• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I am done and I give up!

Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
SavageOne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Verd

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
SavageOne said:
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.
Click to expand...

SavageOne said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Verd

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
LMTD said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
F

Festus_Hagen

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2010
Messages
490
Location
Jefferson City, Mo., ,
Verd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because you are looking at YOUR goals, not the reality of what we "can" get. If you have read any of the threads about this, you would have read the "why" part. If not, you need to do some more reading.

YOU may not want to conceal at all. Some of us do when it is the best way . This isn't a goal oriented towards "you" or "your" goals. We know what we "may" be able to get, so we will take that this year and work towards more next year. We won't turn it down, that's for sure.

"You" can call, write and email your legislatures and tell them "you " want a bill with "your" goals. See where ya get, then let "us" know. :rolleyes:
 
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Verd said:
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)
Click to expand...

There is almost no way I can respond to this without it sounding very condescending. I assure you that it is not the intent, however, it is simply going to come off that way so my apologies in advance.

The reason I am not responding to comments on legislation is because of the many totally CLUELESS responses that continue on at which point I grow weary very quickly. I know you actually believe you have some level of understanding but sir, these comments expose that you haven’t got a clue at all.

Constitutional carry is not about the ability to conceal without a permit alone. Constitutional Carry is about CHOICE meaning you can OPEN or CONCEAL without a permit of any type and it is indeed not a crime. It is also NOT about elimination of the permit system, that should remain in place as one may not stay in the state all of the time and you may want reciprocity.

Your misunderstanding of simple things just as this is unparalleled in contrast to your misunderstanding of the bills before the house and senate, not to mention the process or the damage to that process that can happen when the clueless speak in ways that are untrue about the legislation and others take it and run with it.
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
I haven't been able to be on top of this or participate in the cause as much as I would like due to work demands (just taking a break and been at the office since 8 am and will likely be here another 1-2 hours and then all over again tomorrow), however, I have seen certain trends in the overall 2A movement and these bills in particular.

Why settle for anything less than constitutional carry? Well, why settle for CC that has restrictions. Why settle for CC that is limited to over 23 years old? Why pass something that doesn't allow X, Y or Z? Well... because that is how it works. As I have posted seemingly so many times before, the gubmint didn't get to the AWB in one step. It took about 80 years. We didn't get 49 states with CC in one step. It took over 2 decades.

When we got CC passed in MO the antis screamed we would have blood in the streets. Nope. So the Schnuck family which spent a lot of money opposing it and posted their stores no firearms for years took down the signs. Now you can get a CC at 21. Etc.

Sometimes you have to do this incrementally. Sometimes you have to pass A and let people get used to it so you can pass B. I appreciate some of the enthusiasm but it must be tempered with realism. Lots of people have done some amazingly good work to get this far. I am disappointed that life has interfered and not allowed me to be among those who have accomplished so much in the last few years. I am deeply thankful to those who have been able and willing to make the sacrifices to fight this fight as far as it has come thus far. So let's all work to get as much as we can and understand that we probably aren't going to get all we want in one session or at least not in this session.

Sometimes you have to make the decision if this is the hill you want to die on or the hill you want to climb.
 
mspgunner

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
deepdiver said:
i haven't been able to be on top of this or participate in the cause as much as i would like due to work demands (just taking a break and been at the office since 8 am and will likely be here another 1-2 hours and then all over again tomorrow), however, i have seen certain trends in the overall 2a movement and these bills in particular.

Why settle for anything less than constitutional carry? Well, why settle for cc that has restrictions. Why settle for cc that is limited to over 23 years old? Why pass something that doesn't allow x, y or z? Well... Because that is how it works. As i have posted seemingly so many times before, the gubmint didn't get to the awb in one step. It took about 80 years. We didn't get 49 states with cc in one step. It took over 2 decades.

When we got cc passed in mo the antis screamed we would have blood in the streets. Nope. So the schnuck family which spent a lot of money opposing it and posted their stores no firearms for years took down the signs. Now you can get a cc at 21. Etc.

Sometimes you have to do this incrementally. Sometimes you have to pass a and let people get used to it so you can pass b. I appreciate some of the enthusiasm but it must be tempered with realism. Lots of people have done some amazingly good work to get this far. I am disappointed that life has interfered and not allowed me to be among those who have accomplished so much in the last few years. I am deeply thankful to those who have been able and willing to make the sacrifices to fight this fight as far as it has come thus far. So let's all work to get as much as we can and understand that we probably aren't going to get all we want in one session or at least not in this session.

Sometimes you have to make the decision if this is the hill you want to die on or the hill you want to climb.
Click to expand...


well you are one of the folks here who understands the legislative process! Nice to see some one who has head together join in the conversation. This is not an easy process............. If we get anything out of the legislature we did good. Next year some one else can carry it further. Just takes all your time and effort, volunteering more time and money than you can spare and your on your way!
 
S

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Not sure I am seeing things the same way. OC is a right in this state, admittedly it a right that is not allowed in all the state, but it is still a right that can be exercised in most of the state without cost. HB1369 would allow people, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, to exercise their right to OC as long as they have spent the money and jumped through the hoops to get a permission slip from the state to CC.

HB1369 does not allow citizens, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, who are can't afford the cost or time to acquire a CC permit to carry a firearm for their self defense. HB1369 does not allow those who are too young or have a disqualifying circumstance in their past and can't get a CC permit, to carry a firearm openly in a political subdivision that has prohibited it. HB1369 does allow citizens, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, who have spent the money and time to acquire a CC permit to carry their firearm openly, even though the vast majority of those who have a CC don't or won't carry their firearm openly even where they can. HB1369 is not a step forward for those who can't or won't get a CC permit, but is a step forward for those who have or want a CC permit.

So,..... HB1369 is an incremental step forward for OC for all of us how? HB1369 may be a step in some direction, but that doesn't make it the right direction, and I won't support it just because it is movement. Passing bad legislation hoping you can later make it better only leads to bad results.
 
Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
SavageOne said:
Not sure I am seeing things the same way. OC is a right in this state, admittedly it a right that is not allowed in all the state, but it is still a right that can be exercised in most of the state without cost. HB1369 would allow people, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, to exercise their right to OC as long as they have spent the money and jumped through the hoops to get a permission slip from the state to CC.

HB1369 does not allow citizens, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, who are can't afford the cost or time to acquire a CC permit to carry a firearm for their self defense. HB1369 does not allow those who are too young or have a disqualifying circumstance in their past and can't get a CC permit, to carry a firearm openly in a political subdivision that has prohibited it. HB1369 does allow citizens, in political subdivisions that have prohibited OC, who have spent the money and time to acquire a CC permit to carry their firearm openly, even though the vast majority of those who have a CC don't or won't carry their firearm openly even where they can. HB1369 is not a step forward for those who can't or won't get a CC permit, but is a step forward for those who have or want a CC permit.

So,..... HB1369 is an incremental step forward for OC for all of us how? HB1369 may be a step in some direction, but that doesn't make it the right direction, and I won't support it just because it is movement. Passing bad legislation hoping you can later make it better only leads to bad results.
Click to expand...

Read Deepdivers comments in post #29. Getting something on the books for OC is better than having nothing at all. IIRC, 1369 allows CCWrs to OC anywhere without the political subdivisions regulating. If you don't have a CCW, you can still OC where it is not regulated by the political subdivision. Once something is passed, then progress can be made on refining that regulation.
 
L

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
The fat lady has not sung.

Both bills are still alive and well.

If you are smart and want to see OC and eventually constitutional carry for the state of Missouri, you will support ALL good gun legislation.

There ain't a soul here who can tell me what is going to exist in 3 weeks, let alone at the end of session.

IMHO, there is only one poor bill entered so far when it comes to firearms.
 
mspgunner

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
LMTD said:
The fat lady has not sung.

Both bills are still alive and well.

If you are smart and want to see OC and eventually constitutional carry for the state of Missouri, you will support ALL good gun legislation.

There ain't a soul here who can tell me what is going to exist in 3 weeks, let alone at the end of session.

IMHO, there is only one poor bill entered so far when it comes to firearms.
Click to expand...

"SUPPORT" means call, email or write your legislator, tell them to support open carry legislation... That is what got us this far, stay on 'em. Either bill is a step in the right direction... not debating, waiting and working on it, you can help make the difference... JUST DO IT,DO IT NOW!
 
Verd

Verd

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
381
Location
Lampe, Missouri, United States
mspgunner said:
"SUPPORT" means call, email or write your legislator, tell them to support open carry legislation...
Click to expand...

Exactly what I am doing.

mspgunner said:
...tell them to support open carry legislation... Either bill is a step in the right direction
Click to expand...

Don't know if my represenative would agree, when I talked to him, he said there were a number of gun bills, but the only one that is for open carry in regards to the Second Amendment was SB680 (and I made sure that he was aware of HB1369), in his opinion of course.

But whatever. I am supporting the 2nd Amendment, simple as that. I am not supporting anything that requires permits in order to use our 2nd Amendment rights.
 
Last edited:
S

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Redbaron007 said:
Read Deepdivers comments in post #29. Getting something on the books for OC is better than having nothing at all. IIRC, 1369 allows CCWrs to OC anywhere without the political subdivisions regulating. If you don't have a CCW, you can still OC where it is not regulated by the political subdivision. Once something is passed, then progress can be made on refining that regulation.
Click to expand...

Read my comments in post #31 and you will see I don't agree with that position. If getting legislation on the books and then tweaking into what you want is such a great path, why aren't we trying that with ObamaCare? I don't see calls for people to relax, cause we'll work to get that piece of legislation refined.

If you do read post #31 you will see I stated that I am aware what HB1369 will allow those with a CCW to do. I never, however, state that it would prohibit, those without a CCW, carry where it is not regulated. I simply point out that HB1369 does nothing to allow carry in areas that are regulated by those without a CCW. My point being, HB1369 does nothing, except increase the privileges of those who have or can acquire a CCW. It does not, therefore, help with OC for all, just CCW holders.

HB1369 allows CCW holders to OC where prohibited, only because the legislature is allowing this as a privilege. This would be the same legislature that allowed political subdivisions to ignore the actual right to OC, in the first place(which, hopefully SB680 will correct). This is an excellent example of taking a right and turning it in to a privilege.

I would also point out to all those who say it is so important to get something on the books, you may not be the only ones trying to refine it. Do you really think the anti's won't work just as hard to use such legislation as HB1369 to limit carry. By providing them with legislation that only expands a privilege, instead of strengthening a right, all they have to do is refine the privilege to their liking, to control it.
 
Redbaron007

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
SavageOne said:
Read my comments in post #31 and you will see I don't agree with that position. If getting legislation on the books and then tweaking into what you want is such a great path, why aren't we trying that with ObamaCare? I don't see calls for people to relax, cause we'll work to get that piece of legislation refined.

If you do read post #31 you will see I stated that I am aware what HB1369 will allow those with a CCW to do. I never, however, state that it would prohibit, those without a CCW, carry where it is not regulated. I simply point out that HB1369 does nothing to allow carry in areas that are regulated by those without a CCW. My point being, HB1369 does nothing, except increase the privileges of those who have or can acquire a CCW. It does not, therefore, help with OC for all, just CCW holders.

HB1369 allows CCW holders to OC where prohibited, only because the legislature is allowing this as a privilege. This would be the same legislature that allowed political subdivisions to ignore the actual right to OC, in the first place(which, hopefully SB680 will correct). This is an excellent example of taking a right and turning it in to a privilege.

I would also point out to all those who say it is so important to get something on the books, you may not be the only ones trying to refine it. Do you really think the anti's won't work just as hard to use such legislation as HB1369 to limit carry. By providing them with legislation that only expands a privilege, instead of strengthening a right, all they have to do is refine the privilege to their liking, to control it.
Click to expand...

I see what you wrote. However, getting something that moves OCing forward is better than trying to get the perfect bill through that suites everyone and it not see the light of day. Would I like to get the perfect bill through...you betcha; however, I understand the political process in getting one through to be a law. This is the crutch in getting state wide OCing....it takes a lot to get a bill to become law, let alone a controversial bill such as OCing. As stated many times earlier, getting a OC bill into law is the goal, then modifying it to get to the ultimate goal; prime example is our CCW privilege and castle doctrine. These would not have passed all at one time; but over time it has been perfected.

However, if you feel can get a bill of your preference submitted and passed......go for it!

OBTW, OCing (outside of your home) in MO is not a right, it is allowed because it is not exclusively prohibited. If it were deemed a Right (under Article I Section 23), the political subdivisions couldn't restrict it. Hence, why we are trying to get something on the books for OCing.
 
S

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Redbaron007 said:
I see what you wrote. However, getting something that moves OCing forward is better than trying to get the perfect bill through that suites everyone and it not see the light of day. Would I like to get the perfect bill through...you betcha; however, I understand the political process in getting one through to be a law. This is the crutch in getting state wide OCing....it takes a lot to get a bill to become law, let alone a controversial bill such as OCing. As stated many times earlier, getting a OC bill into law is the goal, then modifying it to get to the ultimate goal; prime example is our CCW privilege and castle doctrine. These would not have passed all at one time; but over time it has been perfected.

However, if you feel can get a bill of your preference submitted and passed......go for it!

OBTW, OCing (outside of your home) in MO is not a right, it is allowed because it is not exclusively prohibited. If it were deemed a Right (under Article I Section 23), the political subdivisions couldn't restrict it. Hence, why we are trying to get something on the books for OCing.
Click to expand...


I'm am not looking for the perfect bill. I am fully aware of the process required getting a bill to become law. I see no reason to support HB1369 so that, hopefully, later we may modify it. There are three bills before the GA, right now, that do more to protect the rights of all Missourians, not just those with CCW permits.

SB 680, HB 1589, and HB 1618 all would remove the ability of jurisdictions to prohibit OC. SB680 has already been assigned a committee and so is the one furthest along in the process. I am appreciate the work that has been put into SB 680 by members of this forum, they are to be commended. I also commend Sen. Nieves, he seems to be a good man. I support his bill and hope that others will as well.

This not about looking for the perfect bill. This is about supporting legislation that is for all Missourians, not just a select few. I will not support legislation for a select few, with the hope that someday it may be broadened to everyone.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top