Redbaron007
Regular Member
GULP!!!......that's going to leave a mark!
Can you offer a more specific/direct link? That one looked like a maze.There is Legisaltion Pending before The Missouri Legislature that would Fix This Problem, albeit that it would only Apply to Certain Persons who have Valid Concealed Carry Permits Issued under Missouri Law. The Bill is found here: http://www.moga.mo.gov/
There is some very convoluted wording there, but the following seems good:It's SB613. I don't love it, but it's the best we're likely to get this year and is not guaranteed.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
I don't know how many times we have to emphasize this...
Know the city ordinances!!!
True. But Americans have to ask, do we support unjust and unconstitutional laws?
Sec. 17-98. Unlawful possession or use of weapons.
No penalty is listed. I suspect that the similar offense penalty in RSMo is applicable.
it could well be they knew the ordinance but also knew it was not a true law as it was a clear violation of the Second Amendment
The answer I believe is no. Unless rights are stood up for they will be stolen. All states have gun regulations in place that are voided by the Constitution. And yet that's accepted. As a result rights that are unquestionable are violated daily.
Do you contend constitutional carry states (Alaska, Vermont, etc) are violating our rights "daily" as well?
A person who, while within a courthouse and without authorization from the court,
(1) carries or has in his or her possession a firearm; or
(2) knowingly carries or has in his or her possession a dangerous or deadly weapon, other than a
firearm, shall be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $500.00, or both.
No person shall knowingly possess a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon while within a school building or on a school bus. A person who violates this section shall, for the first offense, be imprisoned not more than one year or fined not more than $1,000.00, or both, and for a second or subsequent offense shall be imprisoned not more than three years or fined not more than $5,000.00, or both.
It is quick to jump and claim a ban on OC is unconstitutional without fully considering the other mode of carry.
Not in MO.I can't recall which SCOTUS ruling stated this clarification, but I think it was either McDonald v Chicago or Heller v District of Columbia in which SCOTUS ruled "like any right it is not unlimited." This could be interpreted that some regulation around mode of carry could be constitutional. For instance, if OC is banned then CC should be legal, and vice versa.
It is quick to jump and claim a ban on OC is unconstitutional without fully considering the other mode of carry.
Do you contend constitutional carry states (Alaska, Vermont, etc) are violating our rights "daily" as well?
CC is not justified in MO and as such we must have a CC endorsement.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.
Not in MO.CC is not justified in MO and as such we must have a CC endorsement.
I do. Vermont for example
13-85 § 4016.
Title 13: Chpt. 85: § 4004.
Those are what I class an non-laws and the Second Amendment nullifies them. Of course if you ignore these 'laws' you'll have more freedom stolen in the form of arrest and further penalties if you refuse to pay fine money you don't actually owe in the first place.
It is possible that a law could be passed to negate the CC justification provision of the state constitution, but that would be unconstitutional and would be ruled as such. The legislature exercised their authority to set the conditions "to justify" CC lawfully in Missouri. The state supreme court affirmed the privilege to CC in MO. I accept the CC privilege because the people of the state voted this "restriction" into the state constitution.Whoaa- If MO guts any concealment of firearms from the enumerated 2A right itself I agree then- Inherently OC should be fully legal and completely preempted statewide.
I'm willing to bet the poor folks who were arrested didn't put this much foresight into it though.
Not in MO.CC is not justified in MO and as such we must have a CC endorsement.
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.
smells like verbal diarrhoea to me. The only justification needed to CC is the choice of the citizen.
Private businesses may have the technical right to refuse entry but denial of entry based on firearms should result in virtual shunning by the community to the degree they either change the policy or close down. Government buildings however are another matter. The Constitution was designed to limit the federal government. Now while it's true a courthouse for example is state not federal it is also true that the states can only make laws that are not covered by the Constitution. The Second Amendment is, therefore the banning of firearms in government building by statute is another non-law immediately voided by the Constitution.
there are municipal, county, state, and federal courthouses. That's the first fact you have wrong.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.