WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The law does not say you cannot have gun within reach, it says you cannot have a gun within reach and be plowed at the same time. There is a simple solution to the dilemma...
-
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.
Do not Support HB 195 if you like beer
- Thread starter zekester
- Start date
The law does not say you cannot have gun within reach, it says you cannot have a gun within reach and be plowed at the same time. There is a simple solution to the dilemma...
zekester
Regular Member
You forgot somehting
This language is stricken in this bill:
(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner
This language is stricken in this bill:
(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
person's control, or with permission of the premises owner
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Now you have changed it from your original post, I assume because it didn't say what you claimed. Please provide cites for this claim?
zekester
Regular Member
IF.....
You would actually read ALL this post, I have made that assertion, and if you read the actual bill you will see what I am saying....
I have always respected your post in the past and have read many of them, I am a bit shocked that you did not check the facts before you accused me of being "drunk" or drinking....
I have said.....I DO NOT advocate drinking and carrying, but the nuances of this bill are just not right.
Here is the bill....I suggest you read it before you condemn me to death for having a few beers..
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12207&d=1415643700
You would actually read ALL this post, I have made that assertion, and if you read the actual bill you will see what I am saying....
I have always respected your post in the past and have read many of them, I am a bit shocked that you did not check the facts before you accused me of being "drunk" or drinking....
I have said.....I DO NOT advocate drinking and carrying, but the nuances of this bill are just not right.
Here is the bill....I suggest you read it before you condemn me to death for having a few beers..
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=12207&d=1415643700
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
(a)
A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person
or under the person's control at any time in which
the person is
Stricken and PUT BACK IN! This is from the PDF YOU provided. I am beginning to think the problem is not with drinking or possession, but with open carry. There is no merit to the claims you have made for not supporting this bill.
Try actually reading it.
Last edited:
zekester
Regular Member
wong
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
11 [(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
12 knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
13 handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
14 [(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
15 person's control, or with permission of the premises owner; or
This part is stricken....where is it PUT back in?
Watercraft?.....who gives a damn....I am talking about the home
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
11 [(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
12 knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
13 handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
14 [(1) on the person's own premises, or premises under the
15 person's control, or with permission of the premises owner; or
This part is stricken....where is it PUT back in?
Watercraft?.....who gives a damn....I am talking about the home
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. Lines 19 through 22. How could you possibly miss it? It is almost directly below the similar wording that was stricken. Are you drinking now?
It is also repeated further down Sec. 46.035. Lines 8 through 13
Watercraft is just defining carry in a vehicle~~but the law says nothing about in the home, you need to learn how to read and comprehend.
I fail to see why any person should not be held accountable for reckless conduct in the home, that is just ignorant. You want a exception for being stupid.
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
If HB195 passes as-is, A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person: (8) while intoxicated.
It is true, but I do not believe OP's objections are valid except on principle. If he currently holds a CHL, he is most likely just as in danger of prosecution today under the same circumstances as he'd be after HB195 passes. The mere fact that he's presented these hypotheticals and the fact that such circumstances are so easily avoidable leads me to believe that he'd never actually end up in these circumstances should he put forth even the least amount of effort to avoid them.
Don't get me wrong, even on principle alone I believe this should be changed. Either in committee, before passing the bill, or in another bill. The thing is, even outside of this particular issue there will be a lot of things that need to be fixed even after HB195 passing, if it passes. It will take more than one bill. In fact, it looks like there are at least 15 bills that attempt to improve firearm/weapon law in some form or fashion already introduced.
It is true, but I do not believe OP's objections are valid except on principle. If he currently holds a CHL, he is most likely just as in danger of prosecution today under the same circumstances as he'd be after HB195 passes. The mere fact that he's presented these hypotheticals and the fact that such circumstances are so easily avoidable leads me to believe that he'd never actually end up in these circumstances should he put forth even the least amount of effort to avoid them.
Don't get me wrong, even on principle alone I believe this should be changed. Either in committee, before passing the bill, or in another bill. The thing is, even outside of this particular issue there will be a lot of things that need to be fixed even after HB195 passing, if it passes. It will take more than one bill. In fact, it looks like there are at least 15 bills that attempt to improve firearm/weapon law in some form or fashion already introduced.
zekester
Regular Member
Which again makes my point
A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
20 knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
21 handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person
22 or under the person's control
If you possess a handgun and but you are in co....because if it not in control...then you are a reckless gun owner.
Now, and thank you....I have another word I can use......"control".........do you see...."owned"....I own my house.....
A person commits an offense if the person intentionally,
20 knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a
21 handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person
22 or under the person's control
If you possess a handgun and but you are in co....because if it not in control...then you are a reckless gun owner.
Now, and thank you....I have another word I can use......"control".........do you see...."owned"....I own my house.....
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
And then read further down, duhhhhhhhh!
And the main point is on or about person has not been removed as you claimed!
Last edited:
zekester
Regular Member
I never said that on or about has been removed....
I have stated that on private property has been removed...
Maybe you need a few beers....lol
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
........................... what... the... ****... is this...
zekester
Regular Member
Jack House
Regular Member
I've said it before, either Zekester is an alcoholic or an anti in disguise.
HB 195 makes it *harder* to be convicted for carrying intoxicated when just having a couple beers by actually defining intoxication more strictly.
There was never an exemption to the rule for being at home.
Drink responsibly, carry responsibly.
HB 195 makes it *harder* to be convicted for carrying intoxicated when just having a couple beers by actually defining intoxication more strictly.
There was never an exemption to the rule for being at home.
Drink responsibly, carry responsibly.
zekester
Regular Member
I appreciate the sentiment!
I read the law as law is written.
If you cannot, then it seems to me that you are willing to give up your freedom, just for a "chance" to carry openly.
I carried in Missouri openly for years, a big supporter. Laws were written to strike down our rights and I and others decided not to cave just for the sake of having SOME freedoms.
You will have an opportunity to vote on any bill that comes up.
I just suggest that you vote with your life, not your heart.
We may be able to make a stride and vote on a "bad" bill, but it will take years to fix.
So, go ahead, suck it up. Vote for a bad bill that will never pass. Put your money around something that will curb your fundamental rights. It is your choice.
Myself, I am going to support a bill that will give me the right to do what GOD has given me....MY RIGHTS
I read the law as law is written.
If you cannot, then it seems to me that you are willing to give up your freedom, just for a "chance" to carry openly.
I carried in Missouri openly for years, a big supporter. Laws were written to strike down our rights and I and others decided not to cave just for the sake of having SOME freedoms.
You will have an opportunity to vote on any bill that comes up.
I just suggest that you vote with your life, not your heart.
We may be able to make a stride and vote on a "bad" bill, but it will take years to fix.
So, go ahead, suck it up. Vote for a bad bill that will never pass. Put your money around something that will curb your fundamental rights. It is your choice.
Myself, I am going to support a bill that will give me the right to do what GOD has given me....MY RIGHTS
Last edited:
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
What bill does more for your fundamental rights than HB195?
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You somehow think you have a right to be reckless and irresponsible. In the process you think the right to OC and SD are less important than the privilege to get drunk.
zekester
Regular Member
Good Question
I have been focused on HB195 for so long , I don't know.
Just to be clear, I like Hb195
I would like one sentence change.
(8) while intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent
or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense;
I have contacted the author but have had no response.
I have been focused on HB195 for so long , I don't know.
Just to be clear, I like Hb195
I would like one sentence change.
(8) while intoxicated AND handles or uses such handgun in either a negligent
or unlawful manner or discharges it other than in self-defense;
I have contacted the author but have had no response.
Last edited:
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
The 21st amendment did not make alcohol a right, it turned the control of alcohol over to the states. Mo remained dry until 1966.
YOUR drinking is not a constitutional right.
YOUR drinking is not a constitutional right.
zekester
Regular Member
And
It is my right to ignore all your BS!!!
IGNORED....like a thousand people on here
Besides.....GOD gives me rights.....not the Constitution
Thank GOD you being an idiot is a Constitutional right.
It is my right to ignore all your BS!!!
IGNORED....like a thousand people on here
Besides.....GOD gives me rights.....not the Constitution
Thank GOD you being an idiot is a Constitutional right.
Last edited: