drur
Regular Member
imported post
Shawn wrote:
Shawn wrote:
I have to agree with Shawn on this. No compromise or we go to court.
-
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.
House Bill 1045
- Thread starter Article1section23
- Start date
Mack 12ga.
Regular Member
imported post
When will the next session be for the state senate, and when should we start E-mailing and calling our Reps. ????
When will the next session be for the state senate, and when should we start E-mailing and calling our Reps. ????
drur
Regular Member
imported post
Mack 12ga. wrote:
What this means is we want to take away the local municipalities' abilities to regulate open carry and discharge of firearms. Missouri currently has firearms preemption with the exception of these two issues.
Remember rights are like muscles and should be exercised regularly.
Mack 12ga. wrote:
We have a part-time legislature (thank God!) and they convene again in January 2008. The time to contact your rep/senator is now. Tell them you suppot reintroducing House Bill 1045 and Senate Bill 217. We want to preempt the entire field of legislation pertaining to the regulation of firearms.
What this means is we want to take away the local municipalities' abilities to regulate open carry and discharge of firearms. Missouri currently has firearms preemption with the exception of these two issues.
Remember rights are like muscles and should be exercised regularly.
Mack 12ga.
Regular Member
imported post
drur wrote:
drur wrote:
Thanks I'm all over it, and I know not having the senate is session is a good thing but I would like to have them back long enough to pass Bill 1045 and Bill 217. then they can go back home.
drur
Regular Member
imported post
I say we fix the firearms preemption problem, then put them on vacation for say, five or six years. That way they can't pass any legislation at all.
That would be fine with me.
I say we fix the firearms preemption problem, then put them on vacation for say, five or six years. That way they can't pass any legislation at all.
That would be fine with me.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shawn wrote:
Shawn wrote:
OK, what MO SC opinion says you can OC, a local ordiance banning OC notwithstanding?
Article1section23
Regular Member
imported post
State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528, 41 Am. Rep. 330 (1881)
State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528, 41 Am. Rep. 330 (1881)
Article1section23
Regular Member
imported post
State v. Keet, 190 S.W. 573 (1916)
All of the MOSC opinions must be read together to see the history or construction of art 1. section 23. You will see that "open carry" is ok and the legislature can't tell you to carry an unloaded gun.
Also, other court opinion's about our rights our the same as those of the US constitution, that any thing written down or listed, is a fundamental right. Of course they could say what ever they wanted, but I'm not to sure they would want to over rule themselves. I'm sure you can find all of this information.
State v. Keet, 190 S.W. 573 (1916)
All of the MOSC opinions must be read together to see the history or construction of art 1. section 23. You will see that "open carry" is ok and the legislature can't tell you to carry an unloaded gun.
Also, other court opinion's about our rights our the same as those of the US constitution, that any thing written down or listed, is a fundamental right. Of course they could say what ever they wanted, but I'm not to sure they would want to over rule themselves. I'm sure you can find all of this information.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shawn wrote:
Sorry, but I don't see how this opinion declares any right to open carry in MO, especially if the state allows citizens the option to conceal carry with a shall issue permit scheme.
Shawn wrote:
This decision upheld, inter alia, MO's concealed carry ban, stating: "We do not desire to be understood as maintaining that in regulating the manner of bearing arms the authority of the legislature has no other limit than its own discretion. A statute which, under the pretense of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for purposes of defense, would be clearly unconstitutional. But a law which is merely intended to promote personal security, andto put down lawless aggression and violence, and to this end prohibits the wearing of certain weapons in such a manner as is calculated to exert an unhappy influence upon the moral feelings of the wearer, by making him less regardful of the personal securityof others, does not come in collision with the constitution."
Sorry, but I don't see how this opinion declares any right to open carry in MO, especially if the state allows citizens the option to conceal carry with a shall issue permit scheme.
Article1section23
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
The Keet court stated: "Less than a century ago the arms of the pioneer were carried openly, the rifle on his shoulder, his hunting knife on his belt. Since then deadly weapons have been devised small enough to be carried effectively concealed in the ordinary pocket. The practice of carrying such weapons concealed is appreciated and indulged in mainly by the enemies of social order"
The right to bear arms can only be claimed if they arecarried openly, carrying them concealed you must have an exception to the general laws of the state.
Wilforth noted that the legislature isn't restricted from prohibiting concealed carry, but they can't prohibit carry all together or tell you to carry arms that can't be useful in Defense of self (which the current law does, as you can carry one OPENLY if its unloaded, but not loaded).
In State v. White, the court stated: "The evident purpose of Section 17, Article 2, is to render the citizen secure in his home, his person and his property. Its purpose is to deny to the Legislature the power to take away the right of the citizen to resist aggression, force, and wrong at the hands of another...... The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for his own protection or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, is the only right guaranteed to the citizen."
Notice how the MOSC has interpreted the right....for his own protection, and to make him secure in his person, the arms were carried openly, legislature can't regulate the right away......like say "you can carry an unloaded gun, but not one loaded".
You have my email if you want to talk more.
Mike wrote:
The Keet court stated: "Less than a century ago the arms of the pioneer were carried openly, the rifle on his shoulder, his hunting knife on his belt. Since then deadly weapons have been devised small enough to be carried effectively concealed in the ordinary pocket. The practice of carrying such weapons concealed is appreciated and indulged in mainly by the enemies of social order"
The right to bear arms can only be claimed if they arecarried openly, carrying them concealed you must have an exception to the general laws of the state.
Wilforth noted that the legislature isn't restricted from prohibiting concealed carry, but they can't prohibit carry all together or tell you to carry arms that can't be useful in Defense of self (which the current law does, as you can carry one OPENLY if its unloaded, but not loaded).
In State v. White, the court stated: "The evident purpose of Section 17, Article 2, is to render the citizen secure in his home, his person and his property. Its purpose is to deny to the Legislature the power to take away the right of the citizen to resist aggression, force, and wrong at the hands of another...... The right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for his own protection or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, is the only right guaranteed to the citizen."
Notice how the MOSC has interpreted the right....for his own protection, and to make him secure in his person, the arms were carried openly, legislature can't regulate the right away......like say "you can carry an unloaded gun, but not one loaded".
You have my email if you want to talk more.