Missouri lawmakers loosen gun laws, override veto of 'constitutional carry' law

a reply to: Snarl
Just about to post that. Thanks for saving me the time.

Good to hear.

I've been telling people to wait on their CCW because the veto might get overridden.

No refunds for the permits, only magical databases now.

I was stationed in Kansas when their Constitutional Carry law went into effect.

No blood in the streets.

This makes it what? 10 states with about 5 others considering the move?

Some have had it for over a decade now if I remember correctly.

What they are afraid of is what's going to happen with or without this law. Criminals don't get permits and you shouldn't have to ask the government permission to exercise a right.

originally posted by: GodEmperor
Good to hear.

I've been telling people to wait on their CCW because the veto might get overridden.

No refunds for the permits, only magical databases now.

It's still good to have a permit due to reciprocity from other states. Some state CCW permits also allow the carry of firearms in otherwise prohibited zones. In Nevada you can forgo the NICS check in lieu of presenting your CCW, for instance.

originally posted by: Snarl

INA § 349 states that a citizen, whether a U.S. citizen by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing certain acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality. The fact of intention is critical; it is not the mere performance of the actions mentioned in § 349. Seven types of conduct are currently listed in the INA as expatriative. The potentially expatriating acts are: (1) applying for and obtaining naturalization in a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (2) making an oath of allegiance to a foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (3) serving in the military of a foreign country as a commissioned or noncommissioned officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; (4) serving in a foreign government position that requires an oath of allegiance to or the nationality of that foreign country, provided the person is at least 18 years old; (5) making a formal renunciation of U.S. citizenship to a consular officer outside of the United States; (6) making a formal renunciation of citizenship while in the United States and during time that the United States is involved in a war; and (7) conviction for treason or attempting by force to overthrow the U.S. government, including conspiracy convictions.

I highlighted the relevant part. Simply not agreeing with you is not grounds to remove a persons citizenship. The act must originate from the person and not the government.

Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 - Cornell Law
Wiki - Afroyim v. Rusk

froyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), is a major United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily.[1][2] The U.S. government had attempted to revoke the citizenship of Beys Afroyim, a man born in Poland, because he had cast a vote in an Israeli election after becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen. The Supreme Court decided that Afroyim's right to retain his citizenship was guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In so doing, the Court overruled one of its own precedents, Perez v. Brownell (1958), in which it had upheld loss of citizenship under similar circumstances less than a decade earlier.

The Afroyim decision opened the way for a wider acceptance of dual (or multiple) citizenship in United States law.[3] The Bancroft Treaties—a series of agreements between the United States and other nations which had sought to limit dual citizenship following naturalization—were eventually abandoned after the Carter administration concluded that Afroyim and other Supreme Court decisions had rendered them unenforceable.

The impact of Afroyim v. Rusk was narrowed by a later case, Rogers v. Bellei (1971), in which the Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment safeguarded citizenship only when a person was born or naturalized in the United States, and that Congress retained authority to regulate the citizenship status of a person who was born outside the United States to an American parent. However, the specific law at issue in Rogers v. Bellei—a requirement for a minimum period of U.S. residence that Bellei had failed to satisfy—was repealed by Congress in 1978. As a consequence of revised policies adopted in 1990 by the United States Department of State, it is now (in the words of one expert) "virtually impossible to lose American citizenship without formally and expressly renouncing it."[4]

Constitutional carry is the way to go. I'll keep my permit just for the sake of reciprocity if Michigan ever takes the appropriate route but I doubt it'll ever happen.
I'm all for gun rights but I do have to agree that there are many people that should not be carrying a firearm. What I always tell people is "who gets to decide?" "So many people in govt are corrupt so do you any corrupt lawmakers dictating what you can and can't do?" The same people that are afraid of the cops are the same ones that don't want the average Joe to be able to carry a firearm. It makes my head spin when I listen to people. I usually try to avoid the conversations, it's the same rhetoric from each side, same prepared quotes, same argument.

Up here in Maine we fixed a law a few years back- and once again have the ability to legally carry a concealed weapon without expensive licensing.

Of course, they fixed it about a year after I completed the process and got my CCW license- something that cost me hundreds of dollars and dozens of hours of my time. The mandatory safety course was... well, a joke. Like anything the government touches... the class existed to meet the minimum requirements to skirt the law, while making maximum profit.

I got my permit several years ago to get around another dumb law, where there was no legal way to transport pistols in vehicles without locking trunks. (Trucks, hatchbacks...)

Land of the free.
Glad to see other states are moving in the right direction.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So much of law is simply an opinion ... and opinions in law have been known to change.

I oh so wanted to get into it with you over what the limitations are for the President to take over and instill himself as dictator. My heart's not in it ... otherwise we could have a lively debate. Keep that in mind. When the wind picks back up and fills my sails ...

a reply to: Snarl

A coup is his only means... There are no constitutional means for Obama to remain after his 2nd term. He cannot suspend the constitution and the only thing the Constitution allows in terms of suspending "rights" is Habeous corpus (which is spelled out in the Constitution). Even then it must be approved by Congress and can only occur during rebellion / an invasion of the US and can only affect the states that fall in those 2 categories.

Scotus made that clear after the civil war when it was last suspended. It could not apply to any state other than those who left the union and joined the confederacy.

a reply to: chefc14

Actually, It was just on Channel 6 news (Out of Lansing), that we are heading that way here in MI. So yea! I was lucky enough to grow up with a father that thought ALL kids should learn about guns, not just boys.

a reply to: projectvxn

Criminals never complied with the law before and they wont know. Its still illegal for them to possess a firearm.

a reply to: chiefsmom

I used to live in Mi. I am surprised they are looking at doing this given the politicians in that state.

What is constitutional carry anyways? Is that some super duper version of the 2nd amendment?

originally posted by: Pyle
What is constitutional carry anyways? Is that some super duper version of the 2nd amendment?

It is where an individual can carry a concealed firearm without any type of license / permit. Currently in Mo you have to obtain a CCW license and take a class before being able to carry concealed.

From a constitutional standpoint its essentially a "plain text reading of the federal Constitution" although certain restrictions still apply. Under Mo law (prior to this legislation) and individual could carry concealed without a license / permit on their property, other private property with the permission of the owner or in your vehicle.

But no where in the 2nd amendment does it say a person has the right to conceal and carry a weapon in public, the right to own weapons sure, couldn't form a militia if needed without them. I am not sure why its called constitutional carry.

originally posted by: Pyle
But no where in the 2nd amendment does it say a person has the right to conceal and carry a weapon in public, the right to own weapons sure, couldn't form a militia if needed without them. I am not sure why its called constitutional carry.

Because its a plain text reading of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment says "shall not be infringed". I think the term is off as well but thats the thought behind it that people have.

They tend to overlook the fact that anything not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved exclusively to the States.

With the Scotus rulings back in 2008 and 2010, where Scotus finally declared the 2nd amendment applies to the individual, there has been a push by one side to restrict the guns and a push by the other to expand the 2nd amendment to a basic principle.

"As a citizen I have the right, guaranteed / protected by the Constitution, to own and bear arms and any type of restrictions violate the wording of the 2nd amendment where it says shall not be infringed."

My personal opinion -
I believe the 2nd amendment applies to the individual. However I think training should be required, both in firearms safety and use as well as the law.

When I went through the academy they drill into you that if you discharge your weapon and miss then you just killed someone grandmother / grandfather / child / etc.

The days of the wild west are over with. You want to conceal carry - no problem. Take a class on the above and your good to go.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
a reply to: chefc14

Actually, It was just on Channel 6 news (Out of Lansing), that we are heading that way here in MI. So yea! I was lucky enough to grow up with a father that thought ALL kids should learn about guns, not just boys.

I'm one of those fathers you speak of. I have four daughters. My two oldest were never responsible enough for me to shoot with and I knew it. My two younger daughters shoot often. My 15 year old is out hunting deer as I write this. I can't be with her my back is attempting to kill me right now. There's nothing better than taking my girls to the range and just watching them destroy targets and ping the gongs. All of the guys out there love them and enjoy watching them.

a reply to: chefc14

Thank you for being a responsible and sensible parent.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: chefc14

Thank you for being a responsible and sensible parent.

Thank you for the compliment. My little girl had a successful hunt yesterday with no men included.


i769.photobucket.com...

SPAM removed by admin