1. I do not live in the same fantasy world as you seem to, as I am fully aware of what I and others have said and no one has said anything like what you are spouting.
People were saying that HB1369 was the bill to support since it was going to committee, which made it more likely to succeed over SB680 (this was before SB680 went to committee). Hence why it felt like you and a few others were pushing HB1369 over SB680.
2. Please stop trying to tell me what SB680 says, I wrote it, I am completely aware of each and every letter involved in it, I spell checked it, I grammar checked it, I ran it by an English teacher just to be extra sure I would not look like a moron, and then I presented it to the group and then it was forwarded to the Senator who introduced it for us.
I wasn't trying to "school" you on Sb680. I was simply trying to understand why if you and a few others were commenting on HB1369 as the bill that was a step in the right direction for us to get Constitutional Carry, why those words were not attributed with SB680? Perhaps it was far too obvious to have a need to say out loud, granted, but why not when I am being told that my questions and concerns over HB1369 was harmful. If you stating that HB1369 was a step down the road for getting Constitutional Carry (which I still don't see anything other than opinions in that regard) surely SB680 is more like a 50 meter dash. That was simply the point I was trying to convey.
3. I am not saying anything about any of the bills, I was, but then a few folks had to begin running their mouths at a rate faster than I could correct their errors. You are without any doubt one of those people, but you are not alone either.
You are correct, I have many concerns on HB1369, both with the wording of the bill and the way it is being presented. My concerns have not yet been alieviated, which is why I am still asking questions about HB1369 from the people who are telling me that they know more about this sort of stuff than I ever will. Answers go a long way in silencing me, even if they are simply "We hope." or "It is merely our opinion."
Nothing has changed, no magic wands were waved. SB680 remains a great bill and HB1369 still does not suck. Here is a thought for the day, there are other firearms bills entered this year, most of them do not suck either, but a couple actually do suck, learn to figure out the difference.
In my opinion, I feel that I have. In my opinion, HB1369 does suck more than it doesn't. I can go over my concerns and thoughts on why if you wish (but I've been told already that my concerns are a possibility, which is why they stay concerns).
In fact, so we can clear out any misunderstandings, here are my thoughts on all the bills (and in case you don't think i don't know how bills work:
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/info/habbl.pdf )
HB 1045: applies only to Conceal Carry, but is a good one since it only applies to new permits or expired permits, not preexistings one or ones renewed without having been expired.
HB 1319: applies only to Conceal Carry, but is a good one since it lowers the age requirements.
HB 1369: applies only to Conceal Carry, allows OC anywhere if you have a CCL. I do not think it is good simply because police have the right to confirm that you have a CCL in order to carry your firearm concealed (doesn't happen when walking down the street, but if they stop you for any reason, you have to tell them that you are carrying and provide proof of said CCL). Perhaps not a worry with good cops who know the law, but for those that do not know the law, it could make it harder for people to OC if they do not have a CCL (also could make it more appealing to local governments to ban OC without a CCL). For these reasons, I have to say that it is a bad law due to the vagaries that is brings into question.
HB 1482: good bill, allows non-violent felons to possess rifles and shotguns.
HB 1483: only for Conceal Carry, but is a good one since it allows those with a CCL to carry concealed onto trains and buses (this would actually give me a reason to aquire a CCL if I ever had a reason to use suck modes of transportation).
HB 1589: GREAT OC BILL (Repeals authority for political subdivisions to regulate open carrying of firearms) plus it makes it where if a local government prohibits discharges, they cannot prohibit discharges done in self defense. We should support this bill.
HB 1618: Pretty much the same as HB 1589. I.E. Great bill and we should support it.
HB 1621: Good bill (could be better). Makes it where employeers cannot discriminate against those who carry firearms for a legal purpose or a CCL. Doesn't make it where employeers have to allow the carrying though.
HB 1683: Great Bill! Makes it where 911 operators have to know about the Castle Doctrine and defense of others and inform those on the the phone about their rights to defend themselves, others, and property with deadly force. We should support this bill.
HB 1686: Actually, this is a great bill. Looks like it gives a number of reasons why discharges in a municipality would not be unlawful (for defense, for hunting, if a mile away from any other structure, if using blanks, ect.)
HJR 49: Looks good to me, adds the following to Section 23 of the State Constitution: The right of every citizen to possess, purchase, reload, or manufacture ammunition and to possess, purchase, or manufacture mechanical parts or other articles essential to the proper functioning of arms shall not be infringed or the amounts limited. Needs our support.
SB 489: Good bill for those who conceal carry and for those who want illegal firearms because this bill allows said illegal firearms if they are treated as curios, ornaments, or keepsakes and grandfathers all CCL's that were before HB 294.
SB 637: applies only to Conceal Carry, grandfathers in old CCL's from before HB 294 from 2011. Good bill.
SB 680: This is the bill OCers should all want, OC premption!
I await your thoughts on the all the above current bills.
I doubt it will register with you, in your effort to champion a bill, you picked mine. I would think that the manner in which you approached it resulting in folks not even being willing to talk about it would register with you as a problem, it should have sir, it should have.
I wasn't purposefully trying to see who wrote what bill so that I could play some sort of forum member karma game or whatever. I am not that childish. I simply am trying to champion the bill that strengthens the 2nd Amendment for us all (last I checked, I thought we were all in agreement that we should not have to be required to have a permit in order to exercise the 2nd Amendment).
