• 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.

NRA Calls for Action to Protect Open Carry in Rock Hill, Missouri

StogieC

StogieC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
745
Location
Florida
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7037
Missouri: Open Carry Under Attack In Rock Hill!
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Call Your Alderman and Urge Them to Vote NO to The Ban!​

An ordinance was introduced at last week’s Rock Hill Board of Aldermen meeting which would ban the open carry of firearms in the city of Rock Hill. Currently, city municipal code allows those who possess a valid concealed carry permit to also carry their firearm openly. The proposal introduced this week, if adopted, would amend the existing law and put an end to the practice of openly carrying a firearm for self-defense in Rock Hill. A vote on the matter is expected to take place at the next meeting on Tuesday, September 6, so it is very important that you contact your Alderman TODAY and urge him or her to oppose this proposed measure.
Concealed carry laws will not be affected by this amendment since, according to Missouri’s preemption laws, cities only have the authority to regulate open carry and not concealed carry. However, it is still important to call your Alderman and ensure that your voice is heard by urging the Board members to respect your right to carry a firearm openly! Contact information for the Board of Alderman can be found below.
Rock Hill Board of Aldermen:
Alderwoman Chris Graber
(314) 962-7486
cgraber@rockhillmo.net
Alderman Ed Johnson
(314) 962-3165
ejohnson@rockhillmo.net
Alderman Edward Mahan
(314) 918-1218
emahan@rockhillmo.net
Alderman Philip Scherry
(314) 485-9686
pscherry@rockhillmo.net
Alderwoman Mary Wofford
(314) 962-5723
mwofford@rockhillmo.net
Alderman Robert Weider
(314) 918-1147
rweider@rockhillmo.net
Click to expand...
Note: Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
 
X

xd shooter

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
333
Location
usa
This is the second or third instance lately where the NRA has come out FOR Open Carry. I am now rethinking my decision to end my membership in the fall...
 
Venator

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
xd shooter said:
This is the second or third instance lately where the NRA has come out FOR Open Carry. I am now rethinking my decision to end my membership in the fall...
Click to expand...

Comment made about the article.

Concealed Carry
  • 2a98e152444f163d95301322a0be95b8
    Charles Nichols says:
    August 25, 2011 at 2:02 am
    And yet the NRA CCW lawsuit in California (Peruta v San Diego) tells the court of appeals that California’s ban on Loaded Open Carry is not unconstitutional if the court makes CCWs “shall issue.” The NRA lawyer goes on to warn that court that failing to do so would result in the ban being overturned as well as the “drastic” consequence of invalidating Gun Free School Zones as well.
    Regardless of what it tells its membership, what the NRA lawyers say in court is what counts. The NRA opposes Open Carry. The NRA supports Gun Free School Zones.
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf
    FYI, the NRA lawyer also filed a brief in another California gun case saying that gun free school zones are constitutional.
    Also, the NRA opposes a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit to overturn California’s ban on Loaded Open Carry. The only reason they are seeking an injunction against Illinois’ ban is to pressure the legislature into enacting a CCW law. Once they have that, it will be the last you will ever hear about Open Carry from the NRA.
    Memo to NRA – STOP HELPING US!

 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The NRA has traditionally NOT supported OC. They have consistently refused to correct their misrepresentations of AL law in this regard. It is nice to see them coming around. However, until they make it absolutely clear that they support the right to carry openly--and correct all of their positions and information accordingly--I cannot support them.
 
W

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Venator said:
Comment made about the article.

Concealed Carry
  • 2a98e152444f163d95301322a0be95b8
    Charles Nichols says:
    August 25, 2011 at 2:02 am
    And yet the NRA CCW lawsuit in California (Peruta v San Diego) tells the court of appeals that California’s ban on Loaded Open Carry is not unconstitutional if the court makes CCWs “shall issue.” The NRA lawyer goes on to warn that court that failing to do so would result in the ban being overturned as well as the “drastic” consequence of invalidating Gun Free School Zones as well.
    Regardless of what it tells its membership, what the NRA lawyers say in court is what counts. The NRA opposes Open Carry. The NRA supports Gun Free School Zones.
    http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Peruta-Opening-Brief.pdf
    FYI, the NRA lawyer also filed a brief in another California gun case saying that gun free school zones are constitutional.
    Also, the NRA opposes a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit to overturn California’s ban on Loaded Open Carry. The only reason they are seeking an injunction against Illinois’ ban is to pressure the legislature into enacting a CCW law. Once they have that, it will be the last you will ever hear about Open Carry from the NRA.
    Memo to NRA – STOP HELPING US!

Click to expand...
I would not confuse a legal position in a court with a policy stance of the group.

The statement of "one or the other" is accurate. In the same light, if it were the other way around where it was a CCW ban and a "may issue OC permit" situation, the reverse statement would apply, as "The CC ban is unconstitutional, unless OC becomes 'shall issue.'"


In other words, many people formulate their view of the NRA, then find snippets that they feel support that view, and refuse to process those snippets that they feel do NOT support that view.


See: Confirmation Bias
 
Last edited:
Tony4310

Tony4310

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
474
Location
Florissant, MO
For once we are in complete agreement!

eye95 said:
The NRA has traditionally NOT supported OC. They have consistently refused to correct their misrepresentations of AL law in this regard. It is nice to see them coming around. However, until they make it absolutely clear that they support the right to carry openly--and correct all of their positions and information accordingly--I cannot support them.
Click to expand...
 
OldCurlyWolf

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
eye95 said:
The NRA has traditionally NOT supported OC. They have consistently refused to correct their misrepresentations of AL law in this regard. It is nice to see them coming around. However, until they make it absolutely clear that they support the right to carry openly--and correct all of their positions and information accordingly--I cannot support them.
Click to expand...


Eye, as I construe their position, they are not supporting OC where it does not exist, neither are they opposing it. They are supporting it where it already exists and some one is attacking it. They are not supporting it where it exists and is not under attack, sometimes. Rather inconsistent, aren't they?

:mad::banghead:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top