Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/10/2003 2:09:37 PM EDT
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/BD02E453252A285986256DBB001028E6?OpenDocument&Headline=Judge+delays+concealed-gun+law


what good does this do, im so tired of being run by KC and STL, i know that both places have great people but this makes me so mad! Ronald
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 2:39:11 PM EDT
I know exactly what you mean. I can not state publicly what I would like to do to these people.
However, if I read the article correctly the injunction IS NOT in effect.
From what I read it will become effective as soon as the plaintiffs (The damn city fu**wads) come up with the $250,000 bond. It said in the article they were trying to come up with the money this afternoon but nowhere did it say they had it yet.
Duke, we need your laywerly skills in interpreting this, please...
Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 5:05:47 PM EDT
"Starting" to hate people?

LOL! Well than, you're a better man than I. It sure doesn't take much anymore........

<­BR>

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.


Can somebody confirm or deny whether we are a go on this, or whether the injunction is in effect?

I'm not to optimistic right now. Too much liberal agenda coming from the bench as of late to make me feel comfortable about our chances......
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 6:24:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2003 6:25:05 PM EDT by Miranthis]
They waited until the Plaintiffs got the 250K to announce the injunction. If we are to believe the news the injunction is in effect.

Jeff D.

Yet another god d*mn lawyer
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 6:35:40 PM EDT
I read it this way:

Do you want this injunction so bad that you'll pay a quarter of a million dollars for it?


Even if the injunction becomes active, it'll be overturned before a higher court.

CJ
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 7:54:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2003 9:35:51 PM EDT by llanero]
What is wrong wif Missouri's metropolitan centers?
If they pull this shit off then every law in the state prohibiting open carry better get repealed.
The "preemption" law (RSMo 21.750) clearly flies in the face of the Missouri Constitution. So unless there was a constitutional amendment, which would've included a statewide vote, to pass the preemption law, then it is null and void and we can pack openly anywhere we feel like.
Bitches.

Edited wo add a "w" to "if".
Link Posted: 10/10/2003 8:40:47 PM EDT
Please explain or post the 'preemption law'...
curious to see what it says...

If the anti-gunners want to use the courts to stop us, then we need to adopt the same tactic and use the laws and courts to shove it in their faces...

Link Posted: 10/10/2003 9:23:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2003 10:08:09 PM EDT by llanero]

Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 21
General Assembly
Section 21.750

August 28, 2002

Firearms legislation preemption by general assembly, exceptions.
21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction. This section shall take effect on January 1, 1985.



edited to add that to my layman's eye, that little part in red doesn't jibe with Article 1, Section 23 of the state constitution:


Missouri Constitution
Article I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23

August 28, 2002

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.



Link Posted: 10/10/2003 9:25:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By llanero:
What is wrong if Missouri's metropolitan centers?
If they pull this shit off then every law in the state prohibiting open carry better get repealed.
The "preemption" law (RSMo 21.750) clearly flies in the face of the Missouri Constitution. So unless there was a constitutional amendment, which would've included a statewide vote, to pass the preemption law, then it is null and void and we can pack openly anywhere we feel like.
Bitches.



I think this is exactly right. The Missouri Constitution clearly states we have the right to be armed, and these preemption laws are clearly in violation of that. If the supreme court upholds that we cannot carry conceled they cannot deny us open carry and be constitutional (though they have for years). We are going to win either way I think. I would probably prefer to open carry anyway if I would not get hassled every ten minutes.
Link Posted: 10/11/2003 6:48:53 AM EDT
Even then, the stipulation in the constitution regarding concealed firearms does not preclude concealment by permit.

Although, clearly the people who penned that article in the state constitution were IDIOTS.

CJ
Top Top