OC Bill in Missouri House

kcgunfan · Mar 13, 2011

cshoff said:
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.

I think you were caught by some sloppy phrasing by dkangel21. Everything up to the last sentence is about gaining preemption for OC. The last sentence appears to ask for the opposite of that. I believe he's asking for the proposed bill to remove (preempt) local ordinances, not remove the local ordinances clause of the proposed bill.

I'm still not convinced that this proposed bill will provide preemption, but I guess we'll see...

dkangel · Mar 13, 2011

I just got a personal call from Representative Fitzwater and he explained to me that it DOES in fact override the local ordinances. He said the reason they put it forth is because someone at a town hall meeting (I believe) opened their coat exposing their weapon and was almost put in jail for it. They are going to do their best to get this pushed through. There is the requirement though of having a CCW which I am ok with.

kcgunfan said:
I think you were caught by some sloppy phrasing by dkangel21. Everything up to the last sentence is about gaining preemption for OC. The last sentence appears to ask for the opposite of that. I believe he's asking for the proposed bill to remove (preempt) local ordinances, not remove the local ordinances clause of the proposed bill.

I'm still not convinced that this proposed bill will provide preemption, but I guess we'll see...

kcgunfan · Mar 13, 2011

dkangel21 said:
I just got a personal call from Representative Fitzwater and he explained to me that it DOES in fact override the local ordinances. He said the reason they put it forth is because someone at a town hall meeting (I believe) opened their coat exposing their weapon and was almost put in jail for it. They are going to do their best to get this pushed through. There is the requirement though of having a CCW which I am ok with.

I don't much of a problem with the CCW piece, although I'd prefer it not be there. But, I understand the political climate isn't really favorable for Constitutional Carry (and I'm not sure I'm 100% in favor of it anyway.)

I've always assumed that the bill was intended to provide preemption. Otherwise, it really didn't do anything other than making what is currently legal more legal for some, and apparently less legal for others. My question isn't about the intent, but but the mechanism. You have one law that says that subdivisions can write their own OC laws, and another that says they can't. How do you decide which one wins?

cshoff · Mar 13, 2011

kcgunfan said:
I think you were caught by some sloppy phrasing by dkangel21. Everything up to the last sentence is about gaining preemption for OC. The last sentence appears to ask for the opposite of that. I believe he's asking for the proposed bill to remove (preempt) local ordinances, not remove the local ordinances clause of the proposed bill.

I beg to differ. He is clearly asking for the "local ordinances" section to be stripped from the bill.

I'm still not convinced that this proposed bill will provide preemption, but I guess we'll see...

Unless a political subdivision was willing to fight it in the MOSC using the language in 21.750.3 as standing, then it would be defacto "preemption" for CCW endorsement holders. That said, I could see an entity like St. Louis City fighting it based on those grounds. That is just one more reason why it's important to initially get a good bill passed, rather than a bill that falls short of the goal.

On the flip side, it could work to our advantage. If St. Louis did indeed challenge the law based on the language in 21.750.3, the simple and immediate solution would be to amend 21.750.3 and remove the offending language that provides those political subdivisions with the statutory authority to restrict/prohibit OC. But my suspicion is, at that point, any amendment to that section would be accompanied by an additional amendment that required training/licensing for any person who wanted to OC in this state.

mspgunner · Mar 13, 2011

dkangel21 said:
I just got a personal call from Representative Fitzwater and he explained to me that it DOES in fact override the local ordinances. He said the reason they put it forth is because someone at a town hall meeting (I believe) opened their coat exposing their weapon and was almost put in jail for it. They are going to do their best to get this pushed through. There is the requirement though of having a CCW which I am ok with.

I believe there are a number of us contacting their elected officials (I have). This would be one very big step for Missouri if it goes all the way!
Thanks for your good work. For a Bill to become law it will require a great effort by many....
Keep those letters, emails and phone calls going.

mspgunner · Mar 13, 2011

cshoff said:
I beg to differ. He is clearly asking for the "local ordinances" section to be stripped from the bill.

Unless a political subdivision was willing to fight it in the MOSC using the language in 21.750.3 as standing, then it would be defacto "preemption" for CCW endorsement holders. That said, I could see an entity like St. Louis City fighting it based on those grounds. That is just one more reason why it's important to initially get a good bill passed, rather than a bill that falls short of the goal.

On the flip side, it could work to our advantage. If St. Louis did indeed challenge the law based on the language in 21.750.3, the simple and immediate solution would be to amend 21.750.3 and remove the offending language that provides those political subdivisions with the statutory authority to restrict/prohibit OC. But my suspicion is, at that point, any amendment to that section would be accompanied by an additional amendment that required training/licensing for any person who wanted to OC in this state.

There is one big question.... Will the folks in the legislature really push this through. Ok, I have a negative opinion. Of course I'd like to see it go but I just have doubts about the resolve to really make it happen. I'll pop for the soda at the first OC gathering after it becomes law. DOC, hold me to that OK?

kcgunfan · Mar 13, 2011

cshoff said:
I beg to differ. He is clearly asking for the "local ordinances" section to be stripped from the bill.

Unless a political subdivision was willing to fight it in the MOSC using the language in 21.750.3 as standing, then it would be defacto "preemption" for CCW endorsement holders. That said, I could see an entity like St. Louis City fighting it based on those grounds. That is just one more reason why it's important to initially get a good bill passed, rather than a bill that falls short of the goal.

On the flip side, it could work to our advantage. If St. Louis did indeed challenge the law based on the language in 21.750.3, the simple and immediate solution would be to amend 21.750.3 and remove the offending language that provides those political subdivisions with the statutory authority to restrict/prohibit OC. But my suspicion is, at that point, any amendment to that section would be accompanied by an additional amendment that required training/licensing for any person who wanted to OC in this state.

i'm really talking more about what his intent was, more than what his words said. I agree it can be read the way you read it, but I did think it made the letter inconsistent. But, I can't really divine that anyway, I'd just rather give the benefit of the doubt, and read the letter as being consistent. It doesn't matter in the end though.

I can see it happening that way (although I bet that more than St. Louis City will get involved). But, that will require some poor soul(s) to become a test case, and probably get to spend some time as a guest of the city for a while, and drop a large pile of cash. They'd have about a 50/50 chance. Then, if they were found guilty, we'd have to entertain a legislative remedy. I'd rather get it all lined out now and not have any ambiguity. I'm all about clarity.

dkangel · Mar 13, 2011

I understand the skepticism. What gives me a tiny bit of hope is that it affected one of their own - getting in trouble for removing their coat so maybe, just maybe it may work out. If it does then I say Starbucks in Wildwood

mspgunner said:
There is one big question.... Will the folks in the legislature really push this through. Ok, I have a negative opinion. Of course I'd like to see it go but I just have doubts about the resolve to really make it happen. I'll pop for the soda at the first OC gathering after it becomes law. DOC, hold me to that OK?

mspgunner · Mar 14, 2011

dkangel21 said:
I understand the skepticism. What gives me a tiny bit of hope is that it affected one of their own - getting in trouble for removing their coat so maybe, just maybe it may work out. If it does then I say Starbucks in Wildwood

Wildwood here also.
Please email me at mspar15@aol.com - subject "guns", we need to chat! There is at least one other!

Tony4310 · Mar 14, 2011

I want starbucks now :banghead:

mspgunner · Mar 14, 2011

Tony4310 said:
I want starbucks now :banghead:

You can have Starbucks, just not the one in Wildwood, not yet anyway.

sohighlyunlikely · Mar 14, 2011

My rep

I wrote my rep here is what I wrote and here is his rather fast response.

To: Jake Zimmerman
Subject: HB 841

I am a constituent of your district. I would like to know if you will be supporting this bill (HB841). This really would be helpful in simplifying Missouri's firearms code. Most jurisdictions (90%) have no restrictions against a safely holstered firearm carried by a "concealed carry endorsement holder" being exposed. But Overland does. I am a CCW holder who lawfully caries a firearm. If I were to exit my vehicle and my coat or cover shirt were not to even accidentally not cover my firearm. I would be in violation of Overland code and I could be arrested for such. HB841 would simplify and give continuity to the law instead of the broken patchwork of laws we currently have.

His reply

Thanks for your message, Steve. I haven’t had an opportunity to review HB 841 yet but will do so as soon as it crosses my desk in the committee process. I’m sure you already know my voting record on Second Amendment issues so you can be assured I will give the bill my careful consideration.

On an unrelated but important note, I hope I can count on your vote in the election for county assessor on April 5th...

All the best,

---Jake Zimmerman

Missouri State Representative

District 83

mspgunner · Mar 14, 2011

sohighlyunlikely said:
I wrote my rep here is what I wrote and here is his rather fast response.

To: Jake Zimmerman
Subject: HB 841

I am a constituent of your district. I would like to know if you will be supporting this bill (HB841). This really would be helpful in simplifying Missouri's firearms code. Most jurisdictions (90%) have no restrictions against a safely holstered firearm carried by a "concealed carry endorsement holder" being exposed. But Overland does. I am a CCW holder who lawfully caries a firearm. If I were to exit my vehicle and my coat or cover shirt were not to even accidentally not cover my firearm. I would be in violation of Overland code and I could be arrested for such. HB841 would simplify and give continuity to the law instead of the broken patchwork of laws we currently have.

His reply

Thanks for your message, Steve. I haven’t had an opportunity to review HB 841 yet but will do so as soon as it crosses my desk in the committee process. I’m sure you already know my voting record on Second Amendment issues so you can be assured I will give the bill my careful consideration.

On an unrelated but important note, I hope I can count on your vote in the election for county assessor on April 5th...

All the best,

---Jake Zimmerman

Missouri State Representative

District 83

What would be interesting is "Did he send that by way of his official Jefferson City Office email". If so he migth be in violation of the Missouri Ethics Commission rule of using State email for campaign purposes. You'd have to check with the Missouri Ethics Commission to be sure on that. One other note, he is the Democratic canidate for this office, LK "Chip" Wood is the Republican.

sohighlyunlikely · Mar 14, 2011

mspgunner said:
What would be interesting is "Did he send that by way of his official Jefferson City Office email". If so he migth be in violation of the Missouri Ethics Commission rule of using State email for campaign purposes. You'd have to check with the Missouri Ethics Commission to be sure on that. One other note, he is the Democratic candidate for this office, LK "Chip" Wood is the Republican.

No this was the email. Not the .gov one I sent it to.
Jake Zimmerman <jake@jakezimmerman.org>

Doc

dkangel · Mar 15, 2011

sohighlyunlikely said:
No this was the email. Not the .gov one I sent it to.
Jake Zimmerman <jake@jakezimmerman.org>

Doc

sohighlyunlikely - I liked your email to your rep it was well thought out and phrased in an appropriate manner - focusing on an accidental showing. I think this is the proper way to email the representatives. I sent one to my local representative this evening. I will post a reply if and when I get one.

lancers · Mar 15, 2011

dkangel21 said:
sohighlyunlikely - I liked your email to your rep it was well thought out and phrased in an appropriate manner - focusing on an accidental showing. I think this is the proper way to email the representatives. I sent one to my local representative this evening. I will post a reply if and when I get one.

I completely agree. That is the way to get it passed. Use the accident showing as the reason for the bill.

I do think it is just a stepping block to better things down the road. While it is confusing to allow cities to regulate open carry and then say CCW permit holders can open carry in another chapter, it still works out ok. The cities can regulate open carry as long as they follow the guidelines set out in 571 (which would happen to allow CCW holders to OC.

And truthfully after my dealing on Saturday, I'm not really opposed to having something I can print and have in my hand that tells the LEO "HE CAN DO THIS". Not that they would read it even after I told them several times I had it. LOL.

I'd be happy to be the first test case in St. Louis City. Although the City Justice Center sucks.

dkangel · Mar 15, 2011

dkangel21 said:
sohighlyunlikely - I liked your email to your rep it was well thought out and phrased in an appropriate manner - focusing on an accidental showing. I think this is the proper way to email the representatives. I sent one to my local representative this evening. I will post a reply if and when I get one.

I got my response - Here it is:

I am fully in support of HB 841.

Tony4310 · Mar 15, 2011

My rep is a liberal Dem,but I wrote him anyways. I'm sure I'll get some tree hugger you don't need a gun that is what cops are for response if I get one at all! :banghead:

sohighlyunlikely · Mar 15, 2011

Rep 2A rating

Tony4310 said:
My rep is a liberal Dem,but I wrote him anyways. I'm sure I'll get some tree hugger you don't need a gun that is what cops are for response if I get one at all! :banghead:

Whats your rep or district #. When I was reviewing the vote records for 2A stuff here in MO. I found this list from the NRA rating our Reps.

http://www.sacmo.org/nra_ratings.htm

Doc

kcgunfan · Mar 18, 2011

Is anyone out there in Rep. Fitzwater's district? I've been trying to get him to answer my concerns on the bill, but he hasn't bothered to respond to me. I'm wondering if someone shaking his tree that can actually vote for/against him might not be better...

OC Bill in Missouri House

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member