Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Pre-emptive law

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    I have called my state Senator, Purgason, and Representative Don Wells to encourage them to introduce and or support a bill such as HB 668 ( last session) HB 668 would have prohibited cities from banning OC. Please contact your Senator and Representative TODAY!
    The responsibility is ours, the results, GODS

  2. #2
    Regular Member Broondog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ste. Gen County, MO, , USA
    Posts
    369

    Post imported post

    that's funny as i was just thinking about that while i was reading another thread around here somewhere. Sen. Engler was on board for 668 so i don't see why he wouldn't be for a new one. if the Majority Floor Leader was to sponsor or co-sponsor the bill it might really get some traction this time.

    i will definitely give him a buzz about this.

    the House was heavily on board last session when preemption was introduced as an amendment to 668 so they shouldn't be a problem. it just needs to get out of the Senate committee for a floor vote this year.

    as a side note, i'd like to see Rep. Fallert "flipped" out of his seat for someone more pro 2A so that i have a compassionate ear in the House as well.




    I'm the one who's gotta die when it's time for me to die, so let me live my life the way I want to.
    Jimi Hendrix

    NRA Benefactor Member & 03 FFL

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Southern MO
    Posts
    513

    Post imported post

    For some unknown reason one of the second amendment groups that tries to be active in Jefferson City,Missouricarry.com does not support OC. You can go to their website and mention pushing for state wide pre-emption on OC and you will get beat down. The leadership will tell you this has never been one of their priorities.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    The 2nd is an all or nothing amendment. IfANY gun restrictions are permissableALL will be.
    The responsibility is ours, the results, GODS

  5. #5
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    491

    Post imported post

    9026543 wrote:
    For some unknown reason one of the second amendment groups that tries to be active in Jefferson City,Missouricarry.com does not support OC. You can go to their website and mention pushing for state wide pre-emption on OC and you will get beat down. The leadership will tell you this has never been one of their priorities.
    100% correct...we want this one passed all by itself, not combined with another one.

  6. #6
    Regular Member J XD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Whiteman,AFB
    Posts
    118

    Post imported post

    9026543 wrote:
    For some unknown reason one of the second amendment groups that tries to be active in Jefferson City,Missouricarry.com does not support OC. You can go to their website and mention pushing for state wide pre-emption on OC and you will get beat down. The leadership will tell you this has never been one of their priorities
    I believe that is because most of them are ccw instructors…….And by supporting such a bill might take a bit out of there income………Think about it?. Ever since bema ccw has become big business


    Luke 22:36 :...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern Half, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Shawn wrote:
    9026543 wrote:
    For some unknown reason one of the second amendment groups that tries to be active in Jefferson City,Missouricarry.com does not support OC. You can go to their website and mention pushing for state wide pre-emption on OC and you will get beat down. The leadership will tell you this has never been one of their priorities.
    100% correct...we want this one passed all by itself, not combined with another one.
    From the MissouriCarry About Us section:

    "Anyone that requires you to disarm is not your friend, and not our friend."

    It would seem to me that laws banning the open air carrying of our constitutionally protected firearms, would fall right in with this. It amounts to being disarmed (more akin to "unarmed", but none the less) by municipalities within the state.

    Or is there some hypocrisy in that statement?

    I supported Concealed Carry, even though I don't exercise that right. I would appreciate support from those who benefit from it in protecting and re-establishing our RTBA in other areas as well.

    Open Carry does not preclude concealed carry, as I'm sure many people would still like to wear theirs unexposed.

    As far as CC goes though, I think it is excessive, in both fees and processing. It strikes me as ridiculous that I have a right to bear arms, but not (necessarily) to carry them in public, nor under my shirt.

    Is the point to discourage access to those who are less affluent? A Right is something given to all Citizens. Whereas this is nothing more than a privilege. It is far easier to lose a privilege than a right.

    There is no test to prove we are capable enough to use our Right to Free Speech. You need not apply to receive your Right to Due Process. No person must take a course to benefit from their Rights against unreasonable search and seizure. I don't know of anyone who had to pay a fee to practice their religion. And so long as we have full rights as citizens, we are supposed to be guaranteed the right to bear arms.

    It would just seem to me, that anyone who may lawfully purchase and possess their arms (Anyone who has not forfeited this right through due process of the law; "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"), may carry them as they like, so long as they are on public, (their own)private property, or with the consent of the owner of private property.

    Of course I could be wrong, and maybe only the "right sort" of people should be allowed carry them. The issue is not with myself. There is nothing to disqualify me from having a permit but my age, which won't be an issue rather shortly. There is however the burden of the extra money to put out. And I'm not sure why it is I need to pay the extra to exercise my right.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •