• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Maplewood moves to ban open carry of firearms

R

REALteach4u

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
428
Location
Spfld, Mo.
That certainly reads like a knee-jerk rection to: Oh crap, we're about to get sued and LOSE!

So I'm going to pose the question to all of you OC advocates.

How do we go about getting our legislators to submit a bill or how do we get the courts to address the fact that the dreaded 1984 law that gave municipalities this authority is actually a violation of 2A? It was a 2A violation when it was signed into law since CC was illegal at the time per the Missouri Constitution.
 
Last edited:
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
jad316 said:
LMTD: great email very well worded! Have you gotten a reply as of yet?

Jim
Click to expand...

None yet, but not really expecting any to be honest.

It was too long and they will likely not read it.
 
mspgunner

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
REALteach4u said:
That certainly reads like a knee-jerk rection to: Oh crap, we're about to get sued and LOSE!

So I'm going to pose the question to all of you OC advocates.

How do we go about getting our legislators to submit a bill or how do we get the courts to address the fact that the dreaded 1984 law that gave municipalities this authority is actually a violation of 2A? It was a 2A violation when it was signed into law since CC was illegal at the time per the Missouri Constitution.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen! Just not.

As far as Maplewood goes, I may put on a coat and tie and go testify against it. I've been successful before in Wildwood, that was an airsoft gun issue for kids, but I got the local ordinance ended. Ok, we do some OC get togethers, big woof. I got used to it, but here is where it really matters, in a legal and local forum. Don't show up to protest, that will do not good. Show up, dress well and speak up. OC get togethers are OK, put on your best face and go to Maplewood April 12th and make your point, the forum is good for discussion, the meat is in the public venue!
 
A

aadvark

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
1,597
Location
, ,
The 96th General Assembly of The Missouri State Legislature is Currently Considering House Bill 841, which, Adds a New Section of Missouri revised Statute, to Read:

R.S.Mo. 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.
 
mspgunner

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
aadvark said:
The 96th General Assembly of The Missouri State Legislature is Currently Considering House Bill 841, which, Adds a New Section of Missouri revised Statute, to Read:

R.S.Mo. 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.
Click to expand...

This bill is not going any where. Not assigned to committee, it is just going to die.
 
sohighlyunlikely

sohighlyunlikely

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
724
Location
Overland, Missouri, USA
OC for ME said:
Boycott Maplewood, it ain't that big.
Click to expand...

Maplewoods idea of what a self defense tool is.

Doc

DSCF3094.jpg
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
mspgunner said:
This bill is not going any where. Not assigned to committee, it is just going to die.
Click to expand...

It might not. In an email exchange I had with the Asst. Majority Leader in the House, she said that the bill was submitted too late for inclusion into the omnibus bill, but she's hopeful the Senate will add it back in, and that it will be reconciled back into the House version later. That may be why they're sitting on it in the House.
 
S

StevenSTL

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2011
Messages
96
Location
St. Charles
kcgunfan said:
It might not. In an email exchange I had with the Asst. Majority Leader in the House, she said that the bill was submitted too late for inclusion into the omnibus bill, but she's hopeful the Senate will add it back in, and that it will be reconciled back into the House version later. That may be why they're sitting on it in the House.
Click to expand...

I don't see it going anywhere this year.
 
9

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
StevenSTL said:
I don't see it going anywhere this year.
Click to expand...

I don't see it ever going anywhere. I fail to understand what our politicians are afraid of in passing a preemption bill and sending it to the Governor. I can't get any of them that I know to tell me what the monster under the bed is that they are afraid of. They all say they support it but never do anything about it.
 
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Because some folks will not push for it until they are sure they can get credit for it being done.
 
mspgunner

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
kcgunfan said:
It might not. In an email exchange I had with the Asst. Majority Leader in the House, she said that the bill was submitted too late for inclusion into the omnibus bill, but she's hopeful the Senate will add it back in, and that it will be reconciled back into the House version later. That may be why they're sitting on it in the House.
Click to expand...

I communicate with many reps, including the Majority floor leader Tim Jones. The answers I get are a lot of "Do you like what we've doen so far"? Of course the answer from me is yes, but there is more to be done. It' just not going to happen in the House, frankly I doubt it will get any better in the senate, but we can onlt wait and see. I think part of the problem is, if they give us 'EVERY THING" we won't have anything to come back for....
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
mspgunner said:
I communicate with many reps, including the Majority floor leader Tim Jones. The answers I get are a lot of "Do you like what we've doen so far"? Of course the answer from me is yes, but there is more to be done. It' just not going to happen in the House, frankly I doubt it will get any better in the senate, but we can onlt wait and see. I think part of the problem is, if they give us 'EVERY THING" we won't have anything to come back for....
Click to expand...

I can't disagree, I get the same from Tim Jones and Jeanie Riddle. They seem to want to toot about what they're done more than they want to discuss what comes next. My Rep is pretty pro-gun, but he's busy with his own committees.

I really don't disbelieve Rep. Riddle's statement to me that HB 841 got submitted too late to make it into the omnibus bill. From the calendar, that looks to be quite plausible.

The only reason I'd disbelieve it is because 841 is going to be a lot more contentious than everything else in the omnibus bill, and it would be better to pass the omnibus bill quietly. But that doesn't mean they're not going to move it along. It may just mean they're going to wait a bit, at least until the omnibus bill is signed by Nixon.

Then again, the House is busy with budget this week. I'll give 841 until Mid April before I pass any judgements.

BTW, I still haven't found anyone to address my 2 questions about how this moved non-CCW endorsement to a less visible status, and what exactly makes this bill take precedence over the law that says subdivisions can set their own OC laws.
 
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
kcgunfan said:
BTW, I still haven't found anyone to address my 2 questions about how this moved non-CCW endorsement to a less visible status, and what exactly makes this bill take precedence over the law that says subdivisions can set their own OC laws.
Click to expand...

I am not sure if that is how you worded your question or not, but if it is, I understand why they have not been answered as I have no idea what you are asking at all with the first one. The second one is not really a question for most as within Missouri state law trumps county/city law, not unlike federal trumping state. Here is the proposed text of the new law"

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.

"Notwithstanding means in spite of, without regard to or prevention by. The courts, in a number of instances, have accepted that the plain meaning of notwithstanding is in spite of."

Perhaps you can add some clarity to your questions.
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
LMTD said:
Perhaps you can add some clarity to your questions.
Click to expand...

I went into a lot more details on the original post on this bill and in my emails to the Reps...

1. 841 explicitly says that CCW endorsement holders may OC without regard to local laws banning carrying. That's great. But, it says nothing about people without CCW endorsements. My concern is that an overzealous DA/LEO might conclude that there is no right to OC for non CCW endorsement holders, since that's an implied right. That should get straightened out in the court, but why not be explicit and make it plain at the nose on my face (which is pretty obvious)?

2. I understand the language just fine. What I don't understand is how this bill, which says that it basically disregards local ordinances stand up against RsMO 21.750.3, which says that subdivisions can regulate open carrying. It's really a language lawyer question. When you put these 2 next to each other, how do you decide which wins? Neither one claims precedence over the other. So, that likely means there would nee to be a test case, and a citizen out of a bunch of money to decide. And, they might decide that 841 is the one that gets tossed. Again, better to be explicit than to leave it open to questioning.

Seems like you can kill both of these issues with one change to RsMO 21.750.3, so I don't know why that wasn't done.
 
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Ok well I grasp your question now and think I can help.

1. CCW holders will be exempt of any and all local laws restricting OC by the state law defining it as such, there will be NO INCREASE what so ever in a non-CCW persons ability to openly carry a firearm, if it is restricted in a locality it will remain the same hodge podge of ordinances.

2. The LICENSED activity gets past the issue not unlike it does for police officers etc.

I am not a huge fan because I feel if it goes, the fight so to speak ends.

I also have concerns that not unlike the "unloaded" gun issue in cali where a police officer may walk up and check a weapon are they going to constantly walk up and request the license etc.
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
LMTD said:
Ok well I grasp your question now and think I can help.

1. CCW holders will be exempt of any and all local laws restricting OC by the state law defining it as such, there will be NO INCREASE what so ever in a non-CCW persons ability to openly carry a firearm, if it is restricted in a locality it will remain the same hodge podge of ordinances.

2. The LICENSED activity gets past the issue not unlike it does for police officers etc.

I am not a huge fan because I feel if it goes, the fight so to speak ends.

I also have concerns that not unlike the "unloaded" gun issue in cali where a police officer may walk up and check a weapon are they going to constantly walk up and request the license etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input.

I understand that with #1. What I'm really thinking is saying something along the lines of "open carrying without a CCW endorsement is legal, subject to local regulation". It doesn't make it any more legal, but it does say explicitly that it is legal as far as the state is concerned. Hopefully, that would get taught to the LEO's, and we would have less trouble with them, if the legality of OC from the state perspective is made explicit.

For number 2, I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know one way or the other. What you say is reasonable, but we all know the law isn't necessarily reasonable. I am a computer programmer, however, and if there is one thing we hate, it is for things to be sloppily specified. I'd be happy as a clam if somewhere it said that it overrode RsMO 21.750.3. I'll pass that question onto my brother, who is a lawyer admitted to the bar in MO, and see what he says...

As far as extra checks or anything like that, I don't think it's that big of a deal. Right now the law says we can be asked for our ID w/ CCW endorsement if we are "caught" with a concealed weapon. I don't see how that could be applied to OC without a statutory requirement. So, it would only kick in where OC is explicitly illegal. I don't know, some LEO's might be annoying about it, but I doubt it would last for long. If there is no RAS, then no ability to check warrants or serials or anything. So, again, it's better than nothing, but not hugely better.
 
K

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
OC for ME said:
How about this?

21.750.3. 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, with appropriate penalty provisions, or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction, provided such ordinance complies with the provisions of section 252.243.

Seems pretty simple to me.
Click to expand...

Well, that strips out the subdivisions ability to regulate OC for non-CCW endorsement holders. While I would like that, it is a significant diversion from the language of the current bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top