I just hope the training is suitably intense; I find CCW classes roughly “Better then nothing”. I’d like to see the old military “Kill or be Killed” course.

To the point in question :

“Now to the open carry of firearms in incorporated areas with an ordinance against such carry. Missouri has long been a traditional open carry state. It has been legal to openly carry a firearms, without a permit, anywhere within the state, except where local ordinances prohibit it. When the preemption statute was passed a few years ago, it specifically allowed such ordinances to continue to exist and future ordinances to be enacted. Now we come to the present. What the Legislature did is not eliminate local open carry ordinances. All it did was to allow those people holding a concealed carry permit to openly carry a firearm in localities with an open carry ordinance. And, they are required to produce their permit at anytime at the request of a law enforcement officer. So, if one is being stopped and has to produce a concealed carry permit whenever he is openly carrying, what is the advantage to the carrier? Not much.

Not much?

Bullshit.

VERY much.

This eliminates the very likely possibility of being harassed, cited and even arrested by local police for open carry merely because a gust of wind blew a jacket open and a gun was seen, or by unknowingly “printing”, then have someone get their panties in a wad, vapor lock and dial 911.

Yep, 911 can still be dialed and the popo will still respond, but 1: With a CCW there better be no arrest or even citation and 2: The popo will not legally be able to disarm the CCWer.

If either occurs, I foresee pre-trial settlements of civil lawsuits that have many zeros in the amount.

Harassment and arrests have happened in Missouri Mr. Mac, and now this revised statute along with the passage of amendment 5 (which just possibly may be a vehicle for a suit to make Missouri another ‘Constitutional Carry’ state) is another way to tell TPTB in the Governor’s mansion in Jefferson City and the city halls in Kansas City, Saint Louis, Springfield, Lake Ozark et al. where to go and what to do to themselves on the way there.

It’s been a long 40 year fight for RKBA in Missouri and it’s really only begun to pay off in the last 10 years.

This third party security solution is in use across the country. In most cases, local school boards contract with local police departments and sheriff’s offices to provide sworm law enforcement personnel, school resource officers, for the purpose. This shifts much, if not most of the liability for the actions of these personnel to their employer and away from the school. By, using its own employees, for these purposes, the school system assumes all liability for any actions of its personnel. The bill does nothing to provide any immunity against liability to the school, if they use indigenous personnel.

You write:

“Also, if school systems are reluctant to authorize the carry of firearms on campus now, there is no reason why they would not be just as reluctant after the law changes.”

This statutory provision represents an attempt to facilitate the presence of persons with more training than that needed for a ccw permit.

Some school districts wanted to have some armed personnel but found unsatisfactory merely authorizing a ccw permit holder to carry. So, a number recently engaged a firm, Shield Solutions, to provide training.
See, e.g., http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-and-friends/blog/2014/06/23/missouri-training-teachers-carry-concealed-weapons-classroom.

It was not inexpensive.

I do not know the relative importance in the decision to engage a third party of (i) liability issues and (ii) a need for greater training, independent of liability issues. However, press reports state:

“It[, Shield Solutions,] is the only training course approved by the Missouri United School Insurance Council (MUSIC), which provides insurance for about 87% of school districts in the state.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/19/teachers-lesson-plans-guns/14244113/

The story goes-on to note the arrangements with Shield Solutions contemplate the individuals being employees of the third party, Shield Solutions:

“Once they go through the training and they qualify, then they are essentially an employee of Shield Solutions,” Martin said. “I provide workman’s comp insurance and liability insurance for them.”

I cannot say whether the alternative arrangements this aspect of the bill is designed to foster will prove to be a helpful alternative to what Shield Solutions offers. Nevertheless, one can easily envision a rational statutory approach in which the state wanted to facilitate presence of ccw permit holders with enhanced training without preventing the presence of permit holders without that training.

My high school faculty ran the gamut of sizes, and many of the teachers – especially the female teachers – were significantly smaller than many of the male students – especially the athletes. To say there was a disparity of size and/or ability would be an understatement. (This was true in my middle school, as well, albeit to a lesser extent.)

If a teacher is forced to defend him/her self with lethal force against a student and can demonstrate all the elements of self-defense, why should that be different from defending him/her self from a anyone else?

If that’s what the 656 intended, it would have been child’s play to have the statute simply say that.

Nowhere in the 656 does it impose a new mandatory training requirement upon the prior means of lawfully carrying concealed on campus. Nowhere.

That doesn’t strike me as a “strong argument” for an additional mandatory training requirement.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

It is true that the whole program is voluntary, on the part of a school system. So is the current system of authorizing specific holders of a concealed carry permit to carry on campus. And, there is nothing in current statute which does not allow the school system to require additional training for those allowed to carry firearms on campus. Also, if school systems are reluctant to authorize the carry of firearms on campus now, there is no reason why they would not be just as reluctant after the law changes.

Look, this legislation, though it may make pro-firearm advocates feel good, actually does little for the relaxation of firearms restrictions and, in some cases, may actually increase the restrictions on lawful firearms carry.

It allows concealed carry permit holders to openly carry in jurisdictions where ordinances prohibit such carry. But, it does not curtail the ability of law enforcement to stop any person openly carrying a firearm and demanding that they produce a permit and identification. So, a person has the option of wandering around being stopped constantly for exhibiting a firearm or concealing it and going about his business largely unmolested. And, as concealed carry is allowed in the same areas, open carry does not provide a self defense measure, carry of a firearm, which does not already exist. It would have been much simpler to simply extend preemption to render all local ordinances null and void and allow open carry as it is allowed throughout the rest of the state. As such carry is unlicensed, there would be no viable reason to stop someone who was openly carrying to check for the possession of a permit.

It set up a special class of school employee who is required to have additional training and be registered with the State, in order to legally carry firearms on a school campus. This, of course was totally unnecessary, as current statutory language allows a school district or its administrators to authorize any concealed carry permit holder to carry a firearm on campus, without additional training or registration with a state agency. It also gave this class of employee detention powers which amount to arrest. This requires additional training and indemnity to protect the school system from liability for unlawful detention.

So, again, exactly what is so great about this bill?

Unknown? Either it’s been revoked, made illegal, or not. One might as well say that it’s “unknown” if I can walk down the sidewalk. Again, it was possible before, I see no reason why it’s not possible now. The two can exist in parallel. Where does the current legislation repeal the prior legislation?

“Now, the confusion comes in with regard to whether an employee, who has the permission of school officials to carry a concealed firearm on school property, pursuant to the possession of a concealed carry permit, would have to be considered a school protection officer and subject to the required training, for that position, or not. ”

You yourself already conceded in a prior post that there IS NO REQUIREMENT. The whole thing is voluntary.

“In other words, does the establishment of this class of individual, which will likely require a much higher degree of training than that needed to qualify for the issuance of a concealed carry permit, require that any school employee given permission to carry a firearm on school grounds be designated a school protection officer or not? A question not answered in the bill.”

Bills don’t “answer questions.” Is there ANYTHING in 656 that requires school personnel previously authorized to carry on school grounds to now be UNAUTHORIZED if they don’t get additional training? Please show me where the bill says THAT.

“How will this play out, liability wise?”

Liability issues are always in play until ruled upon. The same would be true if 656 were never passed, never vetoed, never passed again over the veto. So, totally irrelevant to 656 as a particular bill.

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

Now, the confusion comes in with regard to whether an employee, who has the permission of school officials to carry a concealed firearm on school property, pursuant to the possession of a concealed carry permit, would have to be considered a school protection officer and subject to the required training, for that position, or not. In other words, does the establishment of this class of individual, which will likely require a much higher degree of training than that needed to qualify for the issuance of a concealed carry permit, require that any school employee given permission to carry a firearm on school grounds be designated a school protection officer or not? A question not answered in the bill.

Also, in order for a school protection officer to carry a weapon concealed, in a school, that person must also hold a concealed carry permit, in addition to the training required for the position. Then there is the language allowing school protection officers to detain people on school grounds. How will this play out, liability wise?

Interesting situation, no?

The reason of “officer safety” is basically an accusation that a completely law abiding person is a danger to an officer simply because he is carrying, that is a dangerous attitude.

Note that with this wording they can still disarm you just for something as silly as Jaywalking.

Best? Concealed so no one knows who is carrying. At least to start with.

IMO.

May I assume Utah is?

Why is this a conflict? Do not the two means of lawful carry simply exist in parallel? Does 656 repeal the prior statutory language?

–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

In reference to the armed teachers portion, the school district has always had that option. School districts could not only hire and train people for the specific job of armed school security, they could, and still can, allow any concealed carry permit holder, who they chose, to carry in school facilities, without any additional training. This was already existing law. So, the addition of the language in the bill is not only more restrictive, but it sets up a conflict with the language which allows the school system to allow untrained permit holders to carry, if they are employees of the school system. It also does not require individual school systems to designate and train such school security officers. In other words, a school system can simply ignore the new wording of the statute and maintain the status quo. The bill does grant the school security officer the power to physically detain people on campus. Unfortunately it does not grant them, or the school system for which they work, from immunity from civil liability for what is essentially an arrest. So, is this a positive or a negative?

Now to the open carry of firearms in incorporated areas with an ordinance against such carry. Missouri has long been a traditional open carry state. It has been legal to openly carry a firearms, without a permit, anywhere within the state, except where local ordinances prohibit it. When the preemption statute was passed a few years ago, it specifically allowed such ordinances to continue to exist and future ordinances to be enacted. Now we come to the present. What the Legislature did is not eliminate local open carry ordinances. All it did was to allow those people holding a concealed carry permit to openly carry a firearm in localities with an open carry ordinance. And, they are required to produce their permit at anytime at the request of a law enforcement officer. So, if one is being stopped and has to produce a concealed carry permit whenever he is openly carrying, what is the advantage to the carrier? Not much.

So, bottom line here. How much will this bill really change anything? We’ll have to wait and see, won’t we?