Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Law to allow MO AG to make a list of cities that ban open carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231

    Law to allow MO AG to make a list of cities that ban open carry

    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary....ar=2011&code=R

    "Section 2. The attorney general of the state of Missouri may establish a public website that publishes the names of municipalities and counties who do not allow the open carry of firearms. Such municipalities and counties, may forward their ordinances to the attorney general on their own volition."

    Pretty weak law using the words, "may."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    st louis
    Posts
    640
    would it of been too complicated to change "may" to "must"

  3. #3
    Regular Member zekester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uvalde, Texas
    Posts
    665
    I am not sure I would like the AG to post where you can and cannot OC...It will give the sheeple the opportunity to change their ordinaces which they are allowed to do, and you know it will happen.
    GOD gave me rights!!!....The Constitutuion just confirms it!!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by lancers View Post
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary....ar=2011&code=R

    "Section 2. The attorney general of the state of Missouri may establish a public website that publishes the names of municipalities and counties who do not allow the open carry of firearms. Such municipalities and counties, may forward their ordinances to the attorney general on their own volition."

    Pretty weak law using the words, "may."
    For the record, this isn't a law quite yet. It's been through the House, but not the Senate, and Nixon hasn't signed it. it was passed as part of the big omnibus firearms bill. I raised the issue about the "may" on both the AG office creating the website and for the subdivisions optionally reporting their status to Rep. Riddle and Rep. Miler. They told me I had a good point, and asked me to follow up with the Senator that is handling the legislation in the Senate. I sent my concern onto him several weeks ago, but haven't heard anything. So, I'll name him publicly, Senator Brian Munzlinger

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    OK, for the current status, it looks like it's made it through the Senate committee process. But, the may language is still in there. I'm going to ping my Senator to see if that can help before full Senate vote.

  6. #6
    Regular Member cash50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    349
    I don't think we should be wasting our time with this. In the time it takes you to access the website list, you could easily look up in person or online or call for ordinances. We don't want our politicians acting like they're pro-2A over some list we could do ourselves.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    For the record, this isn't a law quite yet. It's been through the House, but not the Senate, and Nixon hasn't signed it. it was passed as part of the big omnibus firearms bill. I raised the issue about the "may" on both the AG office creating the website and for the subdivisions optionally reporting their status to Rep. Riddle and Rep. Miler. They told me I had a good point, and asked me to follow up with the Senator that is handling the legislation in the Senate. I sent my concern onto him several weeks ago, but haven't heard anything. So, I'll name him publicly, Senator Brian Munzlinger
    Correct. I should have put proposed law.

    Even if the words "may" were changed to "must" or "shall", unless there is a repercussion in the law for not following it, they mean nothing.

    I was at a Court of Appeals oral argument not too long ago where this issue came up with a law. The law said something "shall" be done, but there was nothing in law to say what would happen if it wasn't. This makes the law directive, not mandatory as the word "shall" would normally imply. State v. Tisius, 92 S.W.3d 751, 770, covers it pretty well and it's a case I used in my own Court of Appeal Brief for this issue.

    We would need it to say something like, "The ordinance regulating open carry shall not be enforced against an alleged violator until 10 business days after it is filed with the attorney general."
    Last edited by lancers; 05-05-2011 at 07:14 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by cash50 View Post
    I don't think we should be wasting our time with this. In the time it takes you to access the website list, you could easily look up in person or online or call for ordinances. We don't want our politicians acting like they're pro-2A over some list we could do ourselves.
    There are 114 counties and 961 cities in Missouri. That is about 1100 different locations that we have to look up the weapons regulations for. And, that's not a one time thing either. Laws can and do change. So, before going anywhere, you would have to look up all of the ordinances for anywhere you might stop, just in case they might have changed.

    And, you're assuming that you can find the ordinances in question. Last weekend, I stopped in Collins MO to take a toilet break. I could not carry, because I had no idea what the status was on open carry. And, I don't see any way to find this out on a Sunday afternoon, without visiting city hall and the county courthouse, since their ordinances are not posted online. And, until I find out, I don't want to open carry. In the absence of this proposed website, how do you see this working?

    This is a bookkeeping thing, not a 2A thing, so the Reps and Senators get no 2A credit from me. If they want 2A credit from me, they're going to need to preempt open carry, or do something that restores some of my rights.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Uhm,

    this is very likely dead. The senate effectively sent it back to committee with "suggested changes" aka a filibuster by the senate dems.

    It is HIGHLY unlikely it will get out, get reread and voted on by the 12th aka the end of session.

    I ain't saying it is absolute, but you are talking Missouri politics here and I do not expect it to go anywhere at all this session. Time to prep for next January and try and not draw any negative press before the session is over next year.

    While many of us indeed have spines, it is not a requirement nor a common occurrence in the political arena and they run at the first sight of trouble.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Uhm,

    this is very likely dead. The senate effectively sent it back to committee with "suggested changes" aka a filibuster by the senate dems.

    It is HIGHLY unlikely it will get out, get reread and voted on by the 12th aka the end of session.

    I ain't saying it is absolute, but you are talking Missouri politics here and I do not expect it to go anywhere at all this session. Time to prep for next January and try and not draw any negative press before the session is over next year.

    While many of us indeed have spines, it is not a requirement nor a common occurrence in the political arena and they run at the first sight of trouble.
    The Senate substitute bill is basically identical to the House one. The main difference I see (and it's by no means comprehensive...) is that the CCW endorsement is lowered from 23 to 21 in the House version, and from 23 to 18 in the Senate version. And the Senate version allows the sheriff's revolving fund to pay for something (what that something is is not clear to me...)

    For the most part, there's nothing contentious in this bill, just housekeeping things, with the exception of the lowering of the age where you can get a CCW endorsement. The airgun provision might also be a little contentious.

    Most importantly, this does not contain the provision to preempt OC laws for CCW endorsement holders.

    I suspect that the anti-gun crowd might want to go to bat over the lowering of the CCW endorsement age to 18 instead of 21 but I would expect them just give token resistance on that.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    I suspect that the anti-gun crowd might want to go to bat over the lowering of the CCW endorsement age to 18 instead of 21 but I would expect them just give token resistance on that.
    Uhm,

    I understand your thoughts but disagree. I think you are giving too much merit to the honesty of the politicians involved.

    Sending a bill back for review at the end of session is classic filibustering so you can stand around and PRETEND you were not AGAINST it, you were just trying to FIX it bla bla bla.

    Wanna bet a beer (or coffee) on it making it this year? I would MUCH rather you be right than me btw.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post

    Wanna bet a beer (or coffee) on it making it this year? I would MUCH rather you be right than me btw.
    That's a sucker bet ;-) I know, there's just a week left, so it's likely dead in the water. I'm nothing if not a realist. The House and Senate killed the bill off by their inaction. I admit that the OC bill is DOA also. But, hope springs eternal...

  13. #13
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    So many of our legislators are "pro-2A", right.....
    I'm quite PO'd they are letting the 2A Bills die! Very PO'd.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •