Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: 2012 House Bills

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

    2012 House Bills

    Received an email from Rep. Jones today (Majority Floor Leader). He was extolling the virtues of 3 bills of interest to us: HB1319 (CCW age lowered to 18 for some, flashing not illegal, defines process determining whether or not some adjudicated to be firearms-disabled by federal law will be permitted to posses them by state law, clarify some CCW permitting issues), HB1045 (clarifying some CCW permitting issues), and HB1369 (permit OC for CCW endorsement holders with preemption.)

    The first bill has passed the house (and I imagine will be signed into law.) The second bill has been replaced with the first one. I'm not sure why Rep Jones did not know this, but oh well. The 3rd one is also out of committee, but it most likely has the rockiest path. But, having the Majority Floor Leader mention it in one of his communications certainly bodes well. Then again, all of Rep. Jones email simply references one provision of HB1319, so who really knows what's going on.

    "Honoring those who serve our county, HCS HB 1319, 1045 & 1369 sponsored by Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-20), will lower the age at which a person can obtain a concealed carry endorsement from 21 to 18 years of age if the person is a member of the United States Armed Forces, honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, a member of a military academy or a member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; is a citizen of the United States; and has assumed residency or is stationed in Missouri. "

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Received an email from Rep. Jones today (Majority Floor Leader). He was extolling the virtues of 3 bills of interest to us: HB1319 (CCW age lowered to 18 for some, flashing not illegal, defines process determining whether or not some adjudicated to be firearms-disabled by federal law will be permitted to posses them by state law, clarify some CCW permitting issues), HB1045 (clarifying some CCW permitting issues), and HB1369 (permit OC for CCW endorsement holders with preemption.)

    The first bill has passed the house (and I imagine will be signed into law.) The second bill has been replaced with the first one. I'm not sure why Rep Jones did not know this, but oh well. The 3rd one is also out of committee, but it most likely has the rockiest path. But, having the Majority Floor Leader mention it in one of his communications certainly bodes well. Then again, all of Rep. Jones email simply references one provision of HB1319, so who really knows what's going on.

    "Honoring those who serve our county, HCS HB 1319, 1045 & 1369 sponsored by Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-20), will lower the age at which a person can obtain a concealed carry endorsement from 21 to 18 years of age if the person is a member of the United States Armed Forces, honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, a member of a military academy or a member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; is a citizen of the United States; and has assumed residency or is stationed in Missouri. "
    The list of people involved in this will be interesting to say the very least, some ARE keeping score.
    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."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    The list of people involved in this will be interesting to say the very least, some ARE keeping score.
    It's not going to be interesting, I already know what they're going to say ;-) While I intended to just discuss the bills that Rep. Jones mentioned, I can see how some might conclude that I've got a preference for HB1369. So, let me provide the status on the other bills:

    HB1618 (firearms total preemption bill) was assigned to the General Law committee yesterday. This is the same committee that voted Do Pass on HB1369.

    SB680 (the Senate bill equivalent to HB1618), has been assigned to the Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence committee for over a month. It looks to be languishing.

  4. #4
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    This is how I've been watching the bills. Might as well pass it along in case some folks didn't have this site bookmarked. I don't recall seeing it posted here so if its a repost, I apologize in advance.

    http://house.mo.gov/billreport.aspx?...ar=2012&code=R
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    It's not going to be interesting, I already know what they're going to say ;-)

    SB680 (the Senate bill equivalent to HB1618), has been assigned to the Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence committee for over a month. It looks to be languishing.
    Yeah well lets just hope other folks in the KC area are taking notes come time for Mr. Cross's re-election efforts come November eh?

    As for 680, take a close look at the actions around it and it is not too hard to understand.
    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."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Unfortunately that's not my district. I've got a pair of pro-2A types. W will get to see how pro-2A over the next couple of months, and they know we're watching

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Unfortunately that's not my district. I've got a pair of pro-2A types. W will get to see how pro-2A over the next couple of months, and they know we're watching

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    Yeah, with the timing being "spring-break" no one is answering their phones either. In the "follow the money" tradition of politics, it is interesting that excluding the Republican party, "citizens for Riddle" is the 8th largest contribute to his campaign. It stinks and it stinks bad, as in Not Really Aromatic. Or a similar acronym.
    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
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    You are apparently privy to some facts that are not available to me. Would you mind sharing if you can?

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Yeah well lets just hope other folks in the KC area are taking notes come time for Mr. Cross's re-election efforts come November eh?

    As for 680, take a close look at the actions around it and it is not too hard to understand.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    You are apparently privy to some facts that are not available to me. Would you mind sharing if you can?
    I will be sharing it all post session this year, lots of more than interesting things have happened and the diary is getting full!

    You are welcome to use the PM function or email me either one, I will PM you a good email to use.
    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."

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    You are apparently privy to some facts that are not available to me. Would you mind sharing if you can?
    Are you paying attention to the journal?

    If so, have you taken note of the dates?

    The NRA was bragging about the flash bill on 3-2, it only happened on 3-7, note it was FIVE DAYS LATER.

    Date Jrn Pg Activity Description
    1/17/2012 H 97 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
    1/18/2012 H 105 Read Second Time (H)
    1/25/2012 H 166 Referred: General Laws (H)
    2/21/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)
    2/21/2012 Executive Session Completed (H)
    2/21/2012 HCS Voted Do Pass (H)
    2/23/2012 H 425 HCS Reported Do Pass (H)
    2/23/2012 Referred: Rules - Pursuant to Rule 25(32)(f) (H)
    3/05/2012 Rules - Executive Session Completed (H)
    3/05/2012 Rules - Voted Do Pass (H)
    3/05/2012 H 496 Rules - Reported Do Pass (H)
    3/07/2012 HCS Adopted (H)
    3/07/2012 H 537 - 541 Perfected with Amendments (H) - HA 1, HA 2, HA 4 ADOPTED<=======RIGHT HERE, now look at the NRA announcement date
    3/08/2012 Third Read and Passed (H)

    And to think I have to take that bundle of BS off my bitching thread. Anyone else question who is at fault? No intended implications kcgunfan what so ever, just venting again.
    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."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    It isn't over until the fat lady comes on stage and sings and I do believe I hear her warming up in her dressing room.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I had not tried to link the two, I generally don't assume conspiracies, so I don't look for them. I do agree that the Not Really Attentive crew seems like it's only for the bits of the 2A that it blesses. And that's why my money went to WMSA this year. U think that HB1369 has a chance, but I am starting to think HB1618's goose is cooked. And that make me sad, I would like for both bills to have been debated in committee.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Are you paying attention to the journal?

    If so, have you taken note of the dates?

    The NRA was bragging about the flash bill on 3-2, it only happened on 3-7, note it was FIVE DAYS LATER.

    Date Jrn Pg Activity Description
    1/17/2012 H 97 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
    1/18/2012 H 105 Read Second Time (H)
    1/25/2012 H 166 Referred: General Laws (H)
    2/21/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)
    2/21/2012 Executive Session Completed (H)
    2/21/2012 HCS Voted Do Pass (H)
    2/23/2012 H 425 HCS Reported Do Pass (H)
    2/23/2012 Referred: Rules - Pursuant to Rule 25(32)(f) (H)
    3/05/2012 Rules - Executive Session Completed (H)
    3/05/2012 Rules - Voted Do Pass (H)
    3/05/2012 H 496 Rules - Reported Do Pass (H)
    3/07/2012 HCS Adopted (H)
    3/07/2012 H 537 - 541 Perfected with Amendments (H) - HA 1, HA 2, HA 4 ADOPTED<=======RIGHT HERE, now look at the NRA announcement date
    3/08/2012 Third Read and Passed (H)

    And to think I have to take that bundle of BS off my bitching thread. Anyone else question who is at fault? No intended implications kcgunfan what so ever, just venting again.


    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Received an email from Rep. Jones today (Majority Floor Leader). He was extolling the virtues of 3 bills of interest to us: HB1319 (CCW age lowered to 18 for some, flashing not illegal, defines process determining whether or not some adjudicated to be firearms-disabled by federal law will be permitted to posses them by state law, clarify some CCW permitting issues), HB1045 (clarifying some CCW permitting issues), and HB1369 (permit OC for CCW endorsement holders with preemption.)

    The first bill has passed the house (and I imagine will be signed into law.) The second bill has been replaced with the first one. I'm not sure why Rep Jones did not know this, but oh well. The 3rd one is also out of committee, but it most likely has the rockiest path. But, having the Majority Floor Leader mention it in one of his communications certainly bodes well. Then again, all of Rep. Jones email simply references one provision of HB1319, so who really knows what's going on.

    "Honoring those who serve our county, HCS HB 1319, 1045 & 1369 sponsored by Rep. Jeanie Riddle (R-20), will lower the age at which a person can obtain a concealed carry endorsement from 21 to 18 years of age if the person is a member of the United States Armed Forces, honorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces, a member of a military academy or a member of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps; is a citizen of the United States; and has assumed residency or is stationed in Missouri. "

    There are problems in 1319. One of those is the way the "flashing" portion (571.030 proposed) is written it sets up the CCW endorsement holder for failure in that they cannot OC if CCW was their stance to start with, given how that portion is written. That portion of the bill needs corrected language to eliminate "and" to be replaced by "and / or" so that it covers what should have been intended in the first place. Brandishing is not illegal in Missouri, so why something illustrating protection for "flashing" was needed needs to be answered by the author and those who support it in Jefferson City. It raises the question as to if there is a bill attempting to make printing, uncovering, and / or brandishing an unlawful act and it just hasn't been made it into the open.

    Before you try to make exorbitant claims against that interpretation, please know that I know of a police department that claims and teaches that the word "handling" in the castle doctrine protections means: mechanical or physical transport. That same department can and would use the word "and" within that proposed amendment to say that if you started in CCW stance then OC is unlawful. Yes, it's a twisted way about things, but that's exactly what we deal with when it comes to LE interpreting things to suit their own wants.

    The next issue is the alteration (gutting) of the age change to where it impacts ONLY those who are 18 and are willing to sign their lives away to die for their country by joining the military. That is completely unacceptable.

    So write those folks and ask them to put the language the way it should be, no matter what KC and STL seem to think they need to control. The age change needs to cover everyone 18 and up, military affiliation is a moot point and shouldn't even be an influencing factor. If they won't remove the 571.030 proposed amendment as written, then a language change to remove "and" to be replaced with "and / or" is needed.


    Funny how the NRA is touting support for these bills and isn't taking notice of the would-be unintended consequences. Just like how they ignored the changes from 294 in 2011 once they came to light.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 03-10-2012 at 10:58 PM.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Brandishing is not illegal in Missouri, so why something illustrating protection for "flashing" was needed needs to be answered by the author and those who support it in Jefferson City. It raises the question as to if there is a bill attempting to make printing, uncovering, and / or brandishing an unlawful act and it just hasn't been made it into the open.
    I am not sure what the heck you are talking about but brandishing a firearm in MO is most certainly against the law in Missouri and that discussion should be taking place with your students because 571 CCW law specifically references brandishing in a vehicle etc.

    Your comments have been noted all along the path of this legislative session and are found to be wanting at best, but you got what you wanted, they have effectivly killed 1369 just like you wanted.
    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."

Posting Permissions

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