Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 5/24/2016 11:41:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What I meant was how are people coming to the conclution that you can only CC where OC is legal, I don't see any striked or added language that would change the law to that.
View Quote

There isn't any. The bill's still going through the process of being passed, so possibly it's just a bit of disinformation. Everyone else is simply repeating what they heard, they haven't actually read the bill.
Link Posted: 5/24/2016 1:22:53 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I believe what your asking is going to fall more on cities and muni's......how their ordinances are written.  Because if they ban "open display of firearms" in their city limits, that wouldn't apply to a concealed firearm (with or without a permit).  However if the city prohibits "the carrying of a firearm", then it could.....unless you have a CCW permit where you would fall under a statewide preemption.  Most of these laws have been fought over the last 13 yrs so that the cities had to include "except as authorized by RsMO 571....."  This would not fall under that statute because a person without a permit does not fall into that exception.

As I see it, they're breaking down the distinction between OC and CC.....so that it will just be "C"  (Carry).  Then it will be easier to make it Constitutional Carry (CC or OC, with our without a permit, state preemption of all the BS muni laws.)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I meant was how are people coming to the conclution that you can only CC where OC is legal, I don't see any striked or added language that would change the law to that.


I believe what your asking is going to fall more on cities and muni's......how their ordinances are written.  Because if they ban "open display of firearms" in their city limits, that wouldn't apply to a concealed firearm (with or without a permit).  However if the city prohibits "the carrying of a firearm", then it could.....unless you have a CCW permit where you would fall under a statewide preemption.  Most of these laws have been fought over the last 13 yrs so that the cities had to include "except as authorized by RsMO 571....."  This would not fall under that statute because a person without a permit does not fall into that exception.

As I see it, they're breaking down the distinction between OC and CC.....so that it will just be "C"  (Carry).  Then it will be easier to make it Constitutional Carry (CC or OC, with our without a permit, state preemption of all the BS muni laws.)


Cities can only write firearm-related ordinances as allowed by the state under 21.750 RSMo. That section is not changed by SB 656. Ordinances prohibiting "the carrying of a firearm" that would include lawful concealed carry (with or without a permit) would not conform with state law (which does have preemption).


Link Posted: 5/24/2016 8:00:33 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

There isn't any. The bill's still going through the process of being passed, so possibly it's just a bit of disinformation. Everyone else is simply repeating what they heard, they haven't actually read the bill.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I meant was how are people coming to the conclution that you can only CC where OC is legal, I don't see any striked or added language that would change the law to that.

There isn't any. The bill's still going through the process of being passed, so possibly it's just a bit of disinformation. Everyone else is simply repeating what they heard, they haven't actually read the bill.


I think the problem is that the Senate passed the bill then sent it to the House, the House made several changes one of which was the provision that you were limited to only were OC was legal. When it got back to the Senate it was rejected as amended and sent back to the House, I believe that provision was removed on the final bill that was passed by the Senate. So I think people may be quoting an old version of the bill and thats were the error comes in.
Link Posted: 5/24/2016 8:40:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I think the problem is that the Senate passed the bill then sent it to the House, the House made several changes one of which was the provision that you were limited to only were OC was legal. When it got back to the Senate it was rejected as amended and sent back to the House, I believe that provision was removed on the final bill that was passed by the Senate. So I think people may be quoting an old version of the bill and thats were the error comes in.
View Quote

I followed this bill closely, and I never saw an amendment to SB 656 that included such language. The House Committee Substitute is here, but it wasn't the last version that actually came out of the House. The last version was a further amended HCS, the full text of which is not posted; but you can easily check the language of those additional amendments to the HCS in the House Daily Journel of May 5th. (They start on page 32 of the pdf.)

Edited to add: When the Senate rejected the HCS as amended, it was not sent back to the House; instead, the Senate requested the House "recede or grant a conference," and the bill went to conference. This is where it was negotiated and came out in its final form, the current version that was "Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed" that awaits a decision by the governor.
Link Posted: 5/25/2016 9:27:35 PM EDT
[#5]
SB 656 was delivered to the governor today...so, he needs to sign or veto by July 9, looks like.

Effective dates...

There is an Emergency Clause for immediate enactment of Section 571.104, which has to do with the military permit renewals. This section would immediately become law if and when the governor signs the bill.

Enactment of Section 571.030 would be delayed until January 1, 2017. This section has to do with carrying concealed weapons under subsection 1 (permitless ccw), additional persons being exempted from crimes under subsection 5, and changes in penalties under subsection 8.

All the rest would be enacted in 2016 on the usual date: August 28 if the governor signs the bill or leaves it unsigned, or ~October 14 if the legislature has to override the governor's veto. (Thirty days from the Veto Session on September 14 would be October 14.)

------

HB 1765 was also delivered to the governor today. In addition to everything else covered by this bill (which is extensive), it would change Section 513.430 to exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition up to $1,500 from attachment and execution.
Link Posted: 5/25/2016 9:52:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I followed this bill closely, and I never saw an amendment to SB 656 that included such language. The House Committee Substitute is here, but it wasn't the last version that actually came out of the House. The last version was a further amended HCS, the full text of which is not posted; but you can easily check the language of those additional amendments to the HCS in the House Daily Journel of May 5th. (They start on page 32 of the pdf.)

Edited to add: When the Senate rejected the HCS as amended, it was not sent back to the House; instead, the Senate requested the House "recede or grant a conference," and the bill went to conference. This is where it was negotiated and came out in its final form, the current version that was "Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed" that awaits a decision by the governor.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the problem is that the Senate passed the bill then sent it to the House, the House made several changes one of which was the provision that you were limited to only were OC was legal. When it got back to the Senate it was rejected as amended and sent back to the House, I believe that provision was removed on the final bill that was passed by the Senate. So I think people may be quoting an old version of the bill and thats were the error comes in.

I followed this bill closely, and I never saw an amendment to SB 656 that included such language. The House Committee Substitute is here, but it wasn't the last version that actually came out of the House. The last version was a further amended HCS, the full text of which is not posted; but you can easily check the language of those additional amendments to the HCS in the House Daily Journel of May 5th. (They start on page 32 of the pdf.)

Edited to add: When the Senate rejected the HCS as amended, it was not sent back to the House; instead, the Senate requested the House "recede or grant a conference," and the bill went to conference. This is where it was negotiated and came out in its final form, the current version that was "Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed" that awaits a decision by the governor.


So June 25th no permit carry is good to go unless its vetoed.
Link Posted: 5/25/2016 10:01:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

So June 25th no permit carry is good to go unless its vetoed.
View Quote


Wouldn't take effect until January.....last page in the bill.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top