Missouri Senate bill passes

Missouri Senate bill passes

This is a discussion on Missouri Senate bill passes within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Missouri Senate backs weapons bill on intruders Missouri proposal would expand the justification for using deadly force in dwellings and vehicles. By KIT WAGAR The ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    New Member Array mdj59's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    S.E. Missouri
    Posts
    3

    Smile Missouri Senate bill passes

    Missouri Senate backs weapons bill on intruders
    Missouri proposal would expand the justification for using deadly force in dwellings and vehicles.
    By KIT WAGAR
    The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

    JEFFERSON CITY | The Missouri Senate on Monday easily approved a wide-ranging firearms bill that would give householders and motorists new justification for using deadly force against intruders.

    The final legislation, known as Senate Bill 62, would also repeal the requirement that Missouri residents receive permits from their sheriffs before buying handguns.

    Other provisions would:

    •Relax the concealed-weapons law to allow people with law enforcement training to skip the weapons-handling course that other applicants must complete to obtain concealed-gun permits.

    •Allow courts to let police and sheriff’s departments sell confiscated weapons and keep the proceeds.

    •Give the Missouri Highway Patrol access to records showing people’s treatment for mental illness. Use of the mental health information would be limited to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which determines whether people are eligible to buy guns.

    All those provisions have generated controversy in recent years.

    But the bill was approved 29-3, as critics said the bill could have been much worse.

    Sen. Jolie Justus, a Kansas City Democrat who served on the conference committee that drafted the final version, said she opposed the expanded justification for the use of deadly force. Current law already allows people to defend themselves, she said.

    However, the version that the House drafted, she said, was far more egregious in that it eliminated any duty that a person retreat from a confrontation, if possible.

    “I was adamant that they move away from the ‘stand your ground’ doctrine,” Justus said.

    The final version expands the justifiable use of deadly force only within a dwelling, residence or vehicle.

    Sen. Jack Goodman, a Mount Vernon Republican, said the new standard would apply to any structure designed for overnight occupancy, including a tent.

    The bill provides an absolute defense against criminal or civil actions if force is used against a person who illegally enters a dwelling or vehicle.

    Justus said she was less bothered by removal of the requirement that Missouri residents obtain permits before buying handguns.

    Handgun buyers already have to undergo federal background checks.

    She said she was bothered by reports that some sheriffs were asking gun applicants inappropriate questions and tracking gun buyers’ race and religion.

    The legislation now goes back to the House, where it is expected to be approved easily.


  2. #2
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    This is Awesome! Looks like it would take effect August 28th.
    Last edited by Hoppmeister; May 15th, 2007 at 03:09 PM.
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  3. #3
    Senior Member Array incredipete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    643
    As an almost daily visitor to Missouri, I say "Great Job!" It's always good when common sense prevails...
    Gun Control means never having to say "I missed you."

    - Glock 27 (.40)
    - Kel-Tec p3at (.380)
    - Beretta 96FS (.40)
    - Smith & Wesson 5906 (9mm)

  4. #4
    Distinguished Member Array BIG E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    KY
    Posts
    1,443
    Great to hear!
    Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!

    -- Theodore Roosevelt --

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    It is better... I would still prefer that it contained provisions for not having a duty to retreat "anywhere you have a legal right to be" which would include dark alley's and parking lots and other places out of doors... now you will have the burdon of proving that you were unable to retreat. Hopefully, my wife who is disabled and has limited mobility won't get hung out on such a requirement.

    It should be defendable, but would be much more preferable if it was addressed in the law itself!

    Anyways... it's a step forward.

    Does anyone know the specific's about "protection from civil lawsuits" by the bad guy or his family if you shoot him?
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  6. #6
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    This is Straight from the Missouri House of Rep. Page:

    SB 62 Modifies the laws on the use of force


    Sponsor: Goodman Co-Sponsor(s)
    LR Number: 0149S.11S Fiscal Note: 0149-05
    Committee: Judiciary and Civil & Criminal Jurisprudence
    Last Action: 5/15/2007 - In Conference Journal Page:
    Title: CCS HCS SCS SBs 62 & 41 Calendar Position:
    Effective Date: August 28, 2007
    House Handler: Ruestman





    Current Bill Summary

    HCS/SCS/SBs 62 & 41 - This act modifies various laws relating to the criminal justice system.


    A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself, herself, or another when using defensive force that is intended to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:


    (1) The person against whom such force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or already entered a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle in such manner, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against such person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and


    (2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.


    This presumption does not exist if the person:


    (1) Against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in the dwelling, residence, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;


    (2) Sought to be removed is a child, grandchild, or is otherwise under the guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;


    (3) Who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity; or


    (4) Against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer entering the dwelling or vehicle as part of his or her duties and the officer properly identifies himself or herself or the person knew or should have know the person entering was a law enforcement officer.


    A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to meet force with force if he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    A person who uses such force as described above, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil actions and criminal prosecutions for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer who identifies himself or herself or the person using the force should have known the person was a law enforcement officer.


    A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the agency may not arrest the person using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force was unlawful. The court shall award attorneys' fees and court costs, compensation for loss of income and all expenses incurred by the defendant during a civil action if the court finds the defendant is immune.


    This act makes an exception to certain provisions of the unlawful use of a weapon statute for federal flight deck officers. This act makes state restrictions on the transfer of concealable firearms identical to certain federal restrictions. The penalty for an illegal transfer of concealable firearms is reduced from a Class A misdemeanor to an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than $100. The permit requirement for the purchase of a concealable firearm is repealed.


    Currently, upon conviction of a felony in violation of the law perpetrated by the use of a firearm, the court may order the confiscation and disposal of such firearm. Under this act, the court may also order the sale or trade of such firearm to a licensed firearm dealer. The proceeds of such sale or trade shall be the property of the police or sheriff's department responsible for the defendant's arrest or the confiscation of the firearms and ammunition.


    For purposes of the concealed carry endorsement statute, the requirement of demonstrating knowledge of firearms safety training shall be satisfied with the submission of proof that the applicant currently holds a valid peace officer license, the applicant is currently allowed to carry a firearm as a probation and parole officer, or the applicant is certified as a corrections officer and has passed at least one eight-hour firearms training course.
    Last edited by Hoppmeister; May 15th, 2007 at 06:12 PM.
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  7. #7
    Member Array OfClanMcnab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    205
    This is pointless. It does not help us at all, because the original 'stand your ground' wording was meant to protect law-abiding citizens, especially CCW, from frivolous lawsuits. If you think you might be required to defend yourself, you had better run into your house or hop in your car, because otherwise you can be bankrupted by the bad guy or his family. This only helps homeowners, not those of us who are out and about with our CCWs. It doesn't matter if the lawsuit goes your way, because you are still liable for the legal costs. In the original wording, the prosecutor would be liable for your legal costs.

    This really pisses me off.

  8. #8
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    Well at least it's a start. We still have it better than in England.. I too would have liked to see it diffrent. But for now I'll take what I can get. No telling what we could have ended up with.

    I am glad no more trips to sherriffs offices to get one of thier pieces of paper we had to buy when we want to purchase a handgun.,
    Last edited by Hoppmeister; May 15th, 2007 at 08:49 PM. Reason: Adding
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  9. #9
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    Help me out here:

    And I Quote: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to meet force with force if he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    Question if I am faced with Great Bodily Harm or Death in any of these situations:

    If I am in a Parking Lot Parking My Car and I get out and walk towards into an Establishment and not engaging in an unlawful activity because I have a Right to be there in that Parking Lot am I Immune?

    If I am walking down the street and not engaged in any unlawful activity because I have a right to be there... Am I Immune?

    If I am in an establishment that does not turn away someone legally packing and I am not engaged in any unlawful activity .. Am I Imune?

    Just a thought
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array mocarryguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    578
    I have been working with my representatives plus a couple of others to get this thing passed this year. I prefer the house bill, but you take what you can get. The Senate, whether state of federal always seem to water things down, hard to understand. I have complained hard and heavy about the permit need, as I a CCW have to go through that junk. I also was a firearms dealer, and still had to deal with that. The Democrats in Missouri really are the ones who get in the way of good leglislation, even though we are not supposed to talk politics. One only need look at voting records and what they say to see though. Stay engaged with your representatives and things can get done.
    I know, I know, you are smarter than me..just ask you..

  11. #11
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    MoCarryGuy I could not agree more. Just think where we were as far as 10 Years Ago. I never thought there would be a CCW avalible to Law Abiding People. I'm just glad we got what we did in place before the Elections.

    And I Thank You for Your Efforts. I'm glad the Permit thing is behind us now or will soon be behind us.
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  12. #12
    Member Array Freakdaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    245
    This has just passed in the House 151-6. Although not as good as the "stronger Castle Doctorine" we hoped for, still a step in the right direction. There will be no problems with the Governor signing this into law and taking effect on August 28th. This should get us an "F" rating from the Brady folks LOL!!

    Alan

  13. #13
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    Thank Gawd it happend before the Elections!
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Array Bark'n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    West Central Missouri
    Posts
    9,917
    Yep... better that what we had...

    still looking for a clear ruling on being sued if you shoot someone and also about being in a place you have a lawful right to be at....

    It is sounding like you Do Not have to retreat if you are out in public from the post Hoppmeister made, but I would still like a little more clarification.
    -Bark'n
    Semper Fi


    "The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."

  15. #15
    Member Array Hoppmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    70
    A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to meet force with force if he or she reasonably believes it necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


    A person who uses such force as described above, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil actions and criminal prosecutions for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer who identifies himself or herself or the person using the force should have known the person was a law enforcement officer.

    I take that as as long as it is not a law enforcement officer that you are into it with and you are not breaking any law and are defeneding yourself you are immune to criminal prosecution.

    I may be wrong?
    I dont have a P3AT Mouse Gun
    or a G23,,,

    Or do I ?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Oklahoma open carry bill passes House and Senate - On to governor!
    By paaiyan in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: May 28th, 2010, 12:39 AM
  2. Parking Lot Bill Passes House, Heads to Senate in Arizona!
    By mi2az in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 07:57 AM
  3. California “Smart Gun” Bill Passes Assembly, Now Heads to Senate!
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2008, 12:23 PM
  4. CCW in Restaurants Passes VA Senate
    By DrLax in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2008, 04:04 PM
  5. SC Bill passes House now in Senate
    By Gunstogo in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: May 14th, 2007, 02:03 PM

Search tags for this page

563.016. the fact that conduct is justified under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct wh
,
563.070.1.
,
563.074 missouri passed
,

missouri mo. rev. stat 563.031, 563.041, 563.074

,
mo rev stat chap563
,
mo senate ccw bill
,
sb 62 missouri stand ground statute
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors