Missouri passes permitless conceal carry via massive pro gun bill

[Keith B]

Latest from Jay Nixon. He says in recent days some in law enforcement have expressed concerned regarding lack of training. Me thinks he will use this as an excuse to veto it.

http://www.missourinet.com/2016/06/03/m ... ghts-bill/

Governor Jay Nixon isn’t saying whether he will sign or veto a proposal that would relax Missouri gun laws.

Nixon said he is hearing from some Missouri law enforcement about it.

“It’s been interesting to see in recent days some of the law enforcement folks stepping forward and raising some concerns about the training part,” said Nixon. “We’ll look especially closely at some of the training requirements and how robust they’ve been in our state

Just like we heard from law enforcement during the last session that open carry would cause massive confusion, make the job of law enforcement's officers harder and result in bloodshed on both sides of the thin blue line? I'm beginning to think that law enforcement top brass just doesn't like change...

That being said, carrying a firearm on a daily basis is a big decision and I didn't understand the magnitude of the decision until I received additional training outside of the CHL class. I think people should pursue and receive training, but I don't know if it should necessarily be mandatory.

My look at it is similar to Hunter Safety for youth. I believe there should be a reasonable amount of training, at least in safety and laws, before you can carry. Don't make it a state issued permit, but a certificate from an authorized instructor that you have at least been covered on the basics.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

So Keith, have you heard anything new regarding SB656 if maybe Nixon will just quietly let it become law? Does Richardson think Nixon maybe won't veto the bill? From what I'm hearing Chris Koster probably won't be happy if he vetoes it. Koster said recently he doesn't think Nixon should veto this. I guess Koster afraid of losing votes because of Nixon.

[Keith B]

I wanted to follow up on this topic. One thing that many people have failed to notice is the wording in the bill. This is not a true constitutional carry bill. It provides that you can carry concealed "where currently not prohibited". Basically Missouri is an open carry state and if you can open carry you can concealed carry without a permit. HOWEVER there are many cities and towns that have ordinances against carrying a weapon UNLESS YOU HAVE A PERMIT. So if this new bill becomes law (and I have it on good authority that it will) you can concealed carry without a permit but not in places like Cape Girardeau, St, Louis and Kansas City and several of their suburbs, and numerous other towns in the state that have local ordinances against open carry without a license. To carry in these places you STILL HAVE TO HAVE A CCW.

So, there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers who thought they were getting 'constitutional carry' and state preemption to allow them to carry without a license, but it just ain't so.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

I wanted to follow up on this topic. One thing that many people have failed to notice is the wording in the bill. This is not a true constitutional carry bill. It provides that you can carry concealed "where currently not prohibited". Basically Missouri is an open carry state and if you can open carry you can concealed carry without a permit. HOWEVER there are many cities and towns that have ordinances against carrying a weapon UNLESS YOU HAVE A PERMIT. So if this new bill becomes law (and I have it on good authority that it will) you can concealed carry without a permit but not in places like Cape Girardeau, St, Louis and Kansas City and several of their suburbs, and numerous other towns in the state that have local ordinances against open carry without a license. To carry in these places you STILL HAVE TO HAVE A CCW.

So, there are going to be a lot of unhappy campers who thought they were getting 'constitutional carry' and state preemption to allow them to carry without a license, but it just ain't so.

MZM the moderator on MOcarry already posted about that. I read through the bill myself and nowhere does it say you can't carry in cities that ban open carry. All it refers to is the places that guns are not allowed in such as schools, courthouses etc and the penalty is stiffer for carrying into a prohibited place versus if you have a ccw permit and just face a citation. Of course There are probably going to be many officers who don't know about permit less carry and will arrest someone anyways.

So, in cities that ban open carry, if SB 656 becomes law, the new situation would be that people would still have to get a permit to carry openly...or they could carry concealed, with or without a permit.

http://www.missouricarry.com/forums/sho ... 590&page=2

[Keith B]

The interpretation from the
Legislators offices is actually that the 'where prohibited' would include cities that have an ordinance against carry (open or concealed) already in place. I have it from a very reliable source that this is how it will be handled by law enforcement.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

The interpretation from the
Legislators offices is actually that the 'where prohibited' would include cities that have an ordinance against carry (open or concealed) already in place. I have it from a very reliable source that this is how it will be handled by law enforcement.

If that is the case then I see the Missouri Supreme Court eventually having a say in this case then when someone challenges it. First on the language of it and also using amendment 5 passed in 2014. One can argue that law means state and federal since ordinances passed by towns are called ordinances, not laws. I can see someone arguing that residents of certain municipals are not allowed to carry is discrimination as a Missourian their 2nd amendment rights under the MO constitution especially with that amendment 5 passed. The Missouri state constitution and protections apply to all Missourians.

If this is how the law is going to be interpreted I hope the Supreme Court nulls that part of the law.

[Keith B]

The 2014 ruling allowed allowed 3 areas of local control, which included regulation of open or concealed carry of weapons, with the exception of a person had a license. Read http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority ... -missouri/

So, that would allow cities to prevent concealed carry without a license per ordinance.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

The 2014 ruling allowed allowed 3 areas of local control, which included regulation of open or concealed carry of weapons, with the exception of a person had a license. Read http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority ... -missouri/

So, that would allow cities to prevent concealed carry without a license per ordinance.

But local cities can only regulate open carry. If they could regulate carry concealed Stl city wouldn't allow conceal carry that's for sure.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Got a email from Missouri Firearms Coalition tonight and it contained this in it just as I suspected. I wonder if Nixon might just let this become law without taking any action on the bill. Maybe it would be a good thing if he vetoes it, then is overrode on it and it hurts the Democrats at the polls then.

But our sources tell us that both he and Chris Koster are terrified about the potential fallout that will occur should Nixon veto this gun bill just months before the voters decide who our next governor will be.

Make sure both of them know, Koster in particular, that their actions on this legislation will tell you all you need to know about what kind of a Governor Koster would be.

[Keith B]

The 2014 ruling allowed allowed 3 areas of local control, which included regulation of open or concealed carry of weapons, with the exception of a person had a license. Read http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority ... -missouri/

So, that would allow cities to prevent concealed carry without a license per ordinance.

But local cities can only regulate open carry. If they could regulate carry concealed Stl city wouldn't allow conceal carry that's for sure.

The statute states that all existing or future orders, ordinances, or regulations in this field are “null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.”
These exceptions created by subsection 3 allow political subdivisions to:
Regulate the “open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use” (However, in 2014, this statute was amended to exempt “any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement or permit” from any local ordinance prohibiting the open carrying of firearms);
Regulate the discharge of firearms; and
Enact ordinances conforming exactly to the provisions of sections 571.010 through 571.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes (these statutes pertain to various aspects of state firearms regulation, including the unlawful transfer of weapons, armed criminal action, the possession, manufacture, transport and repair of certain weapons, and the carrying of concealed weapons).3

So, per subsection 3 they can regulate unlicensed open carry as well as unlicensed concealed carry. Licensed carry (open OR concealed) is not allowed to be regulated by the local municipality.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Still pretty confusing and hopefully next year the lawmakers clear all this up or MO supreme court hears it. That's what I hate about laws in general. I don't even know how law enforcement and district attorneys and lawyers get through all this mumbo jumbo when it comes to reading the laws. Sb656 if I'm correct is like 77 pages long when I read through it. The part about issuing permits and lifetime permits is going to be interesting since it's a lot. Glad I'm not the sheriff having to issue these new permits.

Also what is the deal about being able to take Missouri ccw courses online once the law goes into place? Do you have any idea how they will implement this? I currently live in Florida. Would I be able to teach online classes for people to get a Missouri permit?

Lifetime permit seems useless unless you live in Jackson County. For 500 dollars I wouldn't get it. Plus probably they will change the law eventually where local towns can't ban open carry which would make the permit even more useless.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Interesting comments from Jay Nixon today. I don't know what will happen. He doesn't sound thrilled about the permit less carry part of the overall bill but gives some mix signals. Why isn't he flat out against this bill like he was with the 2014 bill lowering ccw age and arming teachers and the federal gun nullification bill in 2013? He is reviewing the bill and will then come to a decision. Is it because of the house and senate getting bombarded with phonecalls and emails to pass permit less carry that he sees the writing on the wall this time?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... af058.html

A day after his fellow Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of the U.S. House to express frustration over gun control laws, Nixon called the incident in Florida a “horrific crime,” but said his ongoing analysis of a Republican gun measure is focused on other issues.

“Those individual actions, they may spur public discussion and focus on these issues,” Nixon said.

But, he added, “We’re talking about the values of our state. We’re talking about constitutional rights. We’re talking about people’s ability to defend themselves. Those are longer term issues than a single occurrence.”

[mjoplin]

I need to move to Missouri, then.

Hopefully not into Newman or McCreery's districts. LOL

You got something against folks from the big city?
Saying this as a kid from the Farmington / Park Hills area

Doc V, I still call it Flat River.... Never got used to the Park Hills thing
Saying this as an old fart from Bonne Terre...

[Keith B]

Interesting comments from Jay Nixon today. I don't know what will happen. He doesn't sound thrilled about the permit less carry part of the overall bill but gives some mix signals. Why isn't he flat out against this bill like he was with the 2014 bill lowering ccw age and arming teachers and the federal gun nullification bill in 2013? He is reviewing the bill and will then come to a decision. Is it because of the house and senate getting bombarded with phonecalls and emails to pass permit less carry that he sees the writing on the wall this time?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... af058.html

A day after his fellow Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of the U.S. House to express frustration over gun control laws, Nixon called the incident in Florida a “horrific crime,” but said his ongoing analysis of a Republican gun measure is focused on other issues.

“Those individual actions, they may spur public discussion and focus on these issues,” Nixon said.

But, he added, “We’re talking about the values of our state. We’re talking about constitutional rights. We’re talking about people’s ability to defend themselves. Those are longer term issues than a single occurrence.”

I believe there is heavy support for the expansion of the Castle Doctrine and some other portions of the bill, but It's as I stated earlier in the thread, the permitless concealed carry part is what is getting most people riled up. They already have permitless carry in vehicle, and permitless open carry unless prohibited by ordinance, but the concealed without a license is the issue that most people I have talked to have concern about. Even most of the heavy 2A supporters I have talked to believe the right to conceal a firearm while bearing it should require a more extensive background check and some basic training on laws and safety.

[FloridaViaMissouri]

Interesting comments from Jay Nixon today. I don't know what will happen. He doesn't sound thrilled about the permit less carry part of the overall bill but gives some mix signals. Why isn't he flat out against this bill like he was with the 2014 bill lowering ccw age and arming teachers and the federal gun nullification bill in 2013? He is reviewing the bill and will then come to a decision. Is it because of the house and senate getting bombarded with phonecalls and emails to pass permit less carry that he sees the writing on the wall this time?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... af058.html

A day after his fellow Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of the U.S. House to express frustration over gun control laws, Nixon called the incident in Florida a “horrific crime,” but said his ongoing analysis of a Republican gun measure is focused on other issues.

“Those individual actions, they may spur public discussion and focus on these issues,” Nixon said.

But, he added, “We’re talking about the values of our state. We’re talking about constitutional rights. We’re talking about people’s ability to defend themselves. Those are longer term issues than a single occurrence.”

I believe there is heavy support for the expansion of the Castle Doctrine and some other portions of the bill, but It's as I stated earlier in the thread, the permitless concealed carry part is what is getting most people riled up. They already have permitless carry in vehicle, and permitless open carry unless prohibited by ordinance, but the concealed without a license is the issue that most people I have talked to have concern about. Even most of the heavy 2A supporters I have talked to believe the right to conceal a firearm while bearing it should require a more extensive background check and some basic training on laws and safety.

In a way I think they should have kept the lifetime permit and Stand your ground a separate bill from the permit less carry. I think he might have just let that pass on its own. Remember the West Virginia governor vetoed it twice as well and he's a democrat. In his veto letter he said he supports carry with a permit and the right to bear arms but said permit less carry dangerous for law enforcement. If Nixon vetoes this bill I see him using very similar wording. He will say he supports carrying with a permit and self defense but will cite the permit less carry for the reason the entire bill is vetoed. he will ignore talking about lifetime carry and stand your ground. In the 2014 veto of expanded open carry he ignored it in his letter and just focused on arming teachers for the reason of his veto.

And of course a lot of ccw instructors across the country are against conceal carry without a permit. That means less $$$$$ for them. Here in Florida I don't see it ever passing. State is turning more blue and it's such a money making machine for instructors down here as well. I think we all agree the ccw courses when it comes to live fire is not very hard to pass even for a novice so I don't see what the big deal about permit less carry is anyways.

Hey do you know much about this new organization called Missouri Firearms Coalition that pushed Permit less carry this year? Eric Burlison was active with them this year and some of the lawmakers post on their facebook page.