Other firearm bills currently in the House and Senate

Some of the bills in the House and Senate right now only help out Conceal Carry permit holders, which is in and of itself a 2nd Amendment violation so I'll just list out the bill numbers with a link if those of you who want to ask your represenatives and senators to support a bill for a violation of our rights, then go right ahead (HB 1045, HB 1319, HB 1369, HB 1483, SB 489, SB 637).

There are some decent bills for those of us who want an unfettered 2nd Amendment:

HB 1482 Specifies that the provisions regarding the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm will not apply to the possession of rifles or shotguns by a person who has not been convicted of a violent felony

No, it doesn't give all felons the right to carry a firearm, nor does it give non-violent felons the right to carry a pistol, but it does give non-violent felons the right to carry certain firearms, rifles and shotguns, which will allow them to be able to take advantage of the Castle Doctrine.


HB 1589 Repeals authority for political subdivisions to regulate open carrying of firearms and requires certain local ordinances incorporate statutory justifications

Yup, one of three OC Preemption bills. Why we are only talking about SB680 I do not know, for all three of these OC Preemption bills should be supported through calling, writing, and emailing our represenatives and senators.


HB 1618 Removes the provision granting authority to regulate open carrying of firearms to political subdivisions and requires ordinances regulating the discharge of a firearm to incorporate all justification defenses

Second OC Premption bill.


HB 1621 Specifies that it will be an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual because he or she has a concealed carry endorsement or uses a firearm for a lawful purpose

This bill will not force employeers to allow the carrying of a firearm on their private property, but it will make it a discrimination if they refuse to hire someone for their choice to carry a firearm. It is a decent bill, could be better, but (as people were saying about HB1369) it is a start.


HB 1683 Requires 911 operators to receive training on state laws regarding selfdefense and defense of others

This one, in my opinion, is also very important to get into committee and passed. People need to be told by 911 operators that they have the right to use deadly force against intruders instead of telling them that they cannot advise on the situation.


HB 1686 Prohibits the discharge of a firearm within or into a municipality with criminal negligence.

The way the summary is written on this one makes it sound bad, but in my opinion, when you read the actual text of the bill, it is a rather decent bill. What it does is add the following text between sections 1 and 2 of 571.030, RSMo:

2. (1) This subsection shall be known and may be cited as "Blair's Law".

(2) A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if, with criminal negligence, he or she discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality.

(3) This subsection shall not apply if the firearm is discharged:

(a) As allowed by a defense of justification under chapter 563;

(b) On a properly supervised range;

(c) To lawfully take wildlife during an open season established by the department of conservation. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent a municipality from adopting an ordinance restricting the discharge of a firearm within one-quarter mile of an occupied structure;

(d) For the control of nuisance wildlife as permitted by the department of conservation or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service;

(e) By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality;

(f) As required by an animal control officer in the performance of his or her duties;

(g) Using blanks;

(h) More than one mile from any occupied structure; or

(i) In self defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.

Click to expand...

Which, in effect, limits the definition of unlawful discharge within city limits. It does not allow for accidental discharges, such as hitting the trigger while holstering a weapon, but I think that would be hard to legislate and this bill seems to be doing what it can to cover many of the bases as to why a discharge in a city limit should be acceptable.


HJR 49 Proposes a constitutional amendment specifying that the right of every citizen to possess or purchase ammunition and articles for the proper functioning of arms must not be infringed or limited

While I have not seen any local government from passing laws that limit certain ammunition, until recently many local governments had these types of laws in place. In other words, I will be asking my represenatives and senators to support this bill (and I hope others will do so as well).


SB 680 SB 680 - Under current law, political subdivisions may enact ordinances regulating the open carrying of firearms. This act removes that authority so political subdivisions may not regulate the open carrying of firearms.
This act also requires that local ordinances regulating the discharge of firearms incorporate justification defenses provided by statute, which include self defense, defense of others, and defense of property.
The third OC Preemption bill that we have been talking about for the past few weeks.

EDIT: And in case anyone is unfamiliar with how bills become laws, check out this pdf: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/info/habbl.pdf so that we are all on the same page.

Thanks Verd for posting!

I'm not sure about HB1686. I've read it several times and it still hasn't set well. Not sure what the issues are, but for some reason, I'm not sure I like it. I'm not against it, but I haven't decided to throw support around it either.

Great post. Info is much appreciated.

Redbaron007 said:

Thanks Verd for posting!

I'm not sure about HB1686. I've read it several times and it still hasn't set well. Not sure what the issues are, but for some reason, I'm not sure I like it. I'm not against it, but I haven't decided to throw support around it either.

Click to expand...

Right now, without HB1686, cities can make it unlawful to discharge a weapon in the city limits. Meaning, that if the city wanted to, they could charge you with unlawful use of a firearm even if you discharged it to defend yourself. HB1686 makes it where even if a local government makes it illegal to discharge in the city limits, there are stipulations to what constitutes an unlawful discharge of a firearm. It strengthens the ability of people to be able to protect themselves (plus it allows the use of blanks, which are not allowed as of now).

Verd said:

Right now, without HB1686,

Click to expand...

Thank you for the conversation and consideration a few days ago, I know I am a hard ass and the printed word makes it worse, but your polite demeanor and ability to listen as well as communicate effectively is appreciated.

2012 may well do some things for firearm owners and it is because of folks like you, and I as well as all of the others bothering to read and support that it will happen.

This is a good post to keep track. Thanks Verd .

G30Mike said:

Great post. Info is much appreciated.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

LMTD said:

Thank you for the conversation and consideration a few days ago, I know I am a hard ass and the printed word makes it worse, but your polite demeanor and ability to listen as well as communicate effectively is appreciated.

2012 may well do some things for firearm owners and it is because of folks like you, and I as well as all of the others bothering to read and support that it will happen.

Click to expand...

No problem, sometimes asswipes like ourselves need to move beyond the text medium to fully understand one another.

Festus_Hagen said:

This is a good post to keep track. Thanks Verd .

Click to expand...

No problem. I'll keep check on these bills and update the information in this thread whenever the House/Senate's site changes in regards to the above gun bills.

Updates:

HB 1482 has been given to a committee, General Laws
HB 1621 has been given to General Laws as well
HJR 49 also was given to General Laws committee

The Committee on General Laws may consider matters referred to it relating to general or miscellaneous issues as determined by the Speaker of the House.

Click to expand...

General Laws
| Committee Description | Bills Assigned to Committee | Committee List |

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Franz, Ward, Chair
Richardson, Todd, Vice Chair
Colona, Mike
Cross, Gary L.
Day, David
Funderburk, Doug
Houghton, Jay
McCaherty, John
McCreery, Tracy
McDonald, Tom
Parkinson, Mark
Pollock, Darrell
Scharnhorst, Dwight
Schupp, Jill
Swearingen, Jay

Click to expand...

HJR 49 has 4 of its sponsors on the committee, including the committee chair, which suggests good news.
HB 1621 has only one sponsor on the committee, which is, again, the committee chair. Good news in my opinion.

Nice post Verd. We all need to be on the same issues because one impacts the other. I will agree that "permitted" concealed carry is a violation of 2A. We need Constitutional carry plain and simple.

If most knew the in-depth process about bills being submitted at any level then many would already know why we're talking about one specific bill rather than all of the others. At any point in time when a bill is submitted there are usually at least 2 or 3 other forms of the bill submitted right along side of it. Some will have the same language, some similar, and some will have different language while attaining the same meaning and end. Where one might not pass due to language another just might due to changes in the language.

I certainly agree that we need to give attention to the other bills as well and suggest that those politicians support the other bills as well.

"HB 1621 Specifies that it will be an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual because he or she has a concealed carry endorsement or uses a firearm for a lawful purpose

This bill will not force employeers to allow the carrying of a firearm on their private property, but it will make it a discrimination if they refuse to hire someone for their choice to carry a firearm. It is a decent bill, could be better, but (as people were saying about HB1369) it is a start."

This particular bill will be just as much a waste of time and resources as having Vets Services at the DOL. We'll never be able to make a legitimate claim on the matter and since Missouri is an at-will State they could immediately fire someone and lie about the reason even if it's really because of a protected issue. Vets Services suggestion to employers: The squeaky wheel gets the grease, so if it remains squeaky then just replace it. (DC refused to answer why this was said to several employers when it came to legitimate and proven military discrimination claims)

CCW permit information is private by law. So if the employer even asks the applicant should NEVER answer.

This bill is inherently dangerous to the open carry community as well. It opens the door for carded OC or OC only with a CCW endorsement to be protected by law and that's not going to be an acceptable outcome now is it.

We MUST get our lawmakers on the right page so that we're protected and unrestricted no matter what our choice of carry is. Our right to life through self-preservation should not cease at the doorstep of a business, government building, park, or anything else for that matter.


Verd, did you read any of the other bills? There's one that's been submitted that will grant OC to CCW permit holders. That bill alone could lead to some major changes for the OC crowd, so watch the inter-linking of several of these gun bills. Several will truly accompany one another and will lead to a direction that most won't like.

See them in THIS order and hopefully you'll see a directional pattern emerging:
HB1319
HB1369
HB1045 (and all of the others)

My prediction is that there will be mandated safety training, background checks, and possibly carded carry for OC on the horizon in Missouri on or OC will become only allowed with a CCW endorsement for those same reasons. As a firearm instructor I support training, but I don't like that particular direction I've predicted or government involvement and if it truly gets that far our politicians had better have enough sense to write a protection into the law that if we're stopped by a LEO and carrying our card then it's looked at and we're left on our merry way unless they have RAS that we have committed a crime. We also need to be allowed to document such stops without RAS by a LEO straight to the MOAG and if a pattern emerges it triggers an immediate State-level investigation with one hell of a heavy penalty.

What truly irks me is that our politicians still refuse to see things through to the full end and potential consequences. SB489 is just that example. That bill will attempt to undue the problem created by the Aug. 2011 changes, but it fails to get to the very end of the issue by protecting any and all certificates issued from any future changes.

Verd said:

Right now, without HB1686, cities can make it unlawful to discharge a weapon in the city limits. Meaning, that if the city wanted to, they could charge you with unlawful use of a firearm even if you discharged it to defend yourself. HB1686 makes it where even if a local government makes it illegal to discharge in the city limits, there are stipulations to what constitutes an unlawful discharge of a firearm. It strengthens the ability of people to be able to protect themselves (plus it allows the use of blanks, which are not allowed as of now).

Click to expand...

Appreciate the defining. This is what I thought it said; however, it just didn't flow like that for me.

P.S. I was close to your neck of the woods this weekend; Branson, Cape Fair....my wife doesn't like the roads..to 'S'...or maybe it's my driving! LOL!!

Verd said:

Right now, without HB1686, cities can make it unlawful to discharge a weapon in the city limits. Meaning, that if the city wanted to, they could charge you with unlawful use of a firearm even if you discharged it to defend yourself. HB1686 makes it where even if a local government makes it illegal to discharge in the city limits, there are stipulations to what constitutes an unlawful discharge of a firearm. It strengthens the ability of people to be able to protect themselves (plus it allows the use of blanks, which are not allowed as of now).

Click to expand...

In the matter of justifiable use of force this is completely a non-issue.

RSMO 563.074 protects the person using justified force from criminal prosecution and civil liability that could normally stem from the use of such justified force.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5630000074.HTM

It's another illustration that our politicians are not reading the laws that are currently on the books and thinking things through to the true ends and consequences.

HB 1621 had its Public Hearing on the 21st at 4pm. No other information was given.

If everything went well (and continues to do well), it should be placed on the calendar soon-ish.

HB 1683 was given over to General Laws committee on the 23rd.

they are adding them all together and will pass a few of them but not oc

HJR 49

HJR 49 -- RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

SPONSOR: Brattin

COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Committee on General
Laws by a vote of 5 to 4.

Upon voter approval, this proposed constitutional amendment
specifies that the right of every citizen to possess, purchase,
reload, or manufacture ammunition and any other parts or articles
essential to the proper functioning of arms must not be infringed
nor the amounts limited.

FISCAL NOTE: Estimated Net Effect on General Revenue Fund of an
income of $0 or a cost of More than $7,000,000 in FY 2013, an
income of $0 in FY 2014, and an income of $0 in FY 2015. No
impact on Other State Funds in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015.

PROPONENTS: Supporters say that many groups are attempting to
suppress this right since ammunition is currently not expressly
protected in our State Constitution. The state needs to be on
the forefront in protecting this important United States
Constitution Second Amendment right.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Brattin; and
Missourians for Personal Safety.

OPPONENTS: There was no opposition voiced to the committee.

Click to expand...

Looks like this one should get passed!

HB 1621 update

Summary of the Committee Version of the Bill

HB 1621 -- DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS FOR THE LAWFUL CARRY OR

USE OF FIREARMS

SPONSOR: Brown (116)

COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Committee on General

Laws by a vote of 9 to 3.

This bill specifies that it will be an unlawful employment

practice for an employer to discriminate against an individual

who has a concealed carry endorsement or uses his or her firearm

for a lawful purpose including, but not limited to, self defense

by failing or refusing to hire or to discharge any employee;

discriminating with respect to his or her compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges; or limiting, segregating, or

classifying employees or applicants in any way which would

deprive or otherwise adversely affect his or her status as an

employee.

These provisions cannot require employers to allow the carrying

and use of weapons on their property except as mandated by other

law or to grant preferential treatment to employees that hold

concealed carry endorsements or own firearms.

FISCAL NOTE: No impact on state funds in FY 2013, FY 2014, and

FY 2015.

PROPONENTS: Supporters say that the bill prevents employers from

discriminating against any employee who lawfully carries a

concealed weapon but does not require an employer to allow an

employee to carry a concealed weapon on the business’s premises.

No other state currently has this kind of provision and the bill

places Missouri at the forefront in providing this protection to

employees.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Brown (116); National

Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action; and

Missourians for Personal Safety.

OPPONENTS: There was no opposition voiced to the committee.

Click to expand...

Two of the OC Preemption bills were moved to committee on 3/8 to the General Laws Committee (HB 1589 and HB 1618). I am still very optimistic about one of these bills making it to the Senate as they are currently written.

Have to say, seriously surprised that there are two stickied threads about SB680 and yet this thread which talks about all three of the open carry preemption bills as well as all the other gun bills that are not directly related to conceal carry is not stickied.

Disappointed to say the least.

I am with you...Needs a sticky!!

Please sticky this thread!!

zekester said:

Please sticky this thread!!

Click to expand...

Second this... Bump..