mspgunner
Regular Member
The LEOs would get use to it. It's my understanding they did in AZ. Headed there next month, I'll find out. Folks I've chatted with say the LEOs don't even look twice with folks OCing.
It's intended to provide statewide preemption. It will not shut up a lot more cops, and will end up with a lot more requests for your CCW endorsements in localities that require CCW endorsements for OC. I suspect that just about every one will pass a CC for OC law within a year or two...
What I don't about it is how exactly does this wording work with the wording in RSMo 21.750.1 and 21.750.3 to preempt OC, but I can't seem to get an answer...
Well i still believe it will, only thing they will ask can i see your ID and ur on ur way if u have a valid CCW, now if u dont thats ur problem
I have no problem with a CCW requirement for OC. You are trained and made a commitment to observe the laws and accpet responsibility for having a firearm. The bad guys don't go through the trouible to get a CCW. They may be questioned, they may be arrested and rightfully so. Without a CCW requirement we may be inviting our own loss at OC. They won't need a CCW to go into a store with a firearm to hold themup or kill'em all. They still won't but it creates some what of a check and balance system. In the cities shooting are not uncommon, they make check you for CCW, in the rural area no one really much cares omne way or the other, but the LEOs will have the option.
Heck it's a great way to get the law abiding citizen and the LEOs to meet and chat! Nothing wrong with that, I like to meet the LEOs, I'm not their enemy!
So we should have training and background requirements to exercise our supposed rights?? That argument has never made sense to me.
Do you have to get a permit to say what you want? Or to be free from unwarranted search and seizure? So why the requirements with any other rights?
So we should have training and background requirements to exercise our supposed rights?? That argument has never made sense to me.
Do you have to get a permit to say what you want? Or to be free from unwarranted search and seizure? So why the requirements with any other rights?
No political victory, no victory for personal freedom, no victory for our Constitution, nothing.
I tend to agree. Having to take state mandated training, pass state mandated background checks, meet other state mandated requirements, and then pay the state a mandated licensing fee does NOT imply any kind of right. In fact, I'm not sure how you can talk about all of those requirements and the presence of any kind of "right" in the same breath.
Frankly, from a personal liberties and freedoms standpoint, there is nothing at all to be gained by allowing OC to those whom have a CCW endorsement. Other than the fact that those people could carry their guns in an exposed manner if they wanted to, nothing is gained at all. No political victory, no victory for personal freedom, no victory for our Constitution, nothing.
I do not like the permit side of this either however I do disagree.
I see political victory. It is incremental to a degree the same thing that was used to steal our rights in the first place.
CCW passed and was not everything everyone wanted, it has been improved and the omnibus bill should once again make the trip and improve it again.
state wide OC with a permit might increase numbers a little, but not a lot I would not think, except during the summer perhaps, but it would also again prove that there is not going to be blood in the streets etc. Demonstrating the practice and increasing acceptance or perhaps a reduction in the panic is a better way to say it might once again build common sense among the soccer mom's so to speak.
We are three votes away from veto proof in Missouri, political attitudes are simply at this time aimed at gaining those three seats and anything that has extra controversy is looked at as an obstacle. Deregulating the method folks already having proven themselves "safe" choose to carry the firearm they have proven competent to carry has far less social implications and a better defense than an "anyone who wants to" approach.
If you consider the entire game of politics, I would think that "OC anywhere legal to be" by the licensed to be a political victory and growth beyond that just as there has been with CCW as a very real path.
I still do not like it myself as I feel the constitution already has it covered, but then, I do not get to make all the rules.
I do not like the permit side of this either however I do disagree.
I see political victory. It is incremental to a degree the same thing that was used to steal our rights in the first place.
CCW passed and was not everything everyone wanted, it has been improved and the omnibus bill should once again make the trip and improve it again.
state wide OC with a permit might increase numbers a little, but not a lot I would not think, except during the summer perhaps, but it would also again prove that there is not going to be blood in the streets etc. Demonstrating the practice and increasing acceptance or perhaps a reduction in the panic is a better way to say it might once again build common sense among the soccer mom's so to speak.
We are three votes away from veto proof in Missouri, political attitudes are simply at this time aimed at gaining those three seats and anything that has extra controversy is looked at as an obstacle. Deregulating the method folks already having proven themselves "safe" choose to carry the firearm they have proven competent to carry has far less social implications and a better defense than an "anyone who wants to" approach.
If you consider the entire game of politics, I would think that "OC anywhere legal to be" by the licensed to be a political victory and growth beyond that just as there has been with CCW as a very real path.
I still do not like it myself as I feel the constitution already has it covered, but then, I do not get to make all the rules.
I can't consider it to be a victory when passing language such as this won't really expand the privilege that endorsement holders already enjoy other than the fact that they would now be able to wear their guns openly. Frankly, who cares? If somebody just wants to carry a gun under these predetermined regulations/background checks/training/licensing requirements the state has set forth, they can already do so concealed. Permitting open carry under those same regulations is NOT an expansion of rights, rather, it is simply the allowance of more government control over a different form of carry.
IMO, open carry has always been something quite different than concealed carry. Open carry, in and of itself, represents the "line in the sand", so to speak, of where government authority to regulate a privilege ends and the inalienable rights of the individual begin. Allowing even one more toe over that line, IMHO, is a step in the wrong direction. We already have enough infringement on that right without openly accepting more.
I fully understand. "Shall not be infringed" - It has been! why a CCW permit, why restrictions on OC and CCW? because they can and get away with it. Despite "Shall Not Be Infringed", itis. The question is what to do about the fact that is is infringed. How to fix it, what can be fixed, it is all or none? Sure I like all or none, but what we end up with is "NONE", so why not take some? That's what we are faced with, take some or get none.
Heck the 2 US Supreme Court cases last year wen to the most basic of facts, the right ot keep and bear arms. The powers to be for the most part don't give a rats cookies about our right to OC with regard to the State Pre-emption laws. "WE" my friends need t ofind a way to fix that and get a bunch of legislators to agree and make it work. If you want all or none I hope you get it, but I don't think it will happen. Constitutional carry is not in the cards for Missouri. I hope some one will prove me wrong.
I agree OC without restirction is best - How do we accomplish this? Ideas...
Right now, nobody is threatening to take anything more away than they already have.
I guess my point is, Maplewood just threatened and DID take more away and it would not have been the case or I should say what they did would not have impacted the specific situation at any level as the person involved did have a ccw.
I would have preferred they just roll an exemption into the omnibus or better yet have the stones to amend the state constitution, something that is happening and should likely pass with no problems that for whatever reason no one seems to have noticed or commented on on any of the forums I visit but it is important stuff no doubt!
I guess my point is, Maplewood just threatened and DID take more away
and it would not have been the case or I should say what they did would not have impacted the specific situation at any level as the person involved did have a ccw.
I would have preferred they just roll an exemption into the omnibus or better yet have the stones to amend the state constitution, something that is happening and should likely pass with no problems that for whatever reason no one seems to have noticed or commented on on any of the forums I visit but it is important stuff no doubt!
But that is just it. Maplewood DIDN'T take anything more away. They simply acted within the poorly written laws the state already had in place. I don't blame Maplewood for that, I blame the state. Maplewood simply joined the ranks of the other umpteen political subdivision in the area that already have those restrictions in place (with the explicit blessing of our legislators in Jeff City).
Yet we have no way of truly knowing that. There could have been other ramifications. It's possible Walmart and other private business owners will start posting their premises if OC were permitted under our CCW statutes. The point is, what happened in Maplewood has changed nothing on a state level, not even a little. Any assumptions about what might or might not have happened because of this incident are just that; assumptions.
We only need for one line in 21.750 to be amended. This entire issue could be resolved by a bill that could be written in less than one paragraph.
We only need for one line in 21.750 to be amended. This entire issue could be resolved by a bill that could be written in less than one paragraph.
The LEOs would get use to it. It's my understanding they did in AZ. Headed there next month, I'll find out. Folks I've chatted with say the LEOs don't even look twice with folks OCing.