2013 Open carry Bill in the Missouri House

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

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

REALteach4u said:

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)

Click to expand...

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:

[strike](a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a[/strike][strike] 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;[/strike] (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.

[strike](b) The open carrying of a firearm shall be limited to a firearm sixteen inches or less in overall length;[/strike] 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.

[strike](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;[/strike]

[strike](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;[/strike] To disarm a citizen LE must meet the requirements of case law that has addressed this issue.

[strike](e) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.[/strike] 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

OC for ME said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

REALteach4u said:

<snip> 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..... <snip>

Click to expand...

Oramac said:

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.

Click to expand...

My comment was directed towards the concern, raised by REALteach4u, that hunters "OCing" long guns could be subject to a charge of violating this statute. A valid concern.

It is rare, unless you live in an area where it's not.

Click to expand...

The air is exceptionally clean in Foristell, as compared to Wright City, due to the Clean Air initiative that St. Charles County is subjected to and that Warren County is not.

I'm not seeing a point to this one.

Click to expand...

This is unfortunate.

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.

Click to expand...

If STLPD will not follow current law now then it is a moot point whether or not this bill is enacted into law. Knowing the proclivities of STLPD we should not pursue the enactment of this bill into law in one form or another they will just ignore it.

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.

Click to expand...

I'm not seeing a point to this one.

Hunting

Where OC is prohibited by municipal government you cannot now hunt with a long gun unless allowed by that municipal government. Certainly many do allow that as an exception to open carry. There is no reason that cannot be inserted as an amendment, how does this look? “Except when legally and lawfully engaged in hunting and/or the pursuit of game or firearms related activities as defined by the Missouri Department of Conservation or other official Missouri State Government agencies.”

This suggested amendment has been sent to the sponsor of the bill.

OC for ME said:

My comment was directed towards the concern, raised by REALteach4u, that hunters "OCing" long guns could be subject to a charge of violating this statute. A valid concern.

Click to expand...

I misunderstood your concern. I now agree with it. My mistake.

The air is exceptionally clean in Foristell, as compared to Wright City, due to the Clean Air initiative that St. Charles County is subjected to and that Warren County is not.

Click to expand...

Apples to oranges. Air from Foristell can move to Wright City. Firearms and their laws are not so fluid.

This is unfortunate.

Click to expand...

Enlighten me.

If STLPD will not follow current law now then it is a moot point whether or not this bill is enacted into law. Knowing the proclivities of STLPD we should not pursue the enactment of this bill into law in one form or another they will just ignore it.

Click to expand...

STLPD does follow current law, as current law in STL makes OC utterly and completely illegal. But we know from experience, both in our state and others, that LEOs are not always up to date on laws, and if they are, they are not always willing to abide them. This section gives LAC's the opportunity to fight back against LEOs who have no respect for the law or LAC's rights.

I'm not seeing a point to this one.

Click to expand...

That is unfortunate. (Couldn't help it. Sorry.)

The point is: we need to do something. The bill proposed isn't perfect. Few ever really are. But it actually has a chance to pass, which is something that couldn't be said for much of the bills proposed in the past. Patience is a good thing, but patience to the point of apathy is not.

Next?

Anyone here is free and encouraged to contact their elected officials regarding OC. There is a balance betweenn what can be done, what is being done and what wil not happen anytime soon. The enemy of good is better. Some thing that might get moved along can be haulted at many points along the way. It is not easy to successfully get a bill to become law. Benn there done that. Any progress is good, just the way it is..........

mspgunner said:

if you think you can do better, go for it!

Click to expand...

I sure hope we CAN do better. I absolutely love most of the bills that have been posted here, but this one is nothing to leap for joy about.

It enhances CCW privileges, and limits LEO arbitrary nonsense. That's good. It fixes an aspect of CCW law.

But it doesn't push the true spirit of 2A and the universal right of OC. The opposition to concealed weapons is silly but has historical roots. I don't agree that CCW should require licensing but at least there's a background context.

Meanwhile, opposition to OC is just modern anti-gun hysteria. Getting permission to OC via CCW is not huge progress. We need the right to bear arms without infringement.

The 2A doesn't say only handguns. It doesn't say choose either a bunch of licensing or a patchwork quilt of local codes. It doesn't say pretty pretty please.

Let's do better than this. Please. I will try. I hope all of us will.

For example, wasn't it the original CCW laws that included the handgun car exemption for non CCW people? That was awesome. This one has nothing beyond CCW holders, if I'm (quickly) reading it right.

Statewide OC per 2A, plain and simple: is that impossible to pass?

HP995 said:

I sure hope we CAN do better. I absolutely love most of the bills that have been posted here, but this one is nothing to leap for joy about.

It enhances CCW privileges, and limits LEO arbitrary nonsense. That's good. It fixes an aspect of CCW law.

But it doesn't push the true spirit of 2A and the universal right of OC. The opposition to concealed weapons is silly but has historical roots. I don't agree that CCW should require licensing but at least there's a background context.

Meanwhile, opposition to OC is just modern anti-gun hysteria. Getting permission to OC via CCW is not huge progress. We need the right to bear arms without infringement.

The 2A doesn't say only handguns. It doesn't say choose either a bunch of licensing or a patchwork quilt of local codes. It doesn't say pretty pretty please.

Let's do better than this. Please. I will try. I hope all of us will.

For example, wasn't it the original CCW laws that included the handgun car exemption for non CCW people? That was awesome. This one has nothing beyond CCW holders, if I'm (quickly) reading it right.

Statewide OC per 2A, plain and simple: is that impossible to pass?

Click to expand...

State wide OC per 2A "IS" impossibe to pass, plain and simple. If it could it would, but it can't. Yes it is that simple.....
It's the reality of politics is Missouri. To be a bit more specific, it is two Missouri State Senators who would just say no with the power of filibuster, so there is no need to even try. The powers that are have made it quite clear. Unless and until that changes we have to go one "baby step" at a time.....

How about the nullification bill, what kind of chance does it have? (Love that one.)

No fears, no worries, no fuss and no muss. The Democraps will threaten all the gun bills and the other party will run and hide in fear and it will all be over.

9026543 said:

No fears, no worries, no fuss and no muss. The Democraps will threaten all the gun bills and the other party will run and hide in fear and it will all be over.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like nothing is or can be done, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Oramac said:

You make it sound like nothing is or can be done, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Click to expand...

The 2A Bills wil be heading to committee in the weeks to come. For those who want to be "involved" there will be posts on how to do that when the bills have been read and assigned to committees. I focus on a narrow scope of bills, OC and OC related bills on this forum, there are a flock of 2A bills, many not OC related.

Using "blogs"

http://marcperez.blogspot.com/2013/02/back-in-1985-state-of-missouri-gave.html

Gunner, can you confirm about the 16 inch rule?

I'm reading the bill that this only applies to jurisdictions where OC is locally prohibited.

So this doesn't restrict long gun OC where OC is locally allowed.

Correct?

If that's the right reading, I can support this bill.

HP995 said:

Gunner, can you confirm about the 16 inch rule?

I'm reading the bill that this only applies to jurisdictions where OC is locally prohibited.

So this doesn't restrict long gun OC where OC is locally allowed.

Correct?

If that's the right reading, I can support this bill.

Click to expand...

Correct! This Bill only applies in municipalities where OC is now prohibited. Has nothing to do with places where OC has been and remains unrestricted. Finally, some one who can read...

There is a preemption bill in the senate SB268, similar to what was introduced last year by Nieves.

The wheels are spinning.... That's al I have to say for now. There is no need just yet to jump on a letter writting or email blitz, for now the bills are working their way through the system just fine. There WILL be problems, no doubt, but just hang in there for now. Nothing to be done just yet, they are both headed for committee hearings, that is the next step. We just have to wait for committee hearing dates. I will be there to speak to House and Senate committee hearings. They will be in general Laws House General Laws hearings are on Tuesdays at 12:00 and senate General Laws hearings are held on Tuesdays at 3:00PM. No dates yet for these bills.

Not only can I read, I can comprehend. Once again the the response to those who don't agree to calling a CCW bill an OC bill is insult and condescension. Does this bill stop municipalities from passing OC restrictions in the future? Do you think some municipalities might do this to limit OC in the future? I mean, the simple fact is most people do not OC. That doesn't change the fact that it is still the only form of carry enumerated in our state Constitution( if concealed is not justified, that only leaves openly) and the only option that is left to those who don't wish to aquire state permission. There are also those who may not meet the requirements for a CCW who this bill does nothing for. The problem will bills such as this one is that it gives the "perception" of doing something to help protect OC rights, without actually addressing any of the real problems( like the fact that municipalities can pass restrictions that contradict our Constitution).

The simple truth is, this is not an Open Carry bill, it's a Concealed Carry one. It only increases the privileges allowed a CCW permit holder and there is nothing wrong with that , but please quit acting like it does anything for OC in the state of Missouri.

Agreed, we need a real OC bill. Constitution is still on our side, don't be timid. Nothing ventured....

But where I think this one can help is if our people with CCW do OC instead, almost all the time. That would help condition the populace to seeing and accepting OC. If they call LEO the situation will resolve to the original situation, still the person doing OC, so it would discourage that kneejerk reaction.

Where it could hurt is paving the route to everyone getting permission to OC. If you rely on permission rather than your rights, what do you do when that permission is taken away? That's why OC is so important.

So this bill will only help if CCW people use it to OC very extensively and raise awareness, change hearts and minds. Then it would need to be followed up with true OC bills in the following years. (I mean bills with cajones; after all, Constitution allows us all to open carry anywhere and all laws to contrary are void, but we've been too complacent.) That would make this a very helpful law.

Otherwise this will only provide some CCW convenience and perhaps a false sense of security, if it's not used to the fullest.

Meanwhile we also must fight for 2A aggressively right now. Whether or not this is time for patience about Jeff City, it is definitely NOT time for patience and waiting in terms of the national battle and DC and the populace. Unless the MO nullification bill succeeds, we must absolutely win the national effort. I hope everyone is doing all they can and not assuming the outcome. Everything is at stake.