Whats Next ?

cshoff · Nov 9, 2010

J XD said:
Cshoff
I applaud all of those that stood up for preemption in 09. I had just learned of the open carry movement in 09 and it was just this year that I met a great group of people that open carry in my area. If you read my post above, you would have seen where I stated “The CC side worked hard to get what we have” This was an acknowledgement that they wroked hard to get cc passed. I only stated a fact that the cc instructors and people that I talked to on missouricarry said that they would not support OC preemption. And as far as you putting a word out a few months ago……I never saw it. Well now it is 2010 and you have a new group of people that is interested in OC. I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know much about the legislation process. You sound as if you might. If you have any ideas on how we should proceed on getting RSMO 21.750 changed, if this is the hold up (from what I’ve read it seams like Sec,3) let us know I’m sure that we’ll be glad to lend our support. I hope to see you at our next meeting Dec 4th ( subject to change)

Yes, RSMO 21.750 is the "problem" legislation. It preempts the entire field of legislation, "...touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies...", however, it makes a specific exception for any ordinance that "...regulates the open carrying of firearms...". In other words, it provides a legal avenue for political subdivisions within the State of Missouri to usurp Article 1, Section 23 of our State Constitution.

As to "how" we fix it? Well, we are going to have to lobby our legislators to get it changed, and they are only going to listen if we can convince them that this is a priority; a daunting task given the current socioeconomic climate in this country. It's going to take strong organization and a lot of leg work on our part.

ChiangShih · Nov 9, 2010

cshoff said:
The same could be said for your self-righteous attitude.

I don't intend to come across self-righteous, in-fact quite the opposite if you refer to my previous post on the issue. Where I appealed to the higher aim for us all and a collective efficacy.

The "next step" has already been taken. In fact, a series of steps have already been taken. And just so you know, some of us have been trying to end this "internal strife" since long before this meeting made the news.

There is always a next step, thats why it is called next and good I'm glad to see efforts on both sides to be friendly. So since there are already steps and action in progress, fill us in. As I said before, we are here now to help and progress.

cshoff · Nov 9, 2010

ChiangShih said:
I don't intend to come across self-righteous, in-fact quite the opposite if you refer to my previous post on the issue. Where I appealed to the higher aim for us all and a collective efficacy.

There is always a next step, thats why it is called next and good I'm glad to see efforts on both sides to be friendly. So since there are already steps and action in progress, fill us in. As I said before, we are here now to help and progress.

The creation of an official organization who's primary purpose will be to advocate for OC preemption is underway. A name has been chosen and a member code of conduct has been adopted. At the present time, by-laws are being written. Once they are approved, a BOD or similar governing body will be elected and the group will start actively seeking members and start putting into motion a strategy for making OC preemption a reality. I'm hopeful that more information will be available by the end of the year.

ChiangShih · Nov 9, 2010

cshoff said:
The creation of an official organization who's primary purpose will be to advocate for OC preemption is underway. A name has been chosen and a member code of conduct has been adopted. At the present time, by-laws are being written. Once they are approved, a BOD or similar governing body will be elected and the group will start actively seeking members and start putting into motion a strategy for making OC preemption a reality. I'm hopeful that more information will be available by the end of the year.

Sounds good, I'll help out anyway I can. What criteria must one meet to become a member? (I am genuinely interested)

That aside, there are activism related actions and events we can organize in the more immediate future, thus putting this thread back on track!

cshoff · Nov 9, 2010

ChiangShih said:
Sounds good, I'll help out anyway I can. What criteria must one meet to become a member? (I am genuinely interested)

It will pretty much be the same as joining any other gun rights organization. Once the by-laws are in place, I'm sure we'll all know more.

ETA - Once more information is known, I'm sure a post will be made here.

John563 · Nov 9, 2010

Leg work I can do……However I would like to put OC more in the public eye as a good thing.

cshoff · Nov 9, 2010

J XD said:
Leg work I can do……However I would like to put OC more in the public eye as a good thing.

And therein lies one of the problems. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes a "good" way to show OC as a good thing to the public. Some people think, for example, that placing business owners in the uncomfortable position where they have to "declare" what their official position is may actually be counterproductive to the cause. Each time a business makes the choice to not allow OC on their premises, it may come off as a "black eye" to the entire movement.

ChiangShih · Nov 9, 2010

cshoff said:
It will pretty much be the same as joining any other gun rights organization. Once the by-laws are in place, I'm sure we'll all know more.

ETA - Once more information is known, I'm sure a post will be made here.

Well I guess what I'm wondering is how to be active in the crafting process of the strategy or policy.

John563 · Nov 10, 2010

cshoff said:
And therein lies one of the problems. Not everyone agrees on what constitutes a "good" way to show OC as a good thing to the public. Some people think, for example, that placing business owners in the uncomfortable position where they have to "declare" what their official position is may actually be counterproductive to the cause. Each time a business makes the choice to not allow OC on their premises, it may come off as a "black eye" to the entire movement.

So your saying that we should not open carry?.........Because we may harm the movement?
Just trying to understand???

ChiangShih · Nov 10, 2010

cshoff said:
It will pretty much be the same as joining any other gun rights organization. Once the by-laws are in place, I'm sure we'll all know more.

ETA - Once more information is known, I'm sure a post will be made here.

The reason I'm curious about getting involved now, is because I feel the best time to get involved would be in the groups formative stage. Also, in respect to developing a strategy for preemption or even the start of policy, I may not have much experience doing so, but being a university student specifically pre-law I have access to a vast amount of legal material, law professors, and pol-sci professors. All free for me to utilize

. Not to mention an above average knowledge of things within relatable area of study and practice.

cshoff · Nov 10, 2010

J XD said:
So your saying that we should not open carry?.........Because we may harm the movement?
Just trying to understand???

No, not at all. I am saying that there are different schools of thought on what might be the best ways to "educate" and/or "familiarize" the public about OC. IMO, a little common sense can go a long way.

As an example, some time back, there was a person here who stated that he was going to "call the police" and "report a man with a gun" so he could video tape the response. The person he was going to report, of course, was himself. Causing the police to waste their time addressing your nonsense when they could be out dealing with real crimes is certainly not a "good" way to educate the public, nor does it make your cause appear legitimate.

cshoff · Nov 10, 2010

ChiangShih said:
The reason I'm curious about getting involved now, is because I feel the best time to get involved would be in the groups formative stage. Also, in respect to developing a strategy for preemption or even the start of policy, I may not have much experience doing so, but being a university student specifically pre-law I have access to a vast amount of legal material, law professors, and pol-sci professors. All free for me to utilize . Not to mention an above average knowledge of things within relatable area of study and practice.

I wish I could tell you more, but I just don't really know much more to tell you at this point. Keep your eyes peeled here on the boards because once more information is available, I'm sure it will be posted. I'm sure the organization will be happy to have every able and willing person on board.

ChiangShih · Nov 10, 2010

cshoff said:
I wish I could tell you more, but I just don't really know much more to tell you at this point. Keep your eyes peeled here on the boards because once more information is available, I'm sure it will be posted. I'm sure the organization will be happy to have every able and willing person on board.

Well in that case is there public meetings we can attend? You know get in the loop.

cshoff · Nov 10, 2010

ChiangShih said:
Well in that case is there public meetings we can attend? You know get in the loop.

The bylaws for the organization aren't even completed yet. Looking to have those done by the end of the year. Don't worry, you haven't missed anything yet other than some initial administrative stuff. LOL.

ChiangShih · Nov 10, 2010

cshoff said:
The bylaws for the organization aren't even completed yet. Looking to have those done by the end of the year. Don't worry, you haven't missed anything yet other than some initial administrative stuff. LOL.

lol, alright I'll keep an eye out then

SFC Stu · Nov 10, 2010

ChiangShih said:
I don't see state wide OC preemption as a large enough motivating factor of CCW instructors to oppose it. Firstly, there are a lot of people who would much rather conceal than OC and this still requires the permit obviously. Secondly, the majority of MO is OC friendly and I'm sure CCW instructors haven't seen much loss in revenue because of this fact. Also, I'd bet the majority of CCW classes are held in OC friendly areas rather than not. Lastly, I doubt most CCW instructors would find this threatening enough to go against it. After all, pro-gun legislation is pro-gun legislation. If it did become an issue we would simply have to put out a little PR campaign because IMO, preempting OC would lead to more people being comfortable with OC, more specifically the 18-22 year olds who cannot obtain their CCW, this in turn gets individuals acquainted with gun community and carrying a firearm and most would undoubtedly want to obtain their CCW when it became legal for them to do so. This was my case, I OCed for 2 years until I was legally able to get my CCW and I did. Most people like to OC but there are specific times and places when one wants the option to CC and thus there will always be a market for CCW instructors. Now the removal of a need for permits like Alaska and AZ is another story, I'm sure that would ruffle a few feathers amongst the CCW instructors crowd.

You are very correct. I live in a open carry area, but seldom do. It's none of anyones busines that I carry a Kimber .45 24/7!

ChiangShih · Nov 15, 2010

Question for Jim.

Although we gave fox the scoop, is the KCStar guy still interested in doing a piece on the movement? More media exposure from more sources is a positive direction in the short term.

Jim40Cal · Nov 16, 2010

I will get back in touch with the K.C. Star reporter. Sometimes it takes him a couple days to get back to me.

Shooter64738 · Nov 17, 2010

I would like to add just a few things in with what cshoff has put in.

I'm a CCW instructor. I fully support open carry. I don't open carry that often, but it should be a legitimate exercise of the right of self defense without regulation. I have had students in my class who had absolutely no desire to get a CCW permit, they just wanted someone to explain the laws to them and come back for defensive courses.

If you should come across an instructor who opposes open carry (I truly think this would be rare, but I do know of some in my area) you might remind that instructor, that even an open carrier would still be a potential student. Anyone who carry's a firearm in whatever method it may be, would likely need some training. I have many people take home defense courses that never carry outside their home.

So if you do find an instructor who does outright oppose it, you might try that angle with them. You may get them to change their mind.

deepdiver · Nov 27, 2010

I love seeing all the increased interest in the MO forum. I was not able to go to the hearing in Jeff City but I did talk to my rep & senator and make phone calls/send emails to the committee members. I too have met a few CCW instructors (and 2 judges) who are anti-OC, but they have all been former LEO and their objections have been the standard CC>OC because the OC'er will got shot first, tactical advantage, etc rather than economic.

I am excited to hear more, cshoff, about a new MO OC group. I haven't much time of late within the "movement" or to even be on this forum, but I will certainly do what I can to support OC preemption in MO.

Whats Next ?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran