Number 11.

[MOPanfisher]

19 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

The appeal of concealed carry is it allows individuals to wax suspected criminals without trial, which of course violates their constitutional rights. It's not a matter of whether you like guns or hate guns, it's a question of whether you value the rule of law.  If they can qualify someone's right to a fair trial, they can qualify your right to own firearms.  Consider that as you celebrate.

NOT even close in my mind.  It has nothing to do with my or anyone's ability to wax anyone.  It's about the ability to defend ones self and family.  I value the "rule of law" very much and it hasn't been changed by this law, I had and still have the legal right to defend myself and family should the unlikely event arise that I need to.  There has been a lot of comments from some of my family about how I will be going to rougher places and willing to face off against bad guys because I am armed.  For me it has been the exact opposite, if I am carrying  (which I don't often do) I am much more aware and conscious of where I go and what I do. 

[fishinwrench]

What was the punishment for carrying concealed without a permit when one was "required"?    And did anybody ever get arrested for it in this state?  

[SpoonDog]

Abridging the rights of others- the right to vote, bear arms, etc- requires a conviction.  Innocence until proven guilty & all that.  A conviction requires a trial.

 I'm  just sayin' in this instance "protecting oneself and their family" is a sanitized way of saying "execution without trial."  Stealing a tv from Walmart and stealing a tv from a home are the same crime- I one instance the consequences are prosecution & in the other they're execution.  That's the difference between rule of law & what these bills articulate.  

Honestly, the first thought I had when I heard the veto had been overridden was that fella on the Meramec killed while pending on a gravel bar a couple years back, and the landowner claiming castle doctrine.  Could've been any one of you.  You never get to explain high water marks or Delcour to the court-you're dead.  The guy who killed you because he felt threatened- irrespective of whether the court finds him guilty or innocent- you still never get to see your family again.  But that's justice, right?

[fishinwrench]

12 minutes ago, SpoonDog said:

Abridging the rights of others- the right to vote, bear arms, etc- requires a conviction.  Innocence until proven guilty & all that.  A conviction requires a trial.

 I'm  just sayin' in this instance "protecting oneself and their family" is a sanitized way of saying "execution without trial."  Stealing a tv from Walmart and stealing a tv from a home are the same crime- I one instance the consequences are prosecution & in the other they're execution.  That's the difference between rule of law & what these bills articulate.  

Honestly, the first thought I had when I heard the veto had been overridden was that fella on the Meramec killed while pending on a gravel bar a couple years back, and the landowner claiming castle doctrine.  Could've been any one of you.  You never get to explain high water marks or Delcour to the court-you're dead.  The guy who killed you because he felt threatened- irrespective of whether the court finds him guilty or innocent- you still never get to see your family again.  But that's justice, right?

Actually a "conviction" only requires a plea.  Often easily obtained by the prosecutor once the accused runs out of money and can't buy their way to a trial.

The whole deal where it's legal to kill someone because you feel threatened is a scary thought.   If you come towards me with a big spider on you... you're a dead man. 

[Old plug]

Everyone should red big city news papers and see the horrors of what goes on there. I do not bla,e anyone for thinning out these crumbs. I firmly believe in some hell holes of neighborhoods it takes place. anyone who pushes drugs doe not have to attack me. if I can find a way to get rid of them and get away with it you can bet I would do it. 

[jdmidwest]

The Castle Doctrine does not allow you to shoot anyone just because you want to. It allows you to protect your home and personal property against a lethal threat. It lets you stand your ground and does not require you to try to run away if a criminal offers a lethal threat. It does not allow you to walk down a street and shoot people because you think they are a criminal. 

[Old plug]

That is correct. But neither police or courts control what is going on in the cities and In case you do not realze it we go a full blown war going on in there. Since we arcreturning to the days of the old west I see nothinh wrong woth thr vigilanty concept to rid ourselves of these people.   

[SpoonDog]

Stand your ground absolutely lets you walk down the street & shoot people- ask George Zimmerman.  My understanding is "looking suspicious" isn't a capital crime.  Trespassing isn't a capital crime.  Doing drugs, selling drugs- aren't capital crimes.  Peeing on a gravel bar isn't a capital crime.  The problem with "feeling threatened" is it's pretty subjective for something as permanent as killing.  The guy on the Meramec felt threatened because some in that party were throwing rocks.  Someone didn't make it home.  Police mistake toys & wallets & phones for guns at least occasionally, and they have some mandatory level of training.  Who knows what'll happen when we place completely untrained individuals in the position of assessing threat.

 

growibg up in big cities, I understand people do bad things.  I also understand the chances of being falsely accused are not zero, which is why I'd like all the rights and legal principles I'm entitled to as a citizen.  

[MOPanfisher]

There is absolutely zero comparison between stealing a TV and defending one self and family.  This law did not change any rule of law, it did not give anyone any extra right to shoot someone, it did not take away anyones right to a trial.  the incident on the river has nothing to do with concealed or open carry.  It actually sounds like you are confusing the carry law with Castle Doctrine, which still isn't close to what you are describing. 

[Lancer09]

It literally takes more "training" to legally hunt  in the state, than it does to carry a concealed firearm. I have no issues with guns. In my living room I have a locked up fancy gun cabinet. I love them. I just don't understand what the fascination is with everyone being able to carry them wherever and whenever they want. Sure you will get a lot of responsible people who do train and shoot, and study when and where is appropriate and legal to carry and discharge that firearm; however now that it is going to be legal with no training or class required people are going to carry concealed with no forethought. For every 1 to 2 who actually went to the class there will now be 3 to 4 people who have "been shootin' guns all ma life" who think they know how to now handle a firearm with someones life in their hands, or the lives of others in the area. Honestly I think that if people want to carry concealed and take up the responsibility of trying to protect themselves and others the training process should be longer (This doesn't mean more expensive). I think the classes are too pricey as is, however I'm of the opinion that people didn't want to spend $75-150 on a class are the reason this ends up getting passed.

Anyone here who has ever handled a gun was probably taught the basics of safety, finger off the trigger, muzzle away from people at all times etc, etc. 

Other than people who have the training in it, who has shot moving targets not with a shotgun but with a hand gun? Who has gone through a class to learn to Identify who the threat is in a crowd (I know, I know, the guy with the gun) but what if he is packing a small handgun and using it in a dense crowd instead of a big assault rifle. Say that guy runs and you get all John Wayne on him and try to bust him but miss and kill a little kid? Frankly that doesn't make you any better. 

Is it your constitutional right to own a gun? yes. Is it your God given right? Who knows.. I don't exactly see mention of guns anywhere in the bible so drop this argument. Is it your God given right to protect your family or friends if need be? Absolutely, but there are other ways to do so than with a .38.