Open Carry Update

[peterarthur]

So we should have training and background requirements to exercise our supposed rights?? That argument has never made sense to me.

Do you have to get a permit to say what you want? Or to be free from unwarranted search and seizure? So why the requirements with any other rights?

Well said. Exactly where my mind went when I read the previous statement.

 

[tittiger]

Some of us believe in the constitution which clearly defines you have the right to bear arms and that is not to be questioned. Add to it ones right to be free of search and seizure, they are going to need more than participating in a legal licensed activity to legally stop you.

If I am not committing a crime I fully expect the government to leave me 100% alone.


I also consider it my problem if they do this to others, rights come from god and the government, you, nor I get to decide whom deserves to have them violated, all violations need to be dealt with swiftly.

LMTD, I am glad to see a sane voice from someone educated in Liberty.
It is a shame that a lot of the people posting here sound like they could be from the Soviet Union in their thinking. I want to make the further point that even in places where you need a CC for OC stopping any of these people would be a violation of the 4th Amendment protections of the Constitution. To randomly ask for ID from people that are not breaking the law is criminal in itself.

Does anyone understand why the MO legislature found it fit to allow little corrupt towns take away with the stroke of a pen my God given rights? I thought the job of the MO legislature was to protect my God given rights. IMHO the proper way to handle this whole issue is recognize these rights in the Missouri constitution. The tactic of the legislature "Giving" us ANY rights is just antithetical to what this country was founded upon and also implies that they can take away at any time those rights that they previously gave us. Does anyone else "Smell a Rat" as Patrick Henry remarked about the Constitutional convention?

 

[kcgunfan]

Personally, I think the bestest solution would be to strike RSMo 21.750.3 altogether and change 21.750.1 accordingly. I can't think of any good reason why a subdivision should be able to regulate discharge. It should be easy enough to define where and when you can discharge a weapon for everyone in the state. Uniformity of the law is a good thing in my mind. Otherwise, I have to investigate to see if plinking is legal before going to visit friends and such.

But, while I don't think the OC for CCW endorsement solution is best, I do think it's better than nothing. First, no rights are being taken away. You can still OC, but some people can now OC in more places. While I don't think it's what the Founding Fathers had in mind, I view it as moving closer. Secondly, this bill is somewhat easier to swallow for the anti's. We are restoring the right of certain people that have been trained and vetted by the government to carry openly wherever they choose. Finally, something that might (and I think this piece is a little iffy) happen is that a year or 2 after this becomes a law, we can say to the legislators "See, we did this in 2011, and there wasn't a bloodbath in the streets. Let's talk about extending this to all people who are permitted to own a firearm." At that point, we have much firmer ground to stand on. We don't need to have a war of hypotheticals.

Of course, all of this is just ******* in the wind this year. Oh well...

 

[zekester]

Permit my a$$ because I am black and want to ride in front of the bus.
Permit my a$$ because I want to make a speech about riding in front of the bus.
Permit my a$$ because I want to worship the GOD of my choice.
Permit my a$$ because I have an a$$.

Can't afford all these permits!

 

[mspgunner]

Personally, I think the bestest solution would be to strike RSMo 21.750.3 altogether and change 21.750.1 accordingly. I can't think of any good reason why a subdivision should be able to regulate discharge. It should be easy enough to define where and when you can discharge a weapon for everyone in the state. Uniformity of the law is a good thing in my mind. Otherwise, I have to investigate to see if plinking is legal before going to visit friends and such.

But, while I don't think the OC for CCW endorsement solution is best, I do think it's better than nothing. First, no rights are being taken away. You can still OC, but some people can now OC in more places. While I don't think it's what the Founding Fathers had in mind, I view it as moving closer. Secondly, this bill is somewhat easier to swallow for the anti's. We are restoring the right of certain people that have been trained and vetted by the government to carry openly wherever they choose. Finally, something that might (and I think this piece is a little iffy) happen is that a year or 2 after this becomes a law, we can say to the legislators "See, we did this in 2011, and there wasn't a bloodbath in the streets. Let's talk about extending this to all people who are permitted to own a firearm." At that point, we have much firmer ground to stand on. We don't need to have a war of hypotheticals.

Of course, all of this is just ******* in the wind this year. Oh well...

Correct, and it is dead this year. We need to increase in numbers and involvement! It takes a lot of push to get anything through the legislature and the Governor's desk, we have no where near the numbers. Sure it's our "right" but they've taken it away, "we" have to work to get our rights back, if you know another way, I'm all ears, but it aint gonna happen any other way. I've expressed my disconcern to many in the Missouri Legislature, mostly I get no response.

 

[tittiger]

Permit my a$$ because I am black and want to ride in front of the bus.
Permit my a$$ because I want to make a speech about riding in front of the bus.
Permit my a$$ because I want to worship the GOD of my choice.
Permit my a$$ because I have an a$$.

Can't afford all these permits!

Neither can I brother and BTW if you have to pay for it, it is not a right but a permission.

I also have a beef with those buying their right to conceal carry for they are in a way throwing us under the bus and tactically admitting that self defense is a permission to be bought and sold by Caesar and not the Lord God. I would think the creator of the universe also finds this behavior insulting.

 

[kcgunfan]

Neither can I brother and BTW if you have to pay for it, it is not a right but a permission.

I also have a beef with those buying their right to conceal carry for they are in a way throwing us under the bus and tactically admitting that self defense is a permission to be bought and sold by Caesar and not the Lord God. I would think the creator of the universe also finds this behavior insulting.

You are preaching to the choir. I don't know anyone that will disagree with you on your first point. I'm not quite sure why you feel you need to make it over and over. On the second point, please provide a cite that God is insulted by my CCW endorsement.

The fine point you are missing is what is different between now and when CCW was first passed. When it was first passed, there were fears that passing this bill would literally cause bloodbaths in the streets, with people shooting each other over tiny little disagreements.

As of the end of 4/2011, there are 130,000 people with MO CCW endorsements. And the bloodbaths did not materialize. So, we can confidently say that enabling CCW has had no bad effect on crime in the state (you can argue whether or not it has reduced it though.)

So, now we move to the next step, which all here would like to be Constitutional Carry. I doubt that we'll get that big of a step, mostly because our legislature doesn't pay much more than lip service to the 2A. So I would like to see OC for CCW as an intermediate step. It's not the end state, but it's one step closer.

 

[mspgunner]

You are preaching to the choir. I don't know anyone that will disagree with you on your first point. I'm not quite sure why you feel you need to make it over and over. On the second point, please provide a cite that God is insulted by my CCW endorsement.

The fine point you are missing is what is different between now and when CCW was first passed. When it was first passed, there were fears that passing this bill would literally cause bloodbaths in the streets, with people shooting each other over tiny little disagreements.

As of the end of 4/2011, there are 130,000 people with MO CCW endorsements. And the bloodbaths did not materialize. So, we can confidently say that enabling CCW has had no bad effect on crime in the state (you can argue whether or not it has reduced it though.)

So, now we move to the next step, which all here would like to be Constitutional Carry. I doubt that we'll get that big of a step, mostly because our legislature doesn't pay much more than lip service to the 2A. So I would like to see OC for CCW as an intermediate step. It's not the end state, but it's one step closer.

Step by step. I agree the removal of the OC law by local idiots is the first step by any means possible. Even if it means requiring CCW permit. Constitutional carry may follow, it will take time and organization. These things aren't a "given". It's much easier to pass laws to restrict rights then it is to pass them to restore rights. It may ba a God given right, but it was taken away by the legislature.

 

[cshoff]

I'm still waiting for somebody to point out exactly what it is we (the people of this state) gain by passing a law that would allow OC anywhere in the state for valid CCW endorsement holders? Do you believe the ability to openly display your gun, with government permission, is a "win"? The endorsement already allows the holder to carry a firearm practically anywhere in the state without fear of prosecution. Giving the state even more authority (implicit licensing authority over OC) is the OPPOSITE of a win. It is the relinquishing of even more personal freedoms and rights and definitely contrary to the spirit of our State Constitution as well as our Federal Bill of Rights.

 

[tittiger]

Step by step. I agree the removal of the OC law by local idiots is the first step by any means possible. Even if it means requiring CCW permit. Constitutional carry may follow, it will take time and organization. These things aren't a "given". It's much easier to pass laws to restrict rights then it is to pass them to restore rights. It may ba a God given right, but it was taken away by the legislature.

Thanks for the clarifications on your reasoning.

I disagree with your last way of phasing things however. IMHO The legislature can not take a right away as you still have that right. They may make it a crime but that changes nothing and is an invalid law. Nor can they restore rights either because that makes the presumption that the taking away was valid and that the state gives and takes away rights -- which it can not do. A better way of what you call "restoring" would be to rule the law taking away the right as invalid by whatever legal means we have. I presume that would be the MO supreme court. And we should have other methods. (Jury nullification just isn't working these days. Or the legislature could resend the earlier law with a declaration that the earlier law went against natural law. ) We could require constitutional justification for all laws to be attached to them. Best of all might be a clearly worded passage in the State constitution stating things a bit more clearly than they are now.

Instead of saying that the state gives and takes away rights and then giving that power to them by agreeing with this wording it then becomes reality, I always go back to the idea that the ONLY reason for government and the ONLY thing that I have delegated to them is the authority to protect my God given rights.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

I always go back to the idea that the ONLY reason for government and the ONLY thing that I have delegated to them is the authority to protect my God given rights.

Where did God "give us rights" ? :uhoh:

 

[tittiger]

Step by step. I agree the removal of the OC law by local idiots is the first step by any means possible. Even if it means requiring CCW permit. Constitutional carry may follow, it will take time and organization. These things aren't a "given". It's much easier to pass laws to restrict rights then it is to pass them to restore rights. It may ba a God given right, but it was taken away by the legislature.

Thanks for the clarifications on your reasoning.

I disagree with your last way of phasing things however. The legislature can not take a right away as you still have that right. They may make it a crime but that changes nothing and is still an invalid law. Nor can they restore rights either because that makes the presumption that the taking away was valid and that the state gives and takes away rights -- which it can not do. A better way of what you call "restoring" might be to rule the law taking away the right as invalid by whatever legal means we have. (i.e. Supreme court, jury nullification and we should have more ways to do this in place by constitutional changes.) Then you do not have to go down the slippery slope of the legislature giving us rights.


I always go back to the idea that the ONLY reason for government to exist and the ONLY thing that I have delegated to them is the authority to protect my God given rights.

 

[cshoff]

Where did God "give us rights" ? :uhoh:

Whether you believe in a God or not, it's hard to dispute that we are born with certain natural "rights", or you could even call them "natural instincts" if you so desire. The instinct (or right) to breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2, for example. Or the instinct (or right) to take nourishment and consume fluids. Even the instinct (or right) to regulate a certain body temperature by seeking out favorable climatic conditions or clothing. Intrinsically intertwined with those instincts (or rights), is the innate urge for self preservation; ie: self-defense from whatever it is that would intend to do us harm. I would submit that self-preservation is probably the most prevalent voluntary natural instinct (or right) in the human psyche.

 

[kcgunfan]

Thanks for the clarifications on your reasoning.

I disagree with your last way of phasing things however. IMHO The legislature can not take a right away as you still have that right. They may make it a crime but that changes nothing and is an invalid law. Nor can they restore rights either because that makes the presumption that the taking away was valid and that the state gives and takes away rights -- which it can not do. A better way of what you call "restoring" would be to rule the law taking away the right as invalid by whatever legal means we have. I presume that would be the MO supreme court. And we should have other methods. (Jury nullification just isn't working these days. Or the legislature could resend the earlier law with a declaration that the earlier law went against natural law. ) We could require constitutional justification for all laws to be attached to them. Best of all might be a clearly worded passage in the State constitution stating things a bit more clearly than they are now.

Instead of saying that the state gives and takes away rights and then giving that power to them by agreeing with this wording it then becomes reality, I always go back to the idea that the ONLY reason for government and the ONLY thing that I have delegated to them is the authority to protect my God given rights.

If the state does not take away rights, then why can't you open carry whenever you want? If the state cannot give rights, why can you now concealed carry with an endorsement now, when you couldn't 10 years ago?

State's can and do give and take away rights. It is not proper that they do so, but as long as we sit and take it, it will continue to happen. We are now inching forward from a place where our rights were taken away, to a place where we are getting some of them restored.

What you may be confused about is that you appear to think that I (and msp) believe that our rights came from the state in the first place. I can't speak for msp, but I certainly do not believe that. I believe that our rights are granted to us by God (or nature or FSM or whatever), but our government feels they have the privilege to remove and restore them. All of the removing happened before I was born, so it's not my fault. But I'm certainly willing to take up my cross and work to get us back on a proper footing.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Whether you believe in a God or not, it's hard to dispute that we are born with certain natural "rights", or you could even call them "natural instincts" if you so desire. The instinct (or right) to breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2, for example. Or the instinct (or right) to take nourishment and consume fluids. Even the instinct (or right) to regulate a certain body temperature by seeking out favorable climatic conditions or clothing. Intrinsically intertwined with those instincts (or rights), is the innate urge for self preservation; ie: self-defense from whatever it is that would intend to do us harm. I would submit that self-preservation is probably the most prevalent voluntary natural instinct (or right) in the human psyche.

While I understand your stance, I think it's a stretch to say "God gave me the right to carry my Glock on my side walking down main street" . I just hear the term all to often on all gun boards and think it's laughable.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

If the state does not take away rights, then why can't you open carry whenever you want? If the state cannot give rights, why can you now concealed carry with an endorsement now, when you couldn't 10 years ago?

State's can and do give and take away rights.

Bingo .

 

[tittiger]

I don't want to get into a semantically debate really but perhaps I was not clear.

The way I see it the state can criminalize any thing they want. That does not change the fact that in Gods eyes that I still have that right. I might go to jail for exercising it but nothing has changed. Rights can not be taken away.
It's a hard concept for people to wrap their mind around but that is an integral part of the definition of rights.

Let me make one more effort and I am not sure how this analogy may work:

If you are walking down the street and a mugger steals you wallet. Has he taken away your right to own property?

If a mugger see's you are armed and steals your gun. Did he take away your right of self defense?

If a mugger punches your teeth out because you tell him what you think of him. Did he take away your right of free speech?

I would say no in all cases.
All he did was criminally interfere for the time being, with you exercising your rights.
The same thing applies when the State of Missouri acts in a criminal manner not much unlike that mugger.
No matter what their criminal actions, they have not taken that right away. They have only used criminality and terrorism to
interfere with your exercise of it.

 

[cshoff]

While I understand your stance, I think it's a stretch to say "God gave me the right to carry my Glock on my side walking down main street" . I just hear the term all to often on all gun boards and think it's laughable.

Well I guess it all depends on how adequate a persons ability to "self preserve" should actually be. As an example, is it fair that a 5 foot tall, 100 pound woman should have to use her hands and feet to defend herself from three 6 foot+, 200 pound+ guys who are hell-bent to rob, rape, and murder her? Or do you think she has a "God given" right to be adequately armed with some sort of force multiplier? Or what about the guy who pulls up to the stoplight on a city street, blocked in by other vehicles, and has some armed thug come up to the window with a baseball bat, smash it in, and attempt to drag him out in the street to beat him to a bloody pulp. Should this guy be forced to face his overpowering attacker with his fists, or has his "creator" endowed upon him the right to use a force multiplier of some sort?

It is my opinion that I have a God given right to possess/carry/use whatever level of force multiplier I deem reasonable for my given situation. In most cases, my .40 caliber pistol fills that role nicely, though there are times when a Model 500 Mossberg loaded with 3" 12 gauge slugs makes me feel more comfortable. If I was walking through certain areas of Afghanistan, I might prefer something with a bit more capability.

 

[mspgunner]

Ok, we disagree. The question... are you satisfied with the patch work of OC and NO OC?
Would you go aqlong with CCW permit to OC or just leave things as they are?
Either way, nothing is going to happen any time soon. Constitutional carry is soemthing we can dream about but I don't see that anytime soon either.

I believe the answer is the same as the many 2A groups in Missouri use. The members of the boards of the various 2A groups get together and come up with a plan for the up coming legislative session and present a unified front. Trust me, they really do this. They discourage others from interfering but suggest letters, emails, direct contact with "your" elected officials to encoiurage passage of the agreed legislative action.

That is the way it is done in Missouri, trust me. So, if we (OC'ers) want to pursue a course of action "we" best stop disagreeing here and get our collective acts together to get a legislative inititive by way of power in numbers and lobby efforts. The pro-2A groups represent tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions every year...TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS That is a big influence. Yes money matters in Jefferson City, like it, believe it or not. We need to get organized if we are to accomplish anything. I have already expressed an interest in running for the Board of the MSSA. "WE" need to join these 2A groups and vote in the meetings if "we" are ever going to really make a difference. Join MSSA, join GCLS, join GOA.... If you don't know what these groups are you need to learn. Google will work.

It's political, people power can make a difference, but we need a uniformed front and people!

Thats why a "picinic" or some get togethers especially here in the eastern part of the State is important. In the KC area they have numbers, participants. The two sides of the State can work together and be a force for 2A rights, and a collective approach and using the large and influential exisiting 2A groups can help. Small numbers, no lobby effort and disagreement will result in NO changes to the OC laws in Missouri.

OK, LOCK AND LOAD, LET ME HAVE IT WITH BOTH BARRELS AND A BAYONET CHARGE!

 

[kcgunfan]

.

OK, LOCK AND LOAD, LET ME HAVE IT WITH BOTH BARRELS AND A BAYONET CHARGE!

Are you saying that the 2A groups do this currently? Where is there a posting of what the legislative priorities are? I'd like to support them, but if I can't find out what they are, it's difficult. How do we get our interests heard, since we don't technically have a board? What do we need to advance open carry in this environment?