Oh, yeah. Right.
Oh, yeah. Right.
Guns getting into the hands of teens. It is a concern in Missouri tonight as the state’s new conceal carry law is set to take effect January first. This only applies to state law. Legal experts say some of the protections that were once there that prevented teenagers to carry fire arms or carry conceal are no longer there the way the state statute now reads.
“An individual under the age of 18 can conceal carry a firearm under state law as long as they are not a convicted felon. How does that affect kids 13, 14, 15, 17 years old? The argument is under state law, there is no provision that says they can not carry a firearm conceal,” says attorney Matt Fry.
How did our lawmakers let this happen?
“For you to redraft the legislation, you have to understand the history of the legislation and I don’t think they did. When you go in and you rewrite the law and you just put one sentence line in there that says you can conceal carry and you don’t go in and make a distinction of age groups, then it opens it up to kids,” says Fry.
Fry teaches criminal defense at SLU Law, and practices the same speciality out of the Clayton offices of the Kansas City-based Cornerstone firm.
Which means he’s been to and graduated from law school.
I haven’t, on either count.
So, he should understand better than your ever-lovin’ blogmeister that even the post-SB656 liberalization of the state’s UUW provisions, and the way the state’s UUW provisions are written themselves, means that no possible legal or decriminalized form of CCW in this state applies to civilians under the age of 19 or military members under the age of 18.
So why does it take me to tell you?
Again, this applies only to state law. With the law changing next month, Fry says it’s still important to get a conceal carry license because it offers more protection. We found out many people are doing just that.
“At first we saw a little dip in classes, two three seats open, no big deal. ln November and December, they were full every weekend. It was like whoa what’s going on here,” says Southern Armory owner, Aaron Tarlow.
Tarlow says to him, this means one thing.
“It is legal to carry a gun so maybe they are not going to get the permit the physical card, but they are saying I need to know what I am doing and that is awesome. It is showing responsibility on their half, but there is going to be a portion of our society that say they don’t need the training and that is frightening,” says Tarlow.
It’s easy to claim that Tarlow’s motivation for his advice isn’t purely altruistic, and that claim would probably be correct. In spite of that, I’m riding with his reasoning, almost purely because state-to-state reciprocity is predicated purely on the physical permit.
To reiterate, I don’t consider SB656 to be true constitutional carry, and I cringe at the NRA-ILA now characterizing Missouri as a concarry state, because I think true concarry needs to be overt and explicit in the black-and-white of printed state laws, and not just the de facto function of what SB656 does, enacting concarry by implication as a function of the only possible criminal sanction for carrying without a permit in places where carrying is neither publicly absolutely prohibited nor privately discretionarily prohibited being removed from the state’s list of UUW violations.
“Are you serious you’ve never been to law school?”
Yes, and I’m not lying.
What Fry just did wasn’t provide solid legal reasoning, but instead manufacture a fresh shiny new excuse for whoever succeeds Francis Slay/whoever succeeds Sam Dotson/Kim Gardner, to trot out every time the media heat over violent crime gets too much.
St. Louis City Police Chief Sam Dotson describes the new 2017 Missouri gun law as thoughtless and loose.
Starting January 1, 2017, Missouri residents will be able to carry a gun without a permit or training, and that’s leaving Chief Dotson worried.
Effectively, yes, but legally, no. All that happened was that the line-item within the state’s list of things which constitute the unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) that cites carrying without a valid permit was eliminated. At the same time, one was added to the list to stipulate that carrying while possessing enough illicit substances by weight to constitute a facial violation of state possession with intent to distribute (PWID) laws is now UUW. What it definitely does not do is to allow one to carry either with or without permit in places where state law absolutely prohibits it or permits private establishment and business owners to disallow it.
This is why I don’t consider SB 656 to be genuine constitutional carry.
However, Dotson should be happy with the UUW category that was added. Except we’re about to have a George Soros financed Lizz Brown slash Marilyn Mosby sort as Circuit Attorney, who won’t swing a hammer at a nail as long as the nail is black. This means Dotson’s cops should hand the files of such UUW cases to Josh Hawley (starting January 9) instead of Kim Gardner.
The new Missouri law also cover the stand your “Stand Your Ground” law.
It makes mild tweaks in it, not wholesale changes.
“What’s interesting is that we spend a lot of time in law enforcement talking about how to deescalate a situation, this law takes out that requirement that you had to retreat or pull back. Now you don’t have an obligation to deescalate, you can just stand there, stick out your chest and whoever is the bigger man and fires first, that could actually be a defense in the court of law,” said Dotson.
Non sequitur. “We,” in the context that Dotson uses it, refers to men and women who are granted a legal and moral monopoly on the use of deadly force and are given legal, moral and social benefit of the doubt in questionable situations therefore. If he wants to make the case that deescalation training, such as it currently is, does no good and is mostly racially/politically driven instead of done out of a desire for better law enforcement, he should be my guest ’till the cows come home. It does not follow that what we want from civilians should be the exact same as what we want from cops.
What I fear, though, is that Dotson is turning over his hand and showing us that they’re ready, starting at the stroke of midnight which rings out the old current year and rings in the new current year, that they’re going to lean on the excuse of SB 656 for every “gun crime” committed in the city.
Palo Alto, California
Not a surprise to me at all. HRC has not only lauded her former boss’s unilateral use of executive authority (we used to call it “dictatorship”), she bemoans the fact that he hasn’t gone far enough and has openly promised to go further.
How would that manifest on this issue if she ever has the opportunity? We know her former boss on this same issue using this same method only ordered a bunch of useless irrelevant bureaucratic fluff, and the only substantial policy made was to add those who receive their Social Security benefits by means of a representative payee to the NCIC block list, because as we all know, there is a massive epidemic of bedridden insane old people running around shooting people.
I think, if she ever has the opportunity, she would use the pen and phone to implement the universal background check, even though she and all her lawyers and hacks would try to justify it with the precepts of the separation of powers, i.e. to make it appear that this isn’t an illegal executive overreach, behind a bunch of deliberately confusing babble, bafflegabbery and mumbo jumbo. All because the left has convinced itself that the only reason there’s any violent crime at all is because private peer to peer sales don’t have to be run through NCIC.
Since it wasn’t for me, (I know tricks which work on paywalls about half the time), I’ll cut to the chase:
The editorial bent of this story is ZOMG 2ND AMENDMENT PRIVACY LOL~!!!!!1
All I need to know is where it was happening: Southern California, and especially suburban San Diego.
Which means the purpose of doing it is to try to catch drug cartels before they make their way across the border with what they procured at these shows. Or, if not that, to assemble a nice paper trail for U.S. Attorneys’ future use.
I wouldn’t be so upset with this, if I already didn’t know that at about this same time, the Obama Administration was practically directly arming Mexican drug gangs and cartels, in a devious attempt to sandbag both American domestic immigration politics and 2A politics.
The veto session starts today, and Nixon’s veto of SB 656 could be overturned before sunset.
Everyone keeps saying that SB 656 contains Constitutional Carry (concarry), and they’ve been saying it ever since this thing was born in committee, but I’m not seeing it and never have seen it. Unless I’m missing something. All I read is a bunch of tweaks.
Maybe they keep falsely claiming it has concarry because they don’t want it to pass for one or more of the tweaks it does make, and claiming it has concarry is the best way to gin up opposition. But I don’t know which one(s) of these tweaks are so horrible or objectionable.
Okay, I’ve asked around, and while there is technically no concarry language in SB 656, what it does do is effectively and on the sly implement concarry by removing the line-item in the list of actions that constitute unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) offenses that refers to carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) without a permit. This blog’s very first post on September 15, 2003 was on the day of, and about, the General Assembly adopting our initial CCW provisions, and since it happened in September, you can deduce that it happened on an override of a gubernatorial veto. Part of that package was to eliminate the stand-alone criminal offense of carrying a concealed weapon, and putting carrying without a permit as one of the many items in the UUW laundry list. Now that it has been taken out, or it will be in about a month, there is no possible criminal sanction for carrying without a permit, except…
…What it does not accomplish is to allow CCW in places where carrying even with a valid permit is overtly legally prohibited, or privately prohibited by the establishment owner or agent per his latitude via state law. And it definitely doesn’t change the list of firearms-prohibited individuals per state or Federal law, meaning that firearms-prohibited individuals can’t legally carry even under SB 656 because they can’t legally possess, and they couldn’t get a permit anyway.
One thing it does is that while it removes carrying without a permit from the list of UUW violations, it adds one to it: What it does is that if you’re caught both knowingly carrying and knowingly possessing enough controlled substances that on the face of the action violate state felony PWID laws, (even before a conviction on that particular PWID action or even in the absence of any PWID conviction), that becomes a UUW line-item category. I actually remember that being shoved into SB 656 during hearings and markup, but now that I know that it goes in while CCW-sans-permit goes out, I now think it’s sort of a legal make-good. Remember, more than five years ago in this medium, I expressed my opposition to concarry in NAM-heavy states for technical reasons, and I think that this new UUW provision mostly compensates for those concerns.
The permit process is still in its same form, and that you will need to go through if you want reciprocity with other states, that is, the other states that recognizes Missouri’s permit. Illinois still isn’t one of them.
Long and short is that if you’re not a prohibited person and you don’t carry in prohibited places and you’re not in the dope dealing and transporting business, SB 656 does effectively give you concarry.
NRA endorses Koster.
Because he has a reasonable 2A record, remember, in the Senate, he voted for CCW back in 2003, and he was still an elected Republican at that time and would be for another three years, and because the NRA is reading the tea leaves and realizing inevitability. Like I’ve been saying, that inevitability is labor union driven.