Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 50

Thread: 2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

    This is three years in the making, if we gwt this we'll be headed in the right direction for urban and rural OCers. More to follow, headed to Jefferson City tomorrow. I don't want to see any B/S comments, if you think you can do better, go for it! In the spirit and climate of our legislature I think this is a bill that might go the distance.

    More information in a few days..... There will be work to do.

    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary....ar=2013&code=R
    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

  2. #2
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369
    no, it is not perfect but it does have redeeming qualities. i especially like this part......

    (d) In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity,
    no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically
    restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;
    some will say that this clause will lead to more arrests but IMO it will be the opposite since arrest = paperwork. and all the LEO's i know despise paperwork.

    i will have letters out in the AM over this. i was hoping for face-time tomorrow in Jeff City but that won't happen now.
    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by Broondog View Post
    no, it is not perfect but it does have redeeming qualities. i especially like this part......

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

    some will say that this clause will lead to more arrests but IMO it will be the opposite since arrest = paperwork. and all the LEO's i know despise paperwork.

    i will have letters out in the AM over this. i was hoping for face-time tomorrow in Jeff City but that won't happen now.
    Agreed 100%. Gotta call/email my reps now, and I'll be moving closer into the city later this year. Good a time as any to figure out who my reps will be then and call/email them as well.

    EDIT: nevermind. After I move my rep will be Genise Montecillo. Judging by the bills she's sponsored/co-sponsored, I'd prefer she didn't even know this bill existed. Blah.
    Last edited by Oramac; 02-05-2013 at 11:51 AM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Not bad....easily something I can support and promote.

    Thanks mspgunner!
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Several things. First, they need to pay attention to what they're writing when the put forth what appears initially to be a good bill. It could have been supported as written yet there are concerning things therein.

    Second, this IS the path to State-mandated safety training for those of us in the OC crowd, even if it's just once in a while. I recall the OC folks truly screaming about being taxed on 2A if they're FORCED to get a CCW to exercise their rights. Eventually you'll may no longer have a choice and you will be FORCED to obtain a CCW endorsement from Missouri or another State to be allowed to OC...in certain areas so it seems. I do recall making this statement a while ago about the State eventually heading that way. Someone is bound to make the "duh" statement or amendment to the bill making it State-wide that you must have a CCW endorsement to be allowed to OC, so don't bash me for mentioning it here because someone likely already had the idea some time ago....heck, Matt Canovi and I discussed the potential of State-mandation with Melissa Leach on his radio show roughly 2 years ago. It's also going to encourage other municipalities to outlaw OC, which means it could become a plague State-wide.

    Third, this (d) section that you folks are happy about...well, read it again because it seems to fall directly within a specific jurisdiction. So without some sort of clarification to keep it from being applied ONLY to those jurisdictions that restrict open carry then we have a problem. What's the problem you might ask? Well it could then be used to allow the jurisdictions that do not restrict OC to then disarm and physically restrain someone lawfully OC'ing or CCW'ing. Any good lawyer should see this one coming miles away as a potential unintended consequence. This one item is another that our politicians will think they wrote "perfectly" and won't listen to reason on relocating it elsewhere so it applies to ALL jurisdictions rather than potentially applying to ONLY jurisdictions that restrict OC. It could be relocated to another portion of the section and have a reference to that part of the section within the specific subsection (d) like we have for other exemptions and conditions.

    Marc, Bruce, Shooter, sohighlyunlikely (Doc), Grapeshot, OC for ME...your thoughts on point 3?

    Subsection (e) has me confused. They're willing to penalize US for failure to carry or display our CCW under these changes, but NO penalties exist for LE who violate any portion of the secion. What gives? Are we going to continue to let our LE violate the law and our rights (makes them criminals) without penalty and claim exemption under "during the course of their duty" and then give them exemption yet again under LEOSA? Subsection (e) seems moot if you're to require a CCW to OC and CCW statutes say you must carry your endorsement as well as present it to LE when asked.

    Then there's (b), the 16 inch MAXIMUM legal overall length requirement. Who put this in the bill without thinking about what it actually said? How the hell do you not realize that this WILL impact hunters and sport shooters alike? Read it carefully as it DOES NOT say "handgun" it clearly says "FIREARM". Well what are you doing when you visit a range, you're openly displaying a firearm. Now apply that to your rifles and shotguns that are of legal length to not require Federal registration and tax stamp, essentially that specific section would outlaw the open display/carry of such firearms. Hunting season hits, what are you doing when you hunt? You're again openly displaying/carrying a firearm, likely one OVER 16 inches in overall length. What about at 2-gun, long gun, and 3-gun shooting competitions? What about to and from the car or shop without a case in view of the public? Really, it's written just that poorly. Just a single word change corrects this problem: Strike out "firearm" and insert "handgun".

    Let's take (b) a step farther into the self defense realm. Defense justifications should protect us all from the length problem wording illustrated here. However, we have to expect that our problem children in KC and STL (as well as their suburbs) will attempt to push the envelope. I'd expect those areas to claim that there's no exemption for self defense contained in the section and make the effort to arrest.


    FWIW, none of this would be necessary if they would repeal the ability of the County, municipality, and political subdivisions to regulate OC and simply put us on Constitutional carry.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 02-05-2013 at 03:01 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Griz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    300
    Last edited by Griz; 02-05-2013 at 05:17 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member McLintock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Peculiar,MO
    Posts
    89
    Why should the government (state or fed.) require us to get a CCW to OC? Are we not a government of the people and by the people, we should make them get a CCW..

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

    Not a MO resident, but just curious. What is the current state of OC in MO? A right? Legal w/o a license. Legal w/ a licencse.

    It should be an unfettered Right--no license required.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  9. #9
    Regular Member BionicRooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Independence, Missouri
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not a MO resident, but just curious. What is the current state of OC in MO? A right? Legal w/o a license. Legal w/ a licencse.

    It should be an unfettered Right--no license required.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Missouri is an OC state w/o license. With that said, individual counties may prohibit it through legislature. For the most part it's pretty oc friendly though. The KC metro area is definitely all oc friendly.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

    So, you all are about to trade unlicensed exercise of the right for a licensed privilege plus preemption? If I were a MO resident, I'd be fighting that tooth and nail. Once you let them turn it into a privilege, it will only become more restricted, and there will be hell to pay getting the Right back!

    My advice: Keep the right. Work for preemption as a separate issue!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  11. #11
    Regular Member BionicRooster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Independence, Missouri
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    So, you all are about to trade unlicensed exercise of the right for a licensed privilege plus preemption? If I were a MO resident, I'd be fighting that tooth and nail. Once you let them turn it into a privilege, it will only become more restricted, and there will be hell to pay getting the Right back!

    My advice: Keep the right. Work for preemption as a separate issue!


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    No, how I take it, is we will be able to OC in areas that forbid it, if we have a CCW. Meaning OC w/o license is still fine in the areas that already allow it, and will be in the other areas if you hold a CCW, which I already do.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

    Right. Until those areas figure out that they can force you to get a license to OC. Then you will have to have a license to OC everywhere.

    Again, my advice: Get preemption with no strings. Then OC will be unlicensed everywhere, at least until the State tries to license it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  13. #13
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    So many posts....

    This bil lonly effects municipalities where OC is "prohibited". Hunting laws generally are seperate issues. It is not perfect but does nothing to folks who now OC without restriction.

    The 16 inch rule is to "please those" who would oppose this bill because folks on "public property" might carry those "assault weapons". Even in municipalitis that prohibit OC, on your own own property or the property of others where you have permission to be, this has never been an issue where hunting is concerned, you are good to go,this has never been an issue.

    Last comment, what you see introduced is rarely what comes out..... If you have thoughts or concerns contact your elected officials. There is no way to make everyone happy or we would have preemption or constitutional carry on the plus side or we would have NO 2A rights on the negatives side!

    WHILE politics is the art of the possible, in Missouri getting 2A rights is the art of not getting as bill shot to hell and diluted to a dog walking guidelines.....

    A lot went into making the good and bad folks happy.. It's now up to the legislators to make or break it.
    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

  14. #14
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369
    my letter to my Rep went out in this mornings mail. in a couple of days i'll give his office a call voice a heads-up/follow-up to the letter.

    BTW MSP, how did Jeff City go on SB150 today? unfortunately i had a new horse brought in today so i got sidetracked or i would have come.


    i know, poor excuse.


    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  15. #15
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Sb150

    The hearing went well, it wil be off to the floor eventually. The one Senator on the Committee who opposed it was as dumb as a rock about firearms and the bill itself.
    There are two similar, more or less bills coming from the House. The one by Doug Funderburg is impressive in telling the Federal Government where to put their 2A restrictions. He showed it to me but it doesn't have a bill number yet, probably will in a day or two.

    The is NOT a need to start letters or phone calls yet, the process is early. There is no great need to have bills brought to a hearing untill they all have been filed and read three times on the House florr. The committee chairs like to haer a number of bills the same day so those who wish to speak don't have to go to Jefferson City multiple times.

    There is a lot of time in the session.

    If you go to this site you can al the4 information on what's happenning in the Missouri House (and committee hearings) and a link to the senate as well:

    http://www.house.mo.gov/
    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

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    This is three years in the making, if we gwt this we'll be headed in the right direction for urban and rural OCers. More to follow, headed to Jefferson City tomorrow. I don't want to see any B/S comments, if you think you can do better, go for it! In the spirit and climate of our legislature I think this is a bill that might go the distance.

    More information in a few days..... There will be work to do.

    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary....ar=2013&code=R

    I see no significant difference in this bill and the one you and yours got introduced last time. I could not support it then , I cannot support it now. I still see it as only an expansion of the privileges allowed by the state and granted to only to those who are willing to jump through the hurdles, enacted by the state, in order to receive a state issued permit.

    This not an "Open Carry" bill, it is a CCW bill. This bill only expands where a CCW permit holder can carry. It does not increase the protection of the right enumerated in our state Constitution, it simply broadens the scope of a state sanctioned privilege.

    Also, you might want to talk to Mike about what you don't want to see posted by members of his forum.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  17. #17
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I see no significant difference in this bill and the one you and yours got introduced last time. I could not support it then , I cannot support it now. I still see it as only an expansion of the privileges allowed by the state and granted to only to those who are willing to jump through the hurdles, enacted by the state, in order to receive a state issued permit.

    This not an "Open Carry" bill, it is a CCW bill. This bill only expands where a CCW permit holder can carry. It does not increase the protection of the right enumerated in our state Constitution, it simply broadens the scope of a state sanctioned privilege.

    Also, you might want to talk to Mike about what you don't want to see posted by members of his forum.
    If you can write a better one, and get it going some place besides a recycle bin, feel free. There are hopes and there is political reality.
    At this point in time we'd be "lucky" to get any change as it realtes to open carry. There are a lot of elements out there who would rather see OC go away completely.
    Any improvement is good. This bil does NOTHING to hurt those who have OC rights right now. It gives some measure of relieve to those who live in an area with NO OC rights what so ever.

    As the federal Government tightens the restrictions on firearms to the States as has thr State and municipal government tightened restrictions on OC. Once a freedom is taken away by Government it is very difficulty to get it back. That's why getting OC rights returned is a step by step process. We are not getting preemption or Constitutional carry in Missouri any time soon. THIS IS REALITY IN MISSOURI.
    I've pounded the halls visited with elected legislators over and over. If "we" do not accept progress a step at a time all we will get is "Restrictions" one step at a time! THAT IS FACT.

    I invite anyone to try to get some thing better. The Capitol is open for business, the legislators are there Monday through half of Thursday, go for it! Session ends May 13th.
    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

  18. #18
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    House and Senate hearings

    I will let you know when the next hearings comes up. I go early to chat with legislators to make the most of the day. It takes two hours to get there and two hours to get home. The general Laws Committee meetings in the House and Senate both take place on Tuesdays. The House at 12:00 noon and the Senate at 3:00PM. I have every Tuesday "free" and will go any time to address our second amendment rights.
    I invite everyone to go and speak to the these bills. There have been a number of people from this forum and others who have taken the day and taken the time to go. The only way to get changes made to our rights is to go to Jefferson City and make it happen. It may cost you a day of school or a day of work and pay. It just depends if you want to make the sacrifice to do this. It is not easy to drop every thing and go there, a decision you'll have to make for yourself.
    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

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    This bil lonly effects municipalities where OC is "prohibited". Hunting laws generally are seperate issues. It is not perfect but does nothing to folks who now OC without restriction.

    The 16 inch rule is to "please those" who would oppose this bill because folks on "public property" might carry those "assault weapons". Even in municipalitis that prohibit OC, on your own own property or the property of others where you have permission to be, this has never been an issue where hunting is concerned, you are good to go,this has never been an issue.

    Last comment, what you see introduced is rarely what comes out..... If you have thoughts or concerns contact your elected officials. There is no way to make everyone happy or we would have preemption or constitutional carry on the plus side or we would have NO 2A rights on the negatives side!

    WHILE politics is the art of the possible, in Missouri getting 2A rights is the art of not getting as bill shot to hell and diluted to a dog walking guidelines.....

    A lot went into making the good and bad folks happy.. It's now up to the legislators to make or break it.
    Good response MSP. I hope those involved that can make the changes will make some very appropriate changes like removing "firearm" and replacing it with "handgun" as well as considering the potential of this becoming State-mandated training should municipalities catch on that they can in fact force it upon people. We've been through far too many "unintended consequences" situations in the past couple of years courtesy of lawmakers that refused to heed warnings that it would happen, only to face the fact that it did actually happen.

    This bill could have some really positive potential if they're not going to make the effort to go Constitutional carry. As an instructor it puts me in a position of conflict. I am a very firm believer in training, but I don't support government mandated training. Yet, those who simply strap on a firearm and do not seek the training are a danger to themselves and others, both physically and legally.

    Someone suggested to me late last year that we go to a web-based classroom to ease the burden all the way around. I asked if they had heard the country song "I'm so much cooler online", they had. I asked if they understood that there is NO way to verify who is behind the keyboard for an online program and that alone makes the idea of a web-based classroom sticky. It would require a one-shot in-person written test to be administered prior to the range, pass it and you go to the range, fail it and you go home to take the web-based classroom again. Some people just aren't good at taking tests.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I see no significant difference in this bill and the one you and yours got introduced last time. I could not support it then , I cannot support it now. I still see it as only an expansion of the privileges allowed by the state and granted to only to those who are willing to jump through the hurdles, enacted by the state, in order to receive a state issued permit.

    This not an "Open Carry" bill, it is a CCW bill. This bill only expands where a CCW permit holder can carry. It does not increase the protection of the right enumerated in our state Constitution, it simply broadens the scope of a state sanctioned privilege.

    Also, you might want to talk to Mike about what you don't want to see posted by members of his forum.

    You make a great point SavageOne. There are certain inalienable rights, these are not given by the government, they are supposed to be guaranteed and uninfringable. The further we allow restrictions to go, the more it seems as though the government is "permitting" us to do so rather than refusing to touch our freedoms. Once it was said that "Your rights are only guaranteed until they infringe upon the rights of others" (unknown author) we then had a huge problem that would allow the regulation of those inalienable rights.

    Constitutional carry is the only true solution, but it creates the problem that other States are not doing the same. We then face the problem of again gaining "permission" to exercise our rights to be able to exercise them in other States.


    Now let's look at a potentially positive aspect for a moment. Criminals aren't going to go through the training, they're not going to obtain CCW endorsements, and they certainly aren't going to abide by these rules in the law. They only impact the law abiding. So, with that in mind, LEOs should then be put in a position to leave us all alone once we say "I have a CCW" and then present it when we're addressed on OC or CCW. The problem with bad LEO contacts should self-correct and those who wish to continue to create bad LEO contacts on both sides might just face charges or lawsuits.

    Remember, the DOJ's Violent Crimes Against LEOs manual illustrates (1 study folks, more needs to be conducted)
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 02-06-2013 at 11:44 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    I want to address those who seem to oppose this.

    Where do you live? Is it OC friendly? If so, good for you. What do you propose those of us (like myself) who live in Felony-Traps do if we want to OC? I live in St Louis, and the OC law is so convoluted I could be legal on one side of the street and in jail on the other side of the street. It's virtually impossible to stay updated on all the laws, or lack thereof, so most people who go outside the St Charles County area simply don't OC, even if they desperately want to.

    We know a couple things:

    1) Our current situation sucks. Don't even try to argue with me about it.

    2) There's no way in hell statewide preemption is going to pass the legislature. It's just not in the cards right now.

    So what can we do? We have to work within the confines of the people we elected. Many of them, including Paul, are amazingly supportive of our rights. Unfortunately, some aren't.

    We have a choice: continue allowing local governments to trample our rights as they see fit, or try to get something passed that whittles away at their power to do so. This is the latter. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot. Is it better than anything else we could pass in our current situation? Yes.

    As Marc said, if you think you can do better, please do. Consider yourself called out.

    /rant

  22. #22
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    The emails and phone calls continue from morning till night.
    OK, i brought this on myself and I don't mind. I do read all the emails and try to coem up with what wroks best and especially try to be so careful not to infringe where rights are good. The political realities and needs and wants have to reach a balance.

    I have folks from here, other 2A groups and legislators all pulling every which way. This goes on every single day. There is a long process a head where at any point everything to do with 2A can come to a complete hault. Its' the way the process works. 12 hours in jefferson City Tuesday and many things happening the rest of the week too.

    There is no need to push for 2A hearings and such right now, they are movong through the process just fine. It is not a quick process, there are other factors at work......

    MSPGUNNER

    Quote Originally Posted by REALteach4u View Post
    You make a great point SavageOne. There are certain inalienable rights, these are not given by the government, they are supposed to be guaranteed and uninfringable. The further we allow restrictions to go, the more it seems as though the government is "permitting" us to do so rather than refusing to touch our freedoms. Once it was said that "Your rights are only guaranteed until they infringe upon the rights of others" (unknown author) we then had a huge problem that would allow the regulation of those inalienable rights.

    Constitutional carry is the only true solution, but it creates the problem that other States are not doing the same. We then face the problem of again gaining "permission" to exercise our rights to be able to exercise them in other States.


    Now let's look at a potentially positive aspect for a moment. Criminals aren't going to go through the training, they're not going to obtain CCW endorsements, and they certainly aren't going to abide by these rules in the law. They only impact the law abiding. So, with that in mind, LEOs should then be put in a position to leave us all alone once we say "I have a CCW" and then present it when we're addressed on OC or CCW. The problem with bad LEO contacts should self-correct and those who wish to continue to create bad LEO contacts on both sides might just face charges or lawsuits.

    Remember, the DOJ's Violent Crimes Against LEOs manual illustrates (1 study folks, more needs to be conducted)
    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

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    My recommendations below.
    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.

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

    (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or a permit from another state permit which is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times; (a) The regulation of the open carry of a firearm by a political subdivision shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to Sections 571.101 to 571.121, RSMo., or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another State or political subdivision of another State.

    (b) The open carrying of a firearm shall be limited to a firearm sixteen inches or less in overall length; With a nod towards OCDO forum rules. We should only be focusing on handguns in Jeff City at this point. Any concerns regarding a citizen getting harassed, if he is harassed, by LE for "OCing" a long gun is best addressed on a case by case basis by that citizen and that LEA/town. No legislation is required.

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

    (d) In the absence of any reasonable and articular suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest;
    To disarm a citizen LE must meet the requirements of case law that has addressed this issue.

    (e) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121. This provision is redundant. If a valid endorsement is required OC the penalty for not displaying cannot be greater than what RSMo mandates for CCW.
    A few points if I may.

    1. We are predominately concerned with OCing a handgun. Long gun "OC" is not a issue and we should not distract ourselves.

    2. 21.750.3 has been around for many years and the banning of OC by political subdivisions has not been wide spread, quite rare in fact, if you think state wide.

    If I recall Troy would not infringe upon our rights. Political subdivisions by in large have not infringed on our right via 21.750.3 and it is highly unlikely they will start. It seems to me that 21.750.3 is/has been used by towns located near/in the large urban areas. Missouri towns and their LEAs are typically respectful of our Art. I, Sec. 23 right.

    2. Wentzville already permits OC via a endorsement, this legislation if enacted would only remove their discretion to ban OC outright. Wentzville is not anti-OC per se. Nor are any of the other towns that require a endorsement to OC. I find this a marginally reasonable compromise until 21.750.3 is repealed or preemption occurs.

    3. Arrest occurs in Missouri when:
    RSMo 544.180 - Arrest. - 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.
    Will "arrests" increase? I am confident that arrests will not increase in frequency. Towns that ban OC will demand your endorsement as a result of this bill. The vast majority of LEAs will treat you OCing, as they currently do in Wentzville, in the same manner as you driving on a valid DL. Wentzville cops are well trained and professional. A citizen must "invite" a cop to take undue notice of them. Just as a citizen must "invite" a cop to take undue notice of them while they are driving.

    We must be patient and let the process take its course. I do not support this bill in its current form.

    As mspgunner correctly points out, and I paraphrase, "If you want better, then go to Jeff City and do better."

    I will continue to heed the advice of those who are "on the ground" in Jeff City and provide the support I can where I can. I have sent my reps my thoughts on this particular bill and I will discuss this with my like minded neighbors.
    "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

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    1. We are predominately concerned with OCing a handgun. Long gun "OC" is not a issue and we should not distract ourselves.
    mspgunner already stated this section is in here to help get the necessary votes needed to have a hope of passing. And it makes little difference as far as OC in concerned.

    2. 21.750.3 has been around for many years and the banning of OC by political subdivisions has not been wide spread, quite rare in fact, if you think state wide.
    It is rare, unless you live in an area where it's not.

    If I recall Troy would not infringe upon our rights. Political subdivisions by in large have not infringed on our right via 21.750.3 and it is highly unlikely they will start. It seems to me that 21.750.3 is/has been used by towns located near/in the large urban areas. Missouri towns and their LEAs are typically respectful of our Art. I, Sec. 23 right.
    Generalities are great, generally.

    2. Wentzville already permits OC via a endorsement, this legislation if enacted would only remove their discretion to ban OC outright. Wentzville is not anti-OC per se. Nor are any of the other towns that require a endorsement to OC. I find this a marginally reasonable compromise until 21.750.3 is repealed or preemption occurs.
    I'm not seeing a point to this one.

    3. Will "arrests" increase? I am confident that arrests will not increase in frequency. Towns that ban OC will demand your endorsement as a result of this bill. The vast majority of LEAs will treat you OCing, as they currently do in Wentzville, in the same manner as you driving on a valid DL. Wentzville cops are well trained and professional. A citizen must "invite" a cop to take undue notice of them. Just as a citizen must "invite" a cop to take undue notice of them while they are driving.
    We know from past experience this isn't the case. Sure, Wentzville knows the rules. But do you honestly think St Louis City cops are going to follow the rules, assuming they even take the time to know them? I don't.

    We must be patient and let the process take its course. I do not support this bill in its current form.
    Patience is good. Doing nothing is not. I'm not a huge fan of the bill in its current form, but it's got a better chance of passing than anything we've had in at least 5 years. Probably longer. Ignoring it gets us nowhere.
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  25. #25
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    This is politics; debate and develop common ground...if you want something to pass.

    If you don't want something to pass, then stand your ground. I can't remember any bill passing/signed without some debate, modification to get enough votes to pass....unless one party has complete veto proof margins...even then, its hard to get all in the same party on the same side....exception....Obamacare.

    More than likely, if this bill passes, there will be some changes.....the is always a concern, are the changes too restrictive? There is a happy medium....it just takes time to find it sometimes.
    "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
  •