OC Bill (HB1369) progress

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.

Redbaron007 said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, HB1369 is your backup plan, then?

LMTD said:

1. HB1369 is NOT a back up plan, it is not now, it never was,

Click to expand...

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LMTD said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Redbaron007 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Click to expand...

This language is vague.

I prefer 608, but if 1369 has the best chance of passing, i'll support the one that has the best chance of passing. Support both, but get behind which ever will have the best chances. This whole 608 ot nothing mentality needs to stop. That is what will hurt our chances. It won't be the anti's, but those in the OC community that refuse to give a little to get a little. You are our worst enemy. It's that simple!

Tony4310 said:

I prefer 608, but if 1369 has the best chance of passing, i'll support the one that has the best chance of passing. Support both, but get behind which ever will have the best chances. This whole 608 ot nothing mentality needs to stop. That is what will hurt our chances. It won't be the anti's, but those in the OC community that refuse to give a little to get a little. You are our worst enemy. It's that simple!

Click to expand...

Tony, I sent you an email. Lets me know what you think of it?

Verd said:

So, HB1369 is your backup plan, then?

Click to expand...

Nope. I'll take whichever one I can get.

OC for ME said:

Currently, OC where not banned by 21.750.3 is legal everywhere in Missouri, and does not require a record check or training.

This language is vague.

Click to expand...

Vague enough that I can see certain municipalities fail to interperet it the way its written.
Watch, this passes right, someone is detained for OC, Johnny Law says hey buddy theres a new law just passed. If you want to OC now you have to have a CCW, lemme see it. Oh you don't have one? Go ahead and turn around for me. You're under arrest.

Now you're going to jail....now you have to lawyer up big time. All because this law says what it says, regardless of the municipal laws. I can see it happening in my town for sure. Its all about how its interpereted, not what it actually means.

I believe its only a misdemeanor to CCW without a permit. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that please.

G30Mike said:

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that please.

Click to expand...

Your assessment of 1369 was wrong as well as your thoughts on carrying concealed without a permit.

Might want to read it entirely and seek the advice of a lawyer, but here is what I believe makes your thoughts dangerous to your freedoms in the future:


Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

<Snipped to penalty>

7. Unlawful use of weapons is a class D felony unless committed pursuant to subdivision (6), (7), or (8) of subsection 1 of this section, in which cases it is a class B misdemeanor, or subdivision (5) or (10) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded and a class D felony if the firearm is loaded, or subdivision (9) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class B felony, except that if the violation of subdivision (9) of subsection 1 of this section results in injury or death to another person, it is a class A felony.

LMTD said:

Your assessment of 1369 was wrong as well as your thoughts on carrying concealed without a permit.

Might want to read it entirely and seek the advice of a lawyer, but here is what I believe makes your thoughts dangerous to your freedoms in the future:


Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or

<Snipped to penalty>

7. Unlawful use of weapons is a class D felony unless committed pursuant to subdivision (6), (7), or (8) of subsection 1 of this section, in which cases it is a class B misdemeanor, or subdivision (5) or (10) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded and a class D felony if the firearm is loaded, or subdivision (9) of subsection 1 of this section, in which case it is a class B felony, except that if the violation of subdivision (9) of subsection 1 of this section results in injury or death to another person, it is a class A felony.

Click to expand...

Yeah I looked it up. Looks as though its a D felony IF CAUGHT carrying without a permit. I can't ever remember a time I was ever stopped and patted down by an officer besides a traffic stop.
A D felony can be plead down to a misdemeanor in court even with a public defender though.
I'm just saying I personally am not going to risk OC if 1369 gets the nod. Its not my interpretation that would cause me to get a trip to jail, its the leo's. I know what 1369 means, as I know what a lot of laws mean, but leo's do not. Just like when BCal was arrested for obstructing when in fact he was not obstructing. I may be able to beat the rap in court, but I don't have the monetary resources nor the desire to play street attorney with police. When the local Gestapo thinks they're right, then the local judge will as well.

G30Mike said:

Just like when BCal was arrested for obstructing when in fact he was not obstructing. I may be able to beat the rap in court, but I don't have the monetary resources nor the desire to play street attorney with police. When the local Gestapo thinks they're right, then the local judge will as well.

Click to expand...

Sir,

He got that charge in an OC legal location, I do not know if he has a CCW, but I do know he got that without 1369 and the passing of 1369 would have made no difference what so ever unless they were to move to restrict it and he indeed does NOT have a ccw.

I can not develop a reason why you would change your position on OC in light of the bill considering the even happened before the bill was ever even considered, but you are your own man.

I would however highly suggest you refrain from commenting that you intend to partake in felonious behavior, it seems extremely unwise.

Nothing about 1369 impacts your ability to oc, if it passes nothing will impact it unless the community restricts it, and neither had anything to do with the wrongful behavior the government imposed upon BCal nor will it in the future.

mspgunner said:

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."

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with this well informed person you quoted. Operating a motor vehicle is not a protected, inalienable right. I hope you asked them if they believe everyone should take a class before legally exercising their first amendment right?

LMTD said:

Sir,

He got that charge in an OC legal location, I do not know if he has a CCW, but I do know he got that without 1369 and the passing of 1369 would have made no difference what so ever unless they were to move to restrict it and he indeed does NOT have a ccw.

I can not develop a reason why you would change your position on OC in light of the bill considering the even happened before the bill was ever even considered, but you are your own man.

I would however highly suggest you refrain from commenting that you intend to partake in felonious behavior, it seems extremely unwise.

Nothing about 1369 impacts your ability to oc, if it passes nothing will impact it unless the community restricts it, and neither had anything to do with the wrongful behavior the government imposed upon BCal nor will it in the future.

Click to expand...

My main point is not how I interpret the law, but how municipalities will. Id just hate to get stopped for OC and the PD has a different interpretation. 680 is clear cut enough for everyone to understand. 1369 is too vague for anyone who doesn't WANT to understand it the way we do.

If 1369 passes, it puts ne in a corner. According to MO law, I cannot obtain my CCW, but every other shall issue state recognises that I am in fact not a felon. I can buy guns all day according to the Federal Government.
Personally Id like to see the SIS conviction part of not being able to obtain a CCW flushed. If the Feds say I'm ok to own them, that should be good enough for MO to allow me to obtain a CCW.
I'm not a bad person, I was just a stupid kid that made a stupid decision to hang out with other stupid kids that wanted to steal a bunch of crap 12 years ago. Guilty by association. I haven't been in trouble since. I was lucky to get the SIS so I could retain my gun rights, but now I'm paying the price because I can't get my CCW. And yes I'm sure a lot of people would say I deserve that, whether I do or not.

And yes I edited my last post because sometimes I say things out of frustration I don't really mean.

Morpheus97 said:

I completely disagree with this well informed person you quoted. Operating a motor vehicle is not a protected, inalienable right. I hope you asked them if they believe everyone should take a class before legally exercising their first amendment right?

Click to expand...

No offense, but neither is CCW or OC, at least by the courts in MO.

I agree, it should be, though!

G30Mike said:

My main point is not how I interpret the law, but how municipalities will. Id just hate to get stopped for OC and the PD has a different interpretation. 680 is clear cut enough for everyone to understand. 1369 is too vague for anyone who doesn't WANT to understand it the way we do.

If 1369 passes, it puts ne in a corner. According to MO law, I cannot obtain my CCW, but every other shall issue state recognises that I am in fact not a felon. I can buy guns all day according to the Federal Government.
Personally Id like to see the SIS conviction part of not being able to obtain a CCW flushed. If the Feds say I'm ok to own them, that should be good enough for MO to allow me to obtain a CCW.
I'm not a bad person, I was just a stupid kid that made a stupid decision to hang out with other stupid kids that wanted to steal a bunch of crap 12 years ago. Guilty by association. I haven't been in trouble since. I was lucky to get the SIS so I could retain my gun rights, but now I'm paying the price because I can't get my CCW. And yes I'm sure a lot of people would say I deserve that, whether I do or not.

And yes I edited my last post because sometimes I say things out of frustration I don't really mean.

Click to expand...

Sir, with all due respect, you are not speaking to someone unfamiliar or unvoiced about your plight.

1369 does NOTHING to increase your liabilities under law, nor does it improve them. You are however speaking to by quotation to a man who firmly believes in your right to self defense exclusive of you having escaped custody of authority.

I care nothing of your offense, and consider whatever if any time you spent incarcerated as a result your full penalty under law and see the government's option of eliminating your rights null and void once they determined your fitness for release as full payment for your misguided activities. While my personal opinion might vary, I am restricted from imposing it beyond the date of your release and would never seek to impose more.

As the recommendation of a person whom held you only accountable for your actions and your sentence under law, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you strongly consider compliance under law until which time like minded persons such as my self change the laws so as to render yourself legal before you employ self defense tactics which might find you guilty of a crime.

I will stop short of telling you how to live but will offer that current law offer's you no protections that HB 1369 takes away and if you think otherwise, you are mistaken. If by chance you remain outside the law, I recommend you change that through the use of a lawyer and proceed forward as he see's fit, barring that I wold never make a recommendation you ever do anything beyond follow the laws which govern and actively speak against those which govern that you do not believe fit.

I see no way in which HB 1369 hurts or helps you and to a degree see it as totally no applicable.

Really no point in debating something that hasnt come to be law yet. I made my point of interpretation by LEO's if it does become law.
I wasn't ever incarcerated, luckily, I received 3 years of SIS probation for my role in the theft. Did the crime, paid the fine. I'm grown now and stay within the limits of the law.
I just don't want a city cop to think that a law like 1369 applies to all jurisdictions regardless of them having a law prohibiting OC or not.

Redbaron007 said:

No offense, but neither is CCW or OC, at least by the courts in MO.

I agree, it should be, though!

Click to expand...

No offense taken. Interpretations have led to the loss of basic rights. I recently listened to a city attorney in the St Louis area commenting on the insignificance of the words "...shall not be questioned" of Article 1, Section 23. Words that are so simple, yet so important, were tossed aside like they had no meaning.