Amendment 5

Redbaron007 said:

No!

Click to expand...

That sucks...well what has this law done to strengthen gun rights if we are allowed to keep and bear arms anyway?

Hostile314 said:

That sucks...well what has this law done to strengthen gun rights if we are allowed to keep and bear arms anyway?

Click to expand...

My post, #41, has the amendment listed.

MO is an open carry state; except local municipalities can still regulate it. If SB656 is overridden during a special session, then if you have a CCW and the muni prohibits OC; you still can OC.

Redbaron007 said:

My post, #41, has the amendment listed.

MO is an open carry state; except local municipalities can still regulate it. If SB656 is overridden during a special session, then if you have a CCW and the muni prohibits OC; you still can OC.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks..

Redbaron007 said:

Depends on who you talk with.

The liberals: there will be blood in the streets, excessive litigation, felons can now own assault weapons, etc.

Common Sense folks: solidifies the strict interpretation, makes gun rights unalienable, includes the ancillary items (ammo etc).

Here's the actual amendment. http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/SJR36.pdf

Click to expand...

So what I'm getting from you is that nothing has changed, legal action will and must ensue?

It is not a law. It is now Art. I, Sec 23 of the state constitution.

The new wording affects current law. Smart city councils will be proactive and repeal their 21.750.3 OC bans, others will need to be sued and then forced to repeal 21.750.3 OC bans.

Essentially, "strict scrutiny" means that "shall not be questioned" will mean exactly what it says. Though, there will be resistance and court cases are likely. Are we a step closer to unrestricted OC? Maybe, but "unrestricted OC" will be closer to 571.107 (1 thru 17) restrictions than true "constitutional carry." Also, if the state don't want to get sued they will need to amend those because "shall not be questioned" means what it says.

I would hope that public buildings that we use on a daily basis, DMV, tax assessor, other bureaucratic offices, town/county council meetings, state rep/senate peanut gallery, will be made carry is OK, even if only CC.

We'll see.

BB62 said:

So what I'm getting from you is that nothing has changed, legal action will and must ensue?

Click to expand...

Yes, things have changed. But overnight, no. As OC stated above, it will take some time to work through. There are probably going to be some legal challenges to it. Mother's Against Guns (Bloomberg's group) will probably make some challenges to it soon.

The fallout from the change will take a little time.

It is not Art 1, Sec 23 of the state constitution yet. First, the election has to be certified. Once that happens, I don't know if the SoS has to do anything, but I would not be surprised. I would 110% not do anything currently illegal until that goes through at least.

Once it is official, there are a few different courses that can happen.

1. Somebody in the state legislature, probably with the concurrence of the MO AG, will decide that some of the existing firearm laws are in violation of the constitution. They will submit a bill to change that, and it will have to be signed by the governor, we all know the drill. I would not expect that before next year, since the legislature is out of session, and can't consider new business in the veto override session by statute.

2. City councils, with the concurrence of their City Attorney or MO AG, will decide that they don't want to fight the legal battle, and change their ordinances. I really suspect that's not going to happen. At least not initially.

3. Someone will get arrested for violating one of these anti-OC laws, and mount a defense based on the new Art 1. Sec 23. I suspect the city will then work to exhaust your funds. The good news is that the state is required to defend you. How that will work out in practice is yet to be seen. I would definitely have my own lawyer though. Then, the ordinance may be overturned, and other cities ordinances will fall more easily with precedent.

In any event, the only way to force the issue is to get arrested, and I'm not quite ready to take that for the team.

As far as Constitutional Carry goes, option 1 or 3 are the only ones possible, except you'd likely have the state playing both sides of the courtroom battle. That would be interesting.

OC for ME said:

It is not a law. It is now Art. I, Sec 23 of the state constitution.

The new wording affects current law. Smart city councils will be proactive and repeal their 21.750.3 OC bans, others will need to be sued and then forced to repeal 21.750.3 OC bans.

Essentially, "strict scrutiny" means that "shall not be questioned" will mean exactly what it says. Though, there will be resistance and court cases are likely. Are we a step closer to unrestricted OC? Maybe, but "unrestricted OC" will be closer to 571.107 (1 thru 17) restrictions than true "constitutional carry." Also, if the state don't want to get sued they will need to amend those because "shall not be questioned" means what it says.

I would hope that public buildings that we use on a daily basis, DMV, tax assessor, other bureaucratic offices, town/county council meetings, state rep/senate peanut gallery, will be made carry is OK, even if only CC.

We'll see.

Click to expand...

RSMo 575.150 --> It is unlawful to resist arrest in MO. Even if the cop has no legal justification to arrest you. MO has decided that you gotta spend a crap load of money to get just a little money for nitwit cops exercising their nitwittery. Even if the best outcome (#1) comes to pass opinion enforcement officers may arrest folks just cuz they think they can. We can only gain redress for wrongs after we are wronged.

I too am not going to take one for the team. We must keep doing what we have been doing...work Jeff City and hope for the best.

So basically we are still at square one and have minimum of at least another year wait before we maybe possibly might even think about being able to openly carry on a Missouri State preempt.

Is that's how you course to think of it, I guess so. But before you build a house, you lay a foundation.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

kcgunfan said:

Don't you know, Governor Nixon came out in favor of Amendment 5.

Click to expand...

Yes but it wasn't any sort of endorsement. I wouldn't call the following statement in favor of:

"If they want to add that to the state constitution, I'm fine with that," (Jay Nixon)


In my opinion it was a political answer.

Renegadez said:

So basically we are still at square one and have minimum of at least another year wait before we maybe possibly might even think about being able to openly carry on a Missouri State preempt.

Click to expand...

Not if the override happens. Then OC with CCW will be in effect. Better then nothing.

I am going from the previous failures of the spineless representatives to uphold the will of the people. I fully expect another complete route on the battlefield of liberty again this year. A veto over ride seem highly unlikely that leaves us again with waiting another year. I get the foundation an all it just seems so frustrating after 5 yrs we are still unable to get anything done and i know more people then myself have much more in the game then I do.. I apologize for my negativity and as always hope for the best.

Technically, you mean the spineless Senators last year, and the spineless Reps this year. I've not heard anything about SB656, as to whether or not it's on the agenda for overriding the veto. But, given that the legislature appears to be hopping mad at Gov. Nixon, and given some particularly unfortunate comments by a certain D. Senator accusing a R Senator of flipping on SB656, I thing there's a better than 50/50 chance that it will be voted on.

In any case, I'm going to make the case with my Rep and Senator by providing the votes on Amendment 5, which I think will be far more persuasive than anything else I could say.

Renegadez said:

I am going from the previous failures of the spineless representatives to uphold the will of the people. I fully expect another complete route on the battlefield of liberty again this year. A veto over ride seem highly unlikely that leaves us again with waiting another year. I get the foundation an all it just seems so frustrating after 5 yrs we are still unable to get anything done and i know more people then myself have much more in the game then I do.. I apologize for my negativity and as always hope for the best.

Click to expand...

The only four that had more 'no' than 'yes' votes. All others were 2 or 3 to 1 for. The votes indicate that these four areas are the unknown factor.

A St. Charles senator sunk us last veto session.

St. Charles was 65/35 for this go around. Ya would think that this sentiment is not a recent manifestation...

A certain senator from St. Charles is certainly not doing the work his constituents want done.

So, how many "I voted for it before I voted against it" politicians will we have this next veto session.

dkangel said:

Yes but it wasn't any sort of endorsement. I wouldn't call the following statement in favor of:

"If they want to add that to the state constitution, I'm fine with that," (Jay Nixon)


In my opinion it was a political answer.

Click to expand...

I had a telephone call today that included a conversation about what the Gubbinor said.....they were of the mindset he made the comment because it probably wouldn't have passed because KC/STL/Columbia would pull it from the clouds of passing to the pits of it 'aint happening'.

Definitely a political answer.

kcgunfan said:

Technically, you mean the spineless Senators last year, and the spineless Reps this year. I've not heard anything about SB656, as to whether or not it's on the agenda for overriding the veto. But, given that the legislature appears to be hopping mad at Gov. Nixon, and given some particularly unfortunate comments by a certain D. Senator accusing a R Senator of flipping on SB656, I thing there's a better than 50/50 chance that it will be voted on.

In any case, I'm going to make the case with my Rep and Senator by providing the votes on Amendment 5, which I think will be far more persuasive than anything else I could say.

Click to expand...

KC....you make very good points. Not that they do not already know, but providing the numbers of people voting in favor of this amendment is helpful in reiterating the people will vote, one way or another.

The other thing folks; remember, there were only 3 Senate Dems that voted against it....if the Dems want to vote party line in the special session....some of these Dems may be in fairly conservative areas want to think about casting against the bill....especially if their area voted to pass A5. They need to remember, November is an election month.

STLPD Top Cop says that A5 will place his cops at a increased safety risk.

OC for ME said:

STLPD Top Cop says that A5 will place his cops at a increased safety risk.

Click to expand...

Are you surprised?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Living in St. Louis

I live in St. Louis, while not the city A.K.A. urban but north county which is considered the suburbs according to city dwellers and I even contacted the St. Louis county police department about open carry in unincorporated St. Louis county that although there isn't any ordinance against it that they don't recommend it because it frightens the people. now I'm all for open carry and it seems like people these days are doing stupid things like carrying long guns which in my opinion is stupid because if you're not in a hunting area a.k.a a populated area, then what's the point of bringing attention to yourself. The only thing that does is bring unwanted attention to yourself. Now hopefully this bill allows state wide unregulated open carry. So I don't see how this law will endanger the police officers in St. Louis city. We need laws that will allow us to defend ourselves from officers.