Missouri's nullification bill a sham!

9026543 said:

And what is that city attorneys name? I seem to have forgotten.

Click to expand...

Paul Martin?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

The only restriction it will place on a local government will be that they can no longer hold a certain subset of people to the same rules as other citizens.

Click to expand...

Thanks for answering ... so to clarify, we agree that there are only new restrictions on government, not on citizens.

See, it doesn't matter what the good intentions of those who are pushing this now are, ask yourself what damage can be done with it if a power shift in the Legislature where ever to happen.

Click to expand...

If a shift in the Legislature happens, things will go south, because the other side is not shy about pursuing what they want. You could get your dream bill now, maybe constitutional carry or a full OC exemption, and a shift in the Legislature could erase it again.

That's why we need to go outside the forums and influence hearts and minds in the general public. Including young people. This is culture war. 2A is only one of the many rights under attack, along with traditional American ideals and values.

kcgunfan said:

And all of the OC bans I know of can be laid at the feet of a single person, as you well know. I know that Ellisville made a ban, as did Maplewood. I think there were about 5 total. Do you know the list?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I know the list all too well and yes, it was Paul Martin, however I am going to again differ, those are NOT the only ones, those were just the high profile ones that came after the event in Maplewood and the positive news article in the post dispatch in Olivette. There have been others and there have been some over in the KC area as well. It was and remains the reason I am quite opposed to the "list" that keep popping up, the information is far too often incorrect and it does change.

Martin managed it in Olivette, Rockhill, Maryland hts, Crystal lake, Ellisville, defunked St George, University city. He is also in tight with okeefe i think his name is, runs the muni league and has testified against every gun bill I have testified for with the exception of one which he was not present.

Note that all but three are in the top 25 populated cities in the state which represents greater than 30% of the population of the state. aka my position on geographic vs number of persons affected. I can assure you, there have been more bans, they have even recently been discussed here on this site. Union Mo fell back in November of 2012 like a silent tree in the forest. I believe excelsior springs fell a few weeks ago, a couple of others since the big explosion fired off by roach Martin and there have been a variety of triggers according to the powers that be.

To my knowledge there have been either two or three wins, Troy MO, Washington MO, and I think Independence may have defeated an effort, I do not recall for sure.

While I am not going to claim the sky is falling over the bill, I do consider the position that an OC with CCW COULD trigger an additional upswing in the number of cities banning, the argument is totally with merit as it allows an entirely different argument to be presented. That does not mean it wilL happen but there is no stong indicator that it will not either when you consider the recent five to seven year history.

Anytime you opt to doubt the actions of a libtard, just remember that a few short years ago if you had said some idiot was going to force US citizens to purchase anything you would have instantly been classified as a total nutjob.

Trust me LMTD, I'm made of much sterner stuff than the other people you've scared away. And I like a challenge.

As Mark Twain said "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Luckily, I love numbers and statistics enough to do the research. You are absolutely correct, the % of surface area now under new OC restrictions is definitely miniscule. I want to examine your other claim, that the number of souls under new OC restrictions is more than a vast minority.

Your statement about all but 3 of them being in the top 25 cities, which represents 30% of the population is basically meaningless. You can't draw any conclusions from it. Especially if you know how many people live in the top 5. So, let's look at the raw data.

Here's your list of cities. I've added in the population numbers from the 2010 census found here http://www.togetherweteach.com/TWTIC/uscityinfo/25mo/mopopr/25mopr.htm

Olivette 7700
Rock Hill 4600
Maryland Heights 27500
Crystal Lake 4900
St. George 1300
University City 35400
Union 10200
Excelsior Springs 11100


For a total of 102,700

The population of Missouri in 2010 was 5,989,000 in 2010 (from the same page.)

This means that 1.7% of the state's population has fallen under new gun control laws in the past 5-7 years, according to your best recollection. You could have missed some, but if you did, we'll probably never know, and aren't likely to change the number by a lot. I'm not sure where you draw the line for a vast majority, but I would say that I would put it somewhere around 97-99%. I stand by my assertion.

THe other thing you are forgetting that Mr. Martin's actions were well before the SAPA bill was put forward last year. It would be incorrect to say his actions resulted from SAPA, and not a general hatred of man's natural rights.

Finally, there was enough media exposure for the bill last year that anyone that was contemplating doing this would done it. If a city did not realize it could ban OC, they should have learned it last year, by learning that the state was ready to lift that restriction for CCW endorsement holders. That did not happen en masse then, and I have no reason to think it will now.

Then on the other side of the fence, the number of CCW holders I generally see thrown about is 3%. If that is right, that's approximately 180,000 people that will be free to OC in the formerly restricted cities. Now, of course, not all of them well. But that number compares favorably with the 102K that can't open carry any longer. I just find that interesting.

I guess the only way to know for sure is if we pass it and we see what happens, but I see no reason for alarm at all.

This is truly interesting, good arguments on both sides.

What would it take to go beyond baby steps?

kcgunfan said:

Trust me LMTD, I'm made of much sterner stuff than the other people you've scared away. And I like a challenge.

As Mark Twain said "There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Your statement about all but 3 of them being in the top 25 cities, which represents 30% of the population is basically meaningless. You can't draw any conclusions from it. Especially if you know how many people live in the top 5. So, let's look at the raw data.

I guess the only way to know for sure is if we pass it and we see what happens, but I see no reason for alarm at all.

Click to expand...

Oops, we have a mus-communication here!

I did not mean to represent that paul was responsible for 30% or that those cities represented 30%, only that the top 25 cities represent 30%.

Now the 1% claim is not accurate because you are speaking to where it has changed in recent years, not where it has changed since it was allowed to change.

since you are good with it, dust that calculator off and tell us what the percentage of population that can't walk out their front door and onto the sidewalk with a pistol exposed. Since the discussion surrounds without a permit run that, then if you choose run the with a ccw localities seperate and we will have at least a number that applies to the bill aka a percent of improvement.

I am glad you remember who you are talking to so you know I am not trying to run you off.

I know what you meant, and I think I summed it up pretty well by saying that was a meaningless number. Having 4 of so cities in the top 25 in the state sounds scary big, but it matters whether they are 1-4, or 21-25.

My original assertion was that not a lot of localities would pass OC bans as a result of HB1439. I think I've backed that up pretty solidly.

Of course, trying to calculate the next number you want is like trying to nail Jello. It would require perfect knowledge of all city and county ordinances, which requires 144 courthouse visits. By the time I finished the 144th, the first 120 would have probably changed.

I will agree that number is greater than 1.7%, by a large margin. But I will also claim since these prohibitions were not put in place as a result of the OC clause in the SAPA, it's not relevant to my argument.

But I did cover this in my original post. The number of people that can OC in the prohibiteds area will go up. The number of people that can can OC in the non-prohibited areas will stay the same. There is no reason to suspect that there will be a mass wave of new prohibitions (again, I'm not saying there won't be, just that it doesn't fit the pattern.) And, the apparent number of people under new OC bans is swamped by the people with CCW endorsements.

Personally, if this passes, I'm driving to Wildwood to march around town with my G17 on my side in Marc's memory.

So, while I love the federal law nullification, and I'm supporting it for that cause alone, I don't think it causes significant damage to the OCer's. Nor do I believe the ensuing fallout will do much damage either. Again, this is not my dream bill. I don't think it's everything I want from the state. I want what LMTD said earlier, for one simple phrase removed from the statute. But, given that we're not going to get that this year, I'll settle for what I can. I'll work for that next year..

I don't really see any downside to the bill. Yes it does enshrine some additional perks for people with CCW endorsements, but we've already got special perks for them, this just extends them slightly. If it did so at the expense of non endorsement holders, I'd fight against it. I simply don't see any of that.

When do we find out the final result of this bill. meaning if it actually passes?

The House version is back in the Senate for a hearing.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

You can follow it here: http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB1439&year=2014&code=R

kcgunfan said:

I know what you meant, and I think I summed it up pretty well by saying that was a meaningless number. Having 4 of so cities in the top 25 in the state sounds scary big, but it matters whether they are 1-4, or 21-25.

Of course, trying to calculate the next number you want is like trying to nail Jello. It would require perfect knowledge of all city and county ordinances, which requires 144 courthouse visits. By the time I finished the 144th, the first 120 would have probably changed.

I will agree that number is greater than 1.7%, by a large margin. But I will also claim since these prohibitions were not put in place as a result of the OC clause in the SAPA, it's not relevant to my argument.

So, while I love the federal law nullification, and I'm supporting it for that cause alone,

I don't really see any downside to the bill. Yes it does enshrine some additional perks for people with CCW endorsements, but we've already got special perks for them, this just extends them slightly. If it did so at the expense of non endorsement holders, I'd fight against it. I simply don't see any of that.

Click to expand...

I believe one thing we will agree on, you knew this discussion was not over

It was supposed to sound scary big, the violation of even one persons rights is big and since the number 2 city and a host of communities surrounding it indeed ban, your opinion might be changed by how big it actually is these days.

I am not sure where the number 144 came from, there are almost 1,000 muni's in MO actually 951 with one still there but not really with a current population of 0.

I am not sure when you became active over on this site, but back during the starbucks, city hall tours by Doc and then the Chevy's tour by myself we spent a LOT of time looking up and discussing the legal status of OC in different muni's.

Since I am actually aware of those bans, I decided to take the 2010 census and begin adding up the numbers of persons effected by a ban, I am not done yet, only to the top 174 so far. Before I say the number though, I am going to include a disclaimer here. It is POSSIBLE that one or more of these cities have reversed their position and no longer ban OC for anyone. That possibility however is considered by most to be nonexistent as there has been only one such claim in the last 9 years that is known of to the author and that one has some question as to whether it was actually a reversal or was an original error in reporting. So while multiple bans have indeed gone into place and no reversals have convincingly happened, I acknowledge that EITHER could have happened outside my limited scope of knowledge.

2,443,927 people live in a top 175 by population municipality in the state of Missouri that have some level of a ban on OC which represents 3,425,889 persons or roughly 71.3% of persons living in a municipality with a population in excess of 3200 persons. Notably as you have pointed out, if the top cities reverse their position such as KC MO it would dramatically alter the percentage and push it into the 85-90% range is my guess, the actual number with that ONE addition is like 84.7% however I also believe my knowledge is limited in certain geographic areas I do not visit, I strongly believe that bans exist that I am not aware of but defaulted to no ban what so ever in the compiling of information.

FYI I stand by my original vast majority as even if nothing changes a huge number of citizens are impacted by their local governing bodies where said bodies exist. I will not attribute any to SAPA and only offer that since we have only seen increases there is no reason to believe that SAPA will result in any decrease what so ever nor turn the tide of increases that have happened in recent past.

BTW, if federal nullification is the great idea it is, what is wrong with the city nullifying state law and enacting as they see fit? While I tend to agree the fed needs to com under control without any doubt, the framers kind of set it up that the cities made the rule, the state protected us from the rule should it violate the constitution of the state and the feds were to protect us from both should they violate the fed constitution. Seems to me that the state telling the feds to buzz off is not any different than a city telling the state to buzz off. FYI I like the idea of sending the political message nullification sends as well and am supportive of it, and in all likelihood am somewhat being argumentative but will also not pretend for more than a minute that I believe it would pass a SCOTUS review, it is JUST a political message and I am not going to begin manufacturing suppressors in my basement and be the poster-boy for nullification when it passes.

It is likely an endless debate, I do not know the CCW numbers for MO at this time but I am going to suggest it remains under 2% of the population and sits somewhere near 200k which would be about 10% of citizens effected assuming the numbers are perfectly balanced across the state.We are not suppose to write laws for 2% or even 10% we are supposed to write laws to PROTECT all citizens of Missouri rights. SAPA after gutting is propaganda without teeth and while support for the message is good, lets never forget what it really has been turned into and leave it at that.

Opinions may vary

HB1439 is scheduled for a Senate public hearing on Tuesday, April 15th @ 1:30p.m.

Here is the link if you wish to fill out a witness form to be presented or read yourself at the hearing;

http://www.mofirst.org/emails/HB1439-Senate-Hearing-1.php

State nullification by Cities

LMTD said:

BTW, if federal nullification is the great idea it is, what is wrong with the city nullifying state law and enacting as they see fit? While I tend to agree the fed needs to com under control without any doubt, the framers kind of set it up that the cities made the rule, the state protected us from the rule should it violate the constitution of the state and the feds were to protect us from both should they violate the fed constitution. Seems to me that the state telling the feds to buzz off is not any different than a city telling the state to buzz off. FYI I like the idea of sending the political message nullification sends as well and am supportive of it, and in all likelihood am somewhat being argumentative but will also not pretend for more than a minute that I believe it would pass a SCOTUS review, it is JUST a political message and I am not going to begin manufacturing suppressors in my basement and be the poster-boy for nullification when it passes.

Click to expand...

It may be off topic by I will mention that this is not so far fetched a possibility. Our neighbor to the west Kansas has three municipalities that continue to ban OC in defiance of the opinion of the AG there. The cities are Kansas City, Lenexa and Leawood where OC continues to be banned. There has even been a lawsuit against the cities The ones in Johnson County were dismissed. Unsure of the outcome of the lawsuit for KCK.

To my knowledge no one wants to volunteer to be a test case in these instances.

Just a few things to point out.

1. There is a difference between an AG's Opinion and a law or a judgement made by a court of law. Don't confuse the 2.
2. The lawsuit in Leawood was dismissed due to lack of standing (the plaintiff wasn't a resident, and could show no injury), not due to something that had to do with OC.
3. Open carry in Lenexa is legal now: http://lenexa.com/police/opencarry.html
4. The other lawsuits are still in motion from what I know.

I don't know the answer to LMTD's question, but my little brother is a lawyer admitted to the bar in Missouri, so I'll ask him.

Great Gazoo said:

It may be off topic by I will mention that this is not so far fetched a possibility. Our neighbor to the west Kansas has three municipalities that continue to ban OC in defiance of the opinion of the AG there. The cities are Kansas City, Lenexa and Leawood where OC continues to be banned. There has even been a lawsuit against the cities The ones in Johnson County were dismissed. Unsure of the outcome of the lawsuit for KCK.

To my knowledge no one wants to volunteer to be a test case in these instances.

Click to expand...

It is injurious to be compelled to break a unlawful law so as to hope to have a court rule that the law broken was unlawful.

Legal theater.

I don't disagree, but the fact still stands. KS is changing their state laws, so it's all likely to become a moot point anyway. They're actually ahead of us tight now.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

kcgunfan said:

Just a few things to point out.
3. Open carry in Lenexa is legal now: http://lenexa.com/police/opencarry.html

Click to expand...

What is the definition of "with its safety engaged"?

kcgunfan said:

I don't disagree, but the fact still stands. KS is changing their state laws, so it's all likely to become a moot point anyway. They're actually ahead of us tight now.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It is good to be following in this specific case.....it seems.

Actually, if you read the ordinances, it had to be equipped with a safety as well. It could have been better phrased, but I don't think we're going to see a lot of trouble come from that. In any case, that's Lenexa's city ordinance, not the state statute that is being worked on...

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

http://www.lenexa.com/assets/departments/police/pdfs/Open_Carry_Passed_Ordinance.pdf

No mention of self defense. Is this covered at the state level with no need to be redundant?