Home Defense Rifle/Shotgun CourseFirearms Training VideoJune 26, 2011Firearms Training Video 2

The Gun Show Radio Forum

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Sen. Munzlinger showing his dark side
Posts: 244
Post Sen. Munzlinger showing his dark side
on: March 19, 2013, 11:19

Sadly, Senator Brain Munzlinger may be giving Missourians a false appearance that he is 2A friendly. There are 2 bills that should start getting people to question his 2A views and his motives. Let's take a look at them.

SB42 - This act makes individuals with delinquent county jail debts ineligible for a concealed carry endorsement. Those who currently have a concealed carry endorsement must surrender the driver's or nondriver's license with the endorsement to the court that reported the debt. The Department of Conservation must suspend and refuse to issue a hunting or fishing license for anyone reported delinquent to the department by the Office of State Courts Administrator.

In addition, this act requires the Office of State Courts Administrator to notify debtors that the person will be ineligible for a concealed carry endorsement and a hunting or fishing license prior to forwarding a person's name to the Department of Revenue or Department of Conservation. The notice must contain information regarding the right of review of the debt in the court in which the debt arose.

Eligibility for a new or renewed concealed carry endorsement or license to hunt or fish is reestablished when the county sheriff notifies the circuit clerk who notifies State Courts Administrator who notifies the Departments of Revenue and Conservation that the person has repaid the debt or honored a repayment plan with the sheriff. The court holding a surrendered concealed carry endorsement must return the endorsement upon notification by the sheriff to the circuit clerk that the debt is no longer considered delinquent.

So it would appear that if you're arrested and the arrest is false, should there be a debt to the jail that you would in fact lose your CCW endorsement under Sen. Munzlinger's bill. Yep, even if you're acquitted, found not guilty, or if the charges are dismissed....if that jail debt is present you'll still lose your CCW endorsement. Hmm....doesn't this violate due process?


SB372 - Under current law, applicants for a concealed carry endorsement must submit a certificate of completion for a firearms safety course to the county sheriff. This act requires the applicant to also provide to the sheriff a notarized copy of a document proving the identity of the safety course instructor and copies of the instructor's certification. This act also requires the instructor to provide each applicant with a notarized copy of a document proving his or her identity and copies of any certification. In addition, instructors must be Missouri residents.

Current law contains a grandfather clause for training certificates issued on or before August 27, 2011. Such certificates only must comply with the laws in effect when the certificate was issued. This act extends the grandfather clause to cover training certificates issued on or before August 27, 2013.

Under current law, it is a Class A misdemeanor for an instructor to provide false information to a sheriff regarding an applicant's training or qualification. This act makes the offense a Class D felony and bars instructors found guilty of such offense from ever being qualified as an instructor again.

This one makes my blood boil. Criminal laws do not deter crime and they never have. If they did we'd already be a crime-free society, yet we're not. Bumping the latter portion to a Class D Felony puts a target on the back of every CCW instructor out there, even the honest ones. All it takes is an anti-2A politician, the anti-2A crowd, or a Sheriff who dislikes a particular instructor to make the accusation and push for charges. Since we know you'll never truly get a jury of your actual peers, LEOs are allowed to lie, LEOs are considered honorable on the stand, then how in the heck can one get a fair trial? You can't unless you can afford an expensive lawyer. Realize that once charges are filed that this would wind up in the media and that means the instructor will be bankrupt rather quickly as well as face the legal expenses for defending their case. It's then up to the instructor to demonstrate that they did nothing wrong, which often costs the instructor time and money. It would also strip that instructor of their 2A rights as well as their voting rights. So, if they target and actually get you then you will be unable to vote for changes to stop it from happening to anyone else.

Knucklehead syndrome is abound with some of our policiticans. Sen. Munzlinger is changing the grandfather clause (something he and others didn't have enough sense to put into the 2011 changes like we warned about) to include certificates issued on or before 8/27/13. Yet this change still doesn't include protection from FUTURE changes to the CCW law, specifically related to the safety training requirements. As I see it, this is the kind of annually presented legislation Sen. Munzlinger will need to submit to keep up with any potential changes to the law when all it takes is protecting all issued certificates from any future changes.

Now ask yourself, why would you pick the 8/27/13 date and why would you ONLY protect those issued on or before that date as a politician. That should warn you that there's another change coming that might impact the safety training requirements. So start digging and see if you can find anything.

Lastly, you'll notice a section that says an instructor shall provide a NOTARIZED copy of their training credentials to EACH student. This illustrates that Sen. Munzlinger has not a clue about how the instructor approval process is currently working. Currently, most Sheriffs require a full class presentation, a copy of your certification, a copy of your current card to instruct, and a copy of a valid DL; some will still deny and claim that they don't need instructors and new Sheriffs have already started telling instructors that their submissions are no longer good and that they must re-submit. Rather than doing this one time and sending everything to a single location (Jefferson City) for approval State-wide, he'd like to force the costs off on the instructors which will likely be passed on to the consumer/student.

Example: If we teach 18-25 students 3x per week, that's roughly 3,900 per year. A notary will cost $2 or more PER SIGNATURE, which means per certificate and/or per peice of ID copied in this case. So at a minimum it would be roughly $8,000 or more in increased costs per year to the instructor. Or that instructor would be forced to pay for an in-house notary public which costs money as well. To take it a bit farther: If I make $15 per hour as an instructor and work 10 hours per class, that's $150 for that class. Now subtract the $36-$50 per class that I would lose as a result of the bill and I'm left with around $100 per class, but I'll be paying taxes on the full $150. These numbers could get exponentially larger if an instructor has to provide a notarizied copy of their course outline, instructor certificate, their valid current instructor card, and their valid DL (of which, several will have to be sent up periodically). So multiply the cost 4x brining the cost to the hourly instructor to $144-$200 per class, then subtract that from the $150 and you'll see that an hourly instructor would go bankrupt rather quickly. So how can an instructor keep teaching if that cost is not passed on to the consumer/student? Fact is they can't. Folks, this is TAXATION upon 2A!


Pages: [1]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.044 seconds.

© 2015 The Gun Show. All rights reserved.
Website Design by Thomas McKee