the OC portion of this bill does is increase the perks that the Legislature bestows on those who have jumped through the hurdles they have established to confer the privilege of a state concealed carry permit( though it would then more correctly be a state issued carry permit). I view this as an increase of government power.

You contradict yourself in several ways; you say it doesn't limit local jurisdictions; then you say it does give the privilege some relief, so there fore it does limit local restrictions. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to have an air of class envy regrading the CCWrs vs. OCrs.

The bottom line is it does limit those jurisdictions from imposing restrictions on law abiding CCWrs. Does it grant the same privilege to all...nope, it doesn't. But since CCW is a license (like it or not) it comes with some limitations. OC is constitutional, except the locals have the option of enacting restrictions. I would prefer them to not have these options, but as the old saying goes, how does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time....and time it takes.

Statewide preemptive OC isn't an overnight process....it's politics, like it or not. Politics has been around since man has been around. There is a constitutional amendment that is hopefully going to be approved to be placed on the ballot this fall. It has a lot a value and brings us yet another step closer.

I think philosophically, we are all pretty much on the same page....however, the path to get to the end result differs, thus frustrates many. Although in theory, it may seem simple; but because we have to deal with many different people with different perspectives/personalities, getting them to agree on one thing is monumental.

 

[LMTD]

I personally have never believed that the route to statewide preemption

I firmly believe that the only way we will get preemption is through the courts.

I have suggested this in the past, as you may remember. You even commented privately in a PM what you thought of the chances of success establishing a legal defense fund would be.

If I may ask, since you have worked so dilegently over the last few years, how many people, do you believe, are there in the state, who would be willing to work towards such a goal today? 10...50...100...1000? I'm just interested in how many you think might pitch in.

Edited to add clarity only.

A couple of really smart folks echo your thoughts on the legislature, I deleted a bit more of that line than my undo would let me fix, but folks should get the point.

There in is the problem, the courts remain a legal system not a justice system no matter the marketing spin put upon the naming and while I agree it is the most likely path to success as by design it is to repair the mistakes of our legislators, it is a very expensive path.

It would be humorous if it were not true, but if you can't put up decent money, you are not a player in either game.

I honestly do not recall the PM, however I do recall the exploration of the idea. Several interested parties had face to face, and online chats to discuss it more specifically how to proceed to chase OC for MO. While sort of popular, a legal defense fund was shot down due to several reasons, primarily being the initial cost to protect it from the IRS. Several questions also existed over how to administer it and the criteria that would be used. In the end the idea was abandon as a path to OC and grassroots legislative efforts were chosen as the directed effort.

I think you could bet on 10 folks the first month, might get 50 in the space of a year, if a solid case were to come up you might see 100-200 but it would have to be really high profile in order to garner that kind of support.

I will add some more thoughts later.

 

[SavageOne]

You contradict yourself in several ways; you say it doesn't limit local jurisdictions; then you say it does give the privilege some relief, so there fore it does limit local restrictions. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to have an air of class envy regrading the CCWrs vs. OCrs.

The bottom line is it does limit those jurisdictions from imposing restrictions on law abiding CCWrs. Does it grant the same privilege to all...nope, it doesn't. But since CCW is a license (like it or not) it comes with some limitations. OC is constitutional, except the locals have the option of enacting restrictions. I would prefer them to not have these options, but as the old saying goes, how does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time....and time it takes.

Statewide preemptive OC isn't an overnight process....it's politics, like it or not. Politics has been around since man has been around. There is a constitutional amendment that is hopefully going to be approved to be placed on the ballot this fall. It has a lot a value and brings us yet another step closer.

I think philosophically, we are all pretty much on the same page....however, the path to get to the end result differs, thus frustrates many. Although in theory, it may seem simple; but because we have to deal with many different people with different perspectives/personalities, getting them to agree on one thing is monumental.

Class envy? Are those who have willing submitted to the state enacted requirements and paid the associated fees to be allowed to be in possession of a CCW, a different "class" in your mind? Is this class better or worse, in your opinion, than someone who can't or won't get a CCW?

So, the bill doesn't restrict law abiding CCWers, but does restrict law abiding OCers without a CCW and people call this a pro OC bill? This must indeed be politics.

Could someone possibly clarify a few things for me? I keep hearing that this is politics and that's just the way it's played, but not to worry we will eventually get what we want. How? Am I, honestly, suppose to believe that the people who are playing this game will one day, if we are complient and patient, get around to removing themselves from the game? Sorry, I just don't believe that.
I don't believe politicians view it in their best interests to give up the power they have gained. If they did we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Philosophically, I don't believe in restricting a right enumerated in our state constitution, while allowing those who have aquired state permission to do it. So, we may be farther apart than you think.

 

[Redbaron007]

Class envy? Are those who have willing submitted to the state enacted requirements and paid the associated fees to be allowed to be in possession of a CCW, a different "class" in your mind? Is this class better or worse, in your opinion, than someone who can't or won't get a CCW?

So, the bill doesn't restrict law abiding CCWers, but does restrict law abiding OCers without a CCW and people call this a pro OC bill? This must indeed be politics.

Could someone possibly clarify a few things for me? I keep hearing that this is politics and that's just the way it's played, but not to worry we will eventually get what we want. How? Am I, honestly, suppose to believe that the people who are playing this game will one day, if we are complient and patient, get around to removing themselves from the game? Sorry, I just don't believe that.
I don't believe politicians view it in their best interests to give up the power they have gained. If they did we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Philosophically, I don't believe in restricting a right enumerated in our state constitution, while allowing those who have aquired state permission to do it. So, we may be farther apart than you think.

You make my case. Basically, you hate politics/politicians that don't agree with you. :banghead:

 

[OC for ME]

You make my case. Basically, you hate politics/politicians that don't agree with you. :banghead:

Indeed, but, our politicians certainly are not working very hard to change such a sentiment.

 

[Redbaron007]

Indeed, but, our politicians certainly are not working very hard to change such a sentiment.

No disagreement there.

//rant on//

The old saying...the squeaky wheel gets the grease.....this applies to politicians as well. If enough noise is made, the wheel gets the grease; we make noise, it';s just not enough to get ALL the politicians to quieten it.

Our wheel is squeaking; however, it is not the largest squeak....so their priority to weaken or quite the squeak is not the highest priority. The damper, in my opinion, is MO has just enough liberal tendencies/pockets to keep the more conservative politicians from going for the gusto. This is why babysteps take place. I hate babysteps; but unless there is a complete revolt by the liberal areas to elect more conservative politicians....well.....we have what have to work with.

//rant off//

I know I'm preaching to the choir....thanks OC.

 

[HP995]

We all want the same thing. Just a matter of getting there.

Savage, answer one question clearly:

If this bill passes, will the OC part of the bill place additional NEW restrictions on citizens or on government?

 

[OC for ME]

<snip>

I know I'm preaching to the choir....thanks OC.

No, thank you, Herr baron.

 

[SavageOne]

You make my case. Basically, you hate politics/politicians that don't agree with you. :banghead:

Which case is that? Your first point accused me of being envious of the CCW "class". When challenged on that and ask to expand on your point, you change tack and now accuse me of being a politician hater, while conveniently avoiding explaining your earlier remarks. Interesting, sad but interesting.

 

[SavageOne]

We all want the same thing. Just a matter of getting there.

Savage, answer one question clearly:

If this bill passes, will the OC part of the bill place additional NEW restrictions on citizens or on government?

The only restriction it will place on a local government will be that they can no longer hold a certain subset of people to the same rules as other citizens. That subset being those who have aquired a state permit to carry weapons. It can't really be called a "Concealed Carry Weapons" permit anymore, since the state issued permit will allow the holder to carry anywhere, in any manner the holder wishes. As long as that person stays in the good graces of the state and can afford the fees to do so, that is.

This bill will also not stop any new jurisdiction from passing bans on non permitted OC. So, I guess this bill could be seen as one baby step to turning this state into a carry by permit only state. See, it doesn't matter what the good intentions of those who are pushing this now are, ask yourself what damage can be done with it if a power shift in the Legislature where ever to happen. It's known as the rule of unintended consequnces.

 

[LMTD]

See, it doesn't matter what the good intentions of those who are pushing this now are, ask yourself what damage can be done with it if a power shift in the Legislature where ever to happen. It's known as the rule of unintended consequnces.

Actually it does matter what the intentions are and if anyone thinks for a second that the OC portion of this bill is not optional, let me help you out, they will toss it in a split second. When the original poster referenced it as a sham, it was a likely good choice of words. The only reason OC has yet to be sacrificed is there is nothing else inside the bill anyone really wants or better said will pass review.

Back through December I had a decent opinion of this bill but despised the language used. I was told the issue was of no concern as it was simply a copy and paste from last year for the prefile and throughout the process it would be corrected and perfected. I will be clear, it was going to remain a ccw version but there are other reasons not to like it beyond that fundamental flaw.

No insult to the truly good instructors out there teaching firearms training classes, but to the group that is so freakin weak in mind and spirit that they can't run their "business" without a governmental mandate that they have customers, well I would get banned for what I really have to say so I will just call you a modified welfare recipient protecting your stake in the game... moocher.

OC is a passive element to this bill and while it is a step, with the shift in power and money that have occurred across the span of its two year life and the political slant of those editing and controlling it, well lets just say step may be right, but first is a long ways from the correct first word and if that was not clear, last step may be a better choice of descriptors.

This is my opinion, yours may vary. If it passes I will indeed toast my friend Marc stating "well we got something, not what we wanted but we got something" and then I walk from all of it, I am so weary of the BS I can't stand it.

 

[kcgunfan]

The big win with these bills is no the OC part, that's just a little add-on. The big win is the nullification of federal firearms laws. That is what we should just for judging the merits of the bills.

As far as the OC part goes, at sometime in Missouri history, CCW was illegal (and enshrined as so in our Constitution) and Open Carry was regulatable. Then, we got CCW made legal (with a permission slip). At this point, Open Carry was regulatable. While I disagree with both laws restraining our 2A rights, we have the problem with the 2A not being incorporated against the states, so they're free to make laws restricting it. Now, we are looking at making Open carry unregulatable (with a permission slip.) Is this the thing we've worked for the past 10 or so years? No. Is it a little closer? Yes.

To illustrate, let's tell a tale of 2 cities, St. Louis and Kansas City. And, let's talk about who can legally open carry in both cities, both now and next year, assuming this passes.

St Louis, Today: Open Carry is illegal.
Kansas City, Today: Open Carry is legal.

St. Louis, Next Year: Open Carry is legal if you have a CCW endorsement.
Kansas City, Next Year: Open Carry is legal.

Someone has mentioned that localities will start passing laws restricting Open Carry as a result of this law. That is not a known fact. I would argue that there has been nothing restricting them from doing so in the past, and there's nothing in this bill that makes it more tempting. So, the mere fact that the vast majority has done nothing with it tells me it's unlikely to happen.

Again, it's not what I want, but I am completely in favor of the big win, and the small wins aren't anything I can't live with. Not everything is a conspiracy.

 

[Redbaron007]

Which case is that? Your first point accused me of being envious of the CCW "class". When challenged on that and ask to expand on your point, you change tack and now accuse me of being a politician hater, while conveniently avoiding explaining your earlier remarks. Interesting, sad but interesting.

You seem to have a philosophical displeasure with politics and those involved. Please review you prior comments for clarification. Do you have a CCW? Do you OC? You shoot down legislation because it doesn't fit what you want. We all want something; the problem is you have to take what you can get when you can get. If you believe the legislators are supposed to act upon your request to pass what you think is good legislation, you have no idea how the system works. It's not that simple.

So bottom line; do you accept this HB1439 or not? If not, why and how are you going to get what you want passed? The court system is the absolutely the last avenue one wants to use to establish laws. Do you have the $$$ to be the test case(s)?

 

[Redbaron007]

<snip>.....

This is my opinion, yours may vary. If it passes I will indeed toast my friend Marc stating "well we got something, not what we wanted but we got something" and then I walk from all of it, I am so weary of the BS I can't stand it.

I'm with ya!! We will need to meet in Jeff City and have a memorial/celebratory adult beverage!

 

[LMTD]

Someone has mentioned that localities will start passing laws restricting Open Carry as a result of this law. That is not a known fact. I would argue that there has been nothing restricting them from doing so in the past, and there's nothing in this bill that makes it more tempting. So, the mere fact that the vast majority has done nothing with it tells me it's unlikely to happen.

Having been to these arguments in the past at the city level, I would offer that I do not agree with your position. Geographically speaking, Missouri restrictions on OC are somewhat small percentages. When you alter the way you look at it and start talking about numbers of persons restricted from OC'ing on the sidewalk in front of their own home you will find a huge change in the percentages. If you then opt to look at it from pre-2004 to now and how the history has played out, I haven't run the numbers yet, but I offer that I will wager 100 bucks that I can point to ONE MAN who is responsible for a very nearly 100% increase in that number in the past 7 years by putting his false arguments forward. So as I beg to differ, I would offer that it is a well known fact.

Again, your comments of "vast majority" IMHO are based upon geographies, not citizens affected and I offer I believe you are wrong in your assessment. Please note, I have tried to disagree politely, we are on the same team and if my note is in someway offensive it was not the intent and I say this because I know I often reply without courtesy and that was NOT a goal of this post.

 

[kcgunfan]

And all of the OC bans I know of can be laid at the feet of a single person, as you well know. I know that Ellisville made a ban, as did Maplewood. I think there were about 5 total. Do you know the list?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[9026543]

And what is that city attorneys name? I seem to have forgotten.