-
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.
-
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.
OC Bill SB680 progress
- Thread starter kcgunfan
- Start date
Redbaron007
Regular Member
Good to see movement!! 
I hope it maintains a forward motion.
I hope it maintains a forward motion.
G30Mike
Regular Member
Keep on going 680. Fingers are crossed waiting with anticipation.
Festus_Hagen
Regular Member
Right on .
Broondog
Regular Member
outstanding!!
dkangel
Regular Member
Now we need to get HB1618 and HB1638 on a calendar as well since the text is the exact same as SB680.
Last edited:
Verd
Campaign Veteran
w00t!:banana::banana::banana:
REALteach4u
Regular Member
Once again our politicians are only listening to part of the problem. :banghead:
It needs an attachment that says specifically that they also may not restrict firearms and firearms accessories use, possession, manufacture, and the like beyond that of State law. Then we need to push the State to get in-line with the Federal laws on such things including who can qualify for a CCW endorsement. If you can lawfully make a purchase on a Form 4473 then you should be completely legal to obtain a CCW endorsement.
Idiots in JC are just as dumb as the ones in DC, they'll never think things all the way through.
Obviously Constitutional carry is where we need to be, but they certainly won't be bold enough to take it literally that far.
By the way, this is going to run into several MAJOR problems folks. The first is that OC'ing does not have a training requirement while CCW'ing does and that won't fly very long. The second is that the OC'ers should be prepared to face the same limitations on where they can carry as the CCW'ers do. Another is that OC doesn't require a background check while CCW does. (this last one is a simple fix, have an exemption for making a lawful purchase from a licensed FFL holder within the past 30 days for the background check process, of course I would like to see a NICS exemption by Missouri becoming a POC for NICS) Another is that the CCW endorsement language would deny an endorsement to someone from Missouri or any other state that was convicted of a Felony, but received a full restoration of rights from obtaining said endorsement while OC doesn't have such an exclusion and that won't last either. (it needs to change to the positive, not to the negative since that person received a full restoration of rights)
Look at that pattern of issues folks. It sets the stage for a FOID card system like Illinois has. Do we really want it to get that far?
So if it gets through as written it's going to prompt such issues because our politicians simply don't think things through. Contact Senator Nieves and express your concerns for the can of worms this might open and lets all help him find a way to protect both sides without hurting either side.
This is a bill that needs to pass to protect the OC folks from inadvertently violating laws of other jurisdictions simply by crossing into them.
To quote Uncle Ted: The Constitution is my concealed carry permit!
It needs an attachment that says specifically that they also may not restrict firearms and firearms accessories use, possession, manufacture, and the like beyond that of State law. Then we need to push the State to get in-line with the Federal laws on such things including who can qualify for a CCW endorsement. If you can lawfully make a purchase on a Form 4473 then you should be completely legal to obtain a CCW endorsement.
Idiots in JC are just as dumb as the ones in DC, they'll never think things all the way through.
Obviously Constitutional carry is where we need to be, but they certainly won't be bold enough to take it literally that far.
By the way, this is going to run into several MAJOR problems folks. The first is that OC'ing does not have a training requirement while CCW'ing does and that won't fly very long. The second is that the OC'ers should be prepared to face the same limitations on where they can carry as the CCW'ers do. Another is that OC doesn't require a background check while CCW does. (this last one is a simple fix, have an exemption for making a lawful purchase from a licensed FFL holder within the past 30 days for the background check process, of course I would like to see a NICS exemption by Missouri becoming a POC for NICS) Another is that the CCW endorsement language would deny an endorsement to someone from Missouri or any other state that was convicted of a Felony, but received a full restoration of rights from obtaining said endorsement while OC doesn't have such an exclusion and that won't last either. (it needs to change to the positive, not to the negative since that person received a full restoration of rights)
Look at that pattern of issues folks. It sets the stage for a FOID card system like Illinois has. Do we really want it to get that far?
So if it gets through as written it's going to prompt such issues because our politicians simply don't think things through. Contact Senator Nieves and express your concerns for the can of worms this might open and lets all help him find a way to protect both sides without hurting either side.
This is a bill that needs to pass to protect the OC folks from inadvertently violating laws of other jurisdictions simply by crossing into them.
To quote Uncle Ted: The Constitution is my concealed carry permit!
Last edited:
moneymaker
Regular Member
So do you think this bill will pass?If so how many stores do you think will have signs stating that you cant OC in there place of business which will be there right seeing it is private property?
mspgunner
Regular Member
I see from your posts you are "NOT" and OC supporter but anti 2A!
Exactly why from here on I will ignore your posts and continue to caution people on this andother forums to be careful what they post.
NOT EVERYONE HERE SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS NOT ART1 SEC. 23 OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION!
Be careful what you post and who you respnd too.
We can't do much about the trolls, but we can ignore the less than favorable posts and those who post them.
bye bye....
Redbaron007
Regular Member
moneymaker
Regular Member
No you are wrong i do support OC and Missouri is very far behind in times as to what it really means,But because i make a post about how i see fit the way you guys are thumping your chest about Starbucks and having group gatherings standing in a store front getting pictures taken is sending the wrong message to alot of folks against being armed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Do as you wish if you dont want me here but you are then being a hypocrit as to me not having another Amendment on the matter,FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Last edited:
Redbaron007
Regular Member
Don't know and neither do you. This is the same argument many of the anti-2a folks said about CCW in MO. Well, guess what, it didn't happen. Just like the blood in the streets comments from every other anti-CCWer. So your argument is void.
As I stated about another one of your posts (maybe in a different forum too), Just a word of advice, using some correct grammer and punctuation goes a long way in gaining credibility in any of your arguments. It helps people comprehend what you are saying.
mspgunner
Regular Member
Ignore him, he just signed onto OC forum this month and is not a supporter. Best to just not respond to the posts. I don't, others may if they wish, but this person is of no value to the cause.
SHUN HIM!
Redbaron007
Regular Member
moneymaker
Regular Member
Ok you guys just really amaze me sometimes,You really do!!!:banghead:
moneymaker
Regular Member
Shows your true meaning to the word VALUE!!!!!!!!No wonder you all have such a hard time getting thru to Jeff city,Maybe you can show them some pictures of your big Starbuck group hug fest and put it on youtube as well:shocker:
Last edited:
sohighlyunlikely
Regular Member
See you have plenty of your freedom of speech. You were able to say yet another derogatory comment. Why are you getting huffy when others aren't agreeing? You have to remember most of the people on here have been fighting for the cause for a long time. Weather you like the tactics or not. They have made the progress in recognition of the problem of the loss of freedoms in this state. and with that we now have politicians putting forth work to get back those freedoms that were lost. So now that the car is moving in the right direction you want to complain about who got it started?
Doc
mspgunner
Regular Member
DOC, I won't even bother to comment on those foks posts... .No reason to debate we educate!
we are for now now promoting a lot of public awareness, we have that. we are looking for constitutional rights to be restored.
A good numbre of th people we engaged in the awareness effort are now contacting their legislators and promoting the cause.
Why are they doing so? because they believe in liberty and constitutional rights.