Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: OC Bill (HB1369) progress

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    OC Bill (HB1369) progress

    HB 1369 has been assigned to a committee "General Laws". Many of the House members on this committee are pro-2A.
    More infromation soon.

    Missouri House of Representatives
    96th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
    General Laws


    Committee
    Franz, Ward, Chair
    Richardson, Todd, Vice Chair
    Colona, Mike
    Cross, Gary L.
    Day, David
    Funderburk, Doug
    Houghton, Jay
    McCaherty, John
    McCreery, Tracy
    McDonald, Tom
    Parkinson, Mark
    Pollock, Darrell
    Scharnhorst, Dwight
    Schupp, Jill
    Swearingen, Jay
    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

  2. #2
    Regular Member sohighlyunlikely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Overland, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    724

    Next step

    Bravo, So what exactly does the committee do? How does it get to a vote by the rest of the house members?

    Doc

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    HB 1369 has been assigned to a committee "General Laws". Many of the House members on this committee are pro-2A.
    More infromation soon.
    Well take a look folks, an OC bill that is actually moving!

    No, it ain't 680 and no, it ain't constitutional carry, but it IS progress.

    Time to start thanking our reps for their support and stand behind BOTH bills!

    I want 680 so bad I can taste it, but as we have seen before, OC bills have always died noiseless deaths including previous ones like this for OC with a CCW. I am going to shoot off notes tomorrow, hell I want to see them BOTH PASS lol, I want it heard across the state that we are here and law abiding citizens want their rights back!

    Letters, phone calls, and thank you notes are what is going to get it done and every person writing them is the reason this is happening!
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Well take a look folks, an OC bill that is actually moving!

    No, it ain't 680 and no, it ain't constitutional carry, but it IS progress.

    Time to start thanking our reps for their support and stand behind BOTH bills!

    I want 680 so bad I can taste it, but as we have seen before, OC bills have always died noiseless deaths including previous ones like this for OC with a CCW. I am going to shoot off notes tomorrow, hell I want to see them BOTH PASS lol, I want it heard across the state that we are here and law abiding citizens want their rights back!

    Letters, phone calls, and thank you notes are what is going to get it done and every person writing them is the reason this is happening!
    Same here, I can taste 680 I want it so badly.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Support both, but support SB680 first and foremost. HB1369 is a 'hold your nose' bill in my view. A back-up plan, a 'well it's better than nothing' bill.

    My views on HB1369 and SB680

    If HB1369 gets the nod and then Nixon's signature it is unlikely we will see preemption let alone constitutional carry in our kid's life times.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Imperial, Missouri.
    Posts
    105
    Just curious, how long does it take for action to follow on these bills? I just can’t imagine Governor Nixon signing this. Hopefully I'm WRONG. This is election yr and strange things can happen....FINGERS CROSSED

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Perusing the three threads on this topic, it seems that SB680 will be/is being left behind.

    HB1369 seems to be the anointed legislation.

    Folks giving lip service to SB680. SB680 better, HB1369 good, but we won't discuss SB680 because it talks about the 'P' word. So, by default, HB1369 is the better legislation.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Perusing the three threads on this topic, it seems that SB680 will be/is being left behind.

    HB1369 seems to be the anointed legislation.
    .
    Thats because you keep trying to make 1369 into something it never was and are pretending there is some kind of agenda.

    Perhaps there is, are you here from another group just trying to trash the folks who brought sb680 to the floor of the senate? Seems like a good stratigy if your goal is to retain control of the gun legislation in MO. When a new group starts up and gets active, fire off a far less popular legislation and then be critical of the group for supporting it.

    Sounds a lot like MO politics to me and it souds like a lot of gun group history as well.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  9. #9
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by sohighlyunlikely View Post
    Bravo, So what exactly does the committee do? How does it get to a vote by the rest of the house members?

    Doc
    The "Committee" wil lhold a public hearing. Those for a bill speak first, those against speak next. There is no rebutal!
    The committee will then vote to "pass" or "do not pass", then it goes back to the House for debate and vote ""yes" or "no".
    If "NO", it's dead, if "yes" it goes to the senate for basically the same proceedure.
    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

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    LMTD,

    Wrong, I am no agent provocateur. I am the same OC For ME that frequented the MoCarry site until I got a good dose of CCW is the end all and be all from a senior member.

    HB1369 is what it is and it seems to be gaining some ground here on OCDO as the acceptable alternative even before anyone knows which way the wind is blowing for either bill. This is understandable given what little some of us know other than what has been posted here. But, the focus must be on 'our' bill, SB680 and not HB1369.

    If my bad mouthing HB1369 upsets some folks, tough, that bill is not preemption and will have little real impact in Missouri in my view (I've explained this elsewhere). Make no mistake, I'll take it if that is all we get.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    LMTD,

    Wrong, I am no agent provocateur. I am the same OC For ME that frequented the MoCarry site until I got a good dose of CCW is the end all and be all from a senior member.

    HB1369 is what it is and it seems to be gaining some ground here on OCDO as the acceptable alternative even before anyone knows which way the wind is blowing for either bill. This is understandable given what little some of us know other than what has been posted here. But, the focus must be on 'our' bill, SB680 and not HB1369.

    If my bad mouthing HB1369 upsets some folks, tough, that bill is not preemption and will have little real impact in Missouri in my view (I've explained this elsewhere). Make no mistake, I'll take it if that is all we get.
    Ok, you are "Happy' with the status quo or we get pre-emption or constutionall carry? Sorry we are not in wonderland, we are in Missouri.
    It took 6 years to get CCW. Some of us don't want to slug it out for 6 years and some of us have worked and are still working vary hard every day to get what progress we can on OC.
    So far we have nothing different, we are stilll working till the fat lady sings.

    You can post anything here you like, want to make a"real" difference? Learn how to play with the big boys, the ones who have the 'POWER". It takes a bit of commitment to make things shake in Jeff City, not just posts on a web site!
    I'm not here to tell you how!
    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

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...52#post1690252

    Your ire is noted and condescension is noted.

    I'll do what little I can to help the cause until the fat lady sings.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Support both, but support SB680 first and foremost. HB1369 is a 'hold your nose' bill in my view. A back-up plan, a 'well it's better than nothing' bill.
    I don't get how HB1369 is a backup plan. How does it do anything except benefit those with a CCW? From my vantage point, it can only hurt those who OC (without a CCW).
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Verd View Post
    I don't get how HB1369 is a backup plan. How does it do anything except benefit those with a CCW? From my vantage point, it can only hurt those who OC (without a CCW).
    It doesn't necessarily benefit anyone without a CCW, but it doesn't hurt them. It doesn't say, you can ONLY open carry if you have a CCW. I'd actually like to see both pass. Sure, we can take away those few words that allow cities to ban open carry, but will that have any effect? It won't make the laws on the books in those cities magically disappear. Don't believe it? There are still lots of cities who's ordinance say carrying a concealed weapon illegal (nothing about a CCW permit). Yeah, most cops know those laws are obsolete, but only because CCW was such a huge issue in this state and they have had a lot of direction/training about it. Would it be the same with open carry? I doubt it.

    At least with 1369, it gives some people (CCW holders) something to hold in hand to give the cops when they decide to stop us.

  15. #15
    Regular Member RPGamingGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by lancers View Post
    It doesn't necessarily benefit anyone without a CCW, but it doesn't hurt them. It doesn't say, you can ONLY open carry if you have a CCW.
    I disagree; i think it has a huge potential to hurt people that are open-carrying without a CCW. It gives communities that otherwise would allow open carry without a permit a convenient excuse to say "If the people want it bad enough, they'll pay up and get licensed." And why wouldn't the state and counties encourage the extra revenue?

    Rights are rarely taken away blatantly in this country. It's usually something that looks harmless, or a nice "backup plan" to what the people really want. Remember poll taxes? It was a fee required to exercise a citizen's right to vote. CCW permits are the same thing. It's payment for something that should be a right, but many of us happily accept it, because it's better than being denied the right to carry altogether. Well guess what? For the poor, it's a denial of our 2nd Amendment right. Not all of us can afford to have one. And when some of us are denied, then it's no longer a right. It's a violation of the Constitution as it was intended.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGamingGirl View Post
    I disagree; i think it has a huge potential to hurt people that are open-carrying without a CCW. It gives communities that otherwise would allow open carry without a permit a convenient excuse to say "If the people want it bad enough, they'll pay up and get licensed." And why wouldn't the state and counties encourage the extra revenue?

    Rights are rarely taken away blatantly in this country. It's usually something that looks harmless, or a nice "backup plan" to what the people really want. Remember poll taxes? It was a fee required to exercise a citizen's right to vote. CCW permits are the same thing. It's payment for something that should be a right, but many of us happily accept it, because it's better than being denied the right to carry altogether. Well guess what? For the poor, it's a denial of our 2nd Amendment right. Not all of us can afford to have one. And when some of us are denied, then it's no longer a right. It's a violation of the Constitution as it was intended.
    1. HB1369 is NOT a back up plan, it is not now, it never was, the bills are not related other than both being OC, the conspiracy is dead. The group that forwarded 680 had nothing to do with or any knowledge of 1369 until it was entered onto the house webspace. It would be appreciated if everyone would quit propagating such false information.

    2. There is no "additional revenue" for CCW so to speak. The counties are required by law to charge only their real cost to process and are limited to the maximum. It is similar for ID cards, none of it is an economic boon and the only ones making any "profit" would be private CCW instructors contracting to certify folks.

    3. Poll taxes were by design to prevent minorities from voting. While not as true today, back in the poll tax days, black people were indeed poor as it was actually legal not to offer them a job based on color and a lot of white owned companies made that choice. Poll taxes were not really targeting the poor in so much as they were targeting black people. Gun laws in their root share that same issue. The CCW law does not have that issue and by design is a SHALL issue specifically to prevent "protected classes" and beyond having to apply in person, one would not know the race of an applicant.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  17. #17
    Regular Member RPGamingGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    1. HB1369 is NOT a back up plan, it is not now, it never was, the bills are not related other than both being OC, the conspiracy is dead. The group that forwarded 680 had nothing to do with or any knowledge of 1369 until it was entered onto the house webspace. It would be appreciated if everyone would quit propagating such false information.
    A LOT of people who wouldn't otherwise support this are because they think it IS a good backup plan. By their own words. Just because that isn't the intention doesn't mean that's not how it's being received.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    2. There is no "additional revenue" for CCW so to speak. The counties are required by law to charge only their real cost to process and are limited to the maximum. It is similar for ID cards, none of it is an economic boon and the only ones making any "profit" would be private CCW instructors contracting to certify folks.
    It's my understanding that there are several optional fees in the filing process, but as i don't have one, i can't list examples from experience. However, even if the profits are limited to instructors, that's still tax revenue by virtue of keeping the people in business. You can't say there's no money being made at all. How else would independent license offices function?

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    3. Poll taxes were by design to prevent minorities from voting. While not as true today, back in the poll tax days, black people were indeed poor as it was actually legal not to offer them a job based on color and a lot of white owned companies made that choice. Poll taxes were not really targeting the poor in so much as they were targeting black people. Gun laws in their root share that same issue. The CCW law does not have that issue and by design is a SHALL issue specifically to prevent "protected classes" and beyond having to apply in person, one would not know the race of an applicant.
    I know the history, and it's not just about race (though that may have been where it started), it IS about class. But beyond that, i'll just have to agree to disagree with you. There are more costs involved than just the CCW class and the physical card.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGamingGirl View Post
    1....A LOT of people who wouldn't otherwise support this are because they think it IS a good backup plan. By their own words. Just because that isn't the intention doesn't mean that's not how it's being received.



    2.....It's my understanding that there are several optional fees in the filing process, but as i don't have one, i can't list examples from experience. However, even if the profits are limited to instructors, that's still tax revenue by virtue of keeping the people in business. You can't say there's no money being made at all. How else would independent license offices function?



    3....I know the history, and it's not just about race (though that may have been where it started), it IS about class. But beyond that, i'll just have to agree to disagree with you. There are more costs involved than just the CCW class and the physical card.
    Numbers added for clarification only.

    1. How anything is received remains the responsibility of the receptor and while it may be received wrong, that does not indicate a need to continue propagating false information, by doing so one is assisting in generating a false goal. Since there remains a lot of confusion surrounding it, here is exactly what was forwarded to the Senate, I am leaving out only the part that is indeed the text of the bill as that is exactly what the rest of the word document contains.

    "This bill eliminates geographic regulation of firearms within the state and brings all areas of the state into uniform compliance. It eliminates the confusion surrounding changing regulations as citizens and visitors travel across our state through various municipalities, many without published or updated ordinances regulating firearms. By bringing uniformity to the firearms laws, what is unrestricted on one side of the street remains unrestricted on the other side of the street. This uniformity also eliminates the confusion that can be caused by regulations changing not only by geographic boundaries but timing of changes as well, what was unregulated last week remains unregulated the next unless voted upon by the state legislature.

    This bill prohibits political subdivisions from restricting the open carrying of firearms and requires all political subdivisions to incorporate the justifiable use of force defenses from Chapter 563, RSMo, into any local ordinance regarding weapon offenses or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction."

    No other bills were discussed, no other bills were considered and that is EXACTLY what the folks working for OC in MO sent up, no back up plans, no alternate ideas, simple deletion of the part of 21.750 that allows restrictions and incorporation of castle law where they can restrict discharge.

    2. Your understanding of there being additional "several optional fees" is quite misguided, I would suggest you read the laws as it is quite clear and defined.

    3. I am not sure it is about class. In the most expensive of situations it would be about 300 bucks to get the CCW, it can be done for Much much less. I do not believe 300 is to create "class carry" but is to cover the actual cost involved in doing it. Someone has to pay for it and if you knew the history on it then you would know that the sheriff's tried to use the Handcock amendment to claim it was an unfunded mandate to try and stop it even after it passed. If you want to see free CCW in MO, by all means, but know before you start, there is HUGE resistance to it, all the way to MO supreme court. Your and my support for such a thing does not automatically lend itself to it happening.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  19. #19
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Interesting that the House Bill has gotten traction and the Senate Bill has sort of slid off the tracks. My preferred bill is SB680; however, I will take what I can get, since the ultimate prize is pre-emptive and the only way to it is around the block, I'll take HB1369.

    I do have a question and it may be very obvious and I'm just having a brain cramp; but how does HB1369 effect long guns, i.e. hunting, hiking etc?

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Interesting that the House Bill has gotten traction and the Senate Bill has sort of slid off the tracks. My preferred bill is SB680; however, I will take what I can get, since the ultimate prize is pre-emptive and the only way to it is around the block, I'll take HB1369.

    I do have a question and it may be very obvious and I'm just having a brain cramp; but how does HB1369 effect long guns, i.e. hunting, hiking etc?
    Well we are not on the same page as far as traction goes IMHO. Yes 1369 has moved in the house, but it has to get to the Senate and do the same before it will happen. The only good thing is it has moved early, now if it just does not stall, we might see something come of it.

    We need to see a sister to 680 in the house as well, same issues and while a lot of request have been made, it is not yet happening.

    Either need the other so to speak. More legislators have taken a pro view on 1369, but session is a long way from over and it is way early on either to know what all is yet to happen, that is why the oc'ers need to support BOTH IMHO.

    You will find absolutely no objection what so ever from me or any others if you or anyone else writes their house rep and asked them to enter a bill identical to SB680! Anyone who gets it done will indeed have my kudos and thanks, we REALLY want a joint bill on it, this year, next and however long it takes to get it through to restore the freedom of choice for firearms owners.

    Now onto your question about long arms, it has no real impact on them at all. Long arms may be openly carried in areas where legal as it is now and they may not be openly carried where it is illegal now. I suppose if 1369 were to pass, one could carry a long arm with a ccw but it would be an unpopular choice as most of the areas where it is restricted are fairly populated and it would not be a wise self defense choice. While it most certainly is a self defense choice, long arms are distance arms and are considered by the majority to be hunting related or target related firearms. Of the areas that restrict OC, you will likely find nearly if not all regulate the discharge as well so hunting in those areas is not allowed. Not that I personally agree, a straw poll of the general public would if shown a photo of a long gun pick "hunting" over "self defense" at a higher rate.

    The open carry of long guns for purposes other than hunting brings unwanted negative press and fuels the anti-establishment far more than I like to see them fueled. I would never tell a man or woman they COULDN'T but I have no problem voicing my opinion that they SHOULDN'T.
    John C. Eastman Associate Dean of Chapman University’s School of Law "the Second Amendment, like its sister amendments, does not confer a right but rather recognizes a natural right inherent in our humanity."

  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Don't get me wrong; I do support both, regardless. I have contacted my House Rep and Senator regarding these bills and have asked for their support. As of this moment, HB1369 is ahead of SB680. If SB680 gains footing, hopefully it can pass HB1369 and become law. I would prefer SB680.

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Interesting that the House Bill has gotten traction and the Senate Bill has sort of slid off the tracks. My preferred bill is SB680; however, I will take what I can get, since the ultimate prize is pre-emptive and the only way to it is around the block, I'll take HB1369.
    So, HB1369 is your backup plan, then?

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    1. HB1369 is NOT a back up plan, it is not now, it never was,
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    2. There is no "additional revenue" for CCW so to speak. The counties are required by law to charge only their real cost to process and are limited to the maximum. It is similar for ID cards, none of it is an economic boon and the only ones making any "profit" would be private CCW instructors contracting to certify folks.
    It costs $100 to the local sheriff to get a CCL. The cost for the fingerprinting and whatnot is only $15 of that. Where is the other $85 going except into the sheriff's/city's pockets (because from what I have heard and read, they don't do anything other than approving the CCL)? Then you pay $20 to the DoR/DMV for the card.). Then there is the purchase of ammo and additional ammo that is now required to get a CCL. There is gas, food, ect. The majority of people who get a CCL take the test in their county of residence. It is not much, but there is a bit of a reason to encourage CCL over non-permit OC.

    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    3. Poll taxes were by design to prevent minorities from voting. While not as true today, back in the poll tax days, black people were indeed poor as it was actually legal not to offer them a job based on color and a lot of white owned companies made that choice. Poll taxes were not really targeting the poor in so much as they were targeting black people. Gun laws in their root share that same issue. The CCW law does not have that issue and by design is a SHALL issue specifically to prevent "protected classes" and beyond having to apply in person, one would not know the race of an applicant.
    Sure, race was the first reasons but even MLK realized his error and the last few years of his life, the last few years that are never talked about on the tv programs and in schools, he spent talking out against class discrimination stating that class discrimination was the real problem.
    One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them. Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.
    If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
    Find businesses that are pro gun and those that aren't. Support Friend or Foe by using it!

  24. #24
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Don't get me wrong; I do support both, regardless. I have contacted my House Rep and Senator regarding these bills and have asked for their support. As of this moment, HB1369 is ahead of SB680. If SB680 gains footing, hopefully it can pass HB1369 and become law. I would prefer SB680.
    The big problem with SB680 is there is not record check, no training for pre-emption.
    YES I favor 608 as well but it may have little chance of passing in the house where they have a bill that requires the CCW permit (HB1369) which does require training, record check and proven ability to handle a firearm.
    A LEO cannot stop you on the street and ask for ID, there is no RAS!
    If OC with CCW is law the act of having a properly carried firearm is not RAS, although you may have to discuss this with the said LEO.

    As a well informed person on this subject explained to me "You cannot operate a motor vehicle (Have a drivers permit) without passing a test, you should not be carrying a firearm without training. A hunting permit now requires a hunter safety class and so it goes."
    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

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,269
    Currently, OC where not banned by 21.750.3 is legal everywhere in Missouri, and does not require a record check or training.

    571.037. Notwithstanding any other provision of state law or local ordinance any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement may openly carry firearms on or about his or her person.
    This language is vague.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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