Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

AB · Apr 4, 2014

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/bills141/biltxt/perf/HB1439P.htm

kcgunfan · Apr 4, 2014

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

Kopis · Apr 4, 2014

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.

Redbaron007 · Apr 4, 2014

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"?

JEStucker · Apr 4, 2014

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.

2AFriendly · Apr 4, 2014

English please... Not seeing the problem just yet. (then again, I'm not a lawyer.)

HP995 · Apr 5, 2014

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.

kcgunfan · Apr 6, 2014

I gotta say, that's pretty effective troll killing.

SavageOne · Apr 6, 2014

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

logunowner · Apr 7, 2014

SavageOne said:
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,

LMTD · Apr 7, 2014

SavageOne said:
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.

SavageOne · Apr 7, 2014

LMTD said:
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.

OC for ME · Apr 7, 2014

SavageOne said:
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.

kcgunfan · Apr 7, 2014

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

9026543 · Apr 7, 2014

kcgunfan said:
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."

SavageOne · Apr 7, 2014

OC for ME said:
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.

LMTD · Apr 7, 2014

SavageOne said:
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?

HP995 · Apr 8, 2014

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.

SavageOne · Apr 8, 2014

LMTD said:
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.

OC for ME · Apr 8, 2014

SavageOne said:
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."

Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member