hiruleshouse
Regular Member
imported post
O
O
Last edited:
-
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.
Make Open Carry the law of the land in Missouri
- Thread starter hiruleshouse
- Start date
cccook
Founder's Club Member
imported post
So, in short you're suggesting statewide preemption and constitutional carry. Yes?
cccook
So, in short you're suggesting statewide preemption and constitutional carry. Yes?
cccook
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.
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.
Superlite27
Regular Member
imported post
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.)
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.)
imported post
hiruleshouse wrote:
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.
hiruleshouse wrote:
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.
patriotthad
Regular Member
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.
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.
imported post
hiruleshouse wrote:
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.
hiruleshouse wrote:
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.
cccook
Founder's Club Member
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.
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.
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.
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.