Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Input needed: Nixon signs HB 1647 into law.....allowing OC by "loophole"?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Input needed: Nixon signs HB 1647 into law.....allowing OC by "loophole"?

    On July 12, 2012, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed HB 1647, which will go into effect on August 28th. The bill drops the age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18 for active duty military who are residents or are stationed in Missouri. It also precludes a penalty for "accidental exposure of a firearm by a concealed carry holder" as long as the event was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner.

    ...So this leads to a dilemma:

    In 90% of Missouri, OC is perfectly legal, therefore the removal of a "penalty" for "exposure" is moot. There wasn't one in the first place. Kinda' like Missouri removing the penalty for wearing a green hat.....????.....pointless. There isn't one.

    However, for the remaining 10% that ban OC due to lack of pre-emption and a ordinance against it, how does the removal of a penalty for "exposure" affect the ban?

    Since there will no longer be a penalty for "accidental exposure" where the exposure was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner........how does this effect OC? OC isn't done in an "angry or threatening manner".

    Does this new law need to have both qualifiers (truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner) or simply one qualifier (it might not be accidental...Hence: intentional OC, and it was not done in an angry or threatening manner) to exempt one from the "penalty"?

    Input?
    Last edited by Superlite27; 07-14-2012 at 01:16 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    On July 12, 2012, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed HB 1647, which will go into effect on August 28th. The bill drops the age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18 for active duty military who are residents or are stationed in Missouri. It also precludes a penalty for "accidental exposure of a firearm by a concealed carry holder" as long as the event was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner.

    ...So this leads to a dilemma:



    Since there will no longer be a penalty for "accidental exposure" where the exposure was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner........how does this effect OC? OC isn't done in an "angry or threatening manner".
    In my pea sized brain....I'm thinking be definition Open Carrying, isnt ACCIDENTIAL EXPOSURE..... when I Open Carry, it is DELIBERATE. Which is not the same as accidential exposure by carrying a firearm concealed, or by the concealed carry holder.
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Richieg150 View Post
    In my pea sized brain....I'm thinking be definition Open Carrying, isnt ACCIDENTIAL EXPOSURE..... when I Open Carry, it is DELIBERATE. Which is not the same as accidential exposure by carrying a firearm concealed, or by the concealed carry holder.
    If I forgot to wear a coat, would I accidentally be exposing my firearm?

    Besides, people who expose their firearms are exempt from the penalty if they aren't exposing their firearm in an angry or threatening manner, right? My firearm that I forgot to cover up, therefore "accidentally exposed", wasn't being exposed in an angry or threatening manner. Therefore, I'm good to go, right?

  4. #4
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711
    Where is the text to the amended statute? Unless it references localities, the bill may mean no protection from local law.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike View Post
    Where is the text to the amended statute? Unless it references localities, the bill may mean no protection from local law.
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ly/HB1647T.htm

    "571.037 Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self defense."
    After reading, some asshat obviously stuck that "in a concealed manner" in there.

    However, the point still stands: If I forget my cover garment, I'm simply "briefly and openly displaying my firearm". The law says I may do this.

    Especially since I also consider OC a valid deterrent, therefore, "necessary self defense".

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post

    The law says I may do this.
    Just because something may be "legal" , doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do . I think we've seen that play out before and not go so well .

    I for one will wait to hear how it goes , but don't expect a warm, fuzzy greeting by anyone if you try doing it somewhere that OC is NOT allowed .

    But , as you say .... " The law says I may do this " , so it must be OK if you interpret it that way .

  7. #7
    Regular Member Richieg150's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Show Me State
    Posts
    433
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ly/HB1647T.htm



    After reading, some asshat obviously stuck that "in a concealed manner" in there.

    However, the point still stands: If I forget my cover garment, I'm simply "briefly and openly displaying my firearm". The law says I may do this.

    Especially since I also consider OC a valid deterrent, therefore, "necessary self defense".
    Accidental exposure by a Concealed Carry permit holder,IMO, isnt the same thing as forgetting your cover garmet. If you forgot your cover garment, somehow, how could that be briefly and openly displaying a firearm? Like, you walked out of your house, noticed you didnt have it on, then went back in an got it???? I also am convinced OC is a crime deterrent, and is is my preferred carry method. But I still dont think it will do anything for or againt OC, because of the wording...CCW holder....
    Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    Psalm 144:2 My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me. Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Accidental is not used in the statute.
    571.037. Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
    Now, who gets to define 'in an angry or threatening manner'?

    301.010. As used in this chapter and sections 304.010 to 304.040, 304.120 to 304.260, and sections 307.010 to 307.175, the following terms mean:

    (48) "Recreational off-highway vehicle", any motorized vehicle manufactured and used exclusively for off-highway use which is sixty-four inches or less in width, with an unladen dry weight of two thousand pounds or less, traveling on four or more nonhighway tires, with a nonstraddle seat, and steering wheel, which may have access to ATV trails;

    304.033. 1. No person shall operate a recreational off-highway vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, upon the highways of this state, except as follows:

    (1) Recreational off-highway vehicles owned and operated by a governmental entity for official use;

    (2) Recreational off-highway vehicles operated for agricultural purposes or industrial on-premises purposes;

    (3) Recreational off-highway vehicles operated within three miles of the operator's primary residence. The provisions of this subdivision shall not authorize the operation of a recreational off-highway vehicle in a municipality unless such operation is authorized by such municipality as provided for in subdivision (5) of this subsection;

    (4) Recreational off-highway vehicles operated by handicapped persons for short distances occasionally only on the state's secondary roads;

    (5) Governing bodies of cities may issue special permits to licensed drivers for special uses of recreational off-highway vehicles on highways within the city limits. Fees of fifteen dollars may be collected and retained by cities for such permits;

    (6) Governing bodies of counties may issue special permits to licensed drivers for special uses of recreational off-highway vehicles on county roads within the county. Fees of fifteen dollars may be collected and retained by the counties for such permits.

    2. No person shall operate a recreational off-highway vehicle within any stream or river in this state, except that recreational off-highway vehicles may be operated within waterways which flow within the boundaries of land which a recreational off-highway vehicle operator owns, or for agricultural purposes within the boundaries of land which a recreational off-highway vehicle operator owns or has permission to be upon, or for the purpose of fording such stream or river of this state at such road crossings as are customary or part of the highway system. All law enforcement officials or peace officers of this state and its political subdivisions or department of conservation agents or department of natural resources park rangers shall enforce the provisions of this subsection within the geographic area of their jurisdiction.

    3. A person operating a recreational off-highway vehicle on a highway pursuant to an exception covered in this section shall have a valid operator's or chauffeur's license, except that a handicapped person operating such vehicle pursuant to subdivision (4) of subsection 1 of this section, but shall not be required to have passed an examination for the operation of a motorcycle. An individual shall not operate a recreational off-highway vehicle upon a highway in this state without displaying a lighted headlamp and a lighted tail lamp. A person may not operate a recreational off-highway vehicle upon a highway of this state unless such person wears a seat belt. When operated on a highway, a recreational off-highway vehicle shall be equipped with a roll bar or roll cage construction to reduce the risk of injury to an occupant of the vehicle in case of the vehicle's rollover.
    This one troubles me the most. Three miles seem like a long distance as the crow flies but not when you are driving on the roads. As the crow flies or road miles?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Accidental is not used in the statute.Now, who gets to define 'in an angry or threatening manner'?

    This one troubles me the most. Three miles seem like a long distance as the crow flies but not when you are driving on the roads. As the crow flies or road miles?
    Sorry for my ignorance, but what does a recreational off-highway vehicle have to do with OC at all? I just don't see the connection.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    On July 12, 2012, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon signed HB 1647, which will go into effect on August 28th. The bill drops the age to obtain a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18 for active duty military who are residents or are stationed in Missouri. It also precludes a penalty for "accidental exposure of a firearm by a concealed carry holder" as long as the event was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner.

    ...So this leads to a dilemma:

    In 90% of Missouri, OC is perfectly legal, therefore the removal of a "penalty" for "exposure" is moot. There wasn't one in the first place. Kinda' like Missouri removing the penalty for wearing a green hat.....????.....pointless. There isn't one.

    However, for the remaining 10% that ban OC due to lack of pre-emption and a ordinance against it, how does the removal of a penalty for "exposure" affect the ban?

    Since there will no longer be a penalty for "accidental exposure" where the exposure was truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner........how does this effect OC? OC isn't done in an "angry or threatening manner".

    Does this new law need to have both qualifiers (truly accidental and not done in an angry or threatening manner) or simply one qualifier (it might not be accidental...Hence: intentional OC, and it was not done in an angry or threatening manner) to exempt one from the "penalty"?

    Input?


    Have you ever seen or read this mysterious penalty for accidental exposure in Missouri? Likely not, because the problem NEVER existed in the first place!

    Please remember folks that the emboldened section I've noted ONLY applies to CCW holders.

    They just created a brand new problem by trying to solve something that didn't exist in the first place and failing to heed the warnings of several instructors and students. The words "briefly and openly" are forcibly joined and cannot be separated. Imagine what that just did. It essentially makes it a violation of law for a CCW holder to OC. Why and how? Because the law now says that for the CCW holder the open display of a firearm MUST be brief and in a non-threatening manner (self-defense being the exception).

    You big OC advocates had better get pissed over this and fast, so much so that you'll hound your politicians for Constitutional carry. Here's the potential as I've stated previously. State-mandated safety training requirements and background checks for OC or an outright removal of OC in Missouri in the name of "public safety" so they can keep the public from being "frightened" by the visibility of a firearm.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 07-17-2012 at 07:50 PM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    this guy i will name as ""kevin..."" was running in a local park where he lives. st charles city does not restrict OC but it has an ordinances about open carrying in city parks. ""kevin"" was running and the shirt walked up/stuck to the bottom of the 1911 and showed part of the pistol. by the time it was pulled down the person ran past 5 different people. nothing became of it, but it was an accident and was covered up when noticed.

    open carry is not accidental exposure. i do not see how you get that from the working of the bill being passed. and even with that argument, open-carrying is not categorized as "threatening and unlawful"
    OC and CCW are 2 different sides of the coin.

    no disrespect this is a forum, and just stating my view on the subject. respectfully do not agree with you realteach4you
    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    They just created a brand new problem by trying to solve something that didn't exist in the first place and failing to heed the warnings of several instructors and students. .
    LOL, ? several instructors? That would be the invisible kind right?

    Stick with what you know, there are people that were indeed there and while I am not 100% positive, none were indeed instructors unless one of them actually got his credentials right before as he is indeed an instructor now, but the rest I do not believe are instructors. Now the idiot who DID indeed screw it up, well he MAY be an instructor, will have to check into that one as it brings an interesting angle to things.

    Newsletter will be out this Saturday and you can read about what REALLY happened.
    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."

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    If I forgot to wear a coat, would I accidentally be exposing my firearm?

    Besides, people who expose their firearms are exempt from the penalty if they aren't exposing their firearm in an angry or threatening manner, right? My firearm that I forgot to cover up, therefore "accidentally exposed", wasn't being exposed in an angry or threatening manner. Therefore, I'm good to go, right?
    Appreciate the interesting points, but they can squirrel it around just as much from the other side.

    As far as the incidental showing of the firearm, never forget "the spirit of the law" and other such "interpretations" that can indeed happen in court.

    Some folks are putting together another push for next year, testing the waters by intentionally having a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction can have long term implications, in fact, look at just what that Janet incident created, CENSORSHIP in huge ways.

    I will simply remain on the path of avoiding paying any taxes within those munis I can and will remain consistent in the push to force them to honor the oath they took to uphold the constitutions of this state and nation.
    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."

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    Have you ever seen or read this mysterious penalty for accidental exposure in Missouri? Likely not, because the problem NEVER existed in the first place!

    Please remember folks that the emboldened section I've noted ONLY applies to CCW holders.
    A penalty is available, where OC is made illegal, for a cop/prosecutor to use if desired. It is likely that cops know that a brief 'accidentally flash' is not worth getting all worked up over. This may explain why we have not heard of folks getting busted. Officer discretion? May be.

    They just created a brand new problem by trying to solve something that didn't exist in the first place and failing to heed the warnings of several instructors and students. The words "briefly and openly" are forcibly joined and cannot be separated. Imagine what that just did. It essentially makes it a violation of law for a CCW holder to OC. Why and how? Because the law now says that for the CCW holder the open display of a firearm MUST be brief and in a non-threatening manner (self-defense being the exception).
    The law just got signed and will not be in effect until August, it is not a problem now and it may not be a problem after it becomes effective. Just as the problem of CCWers getting busted for 'accidentally flashing' their firearm has not apparently materialized either.

    You big OC advocates had better get pissed over this and fast, so much so that you'll hound your politicians for Constitutional carry. Here's the potential as I've stated previously. State-mandated safety training requirements and background checks for OC or an outright removal of OC in Missouri in the name of "public safety" so they can keep the public from being "frightened" by the visibility of a firearm.
    Read below. Please give a modicum of credit where it may be deserved.

    571.037. Any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement, and who is lawfully carrying a firearm in a concealed manner, may briefly and openly display the firearm to the ordinary sight of another person, unless the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.
    Now, can one construe that OC is now tied to CC? only if you want to make the connection. Again, is this good or bad? Well, for those in the Maplewoods of the world it is good. For those in the non-Maplewoods it does not apply. Could this lead to a statewide OC ban.....um, not likely. Because the critters in JC would have to basically repeal RSMo 21.750 in its entirety. Now, each and every political subdivision could enact a ban. One never knows what could happen in the future.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Accidental is not used in the statute.Now, who gets to define 'in an angry or threatening manner'?
    Good question.

    Maybe the same entity that gets to define "briefly".

    Myself, since I've carried openly for years, an afternoon would be considered a "brief exposure".

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    When I got pantsed in high school, I considered my boxers being shown to the whole class "brief exposure"

    Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    Good question.

    Maybe the same entity that gets to define "briefly".

    Myself, since I've carried openly for years, an afternoon would be considered a "brief exposure".

    No, that would be Tony when he has his chaps on
    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
  •