• 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.

What happened to HB436 veto over ride

9026543

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
509
Location
Southern MO
I am still trying to wrap my old worn out brain around the reason for the two turncoats to vote no on the over ride which killed the vote. The last time OC was killed all kinds of old billy hell was raised because some blamed an incident of a legal OC encounter with the cops for the death of the OC bill. What was the reason or reasons this time other than being bought off by special interest? Any answers?
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
You will be waiting a long time. The official reason Dempsey used was provided in his official statement.

Statement is linked to in Post # 21 http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?117260-1-vote!-!

There is no reason, ever, to not vote for the restoration of liberty. The last time "incident" you refer to was merely an excuse to justify what those politicians back then, and likely today, are prone to do anyway. politicians look about madly in the hopes a excuse is conveniently near by. It is time to work to replace those who have once again voted to not restore liberty.
 

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
I'm not going to get real deep into it. What I will say is that the OC portion of the bill is NOT the part that caused issues.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
I'm not going to get real deep into it. What I will say is that the OC portion of the bill is NOT the part that caused issues.

You are correct, no one gave a rats pitute about the OC part.
The 1st amendment issue and printing the names of firearms owners along with the millions of dollars the Missouri Sheriffs may have lost.... It's mostly the $$$$$$ that talks!
Its always about the money, its politics............
 

kylemoul

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2011
Messages
640
Location
st louis
You are correct, no one gave a rats pitute about the OC part.
The 1st amendment issue and printing the names of firearms owners along with the millions of dollars the Missouri Sheriffs may have lost.... It's mostly the $$$$$$ that talks!
Its always about the money, its politics............

You know whats funny, I was listening to the debate at home on the streaming radio from the website. One gentleman (forgot his name) brought up that he was reading the last months Missouri conservationist and stated there was an article that showed 2 shotguns and the doves/birds the guys shot. he stated that with this bill, things like that could be illegal because of the hunters names were listed. Funny thing is, it isn't. I know that exact article because I was just sitting on the crapper reading it. outright lie, and the magazine to prove it.
 

JEStucker

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2013
Messages
94
Location
Independence, Missouri, USA
You know whats funny, I was listening to the debate at home on the streaming radio from the website. One gentleman (forgot his name) brought up that he was reading the last months Missouri conservationist and stated there was an article that showed 2 shotguns and the doves/birds the guys shot. he stated that with this bill, things like that could be illegal because of the hunters names were listed. Funny thing is, it isn't. I know that exact article because I was just sitting on the crapper reading it. outright lie, and the magazine to prove it.

What they fail to ever realize is that is makes the $h*t like what happened in New York illegal, not the articles where I'm sure a release form was filled out allowing the paper or magazine to publish the names and story. If they issue you a release, and you sign it, then them publishing your name would be perfectly fine.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
With these types of bills, it's sometimes difficult to get to the precise reason(s); there are the public ones like what Dempsey posted, but it's very feasible/likely there was another more subtle, not broadcast to the public, reason. In all likelihood, we may never know the 'reason(s)' other than what the politician wants the public to know. But in many instances, if you follow the money, you can get a very good idea.

My opinion, he was threatened to loose $$ from the NRA and so he made the issue of the 1st Amendment the scapegoat, which allowed him to vote no, but still retain his support from the NRA. Again, follow the money trail, and there could be several of them.....and you'll see a bigger picture.
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
May I ask a dumb question? I keep hearing that the NRA was opposed to this bill, but what is the evidence for that?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
With these types of bills, it's sometimes difficult to get to the precise reason(s); there are the public ones like what Dempsey posted, but it's very feasible/likely there was another more subtle, not broadcast to the public, reason. In all likelihood, we may never know the 'reason(s)' other than what the politician wants the public to know. But in many instances, if you follow the money, you can get a very good idea.

My opinion, he was threatened to loose $$ from the NRA and so he made the issue of the 1st Amendment the scapegoat, which allowed him to vote no, but still retain his support from the NRA. Again, follow the money trail, and there could be several of them.....and you'll see a bigger picture.

Here and other places there is second guessing, questioning motives and a lot of negative comments. I like you am more than NOT HAPPY. I got over it and joined with people making positive suggestions for the rewite of the 2nd amendment preservation act. Theoretically chnages are made and there will be a fast track of this new bill in January whenthe session starts. (If we believe the powers that are).

There is no doubt the NRA is not our friend when it comes to open carry rights. Two years ago they killed our better OC bill on the floor of the house. The presnt OC bill in what was HB436 was a very serious compromise on our OC rights. I wrote it (with the help of others, some here on this forum, soem not), made it farily restrictive to get something as opposed to nothing. I spoke with the state NRA rep and he agreed not to kill it as he did two years ago. If I submitted preemption again, we'd have gotten killed before the ink was dry. So I went with what you see in HB 436. when the bill as submitted by paul Curtman it never got a hearing in the House General laws. It would have sat and died. I was nauseated when it was adopted as an amendment to HB436, but if not there it would have gone no where. Certainly as an amendment to SB75 it would be law now, but that didn't happen.

I'm looking to January and hopefully those idiots (Who of course support 2A rights...????) will get their act together and do as they have said and fast track the bill through the House and Senate. We'll see.

There is no advantage in beating a dead horse, it serves no purpose except as a feel good thing and does more harm than good. There are some good people, in and mostly out of the legislature working on wording to get the dang thing to pass. That is the best approach, getting it done. Because there was no significant opposition to the OC bill as it appears in the 2nd amendment preservation act there wil lbe no changes in the wording. I would like to dump all the restrictoions there are in it, but as I've been told it was veted and passed the house and senate the first time. If changes of any kind are made it just raises the odds of more opposition and risk of failure. we can't risk failure even with the parts I wrote and don't care for much myself.

If you get anyhting, especially as high profile as OC in Jefferson City you've done well. I'll take it if we can get it.

Preemption, Constitutional carry.... Great, but we are not going to get that in 2014. That is the reality. There are "plans" for the bills beyond 2014 by more tah just myself. It is unfortunate we have to wait that far out, but that's the way it is. It is easy to introduce bills, it is totally some thing else to move them along.

There are "things" that I won't post here, and that folks like LMTD know about and will post at the appropriate time maybe this year or next that wil have a significant impact on OC legislation in the future. Soem things just have to wait to be posted here.

Stay tuned my friends. All that can be done is being done to regain our OC rights in Missouri. Politics sucks, but that's just the way it is. Just hope beyond 2014 when the whole House and 1/2 of the Senate in Misouri is up for elections there is still a pro-2A majority or OC rights will be out od the question for a long time...
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
May I ask a dumb question? I keep hearing that the NRA was opposed to this bill, but what is the evidence for that?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

What I saw was the Tweet/Facebook post by Dempsey indicating the NRA was against it. I never saw the NRA make a formal announcement about it....that could be him just talking. As mspgunner stated, the NRA hasn't been a big supporter of OC rights...but I'm not putting words in their mouth and say they helped kill it; just relying on Dempsey's excuse.

As for what mspgunner stated above; can't disagree with any of it...he is right. I'm hoping my involvement in the 2014 legislature will be more than it has in the past.
 

mspgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Ellisville, Missouri, USA
What I saw was the Tweet/Facebook post by Dempsey indicating the NRA was against it. I never saw the NRA make a formal announcement about it....that could be him just talking. As mspgunner stated, the NRA hasn't been a big supporter of OC rights...but I'm not putting words in their mouth and say they helped kill it; just relying on Dempsey's excuse.

As for what mspgunner stated above; can't disagree with any of it...he is right. I'm hoping my involvement in the 2014 legislature will be more than it has in the past.

A far as HB436 went the NRA certainly did not publically endorse it, translate that....
As far as OC goes, they did not oppose the OC part of HB 436, last year I can tell you they flat out killed it. At least they now leave OC alone, that is perfectly fine.
Through discussions this year, and it didn't take much, they did not oppose the OC bill as you see it in HB436. That in itself is good!

I don't care if people/legislators endorse the OC bill, as long as they don't oppose it we are good with our 2A majority. The fact that we had the OC bill as an amendment on HB 436 was not a good thing. I wasn't happy then, I wasn't happy wit hthe out come. A bill such as an open carry will never be a stand alone bill and make it through the entire process. 2A bills are bunched together, those that originate in the House and those that originate in the Senate.
 
Last edited:

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
What was the reason or reasons this time other than being bought off by special interest? Any answers?


I thought of the answer just a couple of days ago.

The difference in stupidity and genius would be that genius has limits.


IMHO, while 436 indeed was going to have legal issues and a likely poor constitutional interpretation costing a few bucks if it passed, MO had an opportunity to send a loud, clear and strong message that continued stupidity such as has been demonstrated through the government shut down process would NOT be tolerated and show MO in a position of leadership.
.
As usual, the legislature FAILED at sending that message and proceeded with the "we will wait until at least 2/3 of other states have done something and then we will lamely jump onto the band wagon acting like it is the latest and greatest" and the political message remains we are weak and will follow whatever trend looks like will generate the most monies for politicians vs protecting and respecting citizens rights.

When you elect brave men of honor, your lead by honorable brave men, when you do not, you are not, and that sir is what happened.

On a side note, we DID get it passed, something that was questioned REPEATEDLY since December, got our asses handed to us by a coward who vetoed it. You are welcome to step up to the plate and take a swing if you like, but if you are indeed an honorable brave person, you too will find yourself occasionally queezy as you realizze what type of persons you must contend with.
 
Top