Missouri we have a pre-emtion Bill

OC for ME said:

SB680 is the goal....hold your nose if not SB680?

Click to expand...

I won't hold my nose at all.

IMHO 680 is a grand goal, the other is a step. I don't like steps, but sometimes you have to take them in order to reach the goal.

again IMHO, both bills are a step in regaining our rights, both bills should be supported.

There are reasons to like or dislike either, I like them both and see the difference only as if you get 680 you do not need the house bill at all, if you get the house bill, you are one step closer than you are right now to getting 680.

I will not stop until we have 680 or I get too old and worn out, but I will not forgo any steps on the way to that if they apear to me on the path to regaining what was taken from us, our rights.

Cliff notes version: I support all reduction in governmental control of citizens rights.

My understanding of HOUSE BILL NO. 1369 is that it simply allows for those who have a CCL open carry no matter what the local laws are in regards to OC. Which is great for those who have CCL's, but for myself and my wife, we OC because we disagree with CCL as well as the consts involved in getting a CCL. So for me, I am not friendly towards HB1369 because it is NOT pre-emption.

Verd said:

My understanding of HOUSE BILL NO. 1369 is that it simply allows for those who have a CCL open carry no matter what the local laws are in regards to OC. Which is great for those who have CCL's, but for myself and my wife, we OC because we disagree with CCL as well as the consts involved in getting a CCL. So for me, I am not friendly towards HB1369 because it is NOT pre-emption.

Click to expand...

Hi Verd,

what you have to remember is that most of the public has been brainwashed into being over sensitive about firearms. The only way to counteract this is through neutral or positive experiences with responsible firearms owners. If hb 1369 work to pass. There would be ccw holders like myself who would wear a firearm OC to show that they take responsibility for their own safety as well as a support for the second amendment. With that the firearm becomes more accepted by the general public. In turn we would be getting much closer to a bill passing that would get back un-infringed open carry rights for all citizens in Missouri.

Doc

Verd said:

My understanding of HOUSE BILL NO. 1369 is that it simply allows for those who have a CCL open carry no matter what the local laws are in regards to OC. Which is great for those who have CCL's, but for myself and my wife, we OC because we disagree with CCL as well as the consts involved in getting a CCL. So for me, I am not friendly towards HB1369 because it is NOT pre-emption.

Click to expand...

pre-emption/Constitutional Carry is the goal, however it may have to be achieved in steps...
The objection (As I see it) is pre-emption and constitutional carry "require no training", that may be a problem to over come, especially since some idiots saw it necessary to increase the training for CCW permits.

Step by step things get better. No one said this would be painless.

OC is legal in Missouri per our constitution for any law abiding adult citizen, HB1369, in my view, converts OC to a privilege granted by the state to only those citizens who have been granted permission to carry concealed under 571.101.

There is no mention of respecting the right to bear arms for citizens who have not been issued a permit due to age or inclination.

There is no explicit mention of OOS permits.

It does not rescind the regulation of OC by cities and towns. You can still get tossed in the clink for OC in Maplewood if you do not have a permit.

It may enable more cities and towns to justify the enactment of OC restrictions.

SB680 reverts Missouri back to the intent of the state constitution where the carry of firearms is concerned. The state can, under the constitution, regulate CCW, the state and political subdivision can not regulate OC under the constitution.

I get the 'baby steps' thing. But the language of HB1369, in my view, may permit LE to interpret what was meant by the legislature if HB 1369 is signed into law as currently written.

So, based on my views, HB1369 is a hold your nose bill if it appears that SB680 will not be backed.

HB1369 may be a vessel for some of our elected officials to bolster their 2A cred, while claiming that they support 'reasonable restrictions' on the 2A to the anti-2A crowd.

mspgunner said:

pre-emption/Constitutional Carry is the goal, however it may have to be achieved in steps...
The objection (As I see it) is pre-emption and constitutional carry "require no training", that may be a problem to over come, especially since some idiots saw it necessary to increase the training for CCW permits.

Step by step things get better. No one said this would be painless.

Click to expand...

There is currently no training requirement for the state as a whole to OC.

Only those political subdivisions that allow OC with a CCW permit would meet your implied objection to OC mainly due to a citizens not being trained.

It logically follows then that where OC is not banned, just about the whole state, firearms training is not a issue for those cities and towns.

Now that you have mentioned it, some politician may pick-up on this line of reasoning and use it to his advantage to get HB1369 passed and not SB680.

We need to get as many of us as possible to Gun Day in Jeff city. I plan on attending and the wife might go too.

OC for ME said:

OC is legal in Missouri per our constitution for any law abiding adult citizen, HB1369, in my view, converts OC to a privilege granted by the state to only those citizens who have been granted permission to carry concealed under 571.101.

Click to expand...

This actually brings up a good question: If/when HB1369 passes, what happens to the places that ALREADY allow OC? For example, could Verd (and others like him, without CCW permits) still OC in the areas that allowed OC before the bill passed?

If OC is not banned, via 21.750.3, then OC is 'legal' in all of Missouri.

HB1369 uses a CCW endorsement as a vessel to gain the semblance of 'preemption'. What HB1369 does not do is 'un-ban' OC, your CCW endorsement is a defense against unlawful use of a weapon where 21.750.3 is used to ban OC. Just as your CCW endorsement is a defense against a concealed carry weapons violation.

CCW is not legal in Missouri, you have a defense via a permit. HB1369 will add another defense for OC where OC is banned. HB1369 will do nothing where 21.750.3 is not used to ban OC....OC is, as always, legal for adults 18 and older in that jurisdiction. This is how most of Missouri is currently, OC is not made illegal via 21.750.3.

Any city and town can ban OC right now via 21.750.3 if they so choose, HB1369 does not change this. If that happens then a CCW endorsement will be required to OC anywhere/everywhere in Missouri. The odds of that happening are worse than hitting the PowerBall.....today.

If HB1369 is signed into law....?

SB680 is preemption, striking the language in 21.750.3 that permits any OC bans. A defense against a unlawful use of weapon (OC) charge is not even in play.

Look at this way. If OC is legal....not banned....can a LEO walk up to you and lawfully demand your ID just because you are OCing?

Of course not. This is how it is now in Missouri.

If you are in a OC is legal with a permit jurisdiction, LE has the authority to 'request' your permit/ID. HB1369 will not change this. Those LEAs will likely not change their policies if HB1369 becomes law. Because their LEOs are already trained to not arbitrarily stop OCers, they need more reason.

Wentzville is a good example, their LEOs are trained properly and follow the law. They do not harass a citizen unless that citizen deserves harassing by violating the law.

Bunch of good folks Wentzville has running that department and working the streets.

If HB1369 becomes law, then LE will have the authority to check your ID in jurisdictions that ban OC via 21.750.3.

gunner.....Do you really think Governor Nixon will sign this bill....I don't think just because its election yr he will sign...

If preemption/constitutional carry is the goal, then why all the fuss over HB1369? SB680 is written to reach the preemption goal.

Because a journey of many miles starts with a single step. We all have Constitutional Carry as the final goal, but we lost it incrementally and we'll get it back the same way. Like I said, I much prefer the Senate bill. And I will continue to push my reps on it. But, if it's decided that it will not pass, or Gov Nixon will not sign, then I much prefer the uniformity and crystal clarity of the OC with CCW endorsement everywhere to the current state of being arrested for walking on the wrong side of the street.

Then, in 5 years or so, after this law passing proved to be a non event, we can start on OC without a permit. When that proves to be a non event, we work on Constitutional Carry.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

kcgunfan said:

Because a journey of many miles starts with a single step. We all have Constitutional Carry as the final goal, but we lost it incrementally and we'll get it back the same way. Like I said, I much prefer the Senate bill. And I will continue to push my reps on it. But, if it's decided that it will not pass, or Gov Nixon will not sign, then I much prefer the uniformity and crystal clarity of the OC with CCW endorsement everywhere to the current state of being arrested for walking on the wrong side of the street.

Then, in 5 years or so, after this law passing proved to be a non event, we can start on OC without a permit. When that proves to be a non event, we work on Constitutional Carry.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Really? Did you actually read what you typed?

"....OC with CCW endorsement everywhere...." This is not the case now, nor is it required now. It is only the case where we do not have preemption to prevent OC bans under 21.750.3.

"....we can start on OC without a permit." We have this now, except for 21.750.3 OC bans.

"....When that proves to be a non event, we work on Constitutional Carry." Five more years of requiring a permit to OC where 21.750.3 is used, great.

HB1369 does not apply where 21.750.3 is not used. Yet 21.750.3 remains....to be used.

Why don't we just advocate for 21.750.3 OC bans to be enacted in every city and town, so that HB1369 can be applied to every political subdivision in the entire state?

OC is already a non-event, non-issue, because the majority of the state is OC not illegal already. The vast majority of folks in Missouri don't carry one way or the other now, and going to constitutional carry even, will likely not change this statistic.

Why ignore the facts from many many years of OCers lawfully and uneventfully going about their business, outside the 'big metro areas', even in the big metro areas with the patchwork that is STL and KC. These simple country folk not shooting-up their little piss-ant towns like back in the wild west towns on a Friday night has not happened, and everyone knows it has not happened, and most everyone know it will not happen.

Just postulating the need to let the dust settle where no dust was 'kicked up' is ridiculous.

HB1369 will disenfranchise some adults from exercising their right to self-defense because they do not meet the age requirement in 571.101. And 21.750.3 prevents them from exercising their right. But hey, there aren't that many of them, so no big deal.

SB680 skips this 'single step' and takes us only one step away from constitutional carry. Would you rather wait five or so years to start the constitutional carry legislation discussions on OCDO? I would.

I am a political realist. If SB680 goes nowhere for whatever reason, HB1369 is better than nothing, but just barely. It is obvious that somebody thinks that preemption is the right thing to do right now.

OC for ME said:

Would you rather wait five or so years to start the constitutional carry legislation discussions on OCDO? I would.

I am a political realist. If SB680 goes nowhere for whatever reason, HB1369 is better than nothing, but just barely. It is obvious that somebody thinks that preemption is the right thing to do right now.

Click to expand...

I in ways agree with your thoughts and offer it was much of the internal debate I have had over the issue, now I will explain why I have a different opinion than you and no, it does not mean you are wrong, nor does it mean you are right either.

I do not want to wait five years. I have been involved from the outside throwing money in to the gun rights efforts for about ten years now and I have watched what happens very closely. Every year the same desires are mentioned from the masses. Each time it is the same, NOTHING happens, the bill if even put forward just sits. In the past three or four years I have been more and more displeased with the total lack of information and movement of anything relating to OC. When questioned about it the tone has been condescending and elitist from more than a few and it is VERY clear that they have no intention what so ever in pushing for it at any level. Any and all bills previously entered were nothing but glad handing.

Now while you may feel differently, self fulfilling prophecies are indeed a reality and if you do not believe it will pass for five years, then you will not put forward effort to make that happen for five years. Those elitist types say similar things and watching the movement gain so very little, I simply cannot see it for anything less than what it is and it has even come from the words of those who lead such efforts. When the leader publicly announces that they have accomplished everything they set out for and will go into maintenance mode, it does not sit well with me, we are not at the balance point yet.

I am too old to idle along for five years and HOPE it gets done simply because those who lobbied in the past refuse to lobby further. I want it NOW and I am going to push for it NOW and perhaps you are right, but if you are sir, the only thing I can promise you is that each of those years the politicians are going to be hearing from many of us that we want it NOW. If I did not believe that it was POSSIBLE in any of those years, I would not be putting money into them, nor would any of the others doing the same.

We already have the elitist coming here and complaining about our efforts and to that I say buzz off. In the past there have been feuds over groups taking credit for XYZ passing etc. We are already being feuded with for TRYING lol and we do not seek credit. We just want change and we are going to push for it and push hard.

You are correct, 1369 is better than nothing, and yes barely. I am going to push and support it too because I have had YEARS of nothing and last year was a good and bad year. If we get 1369 it will be a good year, if we get 680 sir, it will be a GREAT year.

My ONLY real fear about 1369 is the “I got what I needed” quit factor where only those with permission can move about as they see fit with firearms as neither of our constitutions regulating this state government indicate that is how it should be at all.

I hope you will change your position and support 1369 every bit as much as I hope you will 680, I know I will be supporting both and I know the group of folks working together as a team speak in support of both, 1369 is a step and yes it is a wobbly step, but damn, it is a step that is a long time coming.

Note: these are my opinions, I speak of the group only in that a group of folks talk a lot, spend a lot of time trying to get OC alone for the state of MO, we pushed to get 680 sponsored, we got it entered, we want it all the way and while we did not submit 1369, no one has spoken ill of it in the discussions. Everyone in the “group” is a free man and his or her opinion may differ from mine.

The key remains, we did ultimately nothing, shoved the ball off the truck, it will take every single OC’er in the state helping to push that ball up the hill and get it passed and every single person who pushes it gets the credit.

Support HB1369? Who would not?

The point, my point, is that the discussion of SB680 seems to be fading, rapidly, by direction, as an unattainable goal right here on OCDO even before we get the lay of the land regarding both bills.

With statements like:

YES I asked (before the bill went public) that talk of pre-emption be left off this forum (PMs, a lot of them!). - mspgunner 01-24-2012, 09:15 PM

Click to expand...

It seems to me, reading the initial sentiments here on OCDO, that the die has been cast for one bill over the other. Now, mspgunner could mean that SB680 discussions should not be intermingled with HB1369 discussions. Fine, not sure I get the logic, but if that is the 'rule' then I'll bite and see how it works out.

As to my 'five year' comment, read it again, I'd rather wait five more years or so for a constitutional carry discussion here on OCDO and in Jeff City. Some would be comfortable to wait five more years or so to just discuss preemption. Then it can be logically concluded that constitutional carry is on the same timeline after we get preemption. But why work towards preemption if HB1369 becomes the law of the land?

My post, #54, needs to be considered in total and not just piecemeal. A brief synopsis: HB1369 does nothing beyond 21.750.3 bans where they exist. Those cities and towns that have OC is legal with a CCW permit also are not affected by HB1369. So, realistically, the impact state wide if HB1369 is signed into law is negligible.

The upside is that any future 21.750.3 votes will not occur. Then again, if they have not occurred by now it is unlikely that they will occur outside the STL and KC metro areas. Even then, 21.750.3 has been around a long time and only a handful of cities have used it.

Even in 'rural' parts of the state 21.750.3 has not been used. LE has used/misused other statutes to harass OCers.

SB680 is the next and final step towards constitutional carry. HB1369 is just putting on your shoes.

....breath in.....breath out....breath in....breath out....OK, I'm better now.

sohighlyunlikely said:

Hi Verd,

what you have to remember is that most of the public has been brainwashed into being over sensitive about firearms. The only way to counteract this is through neutral or positive experiences with responsible firearms owners. If hb 1369 work to pass. There would be ccw holders like myself who would wear a firearm OC to show that they take responsibility for their own safety as well as a support for the second amendment. With that the firearm becomes more accepted by the general public. In turn we would be getting much closer to a bill passing that would get back un-infringed open carry rights for all citizens in Missouri.

Doc

Click to expand...

Where do you live that you cannot OC already, without a CCW? 95% of Missouri allows OC legally as it stands. So why would anyone wait and support a law like this that only helps those who have paid to gain a privledge that should be a right.

mspgunner said:

pre-emption/Constitutional Carry is the goal, however it may have to be achieved in steps...
The objection (As I see it) is pre-emption and constitutional carry "require no training", that may be a problem to over come, especially since some idiots saw it necessary to increase the training for CCW permits.

Step by step things get better. No one said this would be painless.

Click to expand...

The problem with this bill is that it clearly gives local governments an incentive to outlaw OC since you can still OC if you have a CCW, which means more money to the district in order to force those who wish to OC to get a CCW. To me, this bill makes me fear that we will become like Arkansas, except the state will be saying OC is legal while every local government will be saying no it isnt.

OC for ME said:

Look at this way. If OC is legal....not banned....can a LEO walk up to you and lawfully demand your ID just because you are OCing?

Of course not. This is how it is now in Missouri.

If you are in a OC is legal with a permit jurisdiction, LE has the authority to 'request' your permit/ID. HB1369 will not change this. Those LEAs will likely not change their policies if HB1369 becomes law. Because their LEOs are already trained to not arbitrarily stop OCers, they need more reason.

Wentzville is a good example, their LEOs are trained properly and follow the law. They do not harass a citizen unless that citizen deserves harassing by violating the law.

Bunch of good folks Wentzville has running that department and working the streets.

If HB1369 becomes law, then LE will have the authority to check your ID in jurisdictions that ban OC via 21.750.3.

Click to expand...

That is another fear, iHB1369 will give an excuse for cops to detain and ID anyone that is OC since if the bill basses and you can OC if you have a CCW, it is reasonable to assume everyone who is OC-ing should have a CCW. It will only make the interactions between cops and citizens even more murky and could instigate more local governments banning OC without a CCW.