• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HB1369 status

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,004
Location
KC
This bill has a committee hearing scheduled for tomorrow February 21st @ noon in hearing room 4.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
IIRC, I think there were a couple of forum members making an attempt to be there for some of the hearings; I believe today was one of those days.
 

moneymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
50
Location
imperial
HB 1369
Allows any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement to openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or in a vehicle regardless of any other state law or local ordinance
Sponsor:Fitzwater, Paul (152)Co-Sponsor:Lasater, Brent (053) ... et al.Proposed Effective Date:8/28/2012LR Number:4202L.02ILast Action:2/21/2012 - HCS Voted Do Pass (H)Bill String:HB 1369Next Hearing:Hearing not scheduledCalendar:Bill currently not on a House calendar
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
Next step!

The next step to help regain 2nd amendment freedom in Missouri, this is easy, please just do it!
Call, write or email Mr. Steven Tilley and ask him to bring House Bill 1369 to the house floor for debate and a vote so it may proceed to the Senate for consideration.
MO House of Representatives
201 West Capitol Avenue
Room 308A
Jefferson City MO 65101
Phone: 573-751-1488
E-Mail: Steven.Tilley@house.mo.gov
Example:
Dear Mr. Tilley, House Bill 1369 has cleared the General Laws Committee and Legislative review. Please move this bill to the floor for debate and a vote so it may move to the Senate. The restoration of our 2nd amendment rights for the people of Missouri is so very important to ensure liberty and freedom.
Name – address – phone #
 

moneymaker

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2012
Messages
50
Location
imperial
HB 1369

Allows any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement to openly carry firearms on or about his or her person or in a vehicle regardless of any other state law or local ordinance



Sponsor:

Fitzwater, Paul (152)





Co-Sponsor:

Lasater, Brent (053) ... et al.



Proposed Effective Date:

8/28/2012



LR Number:

4202L.02I



Last Action:

This Bill Replaced with a Substitute Bill - Check Primary Bill - HB 1319




2/23/2012 - Referred: Rules - Pursuant to Rule 25(32)(f) (H)



Bill String:

HB 1369



Next Hearing:

Hearing not scheduled



Calendar:

Bill currently not on a House calendar
seems this wont happen for you gunslingers this year:monkey
 

John563

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
122
Location
Knob Noster / Warrensburg, ,
Ok....".correct me if I'm wrong. But is this not the bill that says it ok to open carry with permit ?. ( CCW )
Why would I want to support this when I can OC now without a CCW permit?.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,004
Location
KC
To answer your questions, yes you have the description of the bill correct.

The second one I cannot answer for you. But I can answer it for me. First, I do not want to be arrested for crossing the wrong imaginary line while lawfully and peacefully carrying my weapon. But that's not my biggest reason. My biggest reason is that I truly believe that my fellow citizens deserve the same rights as I do.

Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Why would I want to support this when I can OC now without a CCW permit?.
You can't and it is not that complex.

Without exact math or review of 100% of the states regulated areas, roughly 20% of the population live in an area where you can not OC, they can not, nor can you. Geographically speaking, it might be a smaller part of MO, however, that remains actually quite unknown.

You may or may not be able to carry in any specific area at any specific time. As it sits now, any political subdivision can restrict it. Because of this, you have to check the ordinances of every locality you visit and not just today, but again next week or however often that area conducts meetings. It is also notable, they are under no obligation beyond you visiting the city hall and reviewing the ordinance books in person to inform you in any way that it has become restricted. There are localities with OC ordinances on the books that have not updated online information for over a year.

Too many folks speak about this who haven’t a clue and reference it as though it is a major city or metro area issue and it most certainly is not, there are more than a few rural areas who restrict it as well.

A much better question one interested in gun rights should be asking is why after 180 years of Missouri existing was it allowed and why is it OK to HIDE a gun, but wrong to show a gun in these areas?

If you expand the geographic information I provided beyond the “no OC at all” areas to include areas that require a CCW to OC currently, you are going to rapidly start approaching the 30-40% of the states population indeed live in areas that if you do NOT have a CCW, you may NOT OC without violating the law.

You should support it if you feel after doing adequate research on the topic you feel it moves forward for 2a rights in MO, you should not if you do not, but you should not buy into a great deal of the more interesting fantasy’s that have been pecked out on this board regarding it. Do your own research and then make your own call.

FYI other good bills exist to reverse the damage done in the 80’s, research them as well, we can only fix it when folks get involved, its just that simple.
 

John563

New member
Joined
Aug 17, 2008
Messages
122
Location
Knob Noster / Warrensburg, ,
Well, I've been thinking. To me this sounds like a BAD, BAD bill....This is not even a compromise ...I can see that if this bill would pass that this may drive other towns that are open carry (oc) friendly now, change to prohibit it. This would mean that In order for anyone to carry, they must first pay for the RIGHT by buying a permit.(you can no longer carry with out one). This to me sounds like you all are just trying to get anything to pass and to call it a good thing. Sorry I just don't see this bill being a good thing.

I think that instead of supporting a bill that eventually may require everyone that carrys to pay for this right, we sould fully support bills like SB680. NOT this HB1369 thing. And find a way to Change RMSO 21.750
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,004
Location
KC
Here's the basic deal. You are correct, SB680 is better than HB1369. Nobody disagrees with that. But, from the loft perch of experience, I can tell you that good is not the enemy of great. Sometimes you have to pass through good to get to great.

But, I do question one of your assertions. Why would this bill passing cause towns to change OC friendly towns to prohibit it? They could have done that at any time in the past 20 years, but have chosen not to. Why would this change anything? I'm not seeing the magic powers here.

Edit: Question marks are different than periods.

Well, I've been thinking. To me this sounds like a BAD, BAD bill....This is not even a compromise ...I can see that if this bill would pass that this may drive other towns that are open carry (oc) friendly now, change to prohibit it. This would mean that In order for anyone to carry, they must first pay for the RIGHT by buying a permit.(you can no longer carry with out one). This to me sounds like you all are just trying to get anything to pass and to call it a good thing. Sorry I just don't see this bill being a good thing.

I think that instead of supporting a bill that eventually may require everyone that carrys to pay for this right, we sould fully support bills like SB680. NOT this HB1369 thing. And find a way to Change RMSO 21.750
 
Last edited:

ChiangShih

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
628
Location
KC
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the language of the bill wouldn't require a CCW for OC in towns that are already OC friendly (municipalities without restrictive ordinances).

So if this passes, and I do not have a ccw, I can still OC in areas that are currently OC friendly, right??
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Since I wrote SB 680, there should be little doubt which I like best, but if a question remains, it is indeed 680.

The theory that 1369 makes it "easier" for muni's to ban OC is so flawed it is pathetic and is propagated by those whom have never even bothered to resist such issues.

Let me tell you a well known fact, the muni's do not care one bit about "ease" or even the people they represent. I have seen it first hand no less than 4 times. I have watched literally 100% of the public comment and testimony at these muni hearings OPPOSE the proposed legislation only to watch it pass unanimously. I mean not one single citizen in support and they do it anyway, often giving really stupid speeches. The last and one of the more comical for myself was the idiot quoting the declaration of independence where the actual context of the sentence when complete is about picking up arms against an oppressive tyrannical government and proclaim it as part of the bill of rights from the US Constitution.

I believe it was last year, Nixa MO town council attempted to actually ban concealed carry! The thought that these folks sitting on such boards have a CLUE about the law is so flawed it is not even funny. A man stood before that council and read 21.750 to them explaining that they could not do such a thing, the response? Your not a lawyer and we are doing it anyway.

The thing that bothers me the very most about it, as I research further in, I am finding more and more of these "hidden" laws and as more and more of these outlying areas update to the internet, it may well be found that a lot more areas are restricted than even those of us who are vigilant know about.

I assume you life in an area you believe to be unrestricted OC and rarely travel beyond it. If you do not monitor the minutes of their meetings, you will have no idea.

1369 does not eliminate the problem for everyone like 680 does. Supporting both has huge wisdom for 2a supporters. You like anyone else are free to disagree, but try and use logical and factual information instead of feelings as feelings are what has killed our gun rights in the first place.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but the language of the bill wouldn't require a CCW for OC in towns that are already OC friendly (municipalities without restrictive ordinances).

So if this passes, and I do not have a ccw, I can still OC in areas that are currently OC friendly, right??
That is 100% correct. It would only exempt ccw's in localities who restrict OC currently. Muni's vary, some restrict 100% others offer the exemption for ccw and others offer no laws against OC at all. Only the ones who restricted it 100% will have any change to current laws.

The biggest protection offered is from the unknown's where they have outlawed it, but have failed to update the laws in an easy manner.

Last year near this time Maplewood did their thing and as of last month still did not have information updated unless you travel to city hall and review the ordinances in person. I know of three more muni's in the state so far who have similar issues.

It is currently basically impossible to OC in the state unless you are monitoring the muni's bi-monthly or monthly agendas and minutes, if you don't you can find yourself in a pickle fast.
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
That is 100% correct. It would only exempt ccw's in localities who restrict OC currently. Muni's vary, some restrict 100% others offer the exemption for ccw and others offer no laws against OC at all. Only the ones who restricted it 100% will have any change to current laws.

The biggest protection offered is from the unknown's where they have outlawed it, but have failed to update the laws in an easy manner.

Last year near this time Maplewood did their thing and as of last month still did not have information updated unless you travel to city hall and review the ordinances in person. I know of three more muni's in the state so far who have similar issues.

It is currently basically impossible to OC in the state unless you are monitoring the muni's bi-monthly or monthly agendas and minutes, if you don't you can find yourself in a pickle fast.

By the way, for those wondering, there are just under 1,000 political subdivisions in the state, not counting the counties as separate, that would add 114 county seats to monitor/investigate at least once a month in order to know OC was legal and you could still get tripped up by the bi-monthly or the "emergency" clause that makes it instant law following the meeting like Maplewood used.

I can not speak directly to the numbers, but te vast majority of OC folks I have met do both and have a CCW, I know perhaps 100 OC'ers and perhaps 5 who do not have a CCW for various reasons, cost being a big one.

A few of us have worked very hard to bring awareness of OC with Doc leading that charge a couple of years ago. If 1369 passes, perhaps more of those who saw the effort to do it as "just not worth it" will join us and increase awareness even more should SB 680 not happen this year, which by no means is the case yet, we have until May and I can assure you, no one I know has stopped supporting it.
 
Top