OC Bill in Missouri House

I don't know if it wil lfly but this is what has been introducted in the Missouri House for Open Carry (It is of course not perfect but....);
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 841
96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
________________________________________


INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES FITZWATER (Sponsor), JONES (89), FRAKER, ASBURY, LASATER, COOKSON, BARNES, ELMER, HAMPTON AND REDMON (Co-sponsors).
1393L.03I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
________________________________________

AN ACT
To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the open carry of firearms.
________________________________________

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

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.037, to read as follows:
571.037. Notwithstanding any other provision of state law or local ordinance any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement may openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or within a vehicle.

Woot Woot

Now we have a player in the game. What will it take to get this up for a vote? What are the steps from here?

Doc

I'm not sure that does anything at all, other than codify open carry (for CCW endorsement holders).

It doesn't say anything at all about preemption, so it hasn't changed a single thing, other than making it explicitly legal for CCW endorsement holders, and more trouble for non-CCW holders.

The website for this piece of legislation is here:

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB841&year=2011&code=R

It's just had the first reading. It has another reading, committee assignment, committee vote, and house vote to go. It's going to be a while yet.

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't address the constitutional problems with local ordinances against OC. In addition, it further deteriorates the rights of the citizen by placing training and licensing requirements on a right that has historically been inherent and arbitrary, ie: it allows big brother a foot in the door regarding OC, a door that should remain locked. Personally, I am not a fan of this bill.

kcgunfan said:

I'm not sure that does anything at all, other than codify open carry (for CCW endorsement holders).

It doesn't say anything at all about preemption, so it hasn't changed a single thing, other than making it explicitly legal for CCW endorsement holders, and more trouble for non-CCW holders.

Click to expand...

Your right it isn't everything we want. It is a large step in the right direction. It does not remove any of the current rights we now have for OC in the jurisdictions without restrictions. But it does force cities that to this point allow no OC to have to accept OC in one form. I feel that if this hurdle is crossed we are on our way to Constitutional Carry. Open Carry has a lot of ground to make up to get back what we had and I will fight for every inch of what we can gain back.

Doc

cshoff said:

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't address the constitutional problems with local ordinances against OC. In addition, it further deteriorates the rights of the citizen by placing training and licensing requirements on a right that has historically been inherent and arbitrary, ie: it allows big brother a foot in the door regarding OC, a door that should remain locked. Personally, I am not a fan of this bill.

Click to expand...

Every municipality in Missouri has already been granted the authority to limit OC to CCW only, and about 30% have. The thing that this law would do would be to gain some OC privileges in the 15% of cities that have passed laws completely making OC illegal to all of it's citizens. I see it as a gain. The more OC is seen the more it is understood as a legal option and the more chance it has to be given it's rightful place back in society.

Doc

OC Bill

Every positive thing is a good thing. It has to be read, assigned to a committee, pass a committee, pass the House and survive the same in the Senate (Good luck), if it passes both Houses (Subject to revision/amendments...) it goes to the Governor for signature.... REALLY BIG QUESTION THERE! If he ignores it then it becomes law, if he vetos it, it is subject to a possible over ride. It is not easy for a Bill to become law.
Tim Jones (The house majority leader) has a big say as to where this goes. He is the first co-sponsor. I have breakfast with him almost every month with a small group of House and Senate members... DON'T ASK!

Hold your breath and breath out very slowly. I would be surprised if this flies but never know. It it is crucial you contact your Representative and Senator. Mine sure as heck know where I stand. No kidding, if you want this to have any chance at all and you have never written and called your elected officials in Jefferson City, THIS IS THE TIME TO START. There are not a lot of folks in the general public who push this sort of thing. It is up to us to make it happen if it has any chance (very little really) at all.

DOC puts in a lot of time on OC here on the east side of the state, I work the legislature as best I can. Fortunatley I worked on many capaigns and gave too much money to pro-2A candidates, all of which won thier contests.

It is time to push this. If it fails..... next year we increase the push and hopefully gain OC supporters in the public and in the legislature. It can happen, but it is not simple!

sohighlyunlikely said:

Every municipality in Missouri has already been granted the authority to limit OC to CCW only, and about 30% have. The thing that this law would do would be to gain some OC privileges in the 15% of cities that have passed laws completely making OC illegal to all of it's citizens. I see it as a gain. The more OC is seen the more it is understood as a legal option and the more chance it has to be given it's rightful place back in society.

Doc

Click to expand...

Here is a copy of my reply to your Facebook thread:

True enough, Steve, however, this sets a precedent for the state to enact training and licensing requirements for OC, and that is what I fear we would end up with by default. I suspect most EVERY jurisdiction would change their local ordinances so that OC was illegal without a CCW permit. After all, why would they want a bunch of "untrained" individuals out there openly carrying firearms in their jurisdiction?

Click to expand...

If you want a defacto mandatory statewide training/licensing requirement for OC, support this bill, because that is what I predict we will get if it passes.

mspgunner said:

Every positive thing is a good thing......<snip>.

Click to expand...

Many times, things that seem positive on their face, turn out to be just the opposite when you really start to sort them out. Good legislation is hard to get passed. Bad legislation is often even harder to fix. There is nothing at all wrong with waiting for a GOOD bill to come along to throw support behind.

cshoff said:

Many times, things that seem positive on their face, turn out to be just the opposite when you really start to sort them out. Good legislation is hard to get passed. Bad legislation is often even harder to fix. There is nothing at all wrong with waiting for a GOOD bill to come along to throw support behind.

Click to expand...

I think there would be to huge of a out cry if they tried that CCW for everyone to OC. It wouldn't fly. Especially at the current political climate. Look we just gained another Constitutional Carry state. This like fearing dog tags could be the 1st step in making Dogs ownership illegal. This Bill is a compromise that costs OC nothing to gives us a foothold in places like St Louis. I refuse to pander to fears, what ifs and hypothetical that can easily be dealt with if they come up.

Doc

sohighlyunlikely said:

I think there would be to huge of a out cry if they tried that CCW for everyone to OC. It wouldn't fly. Especially at the current political climate. Look we just gained another Constitutional Carry state. This like fearing dog tags could be the 1st step in making Dogs ownership illegal. This Bill is a compromise that costs OC nothing to gives us a foothold in places like St Louis. I refuse to pander to fears, what ifs and hypothetical that can easily be dealt with if they come up.

Doc

Click to expand...

What do you mean, "it wouldn't fly"? Do you think the OC "movement" in Missouri has enough political clout to do anything about it? I'd guess that you don't. I don't even know of any OC lobbyists in Jeff City right now, do you?

If/when the time comes that there are a substantial number of people actually practicing OC in this state, you can count on it waking up many of the "city fathers" in these little towns across the state who will then go into their typical "fear what I don't understand" reaction, and they will actually research exactly what legal avenues are available to them in regards to OC.

I have a good friend who called city officials in 4 local towns around here to ask them if OC was legal in their jurisdiction. All of them informed him that it was NOT, yet none of them have any ordinances against it that either of us can find. Doc, you are dealing with people here that don't have a clue about this issue, and they've likely never given it a second thought. But the first time they start getting calls from "concerned" (clueless) citizens about "all these people carrying guns", they will educate themselves real fast.

That said, I may be way off on this. Most people that have their CCW permit have no desire to OC in public anyway, though I suspect many OC advocates would obtain their CCW permit for that reason alone. We'll see how it plays out. I certainly wouldn't FIGHT this bill, but likewise, I won't spend my time or resources going out of my way to promote it either.

Seems like many here either want un restricted OC or no OC with no compromise in the mean time. I gotta take the stance on this and say I'd rather have what this bill says then nothing at all for now. I have my CCW ( my buddy is a hard core 2A like me,but he is still pissed I got my CCW ) and if this bill forces local munis to comply with state law till we finally get to constitutional carry then so be it. Gotta have patience some times. That's my opinion and probably doesn't mean much to the others here.

I agree 100% that this is opening a door to put more restrictions on OC. There is already enough confusion with LEO around the subject. If this were to pass I believe it would eventually move to "You MUST HAVE a CCW to OC AT ALL"

I don't particularly want to get into whether or not it's right/proper/necessary for this bill to only grant OC to CCW endorsement holders. I can't quite make up my mind on that. So, I will leave that to others to debate, this bill is good enough for my purposes.

My personal thoughts follow, I know a lot of you will disagree. That's OK, I think sincere people can disagree there. But, I'd rather not discuss it until my other issue gets laid to rest. I don't necessarily mind a training requirement, I think it's a good use of your time (and money) to understand the necessary requirements for when you can use lethal force, and something to show that people know which end is the business end if you're going to carry a firearm around, concealed or not. I think this would be an appropriate class for someone like the Dept of Conservation to teach (for free or minimal cost, you provide firearm and ammo), like the hunter's safety course I took in 7th grade. But I think the $100 for the county sheriff is just silly. I would rather that the license application have an MSHP check (which would be absorbed by the state), and an affidavit that you aren't a prohibited person (same restrictions that are in place for a CCW endorsement). If the county wants to check further, it's on them (but with strict time limits). This might eventually turn into an OC permit, but with minimal cost and time involved. Personally, I'd like the same thing implemented for CCW also, but I know that's not going to float.

But, I am concerned about the verbiage of the bill.

The intent of the bill appears to be to grant OC to CCW endorsement holders explicitly on a state level. That's great but we already have that right. All that this does is make it explicit instead of explicit. What's the sense in that?

I'm guessing that the intent of the bill is to give the OC privilege (and I hate using that term btw) to CCW holders with preemption. But, I don't understand how that preempts RSMo 21.750.3. So, my questions there are:

1. Is this bill intended to give statewide preemption to CCW endorsement holders?

2. If so, what is the mechanism in the bill to change/revoke/whatever RSMo 21.750.3?

If the answer to the first question is NO, then I have a big problem with the bill. It's a little subtle though, so let me try to explain.

If the bill does preempt subdivisions, I'll throw my hat in for it. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

If the bill does not preempt subdivisions, then we've effectively created 2 classes of firearm carriers. The first would be open carrying with a CCW endorsement. Their defense would be 571.037. The second would be open carrying without a CCW endorsement. This is still perfectly legal, but only in the sense that nothing prohibits it. My concern is that with the legal run ins that OC has, particularly with LE/DA's that don't read the law quite as closely as they should, it would be harder to prove the negative (I can carry openly because nothing says I can't) if there is a chapter giving explicit permission to CCW endorsement holders. And, I do agree with the others that this could start to bring in OC for CCW only, in which case I'm strongly against it.

sohighlyunlikely said:

Every municipality in Missouri has already been granted the authority to limit OC to CCW only, and about 30% have. The thing that this law would do would be to gain some OC privileges in the 15% of cities that have passed laws completely making OC illegal to all of it's citizens. I see it as a gain. The more OC is seen the more it is understood as a legal option and the more chance it has to be given it's rightful place back in society.

Doc

Click to expand...

Doc, I'm not sure I understand the numbers here. Let's say there are 100 cities in MO. That means 30 only permit OC with CCW. I think you are saying that there are 15 more cities that have CCW outlawed altogether. And this bill will permit OC to CCW holders in those 15 cities. I would think this would require preemption, but I don't see how this is achieved in its current state. Can you explain that a little more?

As is my understanding

kcgunfan said:

Doc, I'm not sure I understand the numbers here. Let's say there are 100 cities in MO. That means 30 only permit OC with CCW. I think you are saying that there are 15 more cities that have CCW outlawed altogether. And this bill will permit OC to CCW holders in those 15 cities. I would think this would require preemption, but I don't see how this is achieved in its current state. Can you explain that a little more?

Click to expand...

What would be gained?

Your ballpark # are about right.The law would be preemption for as it would negate any law that made OC illegal by CCW holders. So what would be gained would be be those 15 cities(including St Louis) but only to CCW. That would completely eliminate the patchwork laws we know have for CCW holders and should help desensitize people to OC so as to get one more step to OC everywhere for non-CCW and hopefully eventual Constitutional Carry for everyone.

The Bill as it is currently worded.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of state law or local ordinance any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement may openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or within a vehicle."

How would it gain us anything?

Firstly replace the word Notwithstanding with it's definition "In spite of" now you can see this bill is trying to say "It doesn't matter what any other state or city law says. If he has a CCW he can OC". So how does that affect the anti OC laws in affect it negates them and make them worthless. If you are very familiar with local municipalities laws you will find several that still give no accept ion to conceal carry to CCW holders. They just know state law overrides them. This is exactly what this law would do. Now it does put a minor conflict against the other state law that says cities can make OC illegal. But when a law passes at state level that gives privileges it negates any law at the state level or lesser municipality that restricts them. Though they will probably re-write the state code to reflect the change should this bill pass.

Doc

sohighlyunlikely said:

Firstly replace the word Notwithstanding with it's definition "In spite of" now you can see this bill is trying to say "It doesn't matter what any other state or city law says. If he has a CCW he can OC". So how does that affect the anti OC laws in affect it negates them and make them worthless. If you are very familiar with local municipalities laws you will find several that still give no accept ion to conceal carry to CCW holders. They just know state law overrides them. This is exactly what this law would do. Now it does put a minor conflict against the other state law that says cities can make OC illegal. But when a law passes at state level that gives privileges it negates any law at the state level or lesser municipality that restricts them. Though they will probably re-write the state code to reflect the change should this bill pass.

Doc

Click to expand...

With that explanation, I can agree enough with the bill to support it.

But, I'm a computer scientist, and we absolutely hate to see things sloppily specified. So, if RSMo 571.037 and RSMo 21.750.3 got in a bar fight, who would win? In other words, I'm not sure I see one standing heads above the other one, unless the exact conforming piece in 21.750.3 comes into play. Does my question make sense?

I think it still could be improved if it said something about open carry by non-CCW still being legal, to avoid any ambiguities. But I can understand that this can be politically difficult.

sohighlyunlikely said:

What would be gained?

So what would be gained would be be those 15 cities(including St Louis) but only to CCW. That would completely eliminate the patchwork laws we know have for CCW holders and should help desensitize people to OC so as to get one more step to OC everywhere for non-CCW and hopefully eventual Constitutional Carry for everyone.

But when a law passes at state level that gives privileges it negates any law at the state level or lesser municipality that restricts them. Though they will probably re-write the state code to reflect the change should this bill pass.

Doc

Click to expand...

This one concerns me, not quite for the exact same reasons as the hoff, but it bugs me a little. Sure it would help me, I have CCW but it does not reach the goal I have, one law written 200+ years ago called 2a.

I know we lost em through incrementation and that is how they will return, but will they? CCW is popular in MO so if it is no longer a concern for the majority will anyone care enough? Or will folks tend to say "who cares, if they want to OC that bad they can get the training and license or forget it?

To me, if it leaves questions it remains bad and how about this, MO honors all CCW permits from all states, will this apply to OC?

I am real far outside the loop on this one and life has been off the chain at work, legal issues etc and I have done very little reading on this or any other gun rights stuff for about six months so there may be other points of wisdom I am omitting, but on the face this stops just a little to short of the goal but close enough to wain interest too far to achieve the goal later.

Rich

dkangel21 said:

I sent an email to all the sponsors of the bill with respect to pre-emption. It went something like this:

I have just read House Bill No. 841. I am concerned that it does not take into account the issue of preemption. Currently there is no consistency in the state with respect to this. Some municipalities allow you to open carry and others do not. It is difficult to ascertain which municipalities allow for this (short of going through and reading each and every municipal code in the state). This is of great concern to me and many others as this opens up a can of worms if you are not careful. I love my second amendment right and Missouri has been a strong leader in this aspect. I do not wish to put myself in jeopardy because I misread a municipal code. I urge you gentleman to adjust the House Bill to take this into account. I am willing to accept the part requiring a valid concealed carry permit. However I believe the Bill needs to remove the part about local ordinances.



Respectfully,

Ny Name
My Phone Number


Here are the Email Addresses in the event anyone else wishes to send an email:

Paul.Fitzwater@house.mo.gov;Tim.Jones@house.mo.gov;Lyndall.Fraker@house.mo.gov ;Randy.Asbury@house.mo.gov ;Brent.Lasater@house.mo.gov ;Steve.Cookson@house.mo.gov ;Jay.Barnes@house.mo.gov ;Kevin.Elmer@house.mo.gov ;Kent.Hampton@house.mo.gov ;Craig.Redmon@house.mo.gov ;cbredmon@marktwain.net ;craigredmon@gmail.com ;kevinelmer1@gmail.com ;lasater07@hotmail.com ;rasbury@howardelectricwb.com

Click to expand...

Why would you want the portion regarding "local ordinances" removed? If you do that, you have effectively changed NOTHING. Everything would remain exactly as it is now and political subdivisions within this state would still be able to prohibit OC in their jurisdiction, even for those with a CCW endorsement.