New to the idea

OC for ME said:

Depending on your jurisdiction what you know matters not, what a cop knows is all that really matters. Know your local laws and carry as you see fit and when you deem appropriate.

As far as "A5" is concerned, top cops, the smart ones, don't want to touch that with a 10' pole. This is evidenced by STLPD Top Cop Sam "I never saw a gun restriction I didn't like" Dotson is suing to overturn the "will of the voters" based on a technicality. If he and his anti-liberty & anti-citizen cronies fail he'll keep on harping over the judges letting thugs walk the streets.

They couldn't care less about you or I OCing as long as we don't go breaking the law using our gun. The opinion of the beat cop matters little unless he acts unlawfully motivated by his opinion. I don't give much thought to cops while
carrying and they give little thought to me if they know I'm carrying. A5 can be credited with this shift in my view.

Click to expand...

(my bold above)

HOLD ON THERE PARDNER!!

A court or legislature needs to tell us what A5 means before any of you lowdown varmints start ignoring local laws!!

BB62 said:

(my bold above)

HOLD ON THERE PARDNER!!

A court or legislature needs to tell us what A5 means before any of you lowdown varmints start ignoring local laws!!

Click to expand...

A5, in quotes, is easier to type than Article I, Section 23.

I'll backtrack to a OC walk shortly after A5 morphed into Art. I Sec 23. Cops did not, via their discretion , check for "permits" two months before SB656 (OC with a permit state wide) became the law of MO. At that time the only defense anyone would have had in the City of St Louis was the threat of using A5 to defend against a weapons charge thus nixing all firearms laws in MO except CCing laws.

Top cops who decidedly do not want citizens to go about lawfully armed...cough-Dotson-cough...are not stupid. They want OC via "permission" for as long as they can have it. Most folks will get/use a endorsement just in case and happily "display" it upon the request of a cop.

OC for ME said:

A5, in quotes, is easier to type than Article I, Section 23.

I'll backtrack to a OC walk shortly after A5 morphed into Art. I Sec 23. Cops did not, via their discretion , check for "permits" two months before SB656 (OC with a permit state wide) became the law of MO. At that time the only defense anyone would have had in the City of St Louis was the threat of using A5 to defend against a weapons charge thus nixing all firearms laws in MO except CCing laws.

Top cops who decidedly do not want citizens to go about lawfully armed...cough-Dotson-cough...are not stupid. They want OC via "permission" for as long as they can have it. Most folks will get/use a endorsement just in case and happily "display" it upon the request of a cop.

Click to expand...

Well, not really a OC walk like the Arch walk, I got "caught" OCing in STL City, south of Soulard Market. Cop smiled, waved, as he drove by. I know he saw the gat, a P90 in a brown leather holster hanging off my hip.

OC for ME said:

Well, not really a OC walk like the Arch walk, I got "caught" OCing in STL City, south of Soulard Market. Cop smiled, waved, as he drove by. I know he saw the gat, a P90 in a brown leather holster hanging off my hip.

Click to expand...

Missouri needs more people like yourself, sir!

Well, I guess if it means to garner support, being here can't always be bad.

How many of you have written to Mr. Clever and told him to NOT support bill HR 378?

I suggest we all do so and get as many people as we can to say "NO!"

Body armor is in no way offensive and is a purely defensive item. and the committing of an act of crime while wearing it is already a felony. and all this legislation is, is feel good law that actually does nothing to prevent crime, just adds another crime to the books.

I suggest we all write and say "NO, Enough is ENOUGH"

If you can't trust the ex-felon with a firearm, why did you let them out?

That is what SHOULD be scaring the hell out of folks.

Jumping up and down tossing a fit about people using a protection afforded to them under our state constitution should require one to head butt the wall 17 times in hopes of knocking sense into one self.

Martha Stewart is a convicted felon, her crime? LIED TO POPO about doing something that was perfectly legal to do.

Anyone that is delusional enough to think that every single felon who wants a gun does not have one needs education.

Here is another novel thought, if having a law against felons having guns were effective, we would have no second time felons entering into prisons now would we?

So since we clearly know the law not only is not effective, it does not serve any purpose what so ever as evidenced by the numbers of persons whom violated it. That must mean the law was written to make people feel good which is pretty much what some are indeed advocating on this thread.

I am not a fan of passing laws to make people feel good instead of solving a problem.

+1 lmtd ...

LMTD said:

If you can't trust the ex-felon with a firearm, why did you let them out?

That is what SHOULD be scaring the hell out of folks.

Jumping up and down tossing a fit about people using a protection afforded to them under our state constitution should require one to head butt the wall 17 times in hopes of knocking sense into one self.

Martha Stewart is a convicted felon, her crime? LIED TO POPO about doing something that was perfectly legal to do.

Anyone that is delusional enough to think that every single felon who wants a gun does not have one needs education.

Here is another novel thought, if having a law against felons having guns were effective, we would have no second time felons entering into prisons now would we?

So since we clearly know the law not only is not effective, it does not serve any purpose what so ever as evidenced by the numbers of persons whom violated it. That must mean the law was written to make people feel good which is pretty much what some are indeed advocating on this thread.

I am not a fan of passing laws to make people feel good instead of solving a problem.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who your addressing.

the only thing I'm really not advocating is the use of the media to publicize the event, you can already file for a relief of disabilities of firearm ownership( although the ATF is underfunded and your form probably won't get seen), or ask the state governor for a pardon. Either way, if you want them back, go for it, just don't publicize the crap out of it so the damned left can go have a hayday and bring us all back two steps BEHIND where we were when we started in the first place.

I'm not one of the stupid unarmed people thinking my safety is the responsibility of someone else in a blue uniform with a badge, or big daddy government so it matters little to me.

OC for ME said:

Read RSMo 571 as a starting point. Buy a recording device and obtain a CCW endorsement.

Click to expand...

I would add that IF you get a recording device ... it may be used against you in court.

I would say most people would not benefit from recording instances wherein they get arrested. Some would, but most would not.

I have recorded many things ... most recordings get deleted almost immediately thereafter. Ones in which I question public officials I keep if it peaks my interest.

davidmcbeth said:

I would add that IF you get a recording device ... it may be used against you in court.

I would say most people would not benefit from recording instances wherein they get arrested. Some would, but most would not.

I have recorded many things ... most recordings get deleted almost immediately thereafter. Ones in which I question public officials I keep if it peaks my interest.

Click to expand...

*piques

I agree with your assessment of recordings. However, a recording is simply an account of exactly what happened that provides a viable form of evidence.

When a person doesn't record interactions, it places all recorded evidence in the hands of the other party.

All decisions rest solely in other's hands concerning the evidence. Utilize it? Don't utilize it?

Not your decision.

When you make recordings yourself, it simply allows you the means to refute others arguments should the truth be detrimental them and they decide NOT to utilize their evidence.

davidmcbeth said:

I would add that IF you get a recording device ... it may be used against you in court.

I would say most people would not benefit from recording instances wherein they get arrested. Some would, but most would not.

I have recorded many things ... most recordings get deleted almost immediately thereafter. Ones in which I question public officials I keep if it peaks my interest.

Click to expand...

In MO there is no requirement to inform the other that you are recording. If a cop desires to hassle me for OC all my recording will reveal is me not speaking except to determine if I am free to go. I only ask once, if there is no negative response, I walk away. If I am denied my liberty I say not another word for I am under arrest. Your state may be different.

Ezek said:

I'm not sure who your addressing.

the only thing I'm really not advocating is the use of the media to publicize the event, you can already file for a relief of disabilities of firearm ownership( although the ATF is underfunded and your form probably won't get seen), or ask the state governor for a pardon. Either way, if you want them back, go for it, just don't publicize the crap out of it so the damned left can go have a hayday and bring us all back two steps BEHIND where we were when we started in the first place.

Click to expand...

Making a somewhat general audience comment, your post clearly drove portions of it.

I understand your concerns, but find them less important than the individuals rights. Whether or not I like the content, taking that freedom of speech is not on my list of things to do either. If they want to use the press, petitions or any other form of influence that falls within legal guidlines or protected speech I say more power to them.

Perhaps the reason it remains unfunded is because everyone kept it quiet and no one thinks about it because they remain under the delusion that "felony" means a violent crime such as murder, armed robbery or rape when in reality it could be just writing a bad check in the state of MO.

I also do not share your thoughts that it is a minority of persons in MO that are standing for our rights, after amendment five changed art. 1 sec 23 of the state constitution and passed by 61% voting for it, I think we are on a lot more solid ground when it comes to gun rights than you credit us with.

Standing for rights clear and loud beats PC every time no matter the popularity of the position.

LMTD said:

Making a somewhat general audience comment, your post clearly drove portions of it.

I understand your concerns, but find them less important than the individuals rights. Whether or not I like the content, taking that freedom of speech is not on my list of things to do either. If they want to use the press, petitions or any other form of influence that falls within legal guidlines or protected speech I say more power to them.

Perhaps the reason it remains unfunded is because everyone kept it quiet and no one thinks about it because they remain under the delusion that "felony" means a violent crime such as murder, armed robbery or rape when in reality it could be just writing a bad check in the state of MO.

I also do not share your thoughts that it is a minority of persons in MO that are standing for our rights, after amendment five changed art. 1 sec 23 of the state constitution and passed by 61% voting for it, I think we are on a lot more solid ground when it comes to gun rights than you credit us with.

Standing for rights clear and loud beats PC every time no matter the popularity of the position.

Click to expand...

My fear of this is not the Missouri population, but the national population, do we on a national level hold the majority? I don't think we do, I may however be wrong in that belief. I however currently see SO MUCH more left leaning media push harder and harder with opinionated articles, or just post an article based off opinion, pushed as fact, and drowning in fallacy. the plethora of propagated lies pushed at this level makes me fearful of the national audience and their opinion.

it has been said "if you say a lie enough times and long enough, people will start to believe it" well, they did for a while, then Ferguson MO and the occupy movement with violent thugs ( aka media called "protesters") happened across the country, and people slowly got a grip on the reality of the situation in regards to their own safety, and this led to massive amounts of arms buying, but now the media is back at it en force saying this new amount of firearm ownership is causing these unprecedented amounts of "accidental discharges" by toddlers, and young children. it is a half truth, the increase has a part in it, but it is idiotic ownership that is mostly to blame.

the fact they spin these stories doesn't help, especially when they are hand fed on a silver platter an article of a felon using state constitutional law to reprive himself of his disability to own firearms. I guess you could say I'm extremely cautious.

Ezek said:

My fear of this is not the Missouri population, but the national population, do we on a national level hold the majority? I don't think we do, I may however be wrong in that belief. I however currently see SO MUCH more left leaning media push harder and harder with opinionated articles, or just post an article based off opinion, pushed as fact, and drowning in fallacy. the plethora of propagated lies pushed at this level makes me fearful of the national audience and their opinion.

it has been said "if you say a lie enough times and long enough, people will start to believe it" well, they did for a while, then Ferguson MO and the occupy movement with violent thugs ( aka media called "protesters") happened across the country, and people slowly got a grip on the reality of the situation in regards to their own safety, and this led to massive amounts of arms buying, but now the media is back at it en force saying this new amount of firearm ownership is causing these unprecedented amounts of "accidental discharges" by toddlers, and young children. it is a half truth, the increase has a part in it, but it is idiotic ownership that is mostly to blame.

the fact they spin these stories doesn't help, especially when they are hand fed on a silver platter an article of a felon using state constitutional law to reprive himself of his disability to own firearms. I guess you could say I'm extremely cautious.

Click to expand...

I would say/conclude that we do hold a majority and are in fact winning.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

placing whole belief in only one pole is a little polarized, don't you think?

how large is the sample group?

is this sample group expanded from it's initial sample to represent the entirety of the nation? what conflicting poll's exist? and what supportive poll's exist?

Ezek said:

placing whole belief in only one pole is a little polarized, don't you think?

how large is the sample group?

is this sample group expanded from it's initial sample to represent the entirety of the nation? what conflicting poll's exist? and what supportive poll's exist?

Click to expand...

Google is your friend. Initiate some research w/o intending to force a bias and offer your findings.

aaaah the old google cop out. :lol: j/k j/k

although usually google feeds me all the anti gun liberal crap when I do anything in the search with "firearms" or "guns"

Ezek said:

aaaah the old google cop out. :lol: j/k j/k

although usually google feeds me all the anti gun liberal crap when I do anything in the search with "firearms" or "guns"

Click to expand...

The Google reference answers your questions.

Pew Research Center. Dec. 3-7, 2014. N=1,507 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.

Then following presents the poll questions and results:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

You may also want to read up on Dr. John Lott:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/tednugent/posts/10152455439507297

Then avail yourself of the opportunity to read up on gun control myths and other good reads by author Guy Smith:
http://www.gunfacts.info/

You are right though in that there are a certain amount of anti push poles out there - they've all been discredited. The antis distort and outright lie. Hope that doesn't surprise you

Then there are these polls:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/cnn-poll-support-for-stricter-gun-control-fades/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...arch_2014/53_oppose_stricter_gun_control_laws

Even the Huff Post gives some insight, though there is the usual spin:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/21/gun-control-polls_n_3963958.html

BTW - I didn't have these saved.....I Googled them up

I rest my case and return you to your regularly scheduled program

Grapeshot said:

The Google reference answers your questions.

Pew Research Center. Dec. 3-7, 2014. N=1,507 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.9.

Then following presents the poll questions and results:
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

You may also want to read up on Dr. John Lott:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/tednugent/posts/10152455439507297

Then avail yourself of the opportunity to read up on gun control myths and other good reads by author Guy Smith:
http://www.gunfacts.info/

You are right though in that there are a certain amount of anti push poles out there - they've all been discredited. The antis distort and outright lie. Hope that doesn't surprise you

Click to expand...

The left lies! say it isn't so! it cannot be!

I would have never guessed they do such atrocious things to push an agenda that infringes on the individual rights of others for their own falsified sense of safety under the guise of civil and social evolution ( we have not evolved much and as such are still prone to violence, and actually enjoy it's portrayal in entertainment.) tell me it isn't so!

on a less sarcastic note. Thank you for the additional links, I enjoy the knowledge that eludes me.