Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Make Open Carry the law of the land in Missouri

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    9

    Post imported post

    O
    Last edited by hiruleshouse; 05-07-2013 at 01:52 PM.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    So, in short you're suggesting statewide preemption and constitutional carry. Yes?

    cccook

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    Your thoughts on including the verbiage to charge the police will make your bill about the largest no fly zone west of the Mississippi river.

    I doubt seriously if you could ever get such a thing sponsored let alone to committee.

    While I agree with the state wide part, even that alone has a lot of folks nervous.

    I also would recommend that if you truly desire to see something like that done, you reconsider posting it and letting the opposition know about it in advance.

    The game of politics is best left in private.


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  4. #4
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    Post imported post

    any takers?
    Good luck.

    Because finding a sponsor to introduce this bill might be the easy part.



    I'm sure if I was a representative, I'd love to endear myself to my constituancy by proposing this. After all, ifI was a police officer and I saw someone waving a gun in a liquor store wearing a ski mask, why in God's name wouldI even approach the lunatic? He might be robbing the place, but hey, he could be one of those open carriers.

    If I could be chargedwith a felony for charging him with breach of peace?Heck.....I'm waitin' till the guy blasts a couple of folks just to be sure there's no reason to suspect me of even thinking of so much as a Terry stop on this guy.

    I'd love to be the representative on record for proposing the thing that causes cops to stop even approaching anyone with a gun. I'm sure the general population would race to the voting both to re-elect me.

    Like I said, that is the easy part.

    Now you have to get a majority to vote for it and flush their careers down the drain all at the same time. This may be a little tougher than getting just one person to do it.



    I think it would be much simpler to just get someone to introduce a pre-emption bill early enough in session to get it out of committee early enough for a vote.

    There was a pre-emption bill including campus carry introduced late last year.(I think it was by Muzlinger....[sp?])

    I'm a little uncertain what to make of that. While this was a good thing.....a tiny part of me suspects that the rep who introduced it did this so late in the session he could say "Hey, I'm pro 2A! Look at the bill I introduced!" while knowing full well what the politicos would do........

    ....and sure enough, they did it.

    It was passed into committee during the last day of the session where it subsequently DIED.

    If I'm not mistaken, I believe all bills voted upon have to be passed into committee during that session by law. Easy enough! If we don't like a particular bill...we just pass it into committee on the last day and TA-DA! We obeyed the law! (of course, since it is the last day..THERE IS NO TOMORROW, therefore IT NEVER MAKES IT OUT.)


  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    hiruleshouse wrote:
    LMTD wrote:
    Your thoughts on including the verbiage to charge the police will make your bill about the largest no fly zone west of the Mississippi river.

    I doubt seriously if you could ever get such a thing sponsored let alone to committee.

    While I agree with the state wide part, even that alone has a lot of folks nervous.

    I also would recommend that if you truly desire to see something like that done, you reconsider posting it and letting the opposition know about it in advance.

    The game of politics is best left in private.

    Uh I'm not talking about getting a bill for the house to vote on or the senate to vote on. I'm talking about a statewide initiative. You get enough voters to sign the petition and BY LAW the secretary of state MUST put it on the ballot and the PEOPLE vote it YES OVER THE LEGISLATURES HEAD and it becomes law. NO sponsor is necessary. Here is the link to the Missouri State government's secretary of state's website explaining how this works. MANY times the citizens of Missouri have used this to pass things that cowardly politicians wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole. SO again if anybody is interested and wants to head this up, let me know and I will give you additional info on HOW to do it-for now here is the link: http://sos.mo.gov/elections/pubs/mak.../myvhintro.asp
    I have no idea at what point you moved to MO, but here is a bit of history.

    When concealed carry was put on the ballot, millions of dollars were used to campaign against it, huge quantities of lies were told to scare voters to the polls and it was soundly defeated by the votes. A couple of years later, an effort to lobby the legislature was successful and reasonable people accomplished a goal.

    To be perfectly clear, if you really think your proposal has any merit, you are no where near the majority. While I do tend to believe a state wide preemption has merit, you would never find my name on such a petition.

    IMHO a much better choice would be to include civil penalties of lawyer fees should it be found that the officer violated civil rights.

    There is no need to skirt the justice system.


    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    115

    Post imported post

    I think a preemptive law is a good idea. I would like to see it on the ballot. AndI agree with the idea of making it a crime for a LEO to stop someone for just OC. The officer would yet be able to investigate suspicious circumstances such as the man waving the handgun. As long as it remained in the holster... etc. I am a leo and I cannot stop someone just because of...you fill in the blanks. However, I can stop/detain some onein suspicous circumstances if they are or aren't OCing.For example; a man Ocing while in Pizza Hut. No stop or detention. The same man OCing and hiding behind a dumpster watching Pizza Hut back door at 11:30 p.m. Stop and detention.
    The responsibility is ours, the results, GODS

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    hiruleshouse wrote:
    HOW is it "skirting the justice system" to say that if government officials break the law they go to jail like everybody else? I've lived in MO since '85. I remember when putting Concealed carry on the ballot happened and the results. I also know that was then and this is now. NOW we live in a time where an overwhelming majority of people no longer believe government lies and cower in fear, quaking in their boots when liberty causes are championed. The media is, right now, smearing the tea party movement but Missourians-and other Americans-are not believing it. Now is the best time to get it voted through at the polls in my opinion.
    Because cops don't "charge" that is up to the Prosecuting attorney. Cops just forward it to the atty in accordance with what they are directed to do.

    I think your post from the beginning presents itself as anti-leo. I also know there already civil process remedies in place to protect the citizens from improper behavior.

    I also think you DRASTICALLY underestimate the power of your opposition.

    Just today what did the anti's say about it?

    "Like a fly on a birthday cake, the subject of open carry—legally wearing a gun in public—keeps landing in the news and nobody can swat it down. Those who would like to be rid of it range from some of the most ardent gun-controllers to some of the fiercest believers in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Many of the latter live in the 43 states where it already is legal to openly wear a handgun (although rules vary about whether it can be loaded, etc.). That the majority of people who could walk around outfitted for the OK Corral choose not to do so ought to be a hint that the minority who are most eager to force open carry on the rest of us might belong in a special category of bozos."

    Now while I may share your position on state wide, I remain a very real person and can assure you, I can sell their position much easier and if you try and eliminate sovereign positions on the police, your NEVER going to sell it.

    Forgo 2a rights, your direct implication that LEO's need to be regulated on the issues has undertones of paranoia that not only could be, but will be exploited in such a way that 2a rights will receive a significant blow.

    Opinions vary, but your position is not as popular as you project.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    I must agree with LMTD on this. There are already legal consequences for civil rights violations. Creating new laws that would prohibitthat whichis already illegal will appear anti LEO to some. I do understand your frustration with being unfairly hassled and then having to seek legal redress in the courts later.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    Post imported post

    I find it interesting that it is not just anti-gun folks who like to make up more laws on things that already have lots of laws upon them.

    I also find it interesting that some folks are like the anti-gun folks who say things that were never said actually happened, it clearly indicates they are just as delusional as the anti-gun crowd.

    I understand you feel passionately about the subject, I understand your thoughts on harassment by police for lawful activities.

    I also understand what it takes to market and sell an idea.

    I know you are not going to agree so I am going to step away from your thread. I do think you should have it deleted, I do think it is a concept that will cause significantly more harm to gun rights than good, I know it will never sell and pass, I just hope it does not continue to get propagated across the net and cause more problems for legal gun owners.

    Good luck and respect for standing for your views.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

Posting Permissions

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