2011 Open carry legislation

No

I will pray day in and day out that this does not get a foothold. I do not want to get a government permission slip to exercise my rights. What we need to strive for is constitutional carry! Arizona and Vermont have sccomplished it why not Missouri?

I hopefully have a chance to speak with our legislators about our concerns.

How about just changing preemption to say something like:

No county, city or municipal corporation, by zoning, ordinance, resolution, rule, directive or other enactment, shall regulate in any manner; the possession, ownership, transport, carrying (openly or concealed), transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms or components of firearms; firearms dealers; or dealers in firearms components.

That's it. That is all it would take for OC to be legal without a permit.

Add some teeth to it if your current preemption does not already have it:
The State or any private person, organization or entity may bring suit for a violation of state preemption. If such plaintiff is the prevailing party, he or she shall be entitled to recover his or her costs in such action, including reasonable attorney's fees.

Could even add that no public funds may be used in the defending of a preemption case or add a nice fine if found to be in violation (Florida is considering adding a 5 million fine to their preemption.)

usmcbess said:

Arizona and Vermont have sccomplished it why not Missouri?

Click to expand...

Vermont did not accomplish anything. They just never enacted gun laws. Arizona and Alaska are...Well...Arizona and Alaska.

Do not let them pass CCP to OC

I'm all for picking your battles, but loosing ground already gained is a foolish and immoral position, in my opinion. If most places don't require a permit to OC, it would be evil and also an admission that some "gun control" is ok or worthwhile.

A completely different and acceptable strategy would be what we face here in Florida: we're going for licensed OC right now because OC is expressly prohibited with or without a concealed carry license. If this succeeds in Florida, where half of New Jersey has moved to the southern portion of the state, I would think MO could eventually tweak it's preemption law to recognize OC.

I emailed the representitive

He told me What was sadi in this thread was not ture but that I shoukd call his office. I work 3rd shift so that is pretty much impossible for me. Does anyone else wanna give his office a call and ask about what he has planned?

usmcbess said:

He told me What was sadi in this thread was not ture but that I shoukd call his office. I work 3rd shift so that is pretty much impossible for me. Does anyone else wanna give his office a call and ask about what he has planned?

Click to expand...

See # 3 below, send it to your representative. There are a lot of good pro-2A folks in Jefferson City Right now, this year or next are the best chances of getting any pro-OC stuff passed. My Rep and Senator, who I comminicate with very well won't open up about this at all. Gonadical restrictive syndrome. (No balls)
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 2150
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
________________________________________


INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES LARGENT (Sponsor), MUNZLINGER, DUSENBERG, PARKINSON, LEARA AND SMITH (150) (Co-sponsors).
4757L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
________________________________________

AN ACT
To repeal section 21.750, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to firearms.
________________________________________

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Section 21.750, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 21.750, to read as follows:
21.750. 1. The general assembly finds that uniform laws are necessary to protect the fundamental right to keep and bear arms secured in section 23, article I, Constitution of Missouri and Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.
2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation [other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms], components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.
3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, [or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use] or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243, RSMo, and incorporates the justification defenses found in chapter 563.
4. The lawful design, marketing, manufacture, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public is not an abnormally dangerous activity and does not constitute a public or private nuisance.
5. No county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision nor the state shall bring suit or have any right to recover against any firearms or ammunition manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages, abatement or injunctive relief resulting from or relating to the lawful design, manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public. This subsection shall apply to any suit pending as of October 12, 2003, as well as any suit which may be brought in the future. Provided, however, that nothing in this section shall restrict the rights of individual citizens to recover for injury or death caused by the negligent or defective design or manufacture of firearms or ammunition.
6. Nothing in this section shall prevent the state, a county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision from bringing an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or ammunition purchased by the state or such political subdivision.
7. In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging:
(1) An ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section; or
(2) An administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.

patriotthad said:

Rep. Fitzwater has drafted OC legislation that will require a CCW to OC. It will pre-empt all localities. Will keep you posted.

Click to expand...

Frankly, I don't see how legislation with this language could be reconciled with our State Constitution. By requiring training, fees, and licensing, you are no doubt "questioning" the "the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property". IMO, this is at least as unConstitutional as the current language we have in RSMO 21.750.3.

It seems that folks are trying to make this much more difficult than it needs to be. We need a bill that simply amends RSMO 21.750.3 to remove the words, "or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use", and replaces them with nothing. Simple, easy, and done in complete compliance with our Constitution. There is nothing at all "common sense" about making the process more difficult, more restrictive, or unConstitutional.

you cant remove that part of the sentence.

it is too simple. the law makers brains cant comprehend that.

I just obtained my CCW ( yes, I did it the way the states says I have too ) and I would love to see OC but, I worry that many of you are to head strong to take what you can get and work the rest out later. I am former Military and I support every ones rights to bear arms,but I also recognize the need to adjust the public to OC. Many of you I feel are demanding a total removal/rewriting of the current language of the law to allow OC asap. That just won't work. The public HAS to adjust to seeing citizens openly carrying firearms legally. People adjusted to conceal and carry and over time people will adjust to OC. If they pass a bill that says I have to have my CCW in order to legally OC. Then I'll take that over no ability to OC for now and work on the rest as time goes on.

These are strictly my opinions...

Also, Missouri is changing the law from 23 to 21 this year for CCW... Not sure if anyone knew that.

Tony4310 said:

I am former Military and I support every ones rights to bear arms,but...

Click to expand...

Thank you for your service.

If you have to use a "but" then you probably don't really supports ones RIGHTS. You are supporting a state granted and easily revoked privilege.

Tony4310 said:

I just obtained my CCW ( yes, I did it the way the states says I have too ) and I would love to see OC but, I worry that many of you are to head strong to take what you can get and work the rest out later. I am former Military and I support every ones rights to bear arms,but I also recognize the need to adjust the public to OC. Many of you I feel are demanding a total removal/rewriting of the current language of the law to allow OC asap. That just won't work. The public HAS to adjust to seeing citizens openly carrying firearms legally. People adjusted to conceal and carry and over time people will adjust to OC. If they pass a bill that says I have to have my CCW in order to legally OC. Then I'll take that over no ability to OC for now and work on the rest as time goes on.

These are strictly my opinions...

Also, Missouri is changing the law from 23 to 21 this year for CCW... Not sure if anyone knew that.

Click to expand...

We already have legal OC state wide BUT are asking for the unconstitutional wording be removed from the law that allows municipalities to override the state constitution and prohibit OC in their jurisdiction.

Also the change from 23 to 21 is not a done deal by any means.

The current language on this bill, ( http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB2150&year=2010&code=R ) appears to be quite a bit different from what's in the post. The 95th General Assembly is over now, and it looks to have been abandoned.

There is no current legislation listed for Largent dealing with OC that I can find.

You should probably remove that section from the sample text, so nobody gets it confused with the old dead bill.

Other than that, I pretty much like it. If it gets introduced, I'll sic my rep and another rep I know well on it.

Tony4310 said:

I just obtained my CCW ( yes, I did it the way the states says I have too ) and I would love to see OC but, I worry that many of you are to head strong to take what you can get and work the rest out later. I am former Military and I support every ones rights to bear arms,but I also recognize the need to adjust the public to OC. Many of you I feel are demanding a total removal/rewriting of the current language of the law to allow OC asap. That just won't work. The public HAS to adjust to seeing citizens openly carrying firearms legally. People adjusted to conceal and carry and over time people will adjust to OC. If they pass a bill that says I have to have my CCW in order to legally OC. Then I'll take that over no ability to OC for now and work on the rest as time goes on.

These are strictly my opinions...

Also, Missouri is changing the law from 23 to 21 this year for CCW... Not sure if anyone knew that.

Click to expand...

Your post points to, what I see as the biggest problem for preemption. The idea that OC is some new form of carry we wish to see legalized. I would humbly direct you to Article 1 Section 23 of the Missouri State Constitution which states


Right to keep and bear arms--exception.
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

You will note that it states that the wearing of concealed weapons is not justified. We all know that the legislation has now allowed for the carrying of a concealed weapon by permit and this is good. What is often overlooked is the fact that it also means that until that legislation OC was the only legal way to carry. OC is still the only way to carry that does not require a permit granted(or denied) by the State.

The idea that we are trying to introduce something new is IMO the biggest obstacle in our way to preemption. Much of the press continues to portray OC as pushing the gun rights envelope, when in fact it was the only way a citizen of MO could legally carry until the conceal carry legislation. It is still the only way a citizen can carry without direct permission from the State.

kcgunfan said:

The current language on this bill, ( http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB2150&year=2010&code=R ) appears to be quite a bit different from what's in the post. The 95th General Assembly is over now, and it looks to have been abandoned.

There is no current legislation listed for Largent dealing with OC that I can find.

You should probably remove that section from the sample text, so nobody gets it confused with the old dead bill.

Other than that, I pretty much like it. If it gets introduced, I'll sic my rep and another rep I know well on it.

Click to expand...

Your link is to a bill that was proposed LAST year (HB 2150). This supposed "new" bill that the OP has referred to, hasn't been published yet, to my knowledge.

Kingfish said:

Thank you for your service.

If you have to use a "but" then you probably don't really supports ones RIGHTS. You are supporting a state granted and easily revoked privilege.

Click to expand...

Really? You are going to start this debate as if i'm some how secretly anti constitutional rights of people because I used a but in my sentence? Well now, I guess because I payed my money for a CCW too. I must be feeding the system some how. Sorry,but for now. I prefer to fallow the laws and NOT go to jail. I will not OC ( in cities that say I can't ) where it says I can't until the state passes a bill saying everyone can constitutionally open carry ( minus criminals ) state wide with no fear of arrest.

I know many of you want a flat out bill saying everyone will have the right to OC with out permit as soon as possible, but lets be realistic. It just won't happen right now. The best we can hope for right now is OC with CCW endorsement. CCW has been a huge success and I think that is going to help the OC movement in the long run.

Tony4310 said:

Really? You are going to start this debate as if i'm some how secretly anti constitutional rights of people because I used a but in my sentence? Well now, I guess because I payed my money for a CCW too. I must be feeding the system some how. Sorry,but for now. I prefer to fallow the laws and NOT go to jail. I will not OC ( in cities that say I can't ) where it says I can't until the state passes a bill saying everyone can constitutionally open carry ( minus criminals ) state wide with no fear of arrest.

Click to expand...

Except violating a municipal code is a misdemeanor at worst, and not likely to lead to any jail time at all. Furthermore, the state does NOT pass laws that say what you CAN do, they only pass laws outlining restrictions, regulations, and prohibitions (unlawful acts).

I know many of you want a flat out bill saying everyone will have the right to OC with out permit as soon as possible, but lets be realistic. It just won't happen right now. The best we can hope for right now is OC with CCW endorsement. CCW has been a huge success and I think that is going to help the OC movement in the long run.

Click to expand...

Actually, we already have unrestricted OC at a state level. We simply need to get a single sentence in RSMO 21.750.3 amended in order to make the laws uniform across the entire state. Only after that happens, can we have an honest debate regarding the merits of requiring training and licensing for OC.

cshoff said:

Your link is to a bill that was proposed LAST year (HB 2150). This supposed "new" bill that the OP has referred to, hasn't been published yet, to my knowledge.

Click to expand...

It definitely hasn't been published, at least not under Largent's name as sponsor or cosponsor. But the information given in mspgunner's post makes it look like it has. That's what I have an issue with.

Click on my link, and then actions, the frame has the following:

95th General Assembly , 2nd Regular Session
Activity History for HB 2150

Click to expand...

If we look at the top of mspgunners post, we can see the following:

mspgunner said:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 2150
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Click to expand...

So, unless I've done something really stupid, my link is the bill that mspgunner referred to, but he's changed the wording of the bill substantially.

What I'm trying to say is that mspgunner should remove that part of his post, along with the sponsor/cosponsor information, so that there's no confusion as to the exact status of this legislation. First, someone looking it up the way I did will believe the legislation to be dead in the water, unless they're used to reading this stuff. Secondly, by attributing incorrect sponsor/cosponsor you can potentially get the rep into an embarrassing situation. In any event, the proposed wording of the bill is sufficient for our purposes. Simply remove everything before "AN ACT" and it's all good.

cshoff said:

Frankly, I don't see how legislation with this language could be reconciled with our State Constitution. By requiring training, fees, and licensing, you are no doubt "questioning" the "the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property". IMO, this is at least as unConstitutional as the current language we have in RSMO 21.750.3.

Click to expand...

This is where the debate over what questioning means. It says nothing about constitutional protection from regulation or restriction. 21.750.3, though I do agree with your opinion on the matter, has solid wording ground to stand on as far as devolving regulation to municipalities. The word "questioned" is the trip up here IMO. It hardly suggests any sort of protection and I've not seen any other usage or interpretation of the word that connotes or implies something stronger like "infringed." Some sort of precedence that gives the usage of the word more strength or resolve in its application would help in any push to revise 21.750.3.

"question" when defined under law and politics:
Law: Obsolete . judicial examination or trial.
Politics: a problem of public policy submitted to the voters for an expression of opinion.

I think if you apply the political definition of "question" to this wording issue you may have a leg to stand on. One may be able to roughly form an argument that to pass a law regulating OC, which is legal in MO and implied by A1S23, it had to be brought up as a matter policy at a municipal level, and voted on, thus contradicting "shall not be questioned" or more clearly interpreted "shall now be considered a problem of public policy submitted to the voters" (this is a rough defense mind you) This application of definition may provide a basis to litigate over, or at least its a thought.

kcgunfan said:

It definitely hasn't been published, at least not under Largent's name as sponsor or cosponsor. But the information given in mspgunner's post makes it look like it has. That's what I have an issue with.

Click on my link, and then actions, the frame has the following:



If we look at the top of mspgunners post, we can see the following:



So, unless I've done something really stupid, my link is the bill that mspgunner referred to, but he's changed the wording of the bill substantially.

What I'm trying to say is that mspgunner should remove that part of his post, along with the sponsor/cosponsor information, so that there's no confusion as to the exact status of this legislation. First, someone looking it up the way I did will believe the legislation to be dead in the water, unless they're used to reading this stuff. Secondly, by attributing incorrect sponsor/cosponsor you can potentially get the rep into an embarrassing situation. In any event, the proposed wording of the bill is sufficient for our purposes. Simply remove everything before "AN ACT" and it's all good.

Click to expand...

The bill I posted above (see #3) is the one that allows local govenment to opt out of open carry. That is the reason I posted it. It is the statute under which they prohibit you from OCing. I do not have the "NEW" bill (2011) to which everyone is is seeking OC State wide without exception. Same team, missed call.