Reply to Thread

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hrdware" data-source="post: 1763248" data-attributes="member: 24475">Yes, without preemption, municipalities could decide who to enforce this.  MO has this problem.  I live in Moore and work in Edmond.  Let say that Moore decides to follow the spirit of the law and allows people to open carry, they respond to every MWAG call and observe, report and leave.  Then lets say I go to the Circle K down the street from where I work, 1 person calls in, they show up contact me get my name, tell me people are nervous...blah blah blah.  Then I go to Lowes and 2 more people call in, that makes a total of 3 in one day that have called on me for the same thing, the Edmond PD might decide to cite me for disturbing the peace since so many people called to report this.  Eventually I would get tired of being hassled by the cops and just not OC in Edmond.  Now Edmond has not cited me for open carry since it is legal, but that have cited me for disturbing the peace, a back door to prevent the exercise of a lawful activity.  Some municipalities may even do this on the first call.  Maybe the county is OK with it, cities within the county aren't.  Or many one particular city in the county is OK with it but the others aren't.  The patchwork of local gun laws becomes increasing more complex without state preemption.  Imagine if we didn't have preemption with our CCP and some county sheriff did not want anyone in their county to have one, or the county sheriff was fine with it, but a particular city didn't want it and that city made it illegal.  Preemption makes it easier for the LAC. This kind of municipal inconsistency would make it very difficult for say a traveling salesman who works all over the state to know what city and county ordinances were in place at all times.</blockquote>

Verification