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.