Open Carry Update

[mspgunner]

And those in the magic circle doesn't want anyone to p*** off the game players in Jeff City.

It only took one incident from Maplewood to get a State Rep. to call me from Jefferson City and tell me OC was dead this year! One incident and the pres crushed us to death. POW!

Not to revisit that, but it doesn't take much of a bad turn to kill a bill that would otherwise have soem sort of cchance, especially when it can fly when added toa good bill that has a very good chance of passing. Attaching the OC bill this year to the one that is going to pass the House and Senate and go to the Governor may have killed that combined bill. That was not going to happen. Next year "WE" will be better prepared. No telling.

 

[cash50]

I don't see the CCW requirement for OC preemption as a step forward. I don't support that at all.

 

[mspgunner]

I don't see the CCW requirement for OC preemption as a step forward. I don't support that at all.

Won't have to worry about it for along time in Missouri.

 

[LMTD]

And those in the magic circle doesn't want anyone to p*** off the game players in Jeff City.

Not only true, but it tweaks em real good when you do not jump up and down with praise, god forbid you complain about production effort etc.

ZThe biggest historical problem has been the lack of honesty among the politicians and these days, well we have a few with stones but we have a lot that IMHO are weak in mind and spirit.

Then again, a **** pot of gun forum complainers have never even bothered to vote so they offer no voice beyond a whine.

 

[LMTD]

I don't see the CCW requirement for OC preemption as a step forward. I don't support that at all.

I understand but disagree. We lost em in increments and we will get them back in the same manner. Anyone whom thinks a state wide preemption for OC unrestricted is in the near future is way beyond wrong.

Simple math, the dollars given to pass it vs the dollars given to not pass it. Never forget CCW failed the popular vote, granted some BS ballot changes and lies helped that but fact for fact it did not pass. There is no reason to think a similar item relating to OC would face the same underhanded BS and lies, it is how the anti's fight since there is no supporting data for their position.

Even now with 130k folks licensed you have to look at the big picture and that is less than 3% of the population of the state and I can promise you that a great many of them are not OC advocates or even close to support, some would indeed vote against it if offered the chance.

Considering the past, pretty much any gain we get is a step, the fight in MO is not a particularly easy one and there is so much dishonesty involved it makes you despise the system as a whole.

 

[cshoff]

I understand but disagree. We lost em in increments and we will get them back in the same manner. Anyone whom thinks a state wide preemption for OC unrestricted is in the near future is way beyond wrong.

I must disagree with your thought that we "lost them in increments and we will get them back in the same manner". There was nothing "incremental" about the language in 21.750. It was carte blanche for political subdivisions in this state to treat our State Constitution like so much garbage, and all with the blessing of the State Legislature. OC with a CCW permit would, in no way, do anything to change that, incrementally or otherwise, IMHO. In fact, it would be a defacto OC licensing system with "big brother" setting requirements and restrictions, in addition to collecting fees, every step of the way.

Simple math, the dollars given to pass it vs the dollars given to not pass it. Never forget CCW failed the popular vote, granted some BS ballot changes and lies helped that but fact for fact it did not pass. There is no reason to think a similar item relating to OC would face the same underhanded BS and lies, it is how the anti's fight since there is no supporting data for their position.

Even now with 130k folks licensed you have to look at the big picture and that is less than 3% of the population of the state and I can promise you that a great many of them are not OC advocates or even close to support, some would indeed vote against it if offered the chance.

Considering the past, pretty much any gain we get is a step, the fight in MO is not a particularly easy one and there is so much dishonesty involved it makes you despise the system as a whole.

IMO, OC preemption has a much better chance of seeing the light of day via the route of the MO Supreme Court on a Constitutional challenge than it does through the legislature. Honestly, I don't believe this is an "important" enough issue that it will ever gain much traction in Jeff City. It is entirely too easy to sweep under the rug, especially when there is so little organized support for it.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

IMO, OC preemption has a much better chance of seeing the light of day via the route of the MO Supreme Court on a Constitutional challenge than it does through the legislature.

We'll never see that.

I keep seeing people say it, but nobody acts on it.

I don't mind the CCW permit for OC. There are alot of folks that prolly don't need to carry a gun. Too much testosterone .

 

[cshoff]

We'll never see that.

I keep seeing people say it, but nobody acts on it.

I think we are just as likely to see that, if not more so, than we are to see a serious push in our legislature for OC preemption. At least in the foreseeable future.

I don't mind the CCW permit for OC. There are alot of folks that prolly don't need to carry a gun. Too much testosterone .

So you feel that the state should get to decide who does or doesn't "need" to carry a gun?

 

[LMTD]

I must disagree with your thought that we "lost them in increments and we will get them back in the same manner". There was nothing "incremental" about the language in 21.750. It was carte blanche for political subdivisions in this state to treat our State Constitution like so much garbage, and all with the blessing of the State Legislature. OC with a CCW permit would, in no way, do anything to change that, incrementally or otherwise, IMHO. In fact, it would be a defacto OC licensing system with "big brother" setting requirements and restrictions, in addition to collecting fees, every step of the way.

IMO, OC preemption has a much better chance of seeing the light of day via the route of the MO Supreme Court on a Constitutional challenge than it does through the legislature. Honestly, I don't believe this is an "important" enough issue that it will ever gain much traction in Jeff City. It is entirely too easy to sweep under the rug, especially when there is so little organized support for it.

Well, I agree 21.750 sucks and offer it sucks even more since it was just redon3 last year and the simple removal of line three ends it, however that is not the case. I most certainly have my opinions on this and the events and opinions that did not press for it, no doubt.

Your thoughts on the defacto licensing system are literally my biggest concern, too many of the legislators are already saying "look at what we have done already and you keep asking for more" when in reality we are simply asking for LESS! If they do pass an OC for CCW, I am not sure any viable effort will remain for a state preemption which is what I voiced about 841.

As far as getting to the Missouri Supreme court, well more cases have made it there for weapons such as rocks and sticks than have firearms so I am going to agree with you it is not real likely that we will see one in the near future.

 

[LMTD]

There are alot of folks that prolly don't need to carry a gun. Too much testosterone .

I have found that not only are such remarks without any merit what so ever, they are usually an indicator of exactly the problem that exist within our legislature.

Hindering legal responsible citizens rights based upon unfounded sheeple thoughts of what might be true for another is infringement based upon pretty much the weakest idiocy of all.

Since it is COMPLETELY impossible to stop ANYONE from carrying a firearm, the only wisdom of laws surrounding it would be the BEHAVIOR involving the firearm.

Anyone that disagrees has that right, however they are going to have a real hard time explaining all the "felon with a firearm" charges in this state because that would not be possible as it is against the law so it can't happen!

There is no such thing as reasonable gun laws, guns can not reason, they have no brain, they are just like hammers. Weapons laws should be REAL simple and REAL strict, you threaten with a weapon (including a rock), you assault with a weapon, you batter with a weapon, unless in self defense you go away for a while. No other regulation is required or respected by those bent upon criminal activity and it has been proven MILLIONS of times.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

So you feel that the state should get to decide who does or doesn't "need" to carry a gun?

No .

I'm saying the chest-thumping and testosterone on alot of gun boards give the anti's plenty of ammo against us. You see the cop-bashing threads here and people jumping right in to kick 'em and it makes anti's think about how unstable some folks "may" be.

I try to look at things from both sides. Makes more sense to me that way.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

I have found that not only are such remarks without any merit what so ever, they are usually an indicator of exactly the problem that exist within our legislature.

Hindering legal responsible citizens rights based upon unfounded sheeple thoughts of what might be true for another is infringement based upon pretty much the weakest idiocy of all.

That's my point in a roundabout way.

When the "sheeple" read some of the stuff I do on gun boards, they no doubt start thinking about how they can get control of our guns to keep "radical" people from having them.

 

[mspgunner]

Well folks, the legislative session ends this week, we'll see no changes in OC of course. We will work on organizing ourselves and our voices, that is a good start. I communicate with many members of the House and senate whether they are in session or out. OK, $25.00 bucks to attend a fund raiser here and there and going to events where they speak (For free). We have to do this and tactfully remind them every time we see them that OC feedom was introduced this year and we would like to see it introduced every session till it passes.

Many bills take many years to go the distance, press on and it can happen.
We need to increase our ranks, we can do this through the many 2A groups already in existance and through our political contacts. We sure as heck are not going to see "constitutional Carry", let's see what we can get. This will take a lot of time and work. The STl area get together is a good start, I think we can get folks from the other 2A groups to attend... we'll see.

 

[kcgunfan]

Well folks, the legislative session ends this week, we'll see no changes in OC of course.

Well, it's a little worse than that. As far as I know, there were no firearms law changes this year, not even the special permission to let Senate/House staffers to CCW.

Out of curiosity, is it possible to see who voted for what in the Senate with regards to HB 294? I'd like to know who was responsible for stuffing it.

 

[mspgunner]

Well, it's a little worse than that. As far as I know, there were no firearms law changes this year, not even the special permission to let Senate/House staffers to CCW.

Out of curiosity, is it possible to see who voted for what in the Senate with regards to HB 294? I'd like to know who was responsible for stuffing it.

I haven't checked to see if it went to a vote yet. I've been told it would pass and go to the Governor.
We'll see. If there is no vote the fault is with the Senate leadership.

 

[cshoff]

No .

I'm saying the chest-thumping and testosterone on alot of gun boards give the anti's plenty of ammo against us. You see the cop-bashing threads here and people jumping right in to kick 'em and it makes anti's think about how unstable some folks "may" be.

I try to look at things from both sides. Makes more sense to me that way.

Then how do you reconcile this viewpoint with your post above?

I don't mind the CCW permit for OC. There are alot of folks that prolly don't need to carry a gun. Too much testosterone .

Sounds like you are advocating for the state to decide who "needs" to carry a gun and who does not. Remember, when the state enacts a "standard", they are not subjective or merit based, but rather they are arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Then how do you reconcile this viewpoint with your post above?



Sounds like you are advocating for the state to decide who "needs" to carry a gun and who does not. Remember, when the state enacts a "standard", they are not subjective or merit based, but rather they are arbitrary and capricious.

You must have missed post 92.

 

[9026543]

We'll never see that.

I keep seeing people say it, but nobody acts on it.

I don't mind the CCW permit for OC. There are alot of folks that prolly don't need to carry a gun. Too much testosterone .

Maybe we should have state mandated testosterone testing as part of the CCW process. At what level would they set the maximum?

 

[cshoff]

You must have missed post 92.

I read that post, but I don't see how it nullifies or retracts the statement I quoted.

 

[LMTD]

That's my point in a roundabout way.

When the "sheeple" read some of the stuff I do on gun boards, they no doubt start thinking about how they can get control of our guns to keep "radical" people from having them.

I had a very similar conversation with one of my students the other day. He was more than shocked by my comment which was drafted to induce shock, "we should hand prisoners a 45 on the way out the door of prison when they are released" and considering he has a past so to speak he felt he was ready for debate on the subject.

You might have thought Sara Brady was in the room, with all his passion and might he talked about some really bad folks in the joint and what they are capable of etc for perhaps 10 minutes straight. When he finally paused, I asked him "If you wanted a gun could you have one within the next three hours?" He said "yes" and looked at me kind of puzzled. I then said "So the law against felons having guns serves no purpose and has done nothing to hinder you from getting a gun but has indeed hindered me as i have chosen to purchase one legally and have been delayed, in fact it is actually EASIER for you to obtain a firearm than it is me as i will be going through the channels to get one legally."

A very interesting awkward moment of silence fell across the room, for a moment in time some of the sheep stopped eating the grass so to speak and began to think.

Regulation of actions taken with a firearm are fine, bearing arms in a safe and responsible manner should not be regulated at all, even if you are constantly on testosterone overload, being a moron is not illegal, bearing a firearm is not illegal, bearing a firearm in a moron like manner should be restricted.