Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: NRA and 2012 legislation

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012

    NRA and 2012 legislation

    Well, the NRA has finally noticed our state, and has informed us of 3 pro-gun bills in the House. In case you were wondering, none of them are related to open carry...

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Here's the link to the NRA ILA site: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/st...=&st=10489&ps=


    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Well, the NRA has finally noticed our state, and has informed us of 3 pro-gun bills in the House. In case you were wondering, none of them are related to open carry...

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    The NRA didn't have a fricken thing to do with the formation, submission or promotion of these bills.
    They suck creel water!
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    The NRA didn't have a fricken thing to do with the formation, submission or promotion of these bills.
    They suck creel water!
    But, but the article clearly states that these are NRA-backed bills. It must be all of the good karma they are sending our way. I just find it curious that the managed to only find about 1/2 the bills that deal with firearms this year. 2 of those bills are specific to Concealed Carry endorsement holders. The 3rd makes sure we cannot sue business owners if we are disarmed and something bad happens, but it also has a weak parking lot too. Yet the NRA could only talk about the second 1/2. They seem to have overlooked the OC specific pieces of legislation this year. That's OK though, I overlooked my renewal this year, and sent a check to WMSA instead.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724
    I have said it for years and it still stands true. The NRA is not pro open carry!

    Doc

  6. #6
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I have said it for years and it still stands true. The NRA is not pro open carry!

    Doc
    Yeah, I never knew about this until a couple of years ago. My grandpa got me a lifetime membership before he passed away, so non-renewal isn't an option for me. They still use the scare tactics for me to send them money but I wont buy into it. I don't know what a lifetime membership costs, but they got plenty of my grandpa's money over the years I'm sure.
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    May issue of the news letter should be an interesting read regarding the 2012 legislative period.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Regular Member Tony4310's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florissant, MO
    Posts
    474
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I have said it for years and it still stands true. The NRA is not pro open carry!

    Doc
    Might get hit for this comment, but this is why I never joined the NRA. I would have prior to joining the OC movement, but not after.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    The May issue of whom's newsletter?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  10. #10
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    The May issue of whom's newsletter?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    Subscribe to the newsletter for Missouri Open Carry http://itsarightmooc.com register and download today!
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Well, the NRA has finally noticed our state, and has informed us of 3 pro-gun bills in the House. In case you were wondering, none of them are related to open carry...

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    Any bill having to deal with open carry, no matter who it impacts, is absolutely important as other bills may force a major change for the OC community. HB1319 actually has an amendment (posted elsewhere it was Rep. Cook on this one) that actually says that a CCW endorsement holder may "briefly and openly display a firearm" which is absolutely absurd given that it forces the two to go hand-in-hand setting CCW endorsement holders up for a potential violation of his proposed section if they remove their cover garment to open carry if they were carrying concealed to begin with. What it does not do is what was illustrated in another thread by allowing CCW endorsement holders to OC. (this heads in a bad direction as well)

    It's a bad amendment to say the least.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 03-10-2012 at 10:45 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Making something legal does not automatically make the opposite of that thing illegal. Your post makes little to no sense. Can you explain a little more what your concern is?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Making something legal does not automatically make the opposite of that thing illegal. Your post makes little to no sense. Can you explain a little more what your concern is?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    Good luck with getting a clear sensible explanation of that.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    I have said it for years and it still stands true. The NRA is not pro open carry!

    Doc
    So, then, are you saying the are Anti OC? If so, please provide some credible evidence. Also, aside from this web forum, how many Pro 2A credible national organizations actively/openly support OC?

    Just asking.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    So, then, are you saying the are Anti OC? If so, please provide some credible evidence. Also, aside from this web forum, how many Pro 2A credible national organizations actively/openly support OC?

    Just asking.
    I think a more accurate description would be that they simply ignore the subject of OC. That does not necessarily make them anti-OC.

    In order to be pro-OC, you need to have done something to promote it. So, the onus would be on someone that says they are pro-OC to prove it.

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  16. #16
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I think a more accurate description would be that they simply ignore the subject of OC. That does not necessarily make them anti-OC.

    In order to be pro-OC, you need to have done something to promote it. So, the onus would be on someone that says they are pro-OC to prove it.

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

    Being passive is doing nothing; subsequently, giving the countering the ability to move forward without any opposition; furthermore, passiveness is now an action.

    As I asked earlier, are there any major credible pro 2A organizations active in supporting OC?

    OCing is a political and PR hot potato. In the day to day life, most people don't care if you OC; however, once it hits the airwaves, it is painted as the Wild Wild West days. This is a big hurdle to overcome, i.e. CCW. Politicians run, then the soccer moms come out and don't want the babies killed. That is the picture that is painted. Logically, it isn't reality; but soemtimes, perception is not reality.

    I have asked the NRA-ILA to take a stance on this issue, no response. My guess is they want this to be handled at the state level and if it gains traction, then they will get on board. However, if they don't like, it could be the kiss of death.....giving light to something they would prefer to not pass. That's politics! And a p1sser!

    I would encourage ALL to contact their reps (House/Senate) again to help 'encourage' their positive participation.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post

    1.Being passive is doing nothing;

    2.I have asked the NRA-ILA to take a stance on this issue, no response.

    3.My guess is they want this to be handled at the state level and if it gains traction, then they will get on board. However, if they don't like, it could be the kiss of death.....giving light to something they would prefer to not pass. That's politics! And a p1sser!
    You might want to think about a few things in a different context sir.

    1. They are NOT passive, they are very actively working in Jeff City as we type.
    2. They gave you no response because they already announced it.
    3. They killed it at the state level.

    Now I know you may seek to take a different position, however, if you will look at the evidence, you may wish to reverse your position.

    Take a close look at the DATE of the OP and the LINK included, you will find this posting started on 3-2-2012 and if you follow the link you will find a 3-2-2012 press release from the NRA speaking about the “flash bill” which HB 1369 never was a “flash bill”, however if you will bother to take a look, rep Cross entered an amendment to 1369 to convert it to a flash bill I believe that happened 3-5 or 3-6 and it was not complete until 3-7-2012.

    Now perhaps some folks believe the NRA gods have ESP, but the more rational and logic based people consider the NRA announcing it 5 days in advance of it actually happening as very strong evidence that they indeed already had it in the works to be amended, once again fooling in MO politics.
    Last edited by LMTD; 03-12-2012 at 01:06 PM.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I am no fan of the NRA, but correlation does not imply causality. Can you show something a little more concrete?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Can you show something a little more concrete?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    That comes post session. If I was not so damn mad about it, I would not even bother talking about it until then at all.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  20. #20
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    You might want to think about a few things in a different context sir.

    1. They are NOT passive, they are very actively working in Jeff City as we type.
    2. They gave you no response because they already announced it.
    3. They killed it at the state level.

    Now I know you may seek to take a different position, however, if you will look at the evidence, you may wish to reverse your position.

    Take a close look at the DATE of the OP and the LINK included, you will find this posting started on 3-2-2012 and if you follow the link you will find a 3-2-2012 press release from the NRA speaking about the “flash bill” which HB 1369 never was a “flash bill”, however if you will bother to take a look, rep Cross entered an amendment to 1369 to convert it to a flash bill I believe that happened 3-5 or 3-6 and it was not complete until 3-7-2012.

    Now perhaps some folks believe the NRA gods have ESP, but the more rational and logic based people consider the NRA announcing it 5 days in advance of it actually happening as very strong evidence that they indeed already had it in the works to be amended, once again fooling in MO politics.

    LMTD, I appreciate the feedback. It's good to hear they are active, I guess. Why are/were they against it?

    You're right....they must have ESP! My inquire to them for support was prior to their announcement.

    They (NRA) seem to be back pushing the National Reciprocity Bill at the Federal level, too. A bill I have actively been against. They have received my emails on this subject too.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    They (NRA) seem to be back pushing the National Reciprocity Bill at the Federal level, too. A bill I have actively been against. They have received my emails on this subject too.
    I haven't been watching the National R bill that close, it will most likely traw a veto out of the big 0 anyway.

    I would however be interested in your thoughts, I am fairly sure I do not support it at any level beyond fantasey. Inviting the feds into anything is a HUGE mistake as they do NOTHING well at all, well not true, our military kicks butt, other than that part they suck.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  22. #22
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    I haven't been watching the National R bill that close, it will most likely traw a veto out of the big 0 anyway.

    I would however be interested in your thoughts, I am fairly sure I do not support it at any level beyond fantasey. Inviting the feds into anything is a HUGE mistake as they do NOTHING well at all, well not true, our military kicks butt, other than that part they suck.

    My first thoughts are very similar to yours; the Fed does very little well, except the military.

    The second thought is, if this becomes law it will now be a national privilege, no longer a right. If it HAS to pass, my request would be to bring it under the 2A; therefore, making it a right. After it passes, this opens the door for this law to be tweaked, depending on the party in power, to their wishes; possibly requiring national training and a host of other hurdles to climb, in addition to the individual states requirement.

    I know on the surface, many think it is harmless, in fact, a win for the 2A. This is the fallacy. It will not be like this in the future; if Dems regain power, then they will adjust to fit their anti-agenda; the Repubs then adjust it to fit their agenda. So, year to year it can become a ping-pong ball. I know the NRA says they will police this bill, to make sure nothing happens to it. Although I am a NRA supporter, I don't want this to be policed by them....again opening the door for even more political fondling!

    As to it passing; I'm getting the funny suspicion that KO would sign it; it is an election year and it potentially could garner him votes...he'll sign it. He would love to say he is 2A friendly. As of right now, he hasn't been anti 2A; his administration has made comments that they are, but his actions speak differently.

    That's my thoughts in a nutshell.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    After it passes, this opens the door for this law to be tweaked, depending on the party in power, to their wishes; possibly requiring national training and a host of other hurdles to climb, in addition to the individual states requirement.

    That's my thoughts in a nutshell.
    Spot on, you would see the "well if there is going to be a national recognition, there has to be a national standard" and next thing you know it becomes a whole new division of the federal government requiring funding and oversight!

    Nothing about any of that does more than make me puke a little into the back of my throat!
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Let me ask some questions about this point, because frankly, I don't understand the logic behind it.

    Let's say this law passes. It is your concern that an administration/Congress hostile to gun rights will use the legislative process to add on additional restrictions/requirements above what a state requires? Does that basically state the concern correctly?

    In that case, I would like to ask what evidence (there I go with that e-word again) that this will happen? I'm sure that there will be bills submitted, we get nut ball bills like that every single year. But, those bills always seem to die in committee, never even reaching a full vote. And, it seems to be that case irregardless of whoever is in office. What about the National Reciprocity bill will give these other bills legs?

    In addition, what prevents Congress from writing a national standards for concealed carry bill now, without approving the reciprocity bill?

    This is seriously a honest question. I think I understand the concern you both have, but I haven't seen it play out in legislation over the past decade or so that I've been paying attention.

    Jason


    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Spot on, you would see the "well if there is going to be a national recognition, there has to be a national standard" and next thing you know it becomes a whole new division of the federal government requiring funding and oversight!

    Nothing about any of that does more than make me puke a little into the back of my throat!

  25. #25
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Let me ask some questions about this point, because frankly, I don't understand the logic behind it.

    Let's say this law passes. It is your concern that an administration/Congress hostile to gun rights will use the legislative process to add on additional restrictions/requirements above what a state requires? Does that basically state the concern correctly?

    In that case, I would like to ask what evidence (there I go with that e-word again) that this will happen? I'm sure that there will be bills submitted, we get nut ball bills like that every single year. But, those bills always seem to die in committee, never even reaching a full vote. And, it seems to be that case irregardless of whoever is in office. What about the National Reciprocity bill will give these other bills legs?

    In addition, what prevents Congress from writing a national standards for concealed carry bill now, without approving the reciprocity bill?

    This is seriously a honest question. I think I understand the concern you both have, but I haven't seen it play out in legislation over the past decade or so that I've been paying attention.

    Jason
    You concerns and questions are understandable.

    First, if this bill is passed under the Commerce Clause, as presented, it is now considered a privilege; meaning it is not a right to carry, it is a privilege to CCW by the federal gubbermint. Once it becomes a privilege, then the tweaking can begin. It is easeir to tweak an existing law than it is to pass a new one. Plus, what department does this new privilege fall under? Depending on the dept and the director, they can institute administrative changes without neccessarily changing the law....i.e. the IRS, Obamacare etc. So that is why it shouldn't pass under the CC.

    Congress can create and pass a national carry bill now; the question is, where will it fall under and will it have the votes, currently. The answer is no; it doesn't have the votes. If it were to fall under the 2A, it may be tolerable.

    The issue is, the courts have not said CCW is a right; until this occurs, the states treat it like a privilege. I know we can all agree it falls under the 2A; but the reality is no court has said this. Until there is confirmation through the courts, it will remain a privilege or until a state or the feds say it falls under the 2A.

    I hope that helps. Anyone else, please feel free to add or clean up any confusion I have created.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •