How is OC only with a CCW legal?

I was just wondering how all these jurisdictions that allow OC only with a CCW permit can do so legally. CCW is basically a privilege granted by the state to citizens who have met the requirements established by the state. OC is the right that every citizen is born with. This right is enumerated in both the COTUS and the MO Constitution. In fact, in the MO Constitution it is illegal to "bear arms" concealed, meaning the only way to legally "bear arms" is openly. We are all aware that the legislature allowed for CCW in 2003 with a permit.

So, now we have communities saying that the only way a person can OC is if they acquire a CCW permit. In other words, the only way we can exercise a right is by paying for a privilege. I realize that on a state level we don't have pre-emption, but how on a federal level is this not the same as a Poll Tax? Since instructors can and do demand payment(and rightfully so) for providing the required instruction, and County Sheriffs can and do demand processing fees(not so sure of how rightfully), and since the Highway Patrol can and does demand a processing fee for running a back ground check(again not so sure this is "rightful"), how does this not keep access to the right to "bear arms" from those who are not able to pay these "fees" if they live in one of these jurisdictions? Has anyone ever challenged this in a federal court? Is this just a case of our rights being violated, because no one has had the monies necessary to challenge it? I was just wondering.

SavageOne said:

I was just wondering how all these jurisdictions that allow OC only with a CCW permit can do so legally. CCW is basically a privilege granted by the state to citizens who have met the requirements established by the state. OC is the right that every citizen is born with. This right is enumerated in both the COTUS and the MO Constitution. In fact, in the MO Constitution it is illegal to "bear arms" concealed, meaning the only way to legally "bear arms" is openly. We are all aware that the legislature allowed for CCW in 2003 with a permit.

Click to expand...

The state Constitution doesn't criminalized concealed weapons, it states that the right to bear arms is guaranteed with the exception of concealed weapons.

SavageOne said:

I was just wondering how all these jurisdictions that allow OC only with a CCW permit can do so legally. CCW is basically a privilege granted by the state to citizens who have met the requirements established by the state. OC is the right that every citizen is born with. This right is enumerated in both the COTUS and the MO Constitution. In fact, in the MO Constitution it is illegal to "bear arms" concealed, meaning the only way to legally "bear arms" is openly. We are all aware that the legislature allowed for CCW in 2003 with a permit.

So, now we have communities saying that the only way a person can OC is if they acquire a CCW permit. In other words, the only way we can exercise a right is by paying for a privilege. I realize that on a state level we don't have pre-emption, but how on a federal level is this not the same as a Poll Tax? Since instructors can and do demand payment(and rightfully so) for providing the required instruction, and County Sheriffs can and do demand processing fees(not so sure of how rightfully), and since the Highway Patrol can and does demand a processing fee for running a back ground check(again not so sure this is "rightful"), how does this not keep access to the right to "bear arms" from those who are not able to pay these "fees" if they live in one of these jurisdictions? Has anyone ever challenged this in a federal court? Is this just a case of our rights being violated, because no one has had the monies necessary to challenge it? I was just wondering.

Click to expand...

We did not have the "right" to CCW (as noted, Artical 1 Sec. 23 did not "allow" for carrying concealed weapons)) until the legislature made it avaiable, then it was challanged in court and the MO. supreme court upheld the statute, so CCW is now legal in MO. OC has always been legal in Missouri but as you said there is a no pre-emption, so locals can prohibit open carry.

It's legal because the state has allowed localities, either at city or county level, to regulate OC only in regards to firearms. This gives them the right to allow or disallow all sorts of things in regards to OC. Most are either allowing of OC, disallowing OC except with a CCL, or simply disallowing OC. One city that I know of, Branson, allows OC but only if the firearm is not loaded and bullets are not easily at hand. Heck, a city could even say you could only OC on a certain day. Crazy, I know, but thats our state for you.

Thanks for the responses. I think however the point I was trying to make is being missed. I totally understand that at present jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that mandate that people pay and go through all the requirements of acquiring a CCW if they wish to OC. This system also means that someone who is unable to pay or meet all the requirements of acquiring a CCW cannot exercise their constitutionally protected right to "bear arms". It is obvious that the state legislature views this a lawful, my question is why hasn't someone took this to the federal level?

Are not these jurisdictions saying to the citizens "if you wish to exercise your right to open carry, you must also pay for the privilege the state offers"? It is well established that a locale may not make someone "pay" to exercise their right to vote, how is it not also illegal for a locale to force someone to "pay" to exercise their right to bear arms?

I think at the very least if presented with a viable lawsuit the state would steer toward pre-emption vs. litigation.

SavageOne said:

Thanks for the responses. I think however the point I was trying to make is being missed. I totally understand that at present jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that mandate that people pay and go through all the requirements of acquiring a CCW if they wish to OC. This system also means that someone who is unable to pay or meet all the requirements of acquiring a CCW cannot exercise their constitutionally protected right to "bear arms". It is obvious that the state legislature views this a lawful, my question is why hasn't someone took this to the federal level?

Are not these jurisdictions saying to the citizens "if you wish to exercise your right to open carry, you must also pay for the privilege the state offers"? It is well established that a locale may not make someone "pay" to exercise their right to vote, how is it not also illegal for a locale to force someone to "pay" to exercise their right to bear arms?

I think at the very least if presented with a viable lawsuit the state would steer toward pre-emption vs. litigation.

Click to expand...

I assume many of us believe yo are correct. Problem - MONEY. If you have the ability to foot he bill, I think everyone here will gladly cheer you on. Just not realistic.

mspgunner said:

I assume many of us believe yo are correct. Problem - MONEY. If you have the ability to foot he bill, I think everyone here will gladly cheer you on. Just not realistic.

Click to expand...

But, it's realistic that a Senior Citizen from a bad neighborhood in Washington, DC could afford to take his case to the Supreme Court Of The United States? There are many ways a litigation could take place(class action, state wide fund, etc.) but with so little organization in our state you may be right. Look at states like VA and WI were they have organized and funded themselves. In those states their groups have been able to make real change for all citizens state wide. I think as long as most in MO are willing only to cheer someone else on as they do the work and foot the bill, little will ever change.

SavageOne said:

I think as long as most in MO are willing only to cheer someone else on as they do the work and foot the bill, little will ever change.

Click to expand...

Preaching to the chior.

1. Nowhere near enough cheerleaders
2. We got ccw FIRST so while as wrong as one might think it, too many who would have been interested are not because they have their ccw.
3. Rights are fundamental, understanding is not. While many of us understand that having a firearm on ones hip is NOT a reason for the police to stop you, the vast majority of folks if asked would say that a police officer SHOULD walk up and question a citizen with a firearm on their hip and that citizen should be 100% submissive to that police officer. As I said, understanding of rights does not exist and most think they are "lucky" to be able to carry a gun.
4. The foot work to get it done requires one peal their butt off the sofa and miss the sitcom while the kids surf porn on the internet, it ain't gonna happen but from only a few people.
5. The whole idea behind an OC with ccw SOUNDS like progress, but I disagree myself. I know we lost em incrementally but the thought behind such a bill IMHO is that the diehard rights activist all already have ccw (very likely) and if we just push it that far, THEY will have what they want and will settle down. It also lends itself to LEO contacts becomming acceptable within that limited scope of vision so he may "check and be sure" that one has a ccw. While it does not meet the criteria for it, it is at least ARGUABLE in front of a "jury of peers" (when those peers already think it should be ok anyway) and would significantly reduce the liability of the muni/officer for true misconduct etc.
6. Missouri is a follower state and until more states take a lead role, MO will not follow aka "the show me state" and that is pretty much how it is these days.


Anymore questions?

$25 dollars a month. In today's economy it can be a hard thing to part with. For me it would mean only giving up 1 of my beloved 20 oz. Dr. Peppers a day. For others it means missing the occasional Starbuck's coffee. If 100 people gave $25 dollars a month,to a legal action fund, in one year we would have $30,000 to start litigation.

So yes LMTD, I do have a further question. Are there 100 people in the state of Missouri, who are willing to do something to try and help? In the entire state can we find 100 people who will reach into their own pockets to try and change things for everyone else? If we can show others we are serious(SAF,GOA), then perhaps they will stand with us, as they did for others. If they don't, so be it, at least we can say "I did more than sat and cheered, I stood and tried". For the record, we only need to find 99 more.

Where's Doc with his plethora of good statutes to answer this one?

The simple answer has already been said: Money.

SavageOne said:

Thanks for the responses. I think however the point I was trying to make is being missed. I totally understand that at present jurisdictions have enacted ordinances that mandate that people pay and go through all the requirements of acquiring a CCW if they wish to OC. This system also means that someone who is unable to pay or meet all the requirements of acquiring a CCW cannot exercise their constitutionally protected right to "bear arms". It is obvious that the state legislature views this a lawful, my question is why hasn't someone took this to the federal level?

Are not these jurisdictions saying to the citizens "if you wish to exercise your right to open carry, you must also pay for the privilege the state offers"? It is well established that a locale may not make someone "pay" to exercise their right to vote, how is it not also illegal for a locale to force someone to "pay" to exercise their right to bear arms?

I think at the very least if presented with a viable lawsuit the state would steer toward pre-emption vs. litigation.

Click to expand...

I agree with you but I think the most affordable way is to lobby our legislature to change the law to a Constitutional Carry State. Four other states are currently CC. It is my understanding that 5 more are on the way. *Florida is taking additional steps to secure your 2A rights by instituting automatic heavy fines for any individual or municipality that tries to infringe upon your rights to carry. (*see the thread I posted as,"This is a good article" on the MO forum). I am hoping that the Missourians will push for this to. I can never understand why anyone would need a permit, (concealed or otherwise) to exercise their constitutional rights. As far as I know the 2nd amendment is the only constitutional right requiring permits of any kind. In my opinion, your right to carry begins the moment you legally purchase a firearm.

From Jeff Cooper's Survivor and Dillon's Blue Press

In the 80's, enrolled in one of Jeff's European classes was a German identified as "Gerhardt". He had been a Waffen SS trooper captured by the Soviets at the end of WWII.
One Evening, discoursing upon philosophy, Gerhardt looked at Jeff and asked "how many good men are there in the world per hundred"? Jeff, seldom optimistic about human nature replied maybe one.

Wrong Gerhardt replied. Then he proceeded to make his point. In 1945 Gerhardt had found himself with 30,000 other German Soldaten held in a frigid labor camp in northwestern Russia. It was plain that the Germans were there to be exploited, worked and or starved to death. Faced with near certainty of extinction, the Germans took stock. As experienced warriors, they recognized their keepers as low quality troops: gatekeepers rather than true soldiers. Gerhardt and a handful of others reckoned that with 200 men they could take over the camp and then worry about plan B. But first they needed to obtain control of the facility with its food and shelter.

The Germans needed 200 out of 30,000--they got 10.

As Gerhardt pronounced real men are the exception rather than the rule. Gerhardt himself escaped, the trek home took him a year and a half across Russia, killing only when necessary, an estimated 20 to 50 times. 10 out of 30,000, One in 3000. in decimal terms 0.00033-- from German Soldiers.... For Americans concerned with preserving the Bill of Rights, using measuring stick from Gerhardt, of the NRA 3 million members that is only 1000 good men. Of the 70 million gun owners in the USA..that is 23,000 good men

Click to expand...

So, was Gerhardt right

SavageOne said:

From Jeff Cooper's Survivor and Dillon's Blue Press





So, was Gerhardt right

Click to expand...

I agree. Put it together and I'll contribute towards CC litigation. It would be helpful to know if other lawsuits are in the works.

I think that OC with a CCW permit might be reading more into most of these municipal ordinances and codes than is actually there, unless it flat out states as much. It looks like most are just acknowledging the preemption that is attached to CCW permit holders and they might just be grudgingly conceding de-facto not to argue about how concealed, concealed might be. In Florida for example concealed means CONCEALED, no ifs, ands or buts. Keep that puppy out of sight OR ELSE!

Polecat said:

In Florida for example concealed means CONCEALED, no ifs, ands or buts. Keep that puppy out of sight OR ELSE!

Click to expand...

The ordinances are very clear, it is an exemption and it is very clear.

FYI Florida I believe just changed its law and OC is legal.

There has been a strong push in Florida since January 2011 to get OC, admittedly I haven't followed it that closely from here, but so far the only news has been they reaffirmed pre-emption and solidly claim ALL gun legislation is exclusively for the state to decide, to the point of criminalizing any attempts at local restrictions. While that diffidently will prevent the kind of patch work mess we have here in Missouri with OC, I can't find where restrictions on OC have been eased or lifted yet in Florida. That's why I come here - for knowledge and wisdom. My point was that Florida's definition of concealed carry includes the expectation that it is indeed concealed.

The original posters question is a good one. I might have mistakenly concluded that the built in exemptions were to inoculate them from pre-emption challenges with regard to carrying concealed, but the restriction is on OC only, so I'm not in violation when I CC. An exemption isn't needed for me to continue to CC, because that hasn't been restricted. So what was the point for the exemption? It appears it's only function is to allow me to do something as a perk for having an arguably unrelated permit .

OC for ME said:

Our 2A right begins at birth. Just as God intended.

Click to expand...

Which "God" granted this "right" , and what kinda guns did he have ? :question:

OC for ME said:

If you have to ask....

So, here goes anyway.

Click to expand...

:lol:

Maybe have a little talk with him then, see how that works out for ya.