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.
-
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.
-
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.
Open Carry Update
- Thread starter patriotthad
- Start date
mobodyguard
Regular Member
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
Some of us believe in the constitution which clearly defines you have the right to bear arms and that is not to be questioned. Add to it ones right to be free of search and seizure, they are going to need more than participating in a legal licensed activity to legally stop you.
If I am not committing a crime I fully expect the government to leave me 100% alone.
I also consider it my problem if they do this to others, rights come from god and the government, you, nor I get to decide whom deserves to have them violated, all violations need to be dealt with swiftly.
mspgunner
Regular Member
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!
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?
mspgunner
Regular Member
Ok I get it, but, look at it this way, do you think you'll ever get the removal of these statutes in MISSOURI? NO! It's politics bro.... No one, especially in this cat and mouse game can get it to happen. Just won't with the limited numbers of pro-OC people we have, not any where near the numbers needed and I see little growth in the area of OC compaired with the numbers of Pro-2A folks who want a lot of other less obvious (visible to the public) changes in Missouri laws. I speak with many in Jeff City, most avoid this. Even the most outspoken "I SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT" folks won't even comment on OC. Never know what they may sneak in, but not through the. House.... It is possible, but for 2011 it is dead as a door nail in the House, the support just isn't there. I and perhaps a few others hit on them hard to pass pre-emption..... I do it alot, but I don't think it wil happen anytime soon. I have been told straight out to my face by leadership, The Maplewood event killed any chance of it in the Missouri House this year! There is a window dressing, that's about it. Like it or not, that's the way it is. I don't like it either, but next year we can crank it up and do it again. Need people, numbers, voters, contributors.... It's Missouri politics!
cshoff
Regular Member
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.
mspgunner
Regular Member
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.
mspgunner
Regular Member
Ah, if only this were a dictatorship and we were the dictators! Life would certainly be much easier from the 2A ponit of view. One question I suppose (among others) is will we have more or less of a majority in 2 and 4 years? There could be the secret to success or complete failure. Do we take what we can possiblty get now or next year or do we roll the dice and shoot for the stars each year? I've watched the political wish and wash a long time, as the saying goes " A bird in hand".
cshoff
Regular Member
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.
mspgunner
Regular Member
I agree OC without restirction is best - How do we accomplish this? Ideas...
cshoff
Regular Member
Why, when you stand to lose nothing more than you have already lost, wouldn't we insist on "all or nothing"? You seem to think you are gaining something if you allow the state to regulate OC via permits and licensing when in reality, it is a loss.
This type of "logic", IMO, would be like accepting a tax on your free speech or a licensing requirement on the practicing your religion. Right now, nobody is threatening to take anything more away than they already have. Why would we voluntarily give something up by giving the state default control over OC?
cshoff
Regular Member
We may not be able to accomplish it, legislatively, ever. It may take a MOSC decision to achieve. IMO, until there is a real, organized, educated body in place that doesn't mind putting in the time and work, it's a moot point. We are stuck with what we have indefinitely until more people step up to the plate or until somebody ends up in front of the MOSC and a decision is made.
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!
mspgunner
Regular Member
I have approached many at the Senate level to put in an amendment, I mean several! From all but two I get no response. There is a chance this will happen albeit very slim. I've pushed the issue hard, call or write your respective State Senators and ask the same. We have few numbers herem but never know till you ask. Up to each to solicit this with or without CCW. Doing nothing gets us nothing..... Please lay off the CCW or no CCW, I think the point has been made here.
cshoff
Regular Member
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.
mspgunner
Regular Member
EXACTLY WHAT I'VE TRIED TO GET THEM TO DO! Falls on deaf ears in Jeff City. One little change in the statutes, it all goes away.
This is what needs fixing;
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.
Bills are all fine and good, but they can change from session to session. They are amending section 23 and to have defined bearing arms as permissible through out the state would have been nice. Amendments are a little harder to change and since they are doing it anyway it just makes sense.
peterarthur
Regular Member
Better than that
I had a sheriff's deputy stop while I was camping and he came over and talked to me like a long lost friend. He showed my a picture of his newly acquired M-249 (yes, he bought a SAW, as in Squad Automatic Weapon, fully automatic US Army spec machine gun) and we chatted about sidearms, the usual gun chit chat. Everywhere I went people were downright friendly and nobody ever batted an eye at my sidearm. It was the proper gun ownership experience. I am still job hunting there...