Archived Posts » 60,546,157
NRA-ILA Alert for Missouri
3/9/2012 10:27:49 PM
Did you guys see this:
Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you informed regarding these bills and other pro-gun legislation this session in the Show-Me State.
Missouri: NRA-Backed Gun Bills Pass the State House
Two important Right-to-Carry reform bills, House Bill 1319 and House Bill 1621, passed in the state House this week and are now awaiting the return of the Missouri Senate for committee referral and hearings. House Bill 1326, legislation which would guarantee your right to lawfully store a firearm in your vehicle, will soon be considered on the House floor.
House Bill 1319, sponsored by state Representative Jeanie Riddle (R-20), would make several improvements to current Missouri firearms statutes. If enacted, this bill would lower the Right-to-Carry age from 21 to 18 for active duty military stationed in Missouri, remove the penalty for accidental exposure of a concealed firearm by persons who have a right to carry permit, establish gun rights restoration for those who are currently prohibited from restoring their Second Amendment rights, and provide a relief-from-disabilities process allowing an individual to get his or her firearm rights restored.
Special recognition goes to state Representative Gary Cross (R-48) for his successful leadership on pro-gun changes to HB 1319. Representative Cross ensured that language to make certain accidental exposure of a concealed firearm by a right to carry permit holder would not violate state law was amended to this legislation. Please e-mail Representative Cross and thank him for his efforts. His contact information can be found by clicking here.
House Bill 1621, sponsored by state Representative Wanda Brown (R-116), would make it an unlawful employment practice to discriminate against an individual because he or she has a concealed carry endorsement or uses a firearm for a lawful purpose.
Finally, House Bill 1326, by state Representative Stanley Cox (R-118), would establish the Business Premises Safety Act. This bill would allow for the transportation and storage of firearms in locked personal vehicles while on publicly-accessible parking lots. Upon return from their recess the House will vote on HB 1326. Please call your state Representative today and ask him or her to support HB 1326. Contact information for your state legislators can be found by clickinghere.
Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you informed regarding these bills and other pro-gun legislation this session in the Show-Me State.
This alert is posted at: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2012/03/missouri-nra-backed-gun-bills-pass-the-state-house.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
3/9/2012 11:46:00 PM
A crock. Of. Shit.....
3/9/2012 11:47:19 PM
I don't understand the point of this:
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
penalty for accidental exposure of a concealed firearm by persons who have a right to carry permit
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
3/9/2012 11:52:02 PM
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
A crock. Of. Shit.....
A crock. Of. Shit.....
Go on....
3/9/2012 11:59:21 PM
Originally Posted By GUNGUY148:
Go on....
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
A crock. Of. Shit.....
A crock. Of. Shit.....
Go on....
+1
3/10/2012 1:52:43 AM
Originally Posted By thefreshman991:
+1
Originally Posted By GUNGUY148:
Go on....
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
A crock. Of. Shit.....
A crock. Of. Shit.....
Go on....
+1
(I refer to "WE" as a few of us that went to the hearing and talked to our reps the day of the hearing, as well as some that testified. To remain un-named unless they want to be outted. )
At the hearing on 1369 we were going for open carry cannot be over-rode by local law. If you are open carrying anywhere in Mo. it is legal, as long as you are legal as well as the firearm.
We would have been "OK" with OC with a CCW EVERYWHERE , but at the last minute after the bill was read, we were informed they wanted to incorporate a "flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted. We told them "NO" . Our rep was Fitzwater, and he was on our side. The NRA rep however seemed ready to "settle" for whatever he could get. Rep. Cross (whom at the hearing seemed to REALLY be on our side) proposed the "flash law" later on and it was passed.
There were 2 ladies on the committee that had already enacted laws in their municipalities to ban OC in ANY way, shape or form. I thought they, or one other Dems would be the one to screw us, but no, it was Cross.
That's the cliffnotes, and there were more people than me that did more. I was just there with them, and I applaud their efforts.
3/10/2012 2:15:13 AM
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
(I refer to "WE" as a few of us that went to the hearing and talked to our reps the day of the hearing, as well as some that testified. To remain un-named unless they want to be outted. )
At the hearing on 1369 we were going for open carry cannot be over-rode by local law. If you are open carrying anywhere in Mo. it is legal, as long as you are legal as well as the firearm.
We would have been "OK" with OC with a CCW EVERYWHERE , but at the last minute after the bill was read, we were informed they wanted to incorporate a "flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted. We told them "NO" . Our rep was Fitzwater, and he was on our side. The NRA rep however seemed ready to "settle" for whatever he could get. Rep. Cross (whom at the hearing seemed to REALLY be on our side) proposed the "flash law" later on and it was passed.
There were 2 ladies on the committee that had already enacted laws in their municipalities to ban OC in ANY way, shape or form. I thought they, or one other Dems would be the one to screw us, but no, it was Cross.
That's the cliffnotes, and there were more people than me that did more. I was just there with them, and I applaud their efforts.
Originally Posted By thefreshman991:
+1
Originally Posted By GUNGUY148:
Go on....
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
A crock. Of. Shit.....
A crock. Of. Shit.....
Go on....
+1
(I refer to "WE" as a few of us that went to the hearing and talked to our reps the day of the hearing, as well as some that testified. To remain un-named unless they want to be outted. )
At the hearing on 1369 we were going for open carry cannot be over-rode by local law. If you are open carrying anywhere in Mo. it is legal, as long as you are legal as well as the firearm.
We would have been "OK" with OC with a CCW EVERYWHERE , but at the last minute after the bill was read, we were informed they wanted to incorporate a "flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted. We told them "NO" . Our rep was Fitzwater, and he was on our side. The NRA rep however seemed ready to "settle" for whatever he could get. Rep. Cross (whom at the hearing seemed to REALLY be on our side) proposed the "flash law" later on and it was passed.
There were 2 ladies on the committee that had already enacted laws in their municipalities to ban OC in ANY way, shape or form. I thought they, or one other Dems would be the one to screw us, but no, it was Cross.
That's the cliffnotes, and there were more people than me that did more. I was just there with them, and I applaud their efforts.
Its late, maybe I'm not thinking right, but why would incorporating a """flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted."" a bad thing...
MAny times I've been carrying and with my OWB holster and it slide out from under my sweatshirt and I quickly tucked it in hoping no one saw...
I'm sure once you explain it, I'll be like
Why didn't I think of that...3/10/2012 6:23:23 AM
Festus, what was the restoration of rights and disability stuff about? I am not much in favor of the insane packing or the lowlife criminals who have never needed a CCW anyway to carry. Who WERE they talking about? And thank you very much for going up and working on this.
3/10/2012 8:52:15 AM
So what could have been a great bill got turned into a meh one by our own people. What a chicken shit.
I'm also interested on the restoration of rights..... I always assumed that was on the federal level.
I'm also interested on the restoration of rights..... I always assumed that was on the federal level.
3/10/2012 9:22:13 AM
Originally Posted By tommyrich:
I don't understand the point of this:
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
I don't understand the point of this:
penalty for accidental exposure of a concealed firearm by persons who have a right to carry permit
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
By state law it is, but several places (like St. Louis) have their own restrictions against it.
3/10/2012 9:39:54 AM
Originally Posted By smullen:
Its late, maybe I'm not thinking right, but why would incorporating a """flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted."" a bad thing...
MAny times I've been carrying and with my OWB holster and it slide out from under my sweatshirt and I quickly tucked it in hoping no one saw...
I'm sure once you explain it, I'll be like Why didn't I think of that...
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
(I refer to "WE" as a few of us that went to the hearing and talked to our reps the day of the hearing, as well as some that testified. To remain un-named unless they want to be outted. )
At the hearing on 1369 we were going for open carry cannot be over-rode by local law. If you are open carrying anywhere in Mo. it is legal, as long as you are legal as well as the firearm.
We would have been "OK" with OC with a CCW EVERYWHERE , but at the last minute after the bill was read, we were informed they wanted to incorporate a "flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted. We told them "NO" . Our rep was Fitzwater, and he was on our side. The NRA rep however seemed ready to "settle" for whatever he could get. Rep. Cross (whom at the hearing seemed to REALLY be on our side) proposed the "flash law" later on and it was passed.
There were 2 ladies on the committee that had already enacted laws in their municipalities to ban OC in ANY way, shape or form. I thought they, or one other Dems would be the one to screw us, but no, it was Cross.
That's the cliffnotes, and there were more people than me that did more. I was just there with them, and I applaud their efforts.
Originally Posted By thefreshman991:
+1
Originally Posted By GUNGUY148:
Go on....
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
A crock. Of. Shit.....
A crock. Of. Shit.....
Go on....
+1
(I refer to "WE" as a few of us that went to the hearing and talked to our reps the day of the hearing, as well as some that testified. To remain un-named unless they want to be outted. )
At the hearing on 1369 we were going for open carry cannot be over-rode by local law. If you are open carrying anywhere in Mo. it is legal, as long as you are legal as well as the firearm.
We would have been "OK" with OC with a CCW EVERYWHERE , but at the last minute after the bill was read, we were informed they wanted to incorporate a "flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted. We told them "NO" . Our rep was Fitzwater, and he was on our side. The NRA rep however seemed ready to "settle" for whatever he could get. Rep. Cross (whom at the hearing seemed to REALLY be on our side) proposed the "flash law" later on and it was passed.
There were 2 ladies on the committee that had already enacted laws in their municipalities to ban OC in ANY way, shape or form. I thought they, or one other Dems would be the one to screw us, but no, it was Cross.
That's the cliffnotes, and there were more people than me that did more. I was just there with them, and I applaud their efforts.
Its late, maybe I'm not thinking right, but why would incorporating a """flash-law", whereas if you incidentally exposed your gun, you could not be prosecuted."" a bad thing...
MAny times I've been carrying and with my OWB holster and it slide out from under my sweatshirt and I quickly tucked it in hoping no one saw...
I'm sure once you explain it, I'll be like
Why didn't I think of that...
How many cases of someone getting arrested for an incidental "flash" of ones gun ? None that I know of. Most that would have happened would be you would be checked for a CCW and told to keep it covered. This is nothing. Nothing at all.
3/10/2012 9:41:56 AM
Originally Posted By ahorseman:
Festus, what was the restoration of rights and disability stuff about? I am not much in favor of the insane packing or the lowlife criminals who have never needed a CCW anyway to carry. Who WERE they talking about? And thank you very much for going up and working on this.
Festus, what was the restoration of rights and disability stuff about? I am not much in favor of the insane packing or the lowlife criminals who have never needed a CCW anyway to carry. Who WERE they talking about? And thank you very much for going up and working on this.
Where if you are a non violent felon you could have your rights reinstated. Also, a mentally incompetent person could also be able to have their gun rights restored. (<–––– That sounds a lot worse than OC to me .
)3/10/2012 9:43:17 AM
Originally Posted By GoGop:
By state law it is, but several places (like St. Louis) have their own restrictions against it.
Originally Posted By tommyrich:
I don't understand the point of this:
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
I don't understand the point of this:
penalty for accidental exposure of a concealed firearm by persons who have a right to carry permit
Isn't open carry already legal in MO? So what's the difference?
By state law it is, but several places (like St. Louis) have their own restrictions against it.
Correct. And in St. Louis you can literally be legal on one side of the street and in violation of a municipal ordinance on the other.
4/5/2012 9:52:48 PM
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
4/6/2012 12:33:43 AM
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
It would make them OK as curio and relics. Not sure if you can legally carry one . I think this one will fly as-is. I hope, they've done stripped us of Open Carry throughout the state.
4/6/2012 7:07:38 AM
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
It would make them OK as curio and relics. Not sure if you can legally carry one . I think this one will fly as-is. I hope, they've done stripped us of Open Carry throughout the state.
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
It would make them OK as curio and relics. Not sure if you can legally carry one . I think this one will fly as-is. I hope, they've done stripped us of Open Carry throughout the state.
No, that's a different bill (the one this thread is about). The bill that allows crazy people to get their guns back, and has the flashing provision is the bill that restores the curios and keepsakes language. HB 1833 does nothing except change knife laws (allows concealed hunting knives as well as makes switchblades just another knife).
4/6/2012 7:19:31 AM
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
No, that's a different bill (the one this thread is about). The bill that allows crazy people to get their guns back, and has the flashing provision is the bill that restores the curios and keepsakes language. HB 1833 does nothing except change knife laws (allows concealed hunting knives as well as makes switchblades just another knife).
Originally Posted By Festus_Hagen:
It would make them OK as curio and relics. Not sure if you can legally carry one . I think this one will fly as-is. I hope, they've done stripped us of Open Carry throughout the state.
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher:
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
What's the story on House bill 1833? It looks like this bill would change Missouri law to treat switchblades exactly like any common pocket knife. That is the right approach. Anyone know if this stands a chance of passing?
It would make them OK as curio and relics. Not sure if you can legally carry one . I think this one will fly as-is. I hope, they've done stripped us of Open Carry throughout the state.
No, that's a different bill (the one this thread is about). The bill that allows crazy people to get their guns back, and has the flashing provision is the bill that restores the curios and keepsakes language. HB 1833 does nothing except change knife laws (allows concealed hunting knives as well as makes switchblades just another knife).
Too many bills to keep track of.
Yea, it would make it OK to carry a blade now it seems.
4/10/2012 8:28:12 AM
I got a note back from my district's rep.
He got elected in 2010. He is concerned that he can't support HB 1319 due to Prop B failing back in '99. /facepalm
He got elected in 2010. He is concerned that he can't support HB 1319 due to Prop B failing back in '99. /facepalm
4/10/2012 11:55:17 PM
Here's what I wrote to my Rep on the 5th:
Dear Rep. Taylor,
I live in your district and am asking you to support HB 1319. WHile it still does not allow Resident Aliens access to the Missouri Resident Concealed Carry permit, it does go a long way to support our State and Federal Constitutions' framing of our natural right to self defense.
If you do not support this House Bill, please let me know why.
Here's his first reponse
Thanks for the email Erik, I am not sure that I can support this bill, When the right to conceal and carry was on the ballot, it failed in our district by 72.6%. While I do support conceal and carry I think this bill needs a little closer look.
My followup
Hon. Rep. Taylor,
Thank you for your response. Open discourse with my elected officials is something I truely do treasure.
Considering the level of violence committed by the current and past holders of Missouri or non-resident CCW permits vs. the amount of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that CSGV et al used to fight the measure, I think that the vote would be different today. The Right to Bear Arms cost the Democratic Party dearly in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010...when are we going to give up the plank that gun restrictions do anything but reduce the power of individuals to protect themselves?
Look to our recent history, in the past fifty years how many folks would be alive today if they had been allowed to defend themselves? The State has proven in court that we as Citizens have no right to be protected by the State from murder, that is left up to us. How many folks in our District have successfully used the Castle Doctrine to defend their families? I am a staunch Liberal and fail to see how gun restrictions save lives or do anything except reduce the power of the electorate.
Our crime rate has dropped along with the national average. I'm not saying that the lower level of gun restriction in MO has anything to do with that but it sure has not cause the crime rate to increase. One of the fears back in 1999 was that blood would flow in the streets if Prop B passed. Since 2003, has this been the case?
I do appreciate that you feel that this bill needs to be looked at closely. I agree. Personally, I find that there are things missing from it that should be added to it that would increase the support. For example, currently Resident Aliens such as my wife of 16 years can not get a Missouri CCW permit due to her lack of Citizenship. The 2nd Amendment and 23rd Section of the Federal and Missouri Consitutions specifically outline that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed or querstioned. The right protected is a Natural Right that all legal, lawful residents have. Since Concealed Carry was found to be Constitutional, why Missorui would want to let another state collect funds so that my wife and other legal residents like her can protect themselves off of the property that they have a legal right to be on if they otherwise meet the requirements for a Missouri permit?
Looking at your voting record since you took office, I agree with your positions (aside from letting Slay have access to the SLMPD's retirement fund)this was an error, he voted AGAINST giving St Louis control over the cops' retirement money. As a registered, voting, armed Democrat, please do not give any opposition you may face this year the foothold on this issue. Yes, traditionally the Metro area is for gun restrictions, but that is largely to try and stem the tide of violence that many of our fellow residents deal with on a personal level. Getting damaged, illegal guns out of the hands of criminals is important to me. Remving the civil rights of those who have done no crime is something we all have to work against.
Thanks again for responding,
Erik Olsen
and his reply
Dear Erik, I have my conceal and carry for the last 4 years, and you are spot on with your assessment of HB 1319. And for the record I didn’t vote with Mayor Slay I think he is wrong as two left shoes. lol
[/snip]
This gives me some hope.
Dear Rep. Taylor,
I live in your district and am asking you to support HB 1319. WHile it still does not allow Resident Aliens access to the Missouri Resident Concealed Carry permit, it does go a long way to support our State and Federal Constitutions' framing of our natural right to self defense.
If you do not support this House Bill, please let me know why.
Here's his first reponse
Thanks for the email Erik, I am not sure that I can support this bill, When the right to conceal and carry was on the ballot, it failed in our district by 72.6%. While I do support conceal and carry I think this bill needs a little closer look.
My followup
Hon. Rep. Taylor,
Thank you for your response. Open discourse with my elected officials is something I truely do treasure.
Considering the level of violence committed by the current and past holders of Missouri or non-resident CCW permits vs. the amount of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that CSGV et al used to fight the measure, I think that the vote would be different today. The Right to Bear Arms cost the Democratic Party dearly in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010...when are we going to give up the plank that gun restrictions do anything but reduce the power of individuals to protect themselves?
Look to our recent history, in the past fifty years how many folks would be alive today if they had been allowed to defend themselves? The State has proven in court that we as Citizens have no right to be protected by the State from murder, that is left up to us. How many folks in our District have successfully used the Castle Doctrine to defend their families? I am a staunch Liberal and fail to see how gun restrictions save lives or do anything except reduce the power of the electorate.
Our crime rate has dropped along with the national average. I'm not saying that the lower level of gun restriction in MO has anything to do with that but it sure has not cause the crime rate to increase. One of the fears back in 1999 was that blood would flow in the streets if Prop B passed. Since 2003, has this been the case?
I do appreciate that you feel that this bill needs to be looked at closely. I agree. Personally, I find that there are things missing from it that should be added to it that would increase the support. For example, currently Resident Aliens such as my wife of 16 years can not get a Missouri CCW permit due to her lack of Citizenship. The 2nd Amendment and 23rd Section of the Federal and Missouri Consitutions specifically outline that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed or querstioned. The right protected is a Natural Right that all legal, lawful residents have. Since Concealed Carry was found to be Constitutional, why Missorui would want to let another state collect funds so that my wife and other legal residents like her can protect themselves off of the property that they have a legal right to be on if they otherwise meet the requirements for a Missouri permit?
Looking at your voting record since you took office, I agree with your positions (aside from letting Slay have access to the SLMPD's retirement fund)this was an error, he voted AGAINST giving St Louis control over the cops' retirement money. As a registered, voting, armed Democrat, please do not give any opposition you may face this year the foothold on this issue. Yes, traditionally the Metro area is for gun restrictions, but that is largely to try and stem the tide of violence that many of our fellow residents deal with on a personal level. Getting damaged, illegal guns out of the hands of criminals is important to me. Remving the civil rights of those who have done no crime is something we all have to work against.
Thanks again for responding,
Erik Olsen
and his reply
Dear Erik, I have my conceal and carry for the last 4 years, and you are spot on with your assessment of HB 1319. And for the record I didn’t vote with Mayor Slay I think he is wrong as two left shoes. lol
[/snip]
This gives me some hope.
4/11/2012 1:26:14 AM
Originally Posted By ErikO:
Here's what I wrote to my Rep on the 5th:
Dear Rep. Taylor,
I live in your district and am asking you to support HB 1319. WHile it still does not allow Resident Aliens access to the Missouri Resident Concealed Carry permit, it does go a long way to support our State and Federal Constitutions' framing of our natural right to self defense.
If you do not support this House Bill, please let me know why.
Here's his first reponse
Thanks for the email Erik, I am not sure that I can support this bill, When the right to conceal and carry was on the ballot, it failed in our district by 72.6%. While I do support conceal and carry I think this bill needs a little closer look.
My followup
Hon. Rep. Taylor,
Thank you for your response. Open discourse with my elected officials is something I truely do treasure.
Considering the level of violence committed by the current and past holders of Missouri or non-resident CCW permits vs. the amount of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that CSGV et al used to fight the measure, I think that the vote would be different today. The Right to Bear Arms cost the Democratic Party dearly in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010...when are we going to give up the plank that gun restrictions do anything but reduce the power of individuals to protect themselves?
Look to our recent history, in the past fifty years how many folks would be alive today if they had been allowed to defend themselves? The State has proven in court that we as Citizens have no right to be protected by the State from murder, that is left up to us. How many folks in our District have successfully used the Castle Doctrine to defend their families? I am a staunch Liberal and fail to see how gun restrictions save lives or do anything except reduce the power of the electorate.
Our crime rate has dropped along with the national average. I'm not saying that the lower level of gun restriction in MO has anything to do with that but it sure has not cause the crime rate to increase. One of the fears back in 1999 was that blood would flow in the streets if Prop B passed. Since 2003, has this been the case?
I do appreciate that you feel that this bill needs to be looked at closely. I agree. Personally, I find that there are things missing from it that should be added to it that would increase the support. For example, currently Resident Aliens such as my wife of 16 years can not get a Missouri CCW permit due to her lack of Citizenship. The 2nd Amendment and 23rd Section of the Federal and Missouri Consitutions specifically outline that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed or querstioned. The right protected is a Natural Right that all legal, lawful residents have. Since Concealed Carry was found to be Constitutional, why Missorui would want to let another state collect funds so that my wife and other legal residents like her can protect themselves off of the property that they have a legal right to be on if they otherwise meet the requirements for a Missouri permit?
Looking at your voting record since you took office, I agree with your positions (aside from letting Slay have access to the SLMPD's retirement fund)this was an error, he voted AGAINST giving St Louis control over the cops' retirement money. As a registered, voting, armed Democrat, please do not give any opposition you may face this year the foothold on this issue. Yes, traditionally the Metro area is for gun restrictions, but that is largely to try and stem the tide of violence that many of our fellow residents deal with on a personal level. Getting damaged, illegal guns out of the hands of criminals is important to me. Remving the civil rights of those who have done no crime is something we all have to work against.
Thanks again for responding,
Erik Olsen
and his reply
Dear Erik, I have my conceal and carry for the last 4 years, and you are spot on with your assessment of HB 1319. And for the record I didn’t vote with Mayor Slay I think he is wrong as two left shoes. lol
[/snip]
This gives me some hope.
Here's what I wrote to my Rep on the 5th:
Dear Rep. Taylor,
I live in your district and am asking you to support HB 1319. WHile it still does not allow Resident Aliens access to the Missouri Resident Concealed Carry permit, it does go a long way to support our State and Federal Constitutions' framing of our natural right to self defense.
If you do not support this House Bill, please let me know why.
Here's his first reponse
Thanks for the email Erik, I am not sure that I can support this bill, When the right to conceal and carry was on the ballot, it failed in our district by 72.6%. While I do support conceal and carry I think this bill needs a little closer look.
My followup
Hon. Rep. Taylor,
Thank you for your response. Open discourse with my elected officials is something I truely do treasure.
Considering the level of violence committed by the current and past holders of Missouri or non-resident CCW permits vs. the amount of Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt that CSGV et al used to fight the measure, I think that the vote would be different today. The Right to Bear Arms cost the Democratic Party dearly in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2010...when are we going to give up the plank that gun restrictions do anything but reduce the power of individuals to protect themselves?
Look to our recent history, in the past fifty years how many folks would be alive today if they had been allowed to defend themselves? The State has proven in court that we as Citizens have no right to be protected by the State from murder, that is left up to us. How many folks in our District have successfully used the Castle Doctrine to defend their families? I am a staunch Liberal and fail to see how gun restrictions save lives or do anything except reduce the power of the electorate.
Our crime rate has dropped along with the national average. I'm not saying that the lower level of gun restriction in MO has anything to do with that but it sure has not cause the crime rate to increase. One of the fears back in 1999 was that blood would flow in the streets if Prop B passed. Since 2003, has this been the case?
I do appreciate that you feel that this bill needs to be looked at closely. I agree. Personally, I find that there are things missing from it that should be added to it that would increase the support. For example, currently Resident Aliens such as my wife of 16 years can not get a Missouri CCW permit due to her lack of Citizenship. The 2nd Amendment and 23rd Section of the Federal and Missouri Consitutions specifically outline that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed or querstioned. The right protected is a Natural Right that all legal, lawful residents have. Since Concealed Carry was found to be Constitutional, why Missorui would want to let another state collect funds so that my wife and other legal residents like her can protect themselves off of the property that they have a legal right to be on if they otherwise meet the requirements for a Missouri permit?
Looking at your voting record since you took office, I agree with your positions (aside from letting Slay have access to the SLMPD's retirement fund)this was an error, he voted AGAINST giving St Louis control over the cops' retirement money. As a registered, voting, armed Democrat, please do not give any opposition you may face this year the foothold on this issue. Yes, traditionally the Metro area is for gun restrictions, but that is largely to try and stem the tide of violence that many of our fellow residents deal with on a personal level. Getting damaged, illegal guns out of the hands of criminals is important to me. Remving the civil rights of those who have done no crime is something we all have to work against.
Thanks again for responding,
Erik Olsen
and his reply
Dear Erik, I have my conceal and carry for the last 4 years, and you are spot on with your assessment of HB 1319. And for the record I didn’t vote with Mayor Slay I think he is wrong as two left shoes. lol
[/snip]
This gives me some hope.
You're a Democrat?
4/11/2012 9:34:57 AM
Nope, gun-loving Liberal. Yep, we do exist. ;)
I have zero love for the parties that we are forced to choose between. I look at the person running, if they have a voting record and how it jives with my beliefs. Civil liberties and natural rights are at the top of my 'important' list. I'm also not one of those phoney-baloney Progressives who want the government to be involved directly in everyone's life for 'their better good'.
I like how rather non-political our Hometown area is here, let's keep it that way.
If anyone has any further questions for me, I do answer PMs.
I have zero love for the parties that we are forced to choose between. I look at the person running, if they have a voting record and how it jives with my beliefs. Civil liberties and natural rights are at the top of my 'important' list. I'm also not one of those phoney-baloney Progressives who want the government to be involved directly in everyone's life for 'their better good'.
I like how rather non-political our Hometown area is here, let's keep it that way.
If anyone has any further questions for me, I do answer PMs.4/11/2012 10:40:49 AM
Originally Posted By ErikO:
Nope, gun-loving Liberal. Yep, we do exist. ;)
I have zero love for the parties that we are forced to choose between. I look at the person running, if they have a voting record and how it jives with my beliefs. Civil liberties and natural rights are at the top of my 'important' list. I'm also not one of those phoney-baloney Progressives who want the government to be involved directly in everyone's life for 'their better good'.
I like how rather non-political our Hometown area is here, let's keep it that way. If anyone has any further questions for me, I do answer PMs.
Nope, gun-loving Liberal. Yep, we do exist. ;)
I have zero love for the parties that we are forced to choose between. I look at the person running, if they have a voting record and how it jives with my beliefs. Civil liberties and natural rights are at the top of my 'important' list. I'm also not one of those phoney-baloney Progressives who want the government to be involved directly in everyone's life for 'their better good'.
I like how rather non-political our Hometown area is here, let's keep it that way.
If anyone has any further questions for me, I do answer PMs.Hey, you're the one that posted the letter. I was just confirming what you had written it. You are a liberal, and you are a registered Democrat. Then you outlined your beliefs, and after that stated that you don't want the hometown forum to be political.
You can't have it both ways, sorry..... As far as phoney-baloney Progressives go, trust me they are real, they have literally taken over education and governement. They try their hardest to change every aspect of our lives by injecting more government into it. If you haven't noticed they are in control of the Democrat Party. Our President, Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the DNC Chair are all self avowed Progressives and registered Democrats on top of it. As you stated, if civil liberties and natural rights are truly your most important issues it sounds to me as though your ideaology ligns up with the Libertarian Party. The Democrat Party on the other hand has doubled down on social and economic justice and always has gun control on the back burner warming up ready for the next school shooting. I would have thought the bolstering of the Patriot Act under a Democrat adminstration would have sent you running.....4/11/2012 11:00:56 AM
I feel for the rep being asked to vote against majority of his constituancy ( or however that word is spelled ).
That's a tough one. He was elected by majority vote, swore an oath to represent his district and asked to vote against majority. Doesn't matter what his personal sway would be.
I know what it's like having phone buzzed day and night by a minority of those in my ward opposed to gambling who I agreed with. That was a tough vote for me and voted my conscious, not my heart or moral beliefs. I can sleep at night knowing I voted my constiuancy, or however that word is spelled.
This is what seperates good politicians from career politicians.
There's a saying lose today to fight another day. All or nothin is a die today scenario. I'll take what we got and be happy knowing compromise is one step closer to what's needed. Just 15 short years ago it seemed CCW was something that would never happen thanks to St. Louis.
I don't mind sayin I could live with nuclear fallout if St. Louis was tactically nuked.
P.S. compromise in a bill happens when bill will not pass as originally written.
If you really want to make a difference form an organization and appoint a whip.
That's a tough one. He was elected by majority vote, swore an oath to represent his district and asked to vote against majority. Doesn't matter what his personal sway would be.
I know what it's like having phone buzzed day and night by a minority of those in my ward opposed to gambling who I agreed with. That was a tough vote for me and voted my conscious, not my heart or moral beliefs. I can sleep at night knowing I voted my constiuancy, or however that word is spelled.
This is what seperates good politicians from career politicians.
There's a saying lose today to fight another day. All or nothin is a die today scenario. I'll take what we got and be happy knowing compromise is one step closer to what's needed. Just 15 short years ago it seemed CCW was something that would never happen thanks to St. Louis.
I don't mind sayin I could live with nuclear fallout if St. Louis was tactically nuked.
P.S. compromise in a bill happens when bill will not pass as originally written.
If you really want to make a difference form an organization and appoint a whip.
4/11/2012 11:16:14 AM
Party registration doesn't lock you into how you have to vote, thankfully. I regerestered as a Dem way back in '90 when I turned 18. Like many of my friends that were registered Republicans back then, the party seems to have drifted away from where they were back then.
A lot of things have me very unhappy with the Democrats that get elected in general. All I tend to see are power consolidation moves and corporate protectionism when we need to rebuild our manufacturing base and reinvest in our citizens' ability to be part of teh governing process.
You are right on the points you just made. I opened the box, can't get the stuff back into it any better than Pandora, may as well go all the way. Time to marshal onward and 'splain myself a bit.
The USA PATRIOT Act, NDAA 2011, Enemy Expatriation Act, AWB, etc were all written by or not fought by Dems, especially my least favorite kind of Dems - Blue Dogs and DINOs. These things piss me off but are still changeable. The AWB will not come back as legislation due to the fact that the Democrats have finally seen that going against RKBA directly will result in losses along the lines of what was seen in 2010. It is a political reality that if anything like it comes across any other way it will mean a zero chance of getting a Democrat elected as POTUS for a long, long time. Hopefully the political fallout from F&F will show those methods to be non-starters as well.
I do personally feel that when folks need help they should be able to get it. Unlike Progressives, I am willing to leave it up to the individual to decide if they need the help or not instead of forcing it on them from a government level. I also see government waste being shrinkable while shrinking government itself may not work due to the size of our current population. The first place that waste can be reduced is in perpetual warfare as it is the largest expense we have. I do not feel we have to break ourselves on the rock that is Afghanistan like Russia and England have done before us.
Libertarianism is something I believe in. The Libertarian Party has some active planks that I disagree with such as their opposition to public healthcare and a few other items. I am not sure that a pure Open Market would work any better than a kindergarten with no teacher.
Anyway, the main reason I shared my correspondance with Mr Taylor is to show that not all Dems are dimbulbs who want to end all personal firearms ownership or curtail civil/natural rights. I do hope I accomplished that much.
A lot of things have me very unhappy with the Democrats that get elected in general. All I tend to see are power consolidation moves and corporate protectionism when we need to rebuild our manufacturing base and reinvest in our citizens' ability to be part of teh governing process.
You are right on the points you just made. I opened the box, can't get the stuff back into it any better than Pandora, may as well go all the way. Time to marshal onward and 'splain myself a bit.
The USA PATRIOT Act, NDAA 2011, Enemy Expatriation Act, AWB, etc were all written by or not fought by Dems, especially my least favorite kind of Dems - Blue Dogs and DINOs. These things piss me off but are still changeable. The AWB will not come back as legislation due to the fact that the Democrats have finally seen that going against RKBA directly will result in losses along the lines of what was seen in 2010. It is a political reality that if anything like it comes across any other way it will mean a zero chance of getting a Democrat elected as POTUS for a long, long time. Hopefully the political fallout from F&F will show those methods to be non-starters as well.
I do personally feel that when folks need help they should be able to get it. Unlike Progressives, I am willing to leave it up to the individual to decide if they need the help or not instead of forcing it on them from a government level. I also see government waste being shrinkable while shrinking government itself may not work due to the size of our current population. The first place that waste can be reduced is in perpetual warfare as it is the largest expense we have. I do not feel we have to break ourselves on the rock that is Afghanistan like Russia and England have done before us.
Libertarianism is something I believe in. The Libertarian Party has some active planks that I disagree with such as their opposition to public healthcare and a few other items. I am not sure that a pure Open Market would work any better than a kindergarten with no teacher.
Anyway, the main reason I shared my correspondance with Mr Taylor is to show that not all Dems are dimbulbs who want to end all personal firearms ownership or curtail civil/natural rights. I do hope I accomplished that much.
4/11/2012 11:26:23 AM
Originally Posted By 1911smith:
I feel for the rep being asked to vote against majority of his constituancy ( or however that word is spelled ).
That's a tough one. He was elected by majority vote, swore an oath to represent his district and asked to vote against majority. Doesn't matter what his personal sway would be.
I know what it's like having phone buzzed day and night by a minority of those in my ward opposed to gambling who I agreed with. That was a tough vote for me and voted my conscious, not my heart or moral beliefs. I can sleep at night knowing I voted my constiuancy, or however that word is spelled.
This is what seperates good politicians from career politicians.
There's a saying lose today to fight another day. All or nothin is a die today scenario. I'll take what we got and be happy knowing compromise is one step closer to what's needed. Just 15 short years ago it seemed CCW was something that would never happen thanks to St. Louis.
I don't mind sayin I could live with nuclear fallout if St. Louis was tactically nuked.
P.S. compromise in a bill happens when bill will not pass as originally written.
If you really want to make a difference form an organization and appoint a whip.
I feel for the rep being asked to vote against majority of his constituancy ( or however that word is spelled ).
That's a tough one. He was elected by majority vote, swore an oath to represent his district and asked to vote against majority. Doesn't matter what his personal sway would be.
I know what it's like having phone buzzed day and night by a minority of those in my ward opposed to gambling who I agreed with. That was a tough vote for me and voted my conscious, not my heart or moral beliefs. I can sleep at night knowing I voted my constiuancy, or however that word is spelled.
This is what seperates good politicians from career politicians.
There's a saying lose today to fight another day. All or nothin is a die today scenario. I'll take what we got and be happy knowing compromise is one step closer to what's needed. Just 15 short years ago it seemed CCW was something that would never happen thanks to St. Louis.
I don't mind sayin I could live with nuclear fallout if St. Louis was tactically nuked.
P.S. compromise in a bill happens when bill will not pass as originally written.
If you really want to make a difference form an organization and appoint a whip.
I've started on the road to get a Democratic Gun Owners Caucus set up for Missouri but seem to have hit a brick wall. Here's hoping I get that moved forward this spring. Ending the 'us vs them' issue on RKBA is on my bucket list.
I'd love to see the metro centers of this nation have less control over the respective states' populations I just have little hope of that happening. I'd settle for getting all corporate and union money out of elections.
A lot of things piss me off about St Louis. The Downtown Committee are the ones that are setting the rules for the city and none of us elected them unless we sit on the BoD's of their companies. I fear the day that they get to control the SLMPD through Slay's office.
4/11/2012 12:24:25 PM
I grew up with one set of grandparents who said they were democrats but didn't believe in redistribution of wealth. Another set of grandparents that were true democrats and did believe in redistribution as long as it wasn't theirs. Both sets believed in fiscal responsibility.
So really one pair were closet republicans. Grandparents on mom's side were pure bread democrats and took time to carefully explain their beliefs which made no sense to me. My mom's dad is still alive, he's 90+ and thinks Obama is A, ok. He also believes in gun control.
Having shared some of my history Erik, I think it fair to say I know the difference between democrat and blue dogs. My dad's parents were blue dogs.
You're a self proclaimed Democrat who states with conviction you hate blue dogs and believe in gun rights.
Liberals annoy me. You very well could be the worst of all dems. Who do you believe should have gun rights ?
A Democrats Gun Caucus sounds like a stick up to me. You guys gonna hold us elephants at gunpoint while fleecing us like sheep ?
Democrats Gun Caucus, that don't even sound right.
So really one pair were closet republicans. Grandparents on mom's side were pure bread democrats and took time to carefully explain their beliefs which made no sense to me. My mom's dad is still alive, he's 90+ and thinks Obama is A, ok. He also believes in gun control.
Having shared some of my history Erik, I think it fair to say I know the difference between democrat and blue dogs. My dad's parents were blue dogs.
You're a self proclaimed Democrat who states with conviction you hate blue dogs and believe in gun rights.
Liberals annoy me. You very well could be the worst of all dems. Who do you believe should have gun rights ?
A Democrats Gun Caucus sounds like a stick up to me. You guys gonna hold us elephants at gunpoint while fleecing us like sheep ?
Democrats Gun Caucus, that don't even sound right.
4/11/2012 12:52:44 PM
Well, my beliefs in gun ownership fall along the lines of what I understand to be the founding fathers' intent. Everyone that stands inviolate of laws can choose to own guns and they are not solely for sport. If you are present, here, in the USA as either a Resident Alien or a Citizen you have a right to defend yourself using whatever means are at your disposal while in your persuit of happiness and neither Congress nor a state's General Assembly has the right to stop you from owning firearms. Inividuals can seperate themselves from their rights but should still have ways to reinstate them as well, especially in the case of non-violent Felons that have served their time and paid their debt to society. I really don't see it as an issue that should devide folks, so I have been working on the 'left side of things' to educate folks as to why gun restrictions are NOT good for a free society.
As far as wealth redistribution goes, I would rather see the bottom raised than the top lowered. Throwing money at things doesn't typically fix them, as I am sure we've all seen. That, however is a bit outside RKBA so I can open a seperate thread if needed to go over my politics and beliefs.
As far as wealth redistribution goes, I would rather see the bottom raised than the top lowered. Throwing money at things doesn't typically fix them, as I am sure we've all seen. That, however is a bit outside RKBA so I can open a seperate thread if needed to go over my politics and beliefs.
4/11/2012 1:27:52 PM
2nd Amendment wasn't written on party lines.
You're either for 2nd Amendment Rights or you're not.
Trying to champion 2nd Amendment rights under a Liberal banner is a dead. I can understand why you hit a brick wall.
I'm going to make a guess you're fairly young ?
You're either for 2nd Amendment Rights or you're not.
Trying to champion 2nd Amendment rights under a Liberal banner is a dead. I can understand why you hit a brick wall.
I'm going to make a guess you're fairly young ?
4/11/2012 1:40:09 PM
I guess so, I'm 40. Younger than some, older than others.
I do support the 2nd and all the other 27 amendments as well as the Consitution's Arctles themselves. I get pushback from other liberals for supporting the 2nd and also pushback from 2nd Amendment supporters for being Liberal so there seems to be a disconnect there somewhere. I'm sure its with the others on the Left and how they are viewed on the Right, two things I am actively working on fixing. The first by taking other Liberals shooting as much as possible so they get hooked too and the second by showing that not all liberals are the power-mad individuals that don't want anyone to be armed but their security detail like Richey Dailey.
In my ideal world, after a good day of shooting I can sit back and discuss politics with those who both do and do not agree with me. In the world we're heading to if I don't continue to do what I am trying to do I don't think we'd even get to the shooting part due to the lack of ability to do so.
I really hope I'm wrong and the first will continue to be the case.
I do support the 2nd and all the other 27 amendments as well as the Consitution's Arctles themselves. I get pushback from other liberals for supporting the 2nd and also pushback from 2nd Amendment supporters for being Liberal so there seems to be a disconnect there somewhere. I'm sure its with the others on the Left and how they are viewed on the Right, two things I am actively working on fixing. The first by taking other Liberals shooting as much as possible so they get hooked too and the second by showing that not all liberals are the power-mad individuals that don't want anyone to be armed but their security detail like Richey Dailey.
In my ideal world, after a good day of shooting I can sit back and discuss politics with those who both do and do not agree with me. In the world we're heading to if I don't continue to do what I am trying to do I don't think we'd even get to the shooting part due to the lack of ability to do so.
I really hope I'm wrong and the first will continue to be the case.
4/11/2012 2:36:28 PM
Wow, 40. I'm 48. By age 3 I had a good sense of what is mine is mine and you need to go earn yours. Even though my share the wealth grandfather did his best to bring us boys up liberal, it didn't take. He'd even make us spend a few weeks each summer at an all black day care so's we could integrate. This was ages 4,5 and 6. One of my best friends is African-American so don't try and turn that to what it ain't.
I don't have a problem with your liberal beliefs, just don't try and sell me on the liberal agenda. ( and you haven't ).
The left will make the same statements. I know cause somehow baby sis got away from her conservative up bringing and went liberal. She thinks it ought to be against the law to manufacture my hand loaded ammunition and for damned sure doesn't believe in the right to carry. She thinks maybe A shotgun in the house might be OK.
Point being. I can take her to the range and do. She says it's fun but the guns should stay at range and not come home with you.
Believe me, I can have this conversation all day, everyday. During my brief political tenure I found out quickly how easily politicians could be fiercely divided by day and best drinking buds by night.
Gathered from what we have discussed and seeings your 40 ? All I can say is the weather must be nice under your umbrella. I mean it in a good way. Where I've been there's cats and there's dogs. Ain't no confusing the two.
I commend you for your belief in the constitution but have to question whether you fully comprehend it when you say you support Obama-Care.
P.S. You're not a true Liberal. More like a lost or confused blue dog, democrat.
I don't have a problem with your liberal beliefs, just don't try and sell me on the liberal agenda. ( and you haven't ).
The left will make the same statements. I know cause somehow baby sis got away from her conservative up bringing and went liberal. She thinks it ought to be against the law to manufacture my hand loaded ammunition and for damned sure doesn't believe in the right to carry. She thinks maybe A shotgun in the house might be OK.
Point being. I can take her to the range and do. She says it's fun but the guns should stay at range and not come home with you.
Believe me, I can have this conversation all day, everyday. During my brief political tenure I found out quickly how easily politicians could be fiercely divided by day and best drinking buds by night.
Gathered from what we have discussed and seeings your 40 ? All I can say is the weather must be nice under your umbrella. I mean it in a good way. Where I've been there's cats and there's dogs. Ain't no confusing the two.
I commend you for your belief in the constitution but have to question whether you fully comprehend it when you say you support Obama-Care.
P.S. You're not a true Liberal. More like a lost or confused blue dog, democrat.
4/11/2012 3:19:28 PM
Originally Posted By 1911smith:
Wow, 40. I'm 48. By age 3 I had a good sense of what is mine is mine and you need to go earn yours. Even though my share the wealth grandfather did his best to bring us boys up liberal, it didn't take. He'd even make us spend a few weeks each summer at an all black day care so's we could integrate. This was ages 4,5 and 6. One of my best friends is African-American so don't try and turn that to what it ain't.
I don't have a problem with your liberal beliefs, just don't try and sell me on the liberal agenda. ( and you haven't ).
The left will make the same statements. I know cause somehow baby sis got away from her conservative up bringing and went liberal. She thinks it ought to be against the law to manufacture my hand loaded ammunition and for damned sure doesn't believe in the right to carry. She thinks maybe A shotgun in the house might be OK.
Point being. I can take her to the range and do. She says it's fun but the guns should stay at range and not come home with you.
Believe me, I can have this conversation all day, everyday. During my brief political tenure I found out quickly how easily politicians could be fiercely divided by day and best drinking buds by night.
Gathered from what we have discussed and seeings your 40 ? All I can say is the weather must be nice under your umbrella. I mean it in a good way. Where I've been there's cats and there's dogs. Ain't no confusing the two.
I commend you for your belief in the constitution but have to question whether you fully comprehend it when you say you support Obama-Care.
P.S. You're not a true Liberal. More like a lost or confused blue dog, democrat.
Wow, 40. I'm 48. By age 3 I had a good sense of what is mine is mine and you need to go earn yours. Even though my share the wealth grandfather did his best to bring us boys up liberal, it didn't take. He'd even make us spend a few weeks each summer at an all black day care so's we could integrate. This was ages 4,5 and 6. One of my best friends is African-American so don't try and turn that to what it ain't.
I don't have a problem with your liberal beliefs, just don't try and sell me on the liberal agenda. ( and you haven't ).
The left will make the same statements. I know cause somehow baby sis got away from her conservative up bringing and went liberal. She thinks it ought to be against the law to manufacture my hand loaded ammunition and for damned sure doesn't believe in the right to carry. She thinks maybe A shotgun in the house might be OK.
Point being. I can take her to the range and do. She says it's fun but the guns should stay at range and not come home with you.
Believe me, I can have this conversation all day, everyday. During my brief political tenure I found out quickly how easily politicians could be fiercely divided by day and best drinking buds by night.
Gathered from what we have discussed and seeings your 40 ? All I can say is the weather must be nice under your umbrella. I mean it in a good way. Where I've been there's cats and there's dogs. Ain't no confusing the two.
I commend you for your belief in the constitution but have to question whether you fully comprehend it when you say you support Obama-Care.
P.S. You're not a true Liberal. More like a lost or confused blue dog, democrat.
:) I get that last bit a lot. Nope, just a Hobbsian Classic Liberal. For me to be happiest, the power pyramid in this country should have the Citizen at the apex and then the State asking us what we need from it and the Fed at the bottom to cover the needs that the State can't/won't provide. This is how I feel that a Representative Democracy should work. Its a shame that civics doesn't seem to be taught anymore...
I grew up around cats in dog suits and dogs that wouldn't listen to bubkiss. lol I just look to which eats the most and odds-on that's a dog. OUtside teh world of political metephor, I have a Maine Coon that does more tricks than the Norwegian Elkhoud did that I had growing up.
In my household growing up, my dad was the eldest son of a Ward Boss's 'best man for the job'. Gramdpa had a nasty temper and bad taste in friends so my dad grew to hate Chicago/Cook County Democrats. Being a die-hard Cub's fan (something I found I am lucky to not have inherited!) he views the Republicans the same as 'the ones playing against the White Sox'. He also showed me that the two parties never really deverge on what they hold dearest, power and its concentration.
Honestly, having seen first hand the Canadian medical system - even in far-out areas of British Columbia - and the medical system of Norway (Mom-in-law was in Canada, my mom and dad moved back to Norway for a bit) I feel that we woiuld be VERY well served in this country to not have citizens and legal residents not be broken financially due to major illness. The Nixonian plan we've got now is a step in teh right direction, but we really need to get away from the same health insurance company welfare that we have here for the companies that provide auto insurance. But hey, I'd rather just go shooting.
