Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: I am done and I give up!

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924

    I am done and I give up!

    Ladies and Gents,

    I am used to the stupidity relating to city council meetings, I am used to the stupidity regarding protected classes such as those licensed by the state to conceal weapons for self protection. I am not used to the realities that are involved in the political games.

    I support SB680 because it is the correct thing to support for MO and all citizens of this country.

    I support HB1369 because it had made movement in the MO legislative process beyond previous versions and bills such as:

    2011 version of HB1369

    HB 841
    Allows any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement to openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or in a vehicle regardless of any other state law or local ordinance
    Sponsor: Fitzwater, Paul (152)
    Co-Sponsor: Jones, Timothy (089) ... et al.
    Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2011
    LR Number: 1393L.03I
    Last Action: 4/12/2011 - Referred: General Laws (H)
    Bill String: HB 841
    Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
    Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

    Died going no where.

    HB 1383 Establishes the Business Premises Safety Act
    Sponsor: Cox, Stanley (118) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2008
    CoSponsor: ..........etal. LR Number: 3571L.02P
    Last Action: 04/28/2008 - Second Rd/Refer: Pensions, Veteran Affairs & General Law(S)
    HCS HB 1383
    Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
    Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

    In 2008 we has HB2546 which was nearly identical to ours, it went no where.

    I could go back further, but it serves no purpose, the detractors are just that, nothing more and nothing less. I won't say I am not unhappy that they fathom not a clue what the public discourse can cause, but that is why indeed the other groups keep it 100% on the QT and I am not sure that we should not chalk it up as one of our worst mistakes, public discussion of any of it. You can't play the game when you have folks yappin about who do not even know the rules.

    The ONLY regrets I have of the push the "we" indeed have is that we opted to have any discussions in public at all. This posting makes that clear and anyone seeking discussion or debate further needs to contact me directly. I am totally done with the BS and extra info involved, know only that I will indeed speak in support of PRO 2A legislation and I am done responding to conjecture or other fantastic claims about what the bills may or may not do.

    I am sorry to my friends here on OCDO but I am behind in the newsletter, behind in personal duties and have no time left for petty whines and accusations. I am a stand up guy who has stood in the line of fire for many and will do so in the future, but it seems discussing it at any level is counter productive and I hereby give up.

    I will no longer discuss the merits of either or the potential passage of either publicly and will only respond in private to parties that are interested.
    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."

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    I'm pretty sure you have said all that needs to be said. Repeating your initial views, differently for different folks, is tedious to the extreme. if folks have not figured out by know what your views are they likely never will.

    "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

  3. #3
    Regular Member RPGamingGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    62
    Gosh, i thought discussion of the issues at hand was the purpose of a public forum.

    My bad.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGamingGirl View Post
    Gosh, i thought discussion of the issues at hand was the purpose of a public forum.

    My bad.
    It is. But when one guy has to repeat his view multiple times, and in multiple different threads, and in multiple different ways, just to get one person to understand something that has ample explanation already, it gets tedious and exhausting. I don't blame him at all.

    I admit, I've had my differences with LMTD in the past, but he is a staunch 2A supporter, and if he's tired of repeating himself, I don't see anything wrong with him taking a step back and letting people do their own research.
    Last edited by Oramac; 01-30-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Ditto my friend, i just got off the phone with two folks from jefferson city!
    The oc discussion in jefferson city is on fire big time.
    You, i and others have invested time and effort and money beyond the comprehension of others here.
    Thier suggestions, or demands - enough!
    Go to the capitol, see what you can do?

    Pm's only for now on regarding oc legislation! We are ona roll big time now, not going to screw it up with malcontents.
    We busted butt, did one heck of a lot of work.
    I'll let the people on the forum know the results. I have many email addresses and real names, with those i will keep up to date.

    Teh legislators have been very knd to us and today gave me the information we need to go to the next step, and by the grace of god and the power of those who support us hands down we will go all the way with what ever oc freedom we can in missouri!

    My thanks for information and ideas exchanged, i'm with my good friend lmtd........... Signing off, wait for it!



    Quote Originally Posted by lmtd View Post
    ladies and gents,

    i am used to the stupidity relating to city council meetings, i am used to the stupidity regarding protected classes such as those licensed by the state to conceal weapons for self protection. I am not used to the realities that are involved in the political games.

    I support sb680 because it is the correct thing to support for mo and all citizens of this country.

    I support hb1369 because it had made movement in the mo legislative process beyond previous versions and bills such as:

    2011 version of hb1369

    hb 841
    allows any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement to openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or in a vehicle regardless of any other state law or local ordinance
    sponsor: Fitzwater, paul (152)
    co-sponsor: Jones, timothy (089) ... Et al.
    Proposed effective date: 8/28/2011
    lr number: 1393l.03i
    last action: 4/12/2011 - referred: General laws (h)
    bill string: Hb 841
    next hearing: Hearing not scheduled
    calendar: Bill currently not on a house calendar

    died going no where.

    Hb 1383 establishes the business premises safety act
    sponsor: Cox, stanley (118) proposed effective date: 08/28/2008
    cosponsor: ..........etal. Lr number: 3571l.02p
    last action: 04/28/2008 - second rd/refer: Pensions, veteran affairs & general law(s)
    hcs hb 1383
    next hearing: Hearing not scheduled
    calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

    in 2008 we has hb2546 which was nearly identical to ours, it went no where.

    I could go back further, but it serves no purpose, the detractors are just that, nothing more and nothing less. I won't say i am not unhappy that they fathom not a clue what the public discourse can cause, but that is why indeed the other groups keep it 100% on the qt and i am not sure that we should not chalk it up as one of our worst mistakes, public discussion of any of it. You can't play the game when you have folks yappin about who do not even know the rules.

    The only regrets i have of the push the "we" indeed have is that we opted to have any discussions in public at all. This posting makes that clear and anyone seeking discussion or debate further needs to contact me directly. I am totally done with the bs and extra info involved, know only that i will indeed speak in support of pro 2a legislation and i am done responding to conjecture or other fantastic claims about what the bills may or may not do.

    I am sorry to my friends here on ocdo but i am behind in the newsletter, behind in personal duties and have no time left for petty whines and accusations. I am a stand up guy who has stood in the line of fire for many and will do so in the future, but it seems discussing it at any level is counter productive and i hereby give up.

    I will no longer discuss the merits of either or the potential passage of either publicly and will only respond in private to parties that are interested.
    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

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by mspgunner View Post
    Ditto my friend, i just got off the phone with two folks from jefferson city!
    The oc discussion in jefferson city is on fire big time.
    You, i and others have invested time and effort and money beyond the comprehension of others here.
    Thier suggestions, or demands - enough!
    Go to the capitol, see what you can do?
    Yes sir, time and efforts now, get the newsletter out and start preparing speeches for OC bills and see if we can claim some of our rights back for ALL citizens of MO and be ready to get more next year as well!

    See ya in the funny papers!

    Rich
    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."

  7. #7
    Regular Member G30Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    St. Joseph MO
    Posts
    120
    I for one would like to say I appreciate the effort you guys have gone through to try and make this happen. You are on the front lines trying to get something done for all of us. Besides writing our reps, if there is anything I can do to help please let me know. I hate to argue as well, especially since we are all on the same side regardless of a disagreement here or there.
    Anyway, thank you guys for your efforts, they do not go unappreciated, I assure you!
    "Ever notice once in a while you come across somebody you shouldn't have f***ed with......That's me." -Clint Eastwood "Gran Torino"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Glad to hear that Marc ! I look forward to hearing from you .

  9. #9
    Regular Member RPGamingGirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    62
    Cute that you think only a select few here are doing any work on these issues. Nice clique you've got going; well done.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGamingGirl View Post
    Cute that you think only a select few here are doing any work on these issues. Nice clique you've got going; well done.
    I believe I have made it VERY clear that another group is indeed working very hard.

    I do not do warm and fuzzy well, nor do I enjoy repeating myself. You would indeed find the group I am working with clearly are part of no clique and are extremely independent.

    I do not believe anyone has defined they are not open to talking about it, just not going to continue to bother with public discussions on the topic. Shoot those who have been around here for much time at all have likely seen my phone number posted and are welcome to call. I am simply not going to bother with inaccurate information and conjecture.

    Don't like it, tough, I will retain my right to speak or not speak as I see fit and I most certainly encourage you to do the same.

    And to once again be perfectly clear, no group is going to be responsible for either bill making the trip, it is the supporters of OC that indeed write and call the reps that deserve 100% of the credit, no one else including myself, but I will take credit for making the calls and the notes I wrote, please do the same no matter your position, the reps need to hear everyone's voice.

    Sorry to have angered you, was not the intent. but only you can change that, have a good day.
    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."

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by RPGamingGirl View Post
    Cute that you think only a select few here are doing any work on these issues. Nice clique you've got going; well done.
    As a fellow gamer, I'll try to alleviate some of your concern. I don't know what you play, but I come from MMOs, specifically, raiding in MMOs. I used to play Warcraft, and currently play SW:TOR. I don't know if you even play these games, but that's the background I have, so I'll lean on that.

    Look at this OC thing as a Raid. We have many people who want to accomplish one goal (killing the boss, i.e. passing OC). Some of us are good at certain things, and others are good at different things. A raid with 25 tanks won't win any better than a raid with 25 healers. But a properly composed raid can easily beat the boss. LMTD and the others (like Senator Nieves; call them Raid Leaders for lack of a better term) who have already done a lot of work on this OC Bill are a part of the raid, but they are only a part of it. You and I and everyone else are the rest of the raid. We're the ones that, frankly, success depends on. But if we spend all our time arguing with the Raid Leaders, the boss never dies. In this case, OC doesn't get passed.

    So whether we agree all the time or not, it's in our best interest to realize that we all have the same goal, and consciously move forward towards that.

  12. #12
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    423
    Agree with others here, I have answered most of my questions just by researching. A lot of my confusion is just me not reading enough on the topic aka being lazy. I have my research with me at all times lol, thumb drive with laws and information and such. I have educated a few people in person so far on open carry laws and conceal carry laws, which makes me feel that I'm making a difference.

    If anyone here is reading these responses and have a slight issue against our fellow member stepping back. Just realize that most of the questions asked can be answer by yourself via research. Having to repeat yourself several times is annoying and people should realize this.
    Nothing better than a Glock.........except maybe another Glock!

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    I believe I have made it VERY clear that another group is indeed working very hard.

    I do not do warm and fuzzy well, nor do I enjoy repeating myself. You would indeed find the group I am working with clearly are part of no clique and are extremely independent.

    I do not believe anyone has defined they are not open to talking about it, just not going to continue to bother with public discussions on the topic. Shoot those who have been around here for much time at all have likely seen my phone number posted and are welcome to call. I am simply not going to bother with inaccurate information and conjecture.

    Don't like it, tough, I will retain my right to speak or not speak as I see fit and I most certainly encourage you to do the same.

    And to once again be perfectly clear, no group is going to be responsible for either bill making the trip, it is the supporters of OC that indeed write and call the reps that deserve 100% of the credit, no one else including myself, but I will take credit for making the calls and the notes I wrote, please do the same no matter your position, the reps need to hear everyone's voice.

    Sorry to have angered you, was not the intent. but only you can change that, have a good day.
    Save your breath. Some are just plain against "us" , even though they claim to be one of "us" .

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    Save your breath. Some are just plain against "us" , even though they claim to be one of "us" .
    I would not go that far really. I just think that folks have a huge misunderstanding of how their words will be used against the goal and the harm that separating a united group does for a cause.

    Constitutional carry is the goal and hopefully we get a HUGE step in that direction, there is one hell of a lot more folks working for it this year than ever before, I doubt if we know the actual answer before the last week or even day of session. I know I am going to be worn out afterward, that is for sure.
    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."

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Mo., ,
    Posts
    490
    Maybe. At this point ( for other reasons as well ) , I'm about to give up on the human race. Seriously. My Dad and i had a longggg talk today about it, and people are just ... ignorant.

  16. #16
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    It is by design very difficult for new laws to be made.
    You can look at a bill and say it needs improvement.
    As LMTD said it is a long and difficult process and takes up a lot of time, it is and it does.
    Anyone can submit and idea for a bill/law to their State Rep and Senator.
    Getting them to actually produce one is difficult and what they actually file is up to them.
    What they send is what you get, for better or worse.
    You cannot change a bill's wording after it is in the mix.

    We do not live in a perfect world, if anyone has an idea for a "new" law, give it a go, it takes a lot more work than you can imagine. Even if a bill is produced, getting it to become law is very difficult........

    If anyone doesn't like the 2A bills you see, try getting one you "LIKE" through the "process" and good luck!

    Those who work hard every day to interact with their legislators and get something done should not be jumped on because you think it could be better, you are the problem, not the solution. Get on the stick and go for it! If you are for changes in the screwed up 2A rights we have related to OC support what is going through the process, if not try to get your own agenda in and going, you'll find out how very hard that is!

    I don't think those here who got something going are going to walk you through the process, posting every bill, every hearing any of the deal making that goes with legislative process, that would tip off those who oppose OC, and heaven knows there are a lot of them.

    YEP, there are people of this forum who lack an understanding of the process..... so goes life.
    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

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    I would not go that far really. I just think that folks have a huge misunderstanding of how their words will be used against the goal and the harm that separating a united group does for a cause.

    Constitutional carry is the goal and hopefully we get a HUGE step in that direction, there is one hell of a lot more folks working for it this year than ever before, I doubt if we know the actual answer before the last week or even day of session. I know I am going to be worn out afterward, that is for sure.

    I realize you have stated you will not comment on the bills before the legislature, and I respect that. My question is, how do you expect to get Constitutional carry in MO? Concealed Carry is expressly prohibited in the Missouri Bill Of Rights. It was only allowed at all because the MOSC ruled that that the Section did not prohibit the General Assembly from allowing or disallowing concealed carry by statue. Even if the GA passed a statue allowing carry by all MO citizens without a permit, there is a good chance it would be struck down, as unconstitutional. The simple fact is in MO there is only one form of carry that is Constitutionally protected and that is Open Carry. I don't see where you will be able to get around Article 1 Section 23 with a simple statue.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Spfld, Mo.
    Posts
    430
    Links man, links! Don't you quit! You present excellent arguments for the conversation.

    Part of 1369 is unnecessary as it's covered under the current castle doctrine statute pertaining to a vehicle.
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary....ar=2012&code=R

    680 deserves applause, but we have to prepare for what it will likely trigger.

    1369 could be used to overturn 680 or to force mandated training as I've already illustrated in another thread. However, it could be viewed as protection if you already have the CCW endorsement should 680 fail to pass. (watch STL and KC for their influence on such matters)

    1383 will be tough to pass because of this: Business owners, operators, merchants, and shopkeepers do not
    have a duty to guard against the criminal act of a third party

    unless they know or have reason to know that the acts are
    occurring or are about to occur
    that could pose imminent injury....that the same criminal acts have occurred on the
    premises within the prior 24 months and is likely to occur again
    This will apply to any location at any time, no matter the location and it will spark businesses to not report certain issues. I know of a couple of entities in Springfield that this would apply to that would make active efforts to conceal such issues to keep from abiding by this type of law.
    http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...lls/hb1383.htm

    1383 would not need to exist if the law were changed to have no restrictions upon lawful carry (no postings allowed) and: wherever that person is present for a lawful purpose. Simply repeal the authority to post from the law and add that language where it is applicable.
    Last edited by REALteach4u; 02-06-2012 at 10:53 AM.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    I realized after I had logged off that the MOSC ruling meant that the the GA could, by statue, allow any MO citizen to carry concealed or openly. I was headed to bed so I didn't log back on to edit my post. After two hours on laying in bed trying to sleep, it finally came to me why that bothers me and why I have a problem with HB1369.
    I was wrong(in a way) when I said that Open Carry was "protected" by the State Constitution. The State Constitution "recognizes" Open Carry as the natural right of every citizen. I'm not saying that any form of carry isn't a natural right, only that our State Constitution only recognizes Open Carry. The MOSC ruled that the GA could "allow" conceal carry by statue, and there is the rub for me. What the GA can allow, they can disallow, and that to me fails to recognize it as a natural right. Constitutional Carry would allow carry by statue, and not by recognizing it as a natural right. It would in essence be a privilege allowed us by the GA. I realize that legally that may be a small point, but to my principles it is an important one. If Constitutional Carry comes without being recognized(and thus protected) as a natural right of every citizen, then it is a hollow shell of what it should be.

    That is also why I have a problem with HB1369. It does not force all the jurisdictions in the state to recognize OC as a natural right. It simply forces them to accept the authority of the GA and it's power to allow or disallow. HB1369 does not force jurisdictions to recognize the right of their citizens to refuse to submit to being "allowed" to conceal carry , just so they may exercise a right that is recognized plainly in our State Constitution. HB1369 would allow OC state wide, but it would not recognize it as a natural right of every citizen, and that is my problem with it. It simply, for me, comes down to the principle of it.
    Last edited by SavageOne; 02-06-2012 at 10:48 AM.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    south central MO, USA
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Festus_Hagen View Post
    Maybe. At this point ( for other reasons as well ) , I'm about to give up on the human race. Seriously. My Dad and i had a longggg talk today about it, and people are just ... ignorant.
    What are the membership fees for this group, and where are the meetings to be held?
    I think I may already be a member,,,,,,,, but thought I was alone.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I realized after I had logged off that the MOSC ruling meant that the the GA could, by statue, allow any MO citizen to carry concealed or openly. I was headed to bed so I didn't log back on to edit my post. After two hours on laying in bed trying to sleep, it finally came to me why that bothers me and why I have a problem with HB1369.
    I was wrong(in a way) when I said that Open Carry was "protected" by the State Constitution. The State Constitution "recognizes" Open Carry as the natural right of every citizen. I'm not saying that any form of carry isn't a natural right, only that our State Constitution only recognizes Open Carry. The MOSC ruled that the GA could "allow" conceal carry by statue, and there is the rub for me. What the GA can allow, they can disallow, and that to me fails to recognize it as a natural right. Constitutional Carry would allow carry by statue, and not by recognizing it as a natural right. It would in essence be a privilege allowed us by the GA. I realize that legally that may be a small point, but to my principles it is an important one. If Constitutional Carry comes without being recognized(and thus protected) as a natural right of every citizen, then it is a hollow shell of what it should be.

    That is also why I have a problem with HB1369. It does not force all the jurisdictions in the state to recognize OC as a natural right. It simply forces them to accept the authority of the GA and it's power to allow or disallow. HB1369 does not force jurisdictions to recognize the right of their citizens to refuse to submit to being "allowed" to conceal carry , just so they may exercise a right that is recognized plainly in our State Constitution. HB1369 would allow OC state wide, but it would not recognize it as a natural right of every citizen, and that is my problem with it. It simply, for me, comes down to the principle of it.
    From a philosophical view, I don't disagree with you. However, the courts have not recognized carrying outside (either CC or OC) the home as the RKBA, if it was so, the political subdivisions would not be able to restrict OC and the state wouldn't have to give the privilege to CC. This is the crutch. Can it be changed? Yep. But it generally will take increments to get there.

    Getting a bill to become law is a tough process. If something can get on the books, modifying it can come a little easier then passing a brand new bill. So to get something passed now, is better than nothing. Trying to everything that everyone wants is an impossible task. Getting something and working with it after it becomes law is a step in the right direction.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,924
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I realize you have stated you will not comment on the bills before the legislature, and I respect that.
    Thank you for understanding my not responding.
    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."

  23. #23
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by lmtd View Post
    thank you for understanding my not responding.
    mega ditto!
    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

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I realize you have stated you will not comment on the bills before the legislature, and I respect that. My question is, how do you expect to get Constitutional carry in MO? Concealed Carry is expressly prohibited in the Missouri Bill Of Rights. It was only allowed at all because the MOSC ruled that that the Section did not prohibit the General Assembly from allowing or disallowing concealed carry by statue. Even if the GA passed a statue allowing carry by all MO citizens without a permit, there is a good chance it would be struck down, as unconstitutional. The simple fact is in MO there is only one form of carry that is Constitutionally protected and that is Open Carry. I don't see where you will be able to get around Article 1 Section 23 with a simple statue.
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    I realized after I had logged off that the MOSC ruling meant that the the GA could, by statue, allow any MO citizen to carry concealed or openly. I was headed to bed so I didn't log back on to edit my post. After two hours on laying in bed trying to sleep, it finally came to me why that bothers me and why I have a problem with HB1369.
    I was wrong(in a way) when I said that Open Carry was "protected" by the State Constitution. The State Constitution "recognizes" Open Carry as the natural right of every citizen. I'm not saying that any form of carry isn't a natural right, only that our State Constitution only recognizes Open Carry. The MOSC ruled that the GA could "allow" conceal carry by statue, and there is the rub for me. What the GA can allow, they can disallow, and that to me fails to recognize it as a natural right. Constitutional Carry would allow carry by statue, and not by recognizing it as a natural right. It would in essence be a privilege allowed us by the GA. I realize that legally that may be a small point, but to my principles it is an important one. If Constitutional Carry comes without being recognized(and thus protected) as a natural right of every citizen, then it is a hollow shell of what it should be.

    That is also why I have a problem with HB1369. It does not force all the jurisdictions in the state to recognize OC as a natural right. It simply forces them to accept the authority of the GA and it's power to allow or disallow. HB1369 does not force jurisdictions to recognize the right of their citizens to refuse to submit to being "allowed" to conceal carry , just so they may exercise a right that is recognized plainly in our State Constitution. HB1369 would allow OC state wide, but it would not recognize it as a natural right of every citizen, and that is my problem with it. It simply, for me, comes down to the principle of it.
    Exactly my point I was trying to make. This is a forum for OPEN CARRY and HB1369 screws us over yet is being touted as a "good thing" because certain people want to be able to conceal carry without a permit. Give everyone the right to open carry is far more important to my mind.
    Last edited by Verd; 02-08-2012 at 02:22 AM.
    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!

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran Verd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lampe, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by LMTD View Post
    Constitutional carry is the goal and hopefully we get a HUGE step in that direction, there is one hell of a lot more folks working for it this year than ever before, I doubt if we know the actual answer before the last week or even day of session. I know I am going to be worn out afterward, that is for sure.
    I don't get why being able to conceal carry without a permit is the goal. But then, I don't see the point at all in concealing a firearm, especially on a Open Carry forum.

    (and I know you said you weren't going to respond, but you have responded, so I feel that I can comment on your words now in this thread)
    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!

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •