We have gone to the governor!!!

mspgunner · Jun 9, 2013

Gun Related Bills That Need To Become Law:

HB 436 - School Protection Officers - allows teachers with advanced firearms training to carry in schools - closes records of firearms ownership - lower the age for ccw to 19.

HB 533 - Allows guns in vehicles for state employees on state parking lots.

SB 75 - Takes issuance of ccw permits away from DOR and gives it to the sheriff departments, and more.

SB 252 - Prohibits DOR from scaning or providing biometric data and sharing firearms data with the federal government.

Please Contact:

Office of the Governor Jay Nixon
PO Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3222

http://governor.mo.gov/contact/

Ask him to sign these bills or allow them to become law. Please do it today!

Oramac · Jun 10, 2013

mspgunner said:
Ask him to sign these bills or allow them to become law. Please do it today!

Done!

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

mspgunner said:
Gun Related Bills That Need To Become Law:

HB 436 - School Protection Officers - allows teachers with advanced firearms training to carry in schools - closes records of firearms ownership - lower the age for ccw to 19.

HB 533 - Allows guns in vehicles for state employees on state parking lots.

SB 75 - Takes issuance of ccw permits away from DOR and gives it to the sheriff departments, and more.

SB 252 - Prohibits DOR from scaning or providing biometric data and sharing firearms data with the federal government.

Please Contact:

Office of the Governor Jay Nixon
PO Box 720
Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3222

http://governor.mo.gov/contact/

Ask him to sign these bills or allow them to become law. Please do it today!

Are these all a law together or seperate laws. I have no problem calling but I do not agree with HB 436.

Redbaron007 · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
Are these all a law together or seperate laws. I have no problem calling but I do not agree with HB 436.

What is your issue with HB436?

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

Redbaron007 said:
What is your issue with HB436?

In my opinion 19 years old is to young to carry a weapon. The maturity level is not there for a kid at that age. I also don't think teachers need weapons in schools. There are other measures we can take to keep our kids safe without putting a gun in the hands of a person who has a job with one of the highest rates of stress. I'm not saying I am right. Its just my belief.

Oramac · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
In my opinion 19 years old is to young to carry a weapon. The maturity level is not there for a kid at that age. I also don't think teachers need weapons in schools. There are other measures we can take to keep our kids safe without putting a gun in the hands of a person who has a job with one of the highest rates of stress. I'm not saying I am right. Its just my belief.

19 is too young to CC but at 18 you can enlist and carry a full-auto rifle into a combat situation to die for the country? I'm not seeing the logic there. Nor with the teacher thing, but I'm not going to open that can of worms at this point.

kcgunfan · Jun 10, 2013

Oramac said:
19 is too young to CC but at 18 you can enlist and carry a full-auto rifle into a combat situation to die for the country? I'm not seeing the logic there. Nor with the teacher thing, but I'm not going to open that can of worms at this point.

I will... If the poster believes the HB436 gives carte blanche approval for teachers to carry firearms in schools, then it's obvious that he hasn't read the legislation. As such, there is no reason to listen to him. If he has read the legislation, then he must be trolling us. And there is no reason to listen to him.

But, what is your better way? Keep mind that it must cost 0 dollars and work in rural school districts where LEO's could be an hour away as well urban districts.

Edit: because a word

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

Oramac said:
19 is too young to CC but at 18 you can enlist and carry a full-auto rifle into a combat situation to die for the country? I'm not seeing the logic there. Nor with the teacher thing, but I'm not going to open that can of worms at this point.

Nice passive agressive statement. Pretty sure I didn't say I was ok with 18 y/o kids enlisting however the training for being in the service is much much more extensive then the 8hr class for ccw. I was just wanting to know if I could still help without agreeing to something I don't believe in.

Oramac · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
Nice passive agressive statement. Pretty sure I didn't say I was ok with 18 y/o kids enlisting however the training for being in the service is much much more extensive then the 8hr class for ccw. I was just wanting to know if I could still help without agreeing to something I don't believe in.

To answer your question, yes.

But the actual firearms training isn't much different than that put forth in the CCW class. Sure in the service you learn a lot of other stuff (survival, squad tactics, grenades, etc.) but the actual firearms usage isn't any different from an M16 or Beretta M9 to a Glock or anything else. Now if you want to argue that 18 year olds shouldn't be able to enlist at all, that's a valid discussion. But also one that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And it wasn't meant to be aggressive. It was a sincere questioning of the logic used to reach a conclusion.

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

kcgunfan said:
I will... If the poster believes the HB436 gives carte blanche approval for teachers to carry firearms in schools, then it's obvious that he hasn't read the legislation. As such, there is no reason to listen to him. If he has read the legislation, then he must be trolling us. And there is no reason to listen to him.

But, what is your better way? Keep mind that it must cost 0 dollars and work in rural school districts where LEO's could be an hour away as well urban districts.

Edit: because a word

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

It does not make me a troll just because I dont agree with something. From what I have read part of the HB436 could allow "trained" teachers to carry a gun. Instead of being an extremist and stating someone is just a troll for posting something, correct them on what they may be misinformed about. That is the reason I joined this group in the first place and why many others do. We have plenty of people in the armed forces that we could be in the schools. As a matter of fact I just talked with a buddy who said he would be more than happy to sit in a school between the times he is training. He said there are so many people on reserves that could be put into the schools to protect our kids. BTW I dont know why it must be 0 dollars... Free is not always better. Can we not have a healthy conversation?

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

Oramac said:
To answer your question, yes.

But the actual firearms training isn't much different than that put forth in the CCW class. Sure in the service you learn a lot of other stuff (survival, squad tactics, grenades, etc.) but the actual firearms usage isn't any different from an M16 or Beretta M9 to a Glock or anything else. Now if you want to argue that 18 year olds shouldn't be able to enlist at all, that's a valid discussion. But also one that's irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And it wasn't meant to be aggressive. It was a sincere questioning of the logic used to reach a conclusion.

I was just being facetious I know you were not being agressive. The firearm training is much more extensive in the armed forces but like you said its irrelevant. Again in my opinion a 19 y/o kid is not mature enough to have only an 8 hour class to conceal a weapon. This is the age where we are just starting to become men. We are drinking, fighting, smoking and all those other things most of us have done at this age. Of course this does not fall for all 19 y/o as some would be responsible. Most kids at 19 would start a fight start getting there ass kicked and then decide to pull a gun. Again I am just stating my opinion. Not trying to be a troll. Im not even saying I am right or wrong.

Oramac · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
It does not make me a troll just because I dont agree with something. From what I have read part of the HB436 could allow "trained" teachers to carry a gun. Instead of being an extremist and stating someone is just a troll for posting something, correct them on what they may be misinformed about. That is the reason I joined this group in the first place and why many others do. We have plenty of people in the armed forces that we could be in the schools. As a matter of fact I just talked with a buddy who said he would be more than happy to sit in a school between the times he is training. He said there are so many people on reserves that could be put into the schools to protect our kids. BTW I dont know why it must be 0 dollars... Free is not always better. Can we not have a healthy conversation?

It must be free because there's likely no room in the education budget for paid security at every public school in the state. Say there's 100 schools (for the sake of argument). One security officer making minimum wage (they'd make more; again for the sake of argument) during an 8 hour day 5 days a week for 2/3 of the year (roughly 244 days). That's $14,347.20 per person per year, or a little over $1.4 million to cover all 100 schools in the example. And we both know that this is best case, since there's more than 100 school and the officers are going to want more than minimum wage. This also assumes there's only one security officer at each school. Add officers, and your costs skyrocket quick.

Allowing teachers with a CCW to carry, if they so choose, is a sunk cost since they're already being paid to teach, and won't be paid any more if they carry. Thus it is essentially free.

gsxr1805 said:
I was just being facetious I know you were not being agressive. The firearm training is much more extensive in the armed forces but like you said its irrelevant. Again in my opinion a 19 y/o kid is not mature enough to have only an 8 hour class to conceal a weapon. This is the age where we are just starting to become men. We are drinking, fighting, smoking and all those other things most of us have done at this age. Of course this does not fall for all 19 y/o as some would be responsible. Most kids at 19 would start a fight start getting there ass kicked and then decide to pull a gun. Again I am just stating my opinion. Not trying to be a troll. Im not even saying I am right or wrong.

Indiana allows 18 year olds to carry, and has had no adverse instances I'm aware of. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona allow anyone to carry with no restrictions whatsoever, including 18 year olds, and also have had no adverse instances I'm aware of either. You're welcome to your opinion. More than welcome, in fact, since it spurs constructive discussion. But the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary.

Anyway, I'm heading home here in a minute, so I'll pick this back up again tomorrow if needed. All the best!

kcgunfan · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
It does not make me a troll just because I dont agree with something. From what I have read part of the HB436 could allow "trained" teachers to carry a gun. Instead of being an extremist and stating someone is just a troll for posting something, correct them on what they may be misinformed about. That is the reason I joined this group in the first place and why many others do. We have plenty of people in the armed forces that we could be in the schools. As a matter of fact I just talked with a buddy who said he would be more than happy to sit in a school between the times he is training. He said there are so many people on reserves that could be put into the schools to protect our kids. BTW I dont know why it must be 0 dollars... Free is not always better. Can we not have a healthy conversation?

Sure, start by reading the bill, and let me know what has to happen for a school district employee (notice I did not say teacher, it's not only teachers, and it may not be any teachers) to be able to carry a firearm into a school. Being familiar with the legislation is a great place to start a conversation around legislation. Yes, it's long, and boring, but I've done it more times than I can count, it won't hurt you to do it once.

It ought to be free, because the proposed solution in HB326 has no financial impact. A equivalent solution should be the same. But, if it makes it easier, I'll waive that requirement. Just give me your estimated expenses and how you propose to pay for it. You may do so either with budget cuts or tax increases.

As far as your buddy goes, that's wonderful that he's willing to do that. As a matter of fact, that was part of the NRA proposal. And were it legal, I'd find a way to do that at my kids schools a few times a month. But, it is illegal under MO state law for either your buddy or myself to do so. How was your buddy planning on paying for food/shelter/transportation? Does the Reserves pay that well these days?

mspgunner · Jun 10, 2013

Those who "Volunteer" to be school safety offiers musr pay for everything themselves, that is why there is no cost to the state or the school disticts. The CCW, record check, advanced training.... All volunteer. The person must also be approved by the school and confidentiality is also a part. Must be a school district "employee". That's the way the bill is written.

Easy to be a back seat quarter back, happens all the time. If some one has any 2A suggestions, the legislative session starts in Jan. 2014.

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

kcgunfan said:
Sure, start by reading the bill, and let me know what has to happen for a school district employee (notice I did not say teacher, it's not only teachers, and it may not be any teachers) to be able to carry a firearm into a school. Being familiar with the legislation is a great place to start a conversation around legislation. Yes, it's long, and boring, but I've done it more times than I can count, it won't hurt you to do it once.

It ought to be free, because the proposed solution in HB326 has no financial impact. A equivalent solution should be the same. But, if it makes it easier, I'll waive that requirement. Just give me your estimated expenses and how you propose to pay for it. You may do so either with budget cuts or tax increases.

As far as your buddy goes, that's wonderful that he's willing to do that. As a matter of fact, that was part of the NRA proposal. And were it legal, I'd find a way to do that at my kids schools a few times a month. But, it is illegal under MO state law for either your buddy or myself to do so. How was your buddy planning on paying for food/shelter/transportation? Does the Reserves pay that well these days?

You are just an a**hole.

kcgunfan · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
You are just an a**hole.

With a persuasive argument like that, I have to admit defeat. We must defeat HB436 because the teachers will kill us all!

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

mspgunner said:
Those who "Volunteer" to be school safety offiers musr pay for everything themselves, that is why there is no cost to the state or the school disticts. The CCW, record check, advanced training.... All volunteer. The person must also be approved by the school and confidentiality is also a part. Must be a school district "employee". That's the way the bill is written.

Easy to be a back seat quarter back, happens all the time. If some one has any 2A suggestions, the legislative session starts in Jan. 2014.

I guess the only way to see if its a smart move is for it to happen. I think we will see some teachers shoot some kids but I could be wrong. I would rather use the armed forces protect our schools but I am sure that will not happen. All in all I would probably rather a teacher/school official be armed with the chance of a few going nutts then have mass murders every other month. Thanks for not being a complete A**.

gsxr1805 · Jun 10, 2013

Oramac said:
It must be free because there's likely no room in the education budget for paid security at every public school in the state. Say there's 100 schools (for the sake of argument). One security officer making minimum wage (they'd make more; again for the sake of argument) during an 8 hour day 5 days a week for 2/3 of the year (roughly 244 days). That's $14,347.20 per person per year, or a little over $1.4 million to cover all 100 schools in the example. And we both know that this is best case, since there's more than 100 school and the officers are going to want more than minimum wage. This also assumes there's only one security officer at each school. Add officers, and your costs skyrocket quick.

Allowing teachers with a CCW to carry, if they so choose, is a sunk cost since they're already being paid to teach, and won't be paid any more if they carry. Thus it is essentially free.

Indiana allows 18 year olds to carry, and has had no adverse instances I'm aware of. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona allow anyone to carry with no restrictions whatsoever, including 18 year olds, and also have had no adverse instances I'm aware of either. You're welcome to your opinion. More than welcome, in fact, since it spurs constructive discussion. But the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary.

Anyway, I'm heading home here in a minute, so I'll pick this back up again tomorrow if needed. All the best!

I would be interested to see what the stats for 18, 19, and 20 would be for those states. I tried to find it but came up short.

mspgunner · Jun 10, 2013

gsxr1805 said:
I guess the only way to see if its a smart move is for it to happen. I think we will see some teachers shoot some kids but I could be wrong. I would rather use the armed forces protect our schools but I am sure that will not happen. All in all I would probably rather a teacher/school official be armed with the chance of a few going nutts then have mass murders every other month. Thanks for not being a complete A**.

Any time some one says I'm --NOT-- a complete A**, I take that as a compliment. Thank you, there are enough people around who think I ---AM--- a complete A@@....... And then some.

9026543 · Jun 10, 2013

Gov Nixon will be out of state June 14 through June 22.

We have gone to the governor!!!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member