-
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.
-
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.
Amendment 5
- Thread starter Hostile314
- Start date
OC for ME
Regular Member
QFT!!!
Must get new rule - no more than 1,000 yellow pixels per post. Have Excedrine headache in frontal lobe now.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
Redbaron007
Regular Member
Hopefully, Whitney has been dispatched to other areas...away from the midwest.
9026543
Regular Member
She did more harm than the antis did. All the antis had to do was lay back and let Whitney have her run.
JoeSparky
Centurion
Only ONE frontal lobe? Was the other removed? or just not being supplied any blood and therefore NOT functioning?:shocker:
whitney is not a female, I will stop far short of calling him a man though. Lets just stick with male.
There was a strong rumor he had indeed been replaced, it was indeed a false one.
Thought folks were watching things a lot closer this year, odaniel has not been replaced and has been active every year since perhaps 2002 or 3 anyway. it is not hidden at all he has been active in the press etc as well.
There was a strong rumor he had indeed been replaced, it was indeed a false one.
Thought folks were watching things a lot closer this year, odaniel has not been replaced and has been active every year since perhaps 2002 or 3 anyway. it is not hidden at all he has been active in the press etc as well.
Nope - I'm not listening
Friend, we seldom ban people.
Aye, I am aware, but i really have some nasty things to say about the NRA and a few other claimed 2a advocates in this state.
Would be impolite to litter the board with em and I might get all crabby and fussy about it lol.
Redbaron007
Regular Member
FUDGE!!!! I thought he was gone!!
Crap!.....maybe a campaign from the fine folks of Missouri outlining their displeasure, with the failure to renew membership, would help encourage the replacement departure of the ****!
OC for ME
Regular Member
Replacement? Why in the world would anyone think that a replacement would bring about a change? Other than a change in personnel.
Because the female rep in Florida PUSHED for open carry. She must have missed the self preservation memo is best guess.
Marion Hammer, gotta love girls with guns cause they don't take any crap.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Amendment 5, the change to Section 23, Article 1 of the Missouri Constitution, repeatedly talks about the RKBA for DEFENSE purposes. So... how does Amendment 5, IF it does, help with open carry demonstrations? Must one claim that they are carrying their firearm for self-defense purposes to be under the umbrella of Amendment 5?
Here's the text of the new Section 23, Article 1: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction." (my underline & bold)
Comments appreciated.
Here's the text of the new Section 23, Article 1: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction." (my underline & bold)
Comments appreciated.
BriKuz
Regular Member
A person is NOT giving up their rights merely to protest or demonstrate. A person is ALWAYS providing for their own defense, hence, may go armed.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Good answers! Thanks. Now, if I can just get some interest... http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...Open-Carry-Firearm-Education-Walk-Oct-25-2014
skin'erback
Regular Member
So just what did we vote for? It seemed clear at the time, now I'm thinking our friends have fooled us. Why can't we get a straight answer on what it does? Playing games with words, perhaps. It either does or it doesn't. Maybe our friends aren't really our friends. I understand being coy before the election to reduce opposition but that time has passed. I'm on your side and still the games.
I'm not sure what you are asking, but I'll try to answer regardless. There are 3 sources that might tell is what this means. Only two of them count though.
The first is the AG of the State of Missouri, Chris Koster. He can issue an opinion on it. He's basically said he doesn't know, so don't expect any help from him. That's OK, because his opinion only holds slightly more authority than anyone else's.
The second is the Missouri Legislature. They can look at the Amendment, and decide that some of our laws need to be adjusted to fall in line with it. If that happens, then it will not be before next year's session, because the Legislature is out of session, according to the Constitution, and may not meet for new business. Now, they might do something, but I doubt it.
The third source is the court system. This is most likely, but it will most likely require someone to OC where it is not legal without a CCW permit. Then it can wind through the courts. Luckily, there is a plan to do that, and pretty soon. Ideally, the changes require the state to defend the person picked up, but given the AG, I would not count that bird in the bush.
Overall, the Amendment is a grant statement of principles. it's not about particulars. That's not what the purpose is. Now that the state is agreed to these principles, it's up to the state government to handle the particulars.
It's not pretty, but it's how laws are done, and it's further than we've gotten in recent history. We'll have to see how it's played out.
The first is the AG of the State of Missouri, Chris Koster. He can issue an opinion on it. He's basically said he doesn't know, so don't expect any help from him. That's OK, because his opinion only holds slightly more authority than anyone else's.
The second is the Missouri Legislature. They can look at the Amendment, and decide that some of our laws need to be adjusted to fall in line with it. If that happens, then it will not be before next year's session, because the Legislature is out of session, according to the Constitution, and may not meet for new business. Now, they might do something, but I doubt it.
The third source is the court system. This is most likely, but it will most likely require someone to OC where it is not legal without a CCW permit. Then it can wind through the courts. Luckily, there is a plan to do that, and pretty soon. Ideally, the changes require the state to defend the person picked up, but given the AG, I would not count that bird in the bush.
Overall, the Amendment is a grant statement of principles. it's not about particulars. That's not what the purpose is. Now that the state is agreed to these principles, it's up to the state government to handle the particulars.
It's not pretty, but it's how laws are done, and it's further than we've gotten in recent history. We'll have to see how it's played out.