Monday, August 01, 2016

MO: Override of Gun Reform Veto Likely

On May 13, 2016, the Missouri legislature passed an omnibus gun legislation reform bill, SB 656.  It was the last day of the session.  While widely heralded as a permitless or "Constitutional" carry bill, there were several other notable features.  From the NRA-ILA:

  • Recognize Missourians right to Constitutional/Permitless Carry where open carry is not prohibited
  • Expand Missouri’s current Stand your Ground laws 
  • Expand Castle Doctrine protections for anyone legally allowed into your home, vehicle, business and property
  • Specify that except for credit card fees incurred, no additional fee beyond $100 may be charged to process concealed carry permits and allows military members extra time to renew their permits
  • Implement 10, 20 and 50 year options for non-reciprocity issued permits
  • Allow components of firearm training for RTC permits to be online

  • Governor Nixon vetoed SB 656 on June 27, on the last day that it was expected for him to do so.  The chances for a veto override are very good.  Two years ago, another omnibus firearms law reform bill was also vetoed.  It was numbered SB 656.  The legislature overrode that veto on September 11th 2014.

    The near certain Democrat candidate for the governorship has recognized that reality.  He says that he would have signed SB 656, and that it is a good reform bill. From
    Missouri Democrats face an uphill fight to sustain Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill eliminating training requirements to carry a concealed firearm.

    Same goes for another bill Nixon vetoed that would require voters to provide a government-issued photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot.

    Complicating their efforts is the fact that their all-but-certain nominee for governor supports both bills.

    Attorney General Chris Koster, who faces only token opposition in the Aug. 2 Democratic primary to replace term-limited Nixon, said he saw no reason to veto the wide-ranging gun bill.
    Chris Koster, running as a pro-Second Amendment, pro-union Democrat, may have a chance against the eventual Republican opponent.  It is an uphill battle in this "outsider" election.

    November will tell us.  I have said that if the Democrats would truly embrace the Second Amendment, they would win many more elections.  People who are passionate about protecting the rights of an armed population outnumber those who wish the population disarmed many times over.  50 years ago, serious support for the Second Amendment was a popular Democrat position.  If the Democrats lose this November, it may become popular with them again.

    Missouri will join 10 other states that have restored permitless carry, if the legislature overrides the veto.  That will be the largest number of permitless or "Constitutional" carry states since the 1920s.  From 1900 through 1930, there was a wave of trendy bans on the concealed carry of weapons, coinciding with a massive influx of immigrants, the end of the frontier, growing urbanization, and the rise of the "progressive" movement coupled with a reinvigorated KKK and prohibition. Vermont was the only state to survive the wave, when its supreme court held that a permit to carry a concealed weapon was unconstitutional. That wave followed an earlier spate of laws against concealed carry in the former slave states after the Civil War.

     Idaho, Mississippi and West Virginia that have passed similar legislation in 2016. The other "Constitutional" carry states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming.

     ©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
    Link to Gun Watch

    Read more here:


    Anonymous said...

    Democrats by definition cannot be "pro" ANY rights, because, again by definition, they fell as if everything is open to the demcoratic vote - that opinion is what MAKES them "democrats" in the first place.

    So one of two things is and must be true. Either they are lying about being pro gun, pro rights, pro limiting government and even the vote itself to OUTSIDE these things called rights (both privilege and immunity), OR they are lying about being a democrat.

    So either way, they are lying. Democrats are the enemy within, the true enemy to the Constitution and even the Declaration itself. Indeed, they seek the tyranny of the majority, which is no different than the tyranny of a single man who would call himself king. See, rights being subject to the democratic vote are not rights at all, they are just permissions you are allowed by the owner of the power to dole out permission. THAT is what democrats believe, THAT is what MAKES them democrats.

    Lets start calling Democrats what they are, so they do NOT win any more elections-

    See, if you or they believe that rights are outside the reach of government, especially the democratic vote, then they believe in the government of republican form, the Constitution of these united States. IE - Not democrats.

    Anonymous said...

    Any law that requires any kind of a permit or tax to exercise a God give constitutionally guaranteed right is unconstitutional on its face. You simply can not change the meaning of the words in Shall Not Be Infringed. The equal protection clause gives every individual the right to participate in exercising a right or that of ignoring that right. It does not make one persons right stronger than another persons right. You make a choice to leave your home and participate in society the rights are there to be used or ignored by the individual. Nobody can force you to say what you think. and nobody can force you to leave your right or your tools to self defense at home. Danger can be found anywhere at any time. If you are not prepared that is your individual fault. A uniform is used for identification it has no power to save a life. It always boils down to the individual clothed or naked.

    Anonymous said...

    Frankly I am disgusted with the NRA-ILA's handling of these issues with half measures and compromises. there are 26 words in the second amendment and those are the only words that can be enforced, Anything else is an infringement and is forbidden, unconstitutional and unenforceable. that is the foundation of American law, if it is not written it does not exist. Unconstitutional writings are void. Shall Not Be Infringed is as plain and force full as it can be written. any words in any law not contained in those 26 words has no value. No force of effect and are by definition a fraud. When you compromise you loose something, compromise enough and you loose everything. when a real man says NO he means it. there is no reason to repeat the word. I do not have a problem with stuttering, No means NO. the same as Shall Not Be Infringed means Shall Not Be Infringed. it does not have to be repeated just enforced. the tenth amendment has never been repealed there for the states have no authority to pass restrictive gun laws or any gun laws at all that are different than the 26 words in the second amendment. Since we have a constitution it needs to be enforced Not compromised away.

    Anonymous said...

    Our form of government is a constitutional republic. It requires a constitutional amendment ratified by the people to change that constitution legally. an Act passed by congress is not a legal change to the constitution. therefore the 1934 NFA is an unconstitutional law. an act can not change the constitution. the second amendment is a constitutional guarantee and can not be changed by congress or the individual states. If government does not like that fact they can go piss up a rope. the 26 words of the second amendment can not be changed by act or law it can only be changed by a ratified amendment. because of the second amendment the congress did not have the constitutional authority to create the BATFE. they can not create an agency to do the infringing for them. Congress can not delegate authority the constitution forbid them to have.

    Anonymous said...

    Wake up NRA just because you have snowed your members and are making good money at avoiding the real issues does not insure your future when the members wake up to how you are cheating them for personal profit.

    Anonymous said...

    BATFE was not created by congress, despite the propaganda to the contrary. A President created the ATF as a matter of forming his own cabinet. All the congresses since have done since, for every president that reforms (forms again) that cabinet entity is fund it. Presidents cannot spend anything the congress does not spend on the Executive branch.

    Each election people are conned into thinking that changing the president will change things. Heck, that foolishness rose all the way TO a constitutional amendment! You are right about what you say 4"26. All of it, that gun control garbage you point at, was done on a handful of false premises but it was all enabled by the false notion that the Second was not a Individual right, prohibiting government from doing exactly what it did, that it was some collective right to serve int he government's military.

    NONE of it stands up to CURRENT precedent and Incorporation structure. Ironically, the Second held as enforceable against the states within incorporation doctrine actually tumbles the whole structure to the ground! Fools in government are just still trying to deny it. It is pure nonsense to claim the 2nd requires the 14th to "work", to "function". For that is saying that it never meant anything until after the civil war. What a ridiculous argument to make, eh? Pure idiocy.

    Truth is that the judiciary long ago overstepped its boundaries in fundamental ways and has done damage to our Republic ever since. Therefore, the solution to our problem rests in righting the judicial ship, putting it back into its constitutional box. Doing so will then crash the jenga tower to the ground, the other branches retracting into their constitutional box as a result.

    4"11, great point about the tenth amendment. to that states OR to the PEOPLE! And that dusts the false position that states ARE people and that among the several states "means" among the people among the states (commerce clause reference).

    We can fix our nation, if we just have the courage to admit the utter nonsense that exists within 'government' today - and then stand the line, refusing to back up even one more inch.

    Anonymous said...

    The supreme court basically got off track in the Marbury v Madison case of 1803. it ruled it had the authority to interpret the constitution. when according to the way the constitution is written it forbids the court to interpret. I have written about this many times before. the constitution changed the power of the judicial system by naming the high court officials judges in stead of magistrates the kings magistrates could make law change law and ignore law any time they pleases as they were the representatives of the king. When they were made judges they lost all of that power and were limited to enforcing exactly what was written in the law. this is why words are very important. some are very similar in meaning and some are very specific. Magistrate is one kind of judicial officer and Judge is a very limited type. The high court set its self up to regain the lost powers very early. working in the changes carefully with different rulings. Now everyone thinks the court has the power to interpret law when they have never had that power legally today people say what do you mean the court has no power to interpret. Well read American Jurisprudence and see the difference in the meanings of the two words. You might also want to read what the penalties are for anyone in government office that violates their oath of office. then tell me why our entire government has not or should not be forced to resign. The framers wrote into the constitution our protections from government just too many people are not interested in reading them let alone enforcing them. the Supreme court recently cut its own throat it ruled if it is not written it does not exist. Show me in the constitution where it permits the court to interpret the constitution. Interpreting is a power the court gave its self in 1803. A court ruling can not change the constitution. that is why we have the amendment process.