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.
