• 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.

MO Legislation alert: HB 1468 Allows concealed carry without permit

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
Good deal, wonder why a 8/30/16 effective date?

VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE OF LAWS

No law passed by the General Assembly can take effect until ninety days after the end of the session at which it was enacted (August 28 for regular sessions). However, if a bill was passed with an emergency clause attached, it takes effect immediately upon the Governor's signature. In addition, some bills specify the exact date when they are to take effect, which is usually a period of time longer than ninety days.

http://www.house.mo.gov/content.aspx?info=/info/howbill.htm

I think generally to allow time to educate law enforcement or to file court challenges, etc.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,187
Location
here nc
passing = loss of state revenue generation for some police agency.

no benefit for the state whatsoever, therefore prob political rhetoric to garner legislative favor or i believe you will discern it is just flat out good olde boy politic'n activities.

ipse
 
Last edited:

press1280

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
399
Location
Eastern Panhandle,WV ,
passing = loss of state revenue generation for some police agency.

no benefit for the state whatsoever, therefore prob political rhetoric to garner legislative favor or i believe you will discern it is just flat out good olde boy politic'n activities.

ipse

They can't come right out and say they're losing revenue, that's a loser. It'll be blood in the streets, same old BS used by the left.

MO's permit has such good coverage nationwide that anyone who crosses state lines would definitely need to keep their CCW.
 

dkangel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
95
Location
Wildwood, Missouri, USA
|Can someone Decipher the following line numbers. I am trying to verify what I think it means:

91 4. Subdivisions [(1), (8)] (7), and [(10)] (9) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply
92 to any person who has a valid concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to
93 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued before August 28, 2013, or a valid permit
94 or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of
95 another state.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
This is how the law would read if enacted.
571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she
knowingly:
(1) Sets a spring gun; or
(2) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or
(3) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
(4) Has a firearm or projectile weapon readily capable of lethal use on his or her person, while he or she is intoxicated, and handles or otherwise uses such firearm or projectile weapon in either a negligent or unlawful manner or discharges such firearm or projectile weapon unless acting in self-defense; or
(5) Discharges a firearm within one hundred yards of any occupied schoolhouse, 1courthouse, or church building; or
(6) Discharges or shoots a firearm at a mark, at any object, or at random, on, along or across a public highway or discharges or shoots a firearm into any outbuilding; or
(7) Carries a firearm or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any church or place where people have assembled for worship, or into any election precinct on any election day, or into any building owned or occupied by any agency of the federal government, state government, or political subdivision thereof; or
(8) Discharges or shoots a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, as defined in section 301.010, discharges or shoots a firearm at any person, or at any other motor vehicle, or at any building or habitable structure, unless the person was lawfully acting in self-defense; or
(9) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board; or
(10) Possesses a firearm while also knowingly in possession of a controlled substance that is sufficient for a felony violation of section 195.202.

2. ...

3. Subdivisions (4), (7), and (9) of subsection 1 of this section do not apply when the actor is transporting such weapons in a nonfunctioning state or in an unloaded state when ammunition is not readily accessible or when such weapons are not readily accessible. Subdivision (9) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.

4. Subdivisions (7), and (9) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued before August 28, 2013, or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

5. ...

6. This subsection needs to be addressed...see Utah's "parking lot" preemption.

7. thru 12. ...

http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/57100000301.html
It would not appear to be a violation of RSMo 571.030.1 to:

conceal a handgun and not have a permit
CCW in/on church property
CCW in/on school property
CCW in/on school bus
CCW at "off-site" school sponsored function(s) (where the school has control over the off-site property)

RSMo 21.750.2 remains which requires a citizen to have a CCW permit to OC in some political subdivisions.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
Representative Eric Burlison: District 133 (a little down and left of Sprinfield MO when viewing a map of his district): Republican.

This bill needs to be promoted and our reps on both sides to urged to support this bill.

The Honorable Eric Burlison just earned a check to be applied towards his next election cycle.

Think, since the language of HB 1468 does not distinguish between K-12 and college campi, nor does the current applicable RSMo, the two senate bills would likely be moot. But, those SBs need to be pushed through as well.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,453
Location
White Oak Plantation
... CCW in/on church property ...
Ooops!

also: CCW in/on election precinct (polling place), building owned or occupied by state government, or political subdivision (cities/towns/county) thereof

This law, if enacted, could not apply to federal facilities (allow us to CCW in/on federal property).

Support HB 1468!!!
 

dkangel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
95
Location
Wildwood, Missouri, USA
This is how the law would read if enacted.It would not appear to be a violation of RSMo 571.030.1 to:

conceal a handgun and not have a permit
CCW in/on church property
CCW in/on school property
CCW in/on school bus
CCW at "off-site" school sponsored function(s) (where the school has control over the off-site property)

RSMo 21.750.2 remains which requires a citizen to have a CCW permit to OC in some political subdivisions.

Thats what I thought.
 

dkangel

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
95
Location
Wildwood, Missouri, USA
Of course there is a 100 percent chance that anti gun governor of ours will veto it. It will all come down to the override. And even if that does happen what's the likelyhood (only for me not for thee) Dotson wont file a lawsuit ;-) [Of course that last one was a joke but you never know with him]
 
Last edited:

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
|Can someone Decipher the following line numbers. I am trying to verify what I think it means:

91 4. Subdivisions [(1), (8)] (7), and [(10)] (9) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply
92 to any person who has a valid concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to
93 571.121, a valid concealed carry endorsement issued before August 28, 2013, or a valid permit
94 or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of
95 another state.

I added back in the bold that got lost in the copy/paste. Everything in bold brackets gets removed, everything bold not in brackets gets added. Basically this is just updating this section to renumber for the section removed above, but doesn't change what this section means.

It would not appear to be a violation of RSMo 571.030.1 to:

conceal a handgun and not have a permit
CCW in/on church property
CCW in/on school property
CCW in/on school bus
CCW at "off-site" school sponsored function(s) (where the school has control over the off-site property)

RSMo 21.750.2 remains which requires a citizen to have a CCW permit to OC in some political subdivisions.

The prior sections specify where it's illegal to carry a firearm (including open carry). Because this section says that they don't apply to CCW permit holders, it's not illegal to carry in those areas. It does not limit that to carrying concealed, so having the permit also makes it legal to OC in the areas that would otherwise be illegal, provided you have a CCW permit.
So if the law passed, it would not be a violation of RSMo 571.030.1 to:
conceal a handgun and not have a permit
with a CCW permit, OC or CCW in/on church property
with a CCW permit, OC or CCW in/on school property
with a CCW permit, OC or CCW in/on school bus
with a CCW permit, OC or CCW at "off-site" school sponsored function(s) (where the school has control over the off-site property)

However, without a CCW permit, carrying a firearm (OC or CC) into any church would constitute a violation of .1(7), resulting in "the crime of unlawful use of weapons", and would be a class B misdemeanor.


Without a CCW permit, carrying a firearm into any part of section .1(9), school/bus/etc, would be a class A misdemeanor if the firearm is unloaded and a class D felony if the firearm is loaded.
 
Top