Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 139

Thread: Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

  1. #1
    Regular Member AB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    ACTIVIST Cheyenne, Wyoming
    Posts
    240

    Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

    Maybe this is why there was such 'wide' support for this bill?

    No ordinance may be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
    (2) In any jurisdiction in which the open carrying of firearms is prohibited by ordinance, the open carrying of firearms shall not be prohibited in accordance with the following:
    (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;
    (b) Any person open carrying a firearm in such jurisdiction shall display his or her concealed carry endorsement or permit upon demand of a law enforcement officer;
    (c) In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed firearm shall be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest; and
    (d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.

    HOUSE BILL NO. 1439
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...rf/HB1439P.htm

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Could you be a little more specific as to what your objection is? Please use your own words, so we can help with any misconceptions.

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kopis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    727
    Yeah Im really not sure what the OP is intending to say either. The law sounds like it would legalize OC with a valid permit.

    I visited Branson MO with my wife a few months back. It was winter so OC wasnt really possible but i did ask an officer while we were stuck in traffic if OC was legal. He responded yeah and shrugged his shoulders. The cop next to him that was barely 5' tall piped in a minnie mouse voice "what did he say?" so i repeated my question. He replied that OC was indeed illegal in branson and they had a city ordinance that preempted the state law. The other cop just looked at me and shrugged again and said i guess not. I asked what the city code number was but i could tell the minnie mouse cop was getting really mad so i just said no worries and left.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Please identify the "Sham" part?

    I'm strictly guessing and you are free to correct me; but could it be you just have a philosophical issue with the bill, not that the bill itself is a a "Sham"?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Regular Member JEStucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Independence, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    95
    This removes the municipal codes over-riding the state laws, at least for those with CCW permits.

    Is this perfect, no, is it a step in the right direction, yes.

    When dealing with those who make the laws, sometimes you have to take those baby steps to at least get onto the right path. Now that the foot is in the door, we can continue pushing the door open and move forward.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 2AFriendly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    80
    English please... Not seeing the problem just yet. (then again, I'm not a lawyer.)

  7. #7
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289
    Wise man say, best argument keep quiet. What not explain cannot refute. OP know this. He not say.

    So how close are we now? It's not a sham, it's just made out of that super high tech bouncy material! Two days out from a reading.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I gotta say, that's pretty effective troll killing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Perhaps he feels it is a sham, because instead of protecting or strengthening a Right enumerated in our State Constitution, it morphs that right into a priviledge granted only to those who have submitted to legislative requirements and paid the accompanying fees.

    Does the bill protect the rights of those who are too poor to be able to afford the cost associated with jumping through the hoops required to aquire a CCW? Does their economic situation mean they shouldn't be allowed to legally carry a firearm for their self defense?

    This bill does not change the fact that someone who is unable to aquire a CCW is still being prohibited from carrying a firearm legally in any of these jurisdictions that have been allowed to ban OC. This bill does not correct the legislative over reach that circumvented our State Constitution. It does, however reinfore it. What reason will the Legislature have to revisit this situation if this bill passes? Are people hoping that, somewhere or someday, the Legislature will decide it's in their interest to give up the power they have grabbed?

    Some keep using the phrase "baby steps". The Legislature didn't have the authority to allow jurisdictions to violate the State Constitution in the first place, now some seem fine allowing it to further grab power as long as it only happens in "baby steps".

    Maybe Sham was too nice a word
    Last edited by SavageOne; 04-07-2014 at 12:05 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Lake Ozark, Mo
    Posts
    219
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Perhaps he feels it is a sham, because instead of protecting or strengthening a Right enumerated in our State Constitution, it morphs that right into a priviledge granted only to those who have submitted to legislative requirements and paid the accompanying fees.

    Does the bill protect the rights of those who are too poor to be able to afford the cost associated with jumping through the hoops required to aquire a CCW? Does their economic situation mean they shouldn't be allowed to legally carry a firearm for their self defense?

    This bill does not change the fact that someone who is unable to aquire a CCW is still being prohibited from carrying a firearm legally in any of these jurisdictions that have been allowed to ban OC. This bill does not correct the legislative over reach that circumvented our State Constitution. It does, however reinfore it. What reason will the Legislature have to revisit this situation if this bill passes? Are people hoping that, somewhere or someday, the Legislature will decide it's in their interest to give up the power they have grabbed?

    Some keep using the phrase "baby steps". The Legislature didn't have the authority to allow jurisdictions to violate the State Constitution in the first place, now some seem fine allowing it to further grab power as long as it only happens in "baby steps".

    Maybe Sham was too nice a word
    Amen,

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post

    Some keep using the phrase "baby steps". The Legislature didn't have the authority to allow jurisdictions to violate the State Constitution in the first place, now some seem fine allowing it to further grab power as long as it only happens in "baby steps".

    Maybe Sham was too nice a word
    Actually after closely observing the last four or five years, I would like to park in front of the capitol and blare Billy Squires song "The Stroke" at about 130 db on a loop over and over.
    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."

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Actually after closely observing the last four or five years, I would like to park in front of the capitol and blare Billy Squires song "The Stroke" at about 130 db on a loop over and over.
    After reading your sig line I wonder your position on a bill that confers the ability to openly carry a firearm on only those who are willing or able to aquire a state granted permission slip? The statues written in this bill, vis-a'-vis, the bills put forward in the last few years, don't seem that dissimilar.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    After reading your sig line I wonder your position on a bill that confers the ability to openly carry a firearm on only those who are willing or able to aquire a state granted permission slip? The statues written in this bill, vis-a'-vis, the bills put forward in the last few years, don't seem that dissimilar.
    A somewhat distorted summary of the intent of this bill.
    "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

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I'll post more on this later, but did everyone notice that HB1439 now contains an emergency clause?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by kcgunfan; 04-07-2014 at 12:16 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I'll post more on this later, but did everyone notice that HB1439 now contains an emergency clause?

    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    Emergency clause does not apply to the complete bill.


    Section C. Because of the need to provide for the regulation and licensure of corporate security advisors, the repeal and reenactment of sections 84.340 and 571.030 and the enactment of section 590.750 of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the repeal and reenactment of sections 84.340 and 571.030 and the enactment of section 590.750 of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    A somewhat distorted summary of the intent of this bill.
    Feel free to present your own summary, I am truly interested to in your veiws.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    After reading your sig line I wonder your position on a bill that confers the ability to openly carry a firearm on only those who are willing or able to aquire a state granted permission slip? The statues written in this bill, vis-a'-vis, the bills put forward in the last few years, don't seem that dissimilar.
    It sucks.

    As far as it being similar, last year nearly identical if not word for word, I haven't checked. It is not like the years prior to that though, there I believe you are mistaken.

    Have you submitted a draft this year or in past years?

    Mine was simple it was to strike through "or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use " of 21.750 thus eliminating it and making every area of the state the same. I also believe it corrects a constitutional error that would not likely stand if it were funded and challenged. Unfortunately it has never managed to even make it to a hearing due to a lack of interest.

    Anything else you are wondering about?
    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."

  18. #18
    Regular Member HP995's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    MO, USA
    Posts
    289
    The date keeps getting pushed back!

    Many things in this bill, it's a 2A casserole. The part about OC doesn't take anything away from citizens, it just places more limits on government to stop some abuses. So that helps.

    Any effort to remove all local state and fed infringements on our rights, that would be even better. For 2A and other rights; they all have been trampled for a long time. So I don't see much of an argument. We need that too. I hope to see that. Until then we have this.

    The main part of this bill is intended to provide a layer of protection too. It's probably not very strong. But every bit helps...if they ever pass it. And if they don't over revise it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    It sucks.

    As far as it being similar, last year nearly identical if not word for word, I haven't checked. It is not like the years prior to that though, there I believe you are mistaken.

    Have you submitted a draft this year or in past years?

    Mine was simple it was to strike through "or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use " of 21.750 thus eliminating it and making every area of the state the same. I also believe it corrects a constitutional error that would not likely stand if it were funded and challenged. Unfortunately it has never managed to even make it to a hearing due to a lack of interest.

    Anything else you are wondering about?
    Thank you for stating your thoughts. I personally have never believed that the route to statewide preemption was through the Legislature. As a body they are loathe to limit their own power. I firmly believe that the only way we will get preemption is through the courts. I have suggested this in the past, as you may remember. You even commented privately in a PM what you thought of the chances of success establishing a legal defense fund would be.

    If I may ask, since you have worked so dilegently over the last few years, how many people, do you believe, are there in the state, who would be willing to work towards such a goal today? 10...50...100...1000? I'm just interested in how many you think might pitch in.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  20. #20
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    After reading your sig line I wonder your position on a bill that confers the ability to openly carry a firearm on only those who are willing or able to aquire a state granted permission slip? The statues written in this bill, vis-a'-vis, the bills put forward in the last few years, don't seem that dissimilar.
    This bill will permit those who wish to do so in political subdivisions that ban OC to OC.

    In the vast majority of the state OC is not banned. But, this is not the real intent of this bill in my view. This bill is one step closer to striking the OC ban in 21.750.3. That was attempted two years ago and it went no where.

    The reality is a vast majority of our fellow Missourians are not all that interested in the 2A here in Missouri, look to the CC endorsements issued to this point. Of those CC endorsements issued how many OC?

    OC is not a issue in Jeff City. If OC were a big deal then the veto override last year would have occurred. If OC is a big deal 21.750.3 would have been "fixed." If the 2A were a big deal we would have constitutional carry. If Jeff City gave a rip about the 2A there would be no "gun laws."
    "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

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by HP995 View Post
    The date keeps getting pushed back!

    Many things in this bill, it's a 2A casserole. The part about OC doesn't take anything away from citizens, it just places more limits on government to stop some abuses. So that helps.

    Any effort to remove all local state and fed infringements on our rights, that would be even better. For 2A and other rights; they all have been trampled for a long time. So I don't see much of an argument. We need that too. I hope to see that. Until then we have this.

    The main part of this bill is intended to provide a layer of protection too. It's probably not very strong. But every bit helps...if they ever pass it. And if they don't over revise it.

    I'm afraid you and I view the OC portion of the bill differently. You seem to view it as limiting local governments from restricting OC for the citizens of Missouri. It does not. If this bill passes any jurisdiction can still pass anti OC ordinaces, they just won't apply to those who have chosen to aquire state permission and received a CCW. All the OC portion of this bill does is increase the perks that the Legislature bestows on those who have jumped through the hurdles they have established to confer the privilege of a state concealed carry permit( though it would then more correctly be a state issued carry permit). I view this as an increase of government power.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    This bill will permit those who wish to do so in political subdivisions that ban OC to OC.

    In the vast majority of the state OC is not banned. But, this is not the real intent of this bill in my view. This bill is one step closer to striking the OC ban in 21.750.3. That was attempted two years ago and it went no where.

    The reality is a vast majority of our fellow Missourians are not all that interested in the 2A here in Missouri, look to the CC endorsements issued to this point. Of those CC endorsements issued how many OC?

    OC is not a issue in Jeff City. If OC were a big deal then the veto override last year would have occurred. If OC is a big deal 21.750.3 would have been "fixed." If the 2A were a big deal we would have constitutional carry. If Jeff City gave a rip about the 2A there would be no "gun laws."

    Not quite true, this bill only allows those who have a valid CCW to OC in those areas where OC is banned.

    Nothing in this bill stops any new jurisdictions from putting OC bans in place. You may be correct that there are not that many CCers who choose to OC, and what better way to further stop OCers than to require a CCW to OC. There are plenty of people who OC because they don't wish to involve the state in the exercising of their rights, It is not unimaginable that local governments might seek to curtail OC by placing that obstacle in peoples way.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 04-08-2014 at 08:11 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    Not quite true, this bill only allows those who have a valid CCW to OC in those areas where OC is banned.

    Nothing in this bill stops any new jurisdictions from putting OC bans in place. You may be correct that there are not that many CCers who choose to OC, and what better way to further stop OCers than to require a CCW to OC. There are plenty of people who OC because they don't wish to involve the state in the exercising of their rights, It is not unimaginable that local governments might seek to curtail OC by placing that obstacle in peoples way.
    No arguments from me.

    This bill does not change what has not been occurring already. 21.750.3 has been around a long time and OC bans are rarely enacted. Troy's mayor rejected a attempt to ban OC a couple of years back.

    Some towns already permit endorsement holders to be exempt from their OC ban, Wentzville is one.

    This bill is not a major step forward by any stretch of the imagination but it is a step nonetheless. Every year I submit to my senator and house rep the below.

    21.750.3. 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.
    I keep this in a text file and copy it into my e-mail to them both.

    The minor element that I think is of more import is the restriction on LE when interacting with a OCer. The goal of any "OC legislation" is to limit the state's response (options) to a OCer. OCing on a endorsement is not my focus. Restricting LE is my focus.

    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. No ordinance may be construed to preclude the use of a firearm in the defense of person or property, subject to the provisions of chapter 563.
    Not needed in my view given the language of RSMo 563, but it's in here.

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

    (a) Any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit who is open carrying a firearm shall be required to have a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit from this state, or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state, in his or her possession at all times;

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

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

    (d) Any person who violates this subdivision shall be subject to the penalty provided in section 571.121.
    We will need to wait and see how this one plays out on the street. RSMo 544:

    544.180. 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.
    The wording of the 3(2)(c) in the proposed bill is problematic in my view. But, we will not know until the bill is passed and signed into law.
    "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 Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I'm afraid you and I view the OC portion of the bill differently. You seem to view it as limiting local governments from restricting OC for the citizens of Missouri. It does not. If this bill passes any jurisdiction can still pass anti OC ordinaces, they just won't apply to those who have chosen to aquire state permission and received a CCW. All the OC portion of this bill does is increase the perks that the Legislature bestows on those who have jumped through the hurdles they have established to confer the privilege of a state concealed carry permit( though it would then more correctly be a state issued carry permit). I view this as an increase of government power.
    You contradict yourself in several ways; you say it doesn't limit local jurisdictions; then you say it does give the privilege some relief, so there fore it does limit local restrictions. Maybe it's just me, but you seem to have an air of class envy regrading the CCWrs vs. OCrs.

    The bottom line is it does limit those jurisdictions from imposing restrictions on law abiding CCWrs. Does it grant the same privilege to all...nope, it doesn't. But since CCW is a license (like it or not) it comes with some limitations. OC is constitutional, except the locals have the option of enacting restrictions. I would prefer them to not have these options, but as the old saying goes, how does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time....and time it takes.

    Statewide preemptive OC isn't an overnight process....it's politics, like it or not. Politics has been around since man has been around. There is a constitutional amendment that is hopefully going to be approved to be placed on the ballot this fall. It has a lot a value and brings us yet another step closer.

    I think philosophically, we are all pretty much on the same page....however, the path to get to the end result differs, thus frustrates many. Although in theory, it may seem simple; but because we have to deal with many different people with different perspectives/personalities, getting them to agree on one thing is monumental.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I personally have never believed that the route to statewide preemption

    I firmly believe that the only way we will get preemption is through the courts.

    I have suggested this in the past, as you may remember. You even commented privately in a PM what you thought of the chances of success establishing a legal defense fund would be.

    If I may ask, since you have worked so dilegently over the last few years, how many people, do you believe, are there in the state, who would be willing to work towards such a goal today? 10...50...100...1000? I'm just interested in how many you think might pitch in.
    Edited to add clarity only.

    A couple of really smart folks echo your thoughts on the legislature, I deleted a bit more of that line than my undo would let me fix, but folks should get the point.

    There in is the problem, the courts remain a legal system not a justice system no matter the marketing spin put upon the naming and while I agree it is the most likely path to success as by design it is to repair the mistakes of our legislators, it is a very expensive path.

    It would be humorous if it were not true, but if you can't put up decent money, you are not a player in either game.

    I honestly do not recall the PM, however I do recall the exploration of the idea. Several interested parties had face to face, and online chats to discuss it more specifically how to proceed to chase OC for MO. While sort of popular, a legal defense fund was shot down due to several reasons, primarily being the initial cost to protect it from the IRS. Several questions also existed over how to administer it and the criteria that would be used. In the end the idea was abandon as a path to OC and grassroots legislative efforts were chosen as the directed effort.

    I think you could bet on 10 folks the first month, might get 50 in the space of a year, if a solid case were to come up you might see 100-200 but it would have to be really high profile in order to garner that kind of support.

    I will add some more thoughts later.
    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."

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •