TexasCHLforum.com

FloridaViaMissouri wrote:Someone on MOcarry said today that their state rep thinks they might not have the votes in the senate for override because some senators might leave early to take lobbyist jobs! If that is the case they can't wait 3 months to take a new job they should never be allowed to run for any office again. That is so slimy to do something like that instead of represent your district.

Any truth to this Keith?

FloridaViaMissouri wrote:

Keith B wrote:I don't believe they are looking to bring back PTA. And as expected, Todd believes they will have the support to override the veto. Will just be September before it can happen.

People like Jeanne Kirkton would love to bring PTA back. Here in Florida we have a stupid 3 day wait period on pistols if no ccw permit.

FloridaViaMissouri wrote:

Keith B wrote:As expected, Nixon is going to veto it

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/32312571/mi ... 29732888=1

Do you think it will pass during veto override session in sept?

FloridaViaMissouri wrote:
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.

FloridaViaMissouri wrote: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.”

FloridaViaMissouri wrote:

Keith B wrote: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

Papa_Tiger wrote:

FloridaViaMissouri wrote: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.

steveincowtown wrote: Sorry I missed that in your signature line.

- Did you have any examples of where this has been an issue in so called "Constitutional" Carry states? People entering off limits places? Carrying incorrectly? Don't get me wrong I like training and courses are a great idea! I also think government mandated courses are neither constitutional nor necessary.

The proof of this are states like Vermont, Alaska, Arizona, etc. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse when it comes to ANY law, including gun laws.

steveincowtown wrote:

Keith B wrote:
That is a good possibility as well. While I have mixed feelings on permitless carry without any basic training or at least some coverage of firearms laws, I applaud the legislature for advancing 2A issues and working for Missourian's gun rights.

Keith, do you happen to be an instructor? Also, anytime someone brings this up I ask for examples of this being a problem from permit-less (so called Constitutional Carry) states, which somehow are VERY hard to find.

A 4-6 hour CHL course doesn't make you a student of the law. Being involved in a board like this, asking questions, and having good forum Admin like yourself to provide guidance is a wonderful thing.

Hopefully Texas will have a chance at this next session!