• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Will Missouri legislature override Governor Nixon's veto of SB 656?

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
SB 656 is defunct with the passage of the Constitutional amendment. You can't license a right, especially an inalienable right.

SB 656 was more than just OCing; it isn't defunct......so far the mini's/courts haven't agreed with you.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
SB 656 was more than just OCing; it isn't defunct......so far the mini's/courts haven't agreed with you.
I believe the question was in regards to open carry. So, to clarify, SB 656 is defunct as it relates to open carry with the passage of the Constitutional amendment. You can't license a right, especially an inalienable right.

There may be some question as to conceal carry as it relates to the constitution. The old constitution specifically addressed concealed carry. That has been striped from the new constitutional amendment.

For the most part the ink is not even dry on either one, so what court has ruled that either are unconstitutional?

And as I have already pointed out, as an individual, Colonel Doyle Samuel Dotson III, police chief of St. Louis, has made it very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a long established right as stated in the Missouri Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Dotson also has made it clear that in addition to the right to keep and bear arms being recognized as an unalienable right the introductory clause to the bill of rights states "to assert our rights... "

And it is well understood, as Dotson has pointed out, that as required by the Missouri Constitution the state government is obligated to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

More explanation by you would be appreciated.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
SB 656 is defunct with the passage of the Constitutional amendment. You can't license a right, especially an inalienable right.
^^^
This is what you said....without editing.

SB 656 was more than just OCing; it isn't defunct......so far the mini's/courts haven't agreed with you.
^^^
This is my response to what you said above.

I believe the question was in regards to open carry. So, to clarify, SB 656 is defunct as it relates to open carry with the passage of the Constitutional amendment. You can't license a right, especially an inalienable right.

There may be some question as to conceal carry as it relates to the constitution. The old constitution specifically addressed concealed carry. That has been striped from the new constitutional amendment.

For the most part the ink is not even dry on either one, so what court has ruled that either are unconstitutional?

And as I have already pointed out, as an individual, Colonel Doyle Samuel Dotson III, police chief of St. Louis, has made it very clear that the right to keep and bear arms is a long established right as stated in the Missouri Constitution's Bill of Rights.

Dotson also has made it clear that in addition to the right to keep and bear arms being recognized as an unalienable right the introductory clause to the bill of rights states "to assert our rights... "

And it is well understood, as Dotson has pointed out, that as required by the Missouri Constitution the state government is obligated to uphold the right to keep and bear arms.

More explanation by you would be appreciated.
^^^
And this is your attempt to correct what you said without stating you were wrong. Nothing in my previous statement was incorrect in response to your previous comment I was referring to.

As to your comment about Dotson....I'm not sure what you are asking? Are you saying he is pro-gun rights?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Redbaron007,

I suggest you read post #36 through #40 and reconsider your statement and what I said because I did not attempt to correct anything.

As to your statement:
As to your comment about Dotson....I'm not sure what you are asking? Are you saying he is pro-gun rights?
I'm confused as to your claim that I am asking a question about Dotson. And no I'm not saying Dotson is pro-gun rights. I'm saying Dotson himself is saying he understands that the people have a clear right to keep and bear arms as acknowledged in the Missouri Constitution's Bill of Rights, and that right is unalienable, as well as the state government is obligated to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, Dotson has made it clear that he understands the people have those rights and the state must defend those rights.

View attachment Lawsuit.pdf Read paragraph 27 parts (c)(d) and (e). This is Dotson's lawsuit.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Redbaron007,

I suggest you read post #36 through #40 and reconsider your statement and what I said because I did not attempt to correct anything.

As to your statement: I'm confused as to your claim that I am asking a question about Dotson. And no I'm not saying Dotson is pro-gun rights. I'm saying Dotson himself is saying he understands that the people have a clear right to keep and bear arms as acknowledged in the Missouri Constitution's Bill of Rights, and that right is unalienable, as well as the state government is obligated to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, Dotson has made it clear that he understands the people have those rights and the state must defend those rights.

View attachment 12134 Read paragraph 27 parts (c)(d) and (e). This is Dotson's lawsuit.
Chief Dotson reiterates the obvious. He as posited that A5 would make it more difficult to get guns off the streets and to prosecute criminals with guns. He gives lip service to the 2A and the state constitution analog. He is obligated to be anti-gun because he is a top cop, like many top cops are.

No, Chief Dotson is no friend of liberty or our RKBA as we see fit.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Chief Dotson reiterates the obvious. He as posited that A5 would make it more difficult to get guns off the streets and to prosecute criminals with guns. He gives lip service to the 2A and the state constitution analog. He is obligated to be anti-gun because he is a top cop, like many top cops are.

No, Chief Dotson is no friend of liberty or our RKBA as we see fit.

And contrary to him holding up his right hand and swearing to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Redbaron007,

I suggest you read post #36 through #40 and reconsider your statement and what I said because I did not attempt to correct anything.
Once again....I see it's hard for you to comprehend minor details, but as stated very clearly above, my response was to your statement...not the other 40+ comments....too help simplify it, I included it my quotes. As to anything else you or someone else may have tried to imply, I can only go by what you stated. I made my response to your opinion.....your statement was initially factually incorrect...I corrected it for you. Then you begin a making statements about Dotson.....why, I don't know, then asking me to explain.


As to your statement: I'm confused as to your claim that I am asking a question about Dotson. And no I'm not saying Dotson is pro-gun rights. I'm saying Dotson himself is saying he understands that the people have a clear right to keep and bear arms as acknowledged in the Missouri Constitution's Bill of Rights, and that right is unalienable, as well as the state government is obligated to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. In other words, Dotson has made it clear that he understands the people have those rights and the state must defend those rights.

View attachment 12134 Read paragraph 27 parts (c)(d) and (e). This is Dotson's lawsuit.

I think you are confused.....:lol:

If you want to talk about Dotson, go for it. My opinion of Chief Dotson, he is appears to give lip service and does things that counter his words. In my mind, the chief has no grounds to be trusted until his actions match his words. According to you, it seems this guy is a pro-gun saint, not that you support him, but you are saying things that would gives him credence for being pro-gun......however, his legal maneuvers seem to demonstrate something else.

Auf Wiedersehen
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Go to a good class. It's a really good idea to learn the laws correctly.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Top