Missouri Bill 294 Signed today
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Missouri Bill 294 Signed today

  1. #1

    Missouri Bill 294 Signed today

    Among the highest-profile bills signed into law was a concealed gun measure. It sets the state's minimum age for getting a concealed gun permit at 21 years old, eliminating the previous age limit of 23 set by the Legislature in 2003 when lawmakers overrode the veto of then-Gov. Bob Holden and enacted the concealed-carry law.

    Most states allow residents to carry a concealed gun, and Missouri's age requirement had been the highest in the nation, according to the National Rifle Association. Many states also have an age limit of 21, though others allow permits to be issued to people as young as 18 years old and a few allow concealed guns to be carried without a permit.

    Read more: Missouri governor OKs concealed gun bill, vetoes election bill - KansasCity.com

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri
    Posts
    20
    Awesome. Surprised he signed. Thought he was just going to just let it run out.

  4. Dave,

    A lot of it was common sense that it be changed.

    Don't forget that it also DOUBLED the range requirements for concealed carry classes, put the County Sheriff's in a power-seat to do what they want in regards to those new standards, failed to grandfather ANYONE in, and made it so that no certificate issued prior to August 28th, 2011 will be honored if the holder's CCW appointment has not occurred prior to.

    Before anyone bashes that to death, I already know the direct culprit of that change and they certainly won't answer the questions, in fact if you ask your politicians and they dig at all those responsible will quickly claim you're just a conspiracy theorist.

    The doubling of the requirements has absolutely nothing to do with safety or training. In fact, those responsible told our Missouri politicians that there was a "legal liability" issue that meant if a CCW permit holder qualified on a revolver and used a semiauto in self-defense that they could be sued. I've addressed this matter with several Missouri politicians by illustrating that RSMO 563.074 relieves a self-defense shooter of criminal prosecution and civil suit as long as their action was found justified.

    Those responsible told my politicians that I'm just a conspiracy theorist and should be ignored. One of the issues I fired off at has already happened, per the Mo AG (see above on honored certificates). When I asked for that email response what was I told? I cannot give it to you, but you can file a FOIA request to get it; I'll gladly show it to you so you know who and what you're up against. So you can bet what I'm doing Monday morning.

    I won't directly identify those responsible, but if you read Missouri statutes on the matter you'll find they have a dog in the hunt per Missouri Statute.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri
    Posts
    20
    Iteach4U

    Are you absolutely sure about that? I don't mean to doubt you but the revised law and but I do not see where it would affect me except in one area. My class was already 8 hours at the place I had it done (I checked this morning) and I already have a certificate that specifically mentions proficient with both Revolver and handgun. I see the statement about both a revolver and a handgun. We practiced with both - however the form only mentions the handgun for the live firing exercises. I am calling my instructor to get the scoop on it. He would know as he is heavily involved in this. Worst case scenarion I imaging is having to just do the shooting portion again for the revolver - no big deal to me. Also the section about the county sheriff mentions:

    "Specifies that the county sheriff’s revolving fund may be
    used to pay for information and data exchange necessary to
    process applications or renewals for concealed carry endorsements"

    This does not indicate anything other then using the fund to help pay for the background checks, etc.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wildwood, Missouri
    Posts
    20
    I just spoke with my instructor who is heavily involved in the legislation process. He said so long as you have your ccw prior to 8/28/2011 you will be good.

  7. As I've already addressed elsewhere dkangel, per the MOAG's office (NOT YOUR INSTRUCTOR): Students MUST meet the current standards at the time of application. Again, I have that email if you'd like it. If your instructor has something different from the MOAG's office in writing I'd be happy to exchange information with that instructor as we may have an issue that needs addressing, but thus far it appears as though everything is going through one particular individual at the MOAG's office.

    Nowhere did the MOAG's communication state: If you have your CCW prior to. It's very clear and to the point.

    What's that mean? If you don't have your appointment with your Sheriff prior to 8/26/2011 you MUST meet the new standards. Why 8/26? Because that's a Friday, the effective date of the law will be on a Sunday...8/28/11. No worries, most instructors are more than accommodating and willing to get folks on the new standards pronto. If you know how far out appointments are for your county you might get lucky and squeeze in under the old standards. If you don't care, just log the extra rounds....since the new Sheriff's Assoc. certificates are not available to us yet, I'd suggest having your instructor annotate on the certificate what quals you met. Example:

    20 round qualification - semiauto
    20 round qualification - revolver
    50 round familiarization - semiauto
    50 round familiarization - revolver

    Also, there's NO grandfather clause written in for ANYONE. So no matter what your instructor tells you, there's still the possibility that renewals might fall prey to the new standards as well. I said that certificates would not be honored, that's holding true to a point. My next prediction is that renewals will be required to meet the new standards and I'm hoping it DOES NOT hold true. I'm not trying to scare anyone, just trying to make folks aware of just how this specific part of HB294 was messed up from the start.

  8. Quote Originally Posted by dkangel21 View Post
    Iteach4U

    Are you absolutely sure about that? I don't mean to doubt you but the revised law and but I do not see where it would affect me except in one area. My class was already 8 hours at the place I had it done (I checked this morning) and I already have a certificate that specifically mentions proficient with both Revolver and handgun. I see the statement about both a revolver and a handgun. We practiced with both - however the form only mentions the handgun for the live firing exercises. I am calling my instructor to get the scoop on it. He would know as he is heavily involved in this. Worst case scenarion I imaging is having to just do the shooting portion again for the revolver - no big deal to me. Also the section about the county sheriff mentions:

    "Specifies that the county sheriff’s revolving fund may be
    used to pay for information and data exchange necessary to
    process applications or renewals for concealed carry endorsements"

    This does not indicate anything other then using the fund to help pay for the background checks, etc.
    You're reading my post incorrectly. The new standards will require you to be "qualified" on both firearms, but as has been said, if you've had your appointment or will by 8/26 you should be good unless you're in Stone County. If you are, then call them FIRST. Also, I said nothing about the permit fees in my post. What I was referring to was this....

    Part of HB294 removes the extra taxes upon firearms and firearms related items so that the taxation can be no higher than other sporting goods. That equates to tax revenue losses. The State of Missouri will need to make that up elsewhere. Well by doubling the CCW standards those tax revenues can go up, especially with demand that will be created by opening the market up to 21 year-olds. Work the numbers from a class based on the usage of 9mm and .38spl ammo, the tax revenues get big quite fast with their newly targeted market group.

    Current standard: 20 round qual, 50 round familiarization (break it up in 1/2 to keep it fair) that equates to 1 box per caliber
    New standard: 20 round qual (x2), 50 round familiarization (x2) that equates to 2 boxes per caliber

    So right out of the gate they're doubling the tax revenues from ammo sales alone on CCW permit applicants.
    Enforce this rule on renewals and you've just turned tax revenue losses from removing those extra taxes into a tax revenue increase.

    Personally, I've paid enough for my right to carry by defending this County. Now that I choose to have a CCW endorsement the State is allowing specific targeting, targeting that I could avoid by open carrying, but open carry ISN'T legal throughout Missouri. The municipalities have the ability to regulate it and in turn are able to FORCE people to get CCW permits to exercise their 2A rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast