Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: St, Louis City Council to vote on Ordinance to restrict our rights to self

  1. #1
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200

    St, Louis City Council to vote on Ordinance to restrict our rights to self

    Does anyone know how this turned out? I know there are a few members on here from inside St. Louis County, Missouri.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_0996.jpg 
Views:	204 
Size:	101.6 KB 
ID:	9613  
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  2. #2
    Regular Member mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200
    Here is a copy of the .pdf of the bill
    Attached Files Attached Files
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  3. #3
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by mechanicworkman View Post
    Here is a copy of the .pdf of the bill
    Actually it was STL County, no the City. Passed 4-3.
    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 mechanicworkman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    200

    St, Louis City Council to vote on Ordinance to restrict our rights to self

    So what effect will this have on those of us that live within the county?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "The shores of history are littered with the wrecks of civilizations, where once free men trusted their rights and liberty to a wholly centralized government"

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Isn't the section that the NRA noted in respect to Vandalism?

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    A better question, one that i can not answer, is how does this comport with state statute?

    From Bill No. 279
    (11) discharge or shoot a firearm or threaten to discharge or shoot a firearm into or inside of any building, railroad, train, boat, aircraft or motor vehicle; or
    (12) discharge a firearm within one hundred yards of any
    church, synagogue or other building, structure or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose or within one hundred yards of any school, education facility, community center, hospital or medical clinic owned or operated by a religious or sectarian group; or
    (13) carry a firearm or other weapon of lethal use into any church, synagogue or other building, structure or place used for religious worship or other religious purpose or within one hundred yards of any school, education facility, community center, hospital or medical clinic owned or operated by a religious or sectarian group; or
    (14) brandish a firearm or other weapon in a threatening manner; or
    Does not seem to be different, from a legal/law standpoint other than the bolded above. Though, a CCW exemption is not included.

    From RSMo 571.030
    (3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or
    (4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
    (6) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied schoolhouse, courthouse, or church building; or
    (8) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof; or
    "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

  7. #7
    Regular Member NG19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Warrensburg, Missouri
    Posts
    113

    Re: St, Louis City Council to vote on Ordinance to restrict our rights to self

    I don't see anything that restricts our right to open carry in the county of St Louis. Is that what you were receding to? I only see updates on discrimination terminology. Being sexual orientation, ect.
    Last edited by NG19; 11-28-2012 at 12:46 PM.
    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!

  8. #8
    Regular Member WCEarp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Oak Grove, Missouri
    Posts
    78
    Section 11-14 that are at issue have to relate to Bill 279's prohibition of hate crimes. It is merely adding sexual orientation and gender identification to the list of protected classes. The ordinance already existed, but without those two classes added.

    If you shoot someone in your home and it is found that you shoot the person only because they were an old heterosexual cross dressing Weccan Asian female missing a leg then you would be charged with a hate crime.

    At least that is how I read the bill.

  9. #9
    Regular Member HighFlyingA380's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    West St. Louis County (Ellisville)
    Posts
    301
    I don't really see much that changes anything for us firearm related.

    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    Actually it was STL County, no the City. Passed 4-3.
    Any way of seeing how council-members voted on this and other issues? I'd be interested in seeing how my brother voted on this and some others.
    Last edited by HighFlyingA380; 11-29-2012 at 12:34 AM. Reason: Spelling
    The United States Constitution 1791. All Rights Reserved.
    XD40 Service
    -Hogue Handall grip sleeve
    -Nebo Protec Elite light/laser
    -TruGlo TFO night sights
    Olympic Arms K16-SST
    -16" stainless bull-barrel
    -Quad-rail forearm
    -Millet SP2 red-dot scope
    -Fore grip w/ bi-pod
    -Nebo Protec Elite light/laser
    KelTec P11
    -Bone stock; Not much you can do to these little guys.
    No one can make a pencil...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    St. Louis suburbs
    Posts
    28

    Council voting records

    Quote Originally Posted by HighFlyingA380 View Post
    I don't really see much that changes anything for us firearm related.

    Any way of seeing how council-members voted on this and other issues? I'd be interested in seeing how my brother voted on this and some others.
    Complete council meeting minutes are online if you pull up the pdf file you will the coments made by the various members regarding there vote. The comments are below the quoted text


    From page 35 of the records pdf at this URL

    http://www.stlouisco.com//DesktopMod...mid=5607&ift=1


    BILL NO. 279, 2012, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS DOLAN AND BURKETT, ENTITLED:
    AN ORDINANCE
    AMENDING SLCRO 1974 AS AMENDED BY REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTIONS 107.146, 202.270, 717.010, 717.020, 717.030, 717.040, 717.050, 717.056, 718.020, 722.040 AND 722.050 PERTAINING TO DISCRIMINATION BY COUNTY CONTRACTORS OR IN CONNECTION WITH HOUSING OR PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS OR COUNTY EMPLOYMENT OR HATE CRIMES.
    MOVED BY COUNCILMAN DOLAN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN BURKETT, FOR FINAL PASSAGE OF BILL NO. 279, 2012. UPON ROLL CALL, THE VOTE WAS AS FOLLOWS:
    YEAS: BURKETT, O‟MARA, DOLAN, STENGER
    NAYS: ERBY, WASINGER, QUINN
    ABSENT: NONE
    CHAIR O'MARA DECLARED BILL NO. 279, 2012, FINALLY PASSED


    Ed


    Here is the URL for this years meeting minutes.

    http://www.stlouisco.com/YourGovernm...CouncilJournal
    Last edited by stled; 12-01-2012 at 07:15 PM. Reason: Additional info

Posting Permissions

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