Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 5/12/2003 11:27:13 PM EST

By John Ross
updated: 05/12/2003 07:25 AM

On May 5 the Missouri legislature overwhelmingly passed right-to-carry legislation, which will allow honest adults age 23 and older to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Right-to-carry means that if you fulfill the requirements (training, fingerprints, no criminal record, pay the fee, etc.) you will be issued the permit. You cannot be denied just because the sheriff doesn't like you for supporting his opponent - or thinks only police should be able to protect themselves, as occurs in states with discriminatory concealed carry, like New York and New Jersey. Gov. Holden has threatened to veto this bill.

A Holden veto would not only be bad for Missourians and bad for the governor politically; it also would be bad for the Democratic Party. I was the 1998 Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in Missouri's 2nd district. My grandfather Charles Ross was President Truman's press secretary. I know what I'm talking about: Many people see the right to protect themselves and their families as their single most important civil right. When Democrats oppose this civil right, they are working to marginalize the Democratic Party.

Union leaders have learned this all too well. Many union members who were once staunch Democrats will now no longer vote for any Democrat who is against the right of self-defense, regardless of their union's endorsement. When any Democrat is against this right, it becomes easy to view all Democrats as opposing this right, tainting even those with a stellar pro-rights record like State Senator Harold Caskey. Opposing the right of self-defense is as harmful to the Democratic Party's long-term future as re-adopting the Party's 1860 pro-slavery platform would be.

Missouri is currently one of only five states where there is no way for a private citizen to legally carry a concealed firearm for protection. Some Missourians don't realize that people in almost every other state have this fundamental right.

Missouri's right-to-carry movement started in earnest in 1992. Since then, nineteen other states have passed right-to-carry legislation. The September 11 terrorist attacks were a wake-up call to those who thought safety was somebody else's responsibility, and three states passed RTC in this year alone. Not a single state has repealed it or made it more restrictive.

Ten years ago, the Texas legislature overwhelmingly passed legislation very similar to what Missouri's passed on May 5. Texas' then-governor, Ann Richards, vetoed the measure, enraging millions of people in her state. In the next election, her opponent ran on the campaign promise that if the Texas legislature gave him a RTC bill, he'd sign it. Right-to-carry was the very first piece of legislation signed by George W. Bush in his first elective office. If Ann Richards had signed the bill, George W. Bush would not be President today.

If Bob Holden vetoes right-to-carry in Missouri, our next governor will be someone who makes the same promise here that George W. Bush did in Texas. Republicans are counting on Holden's veto.

John Ross is a local investment broker. He was the Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in 1998 in Missouri's 2nd District. His website is www.john-ross.net.
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 12:30:16 AM EST
This is great!!!
Although I am not a Democrat, it's good to see that there are Democrats out there that have, or show, common sense when it comes to personal rights & freedom...

Maybe, Gov. Holden will read this editorial, and re-think his "threatened" veto...

Read the other News links on the AR15.com Home page, and it becomes clear that Anti-gun is political suicide these days...
especially post 9/11.

"What are you saying I can dodge bullets??? No, Neo, what I'm saying is when you are ready you won't have to..." - Matrix
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 5:01:24 PM EST
Does anyone know how long does holden have to either sign or veto the bill? He got it on May 5th. Does Mo. have some sort of "pocket veto"
I can't keep sitting on the edge of my seat much longer!
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 6:47:33 PM EST
I think he has all summer. I think (mainly guess) that he has until the next legislative session starts after Labor Day.

Does anyone know if this changes the open carry law?
Link Posted: 5/13/2003 10:57:29 PM EST
This should not effect open carry at all...

No way, No how...

Link Posted: 5/14/2003 12:06:10 AM EST
Besides the article itself, I found the name of the author rather intriguing(think Unintended Consequences). Seems to have a website too.
Link Posted: 5/14/2003 12:54:53 PM EST
He is also the author of UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
Link Posted: 5/15/2003 8:25:29 AM EST
The Kansas City Star has had some antiCCW editorials. I have personally e-mailed the editors on several occasions in regards to blindly presenting 1/4 of the facts as well as insinuating that studies show positive correlations (on increases in crime that occur with states who pass CCW laws)when in fact they don't even come close.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 2:15:57 PM EST
If you have a cc permit under the new law and you carry on your hip outside the waist band and someone sees it does that cause a problem? We have an open carry law already. Just wondering if it would work to carry semi-openly? The problem with the open carry law was/is that it is too easy for someone to say you are trying to conceal (under a coat, in your car, whatever). Just trying to figure out what the best way to carry once this is signed (fingers-crossed!).
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 3:11:59 PM EST
That's a damned good question???

Are you saying the open carry in Missouri means that I can wear a pistol on my hip legally, as long as it is clearly visible???
If that were true, then I need to buy a holster an carry my CZ with me, and we do not need CCW.
Don't think the Police will be to kind to me if I did though.

I believe the whole point of CCW is to provide a means for citizens to legally carry, but it must be concealed...
which makes more sense.

Otherwise you'd have a Wild, Wild West scenario with everyone walking around with hip holsters strapping for a fight...
"So I hear your the fastest gun in town??? Care to meet me out in the street and see???"

Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:05:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/16/2003 4:16:52 PM EST by ShakyJake]
Our ability to open carry is a grey matter here in Missouri. Why?

Missouri Statute 571.030,Subsection 1, Subdivision 4 says:
Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
Link to Missouri Statute page

This is why we really need CCW. Just by having you handgun holstered(sp?), someone could perceive that as a threat. You know how people are these days. "Oh my God officer. He had a gun on his hip and that really scared me!"

Suddenly you've gone from obeying the law to breaking the law because some whiny ass soccer mom freaks out, and you've got to spend your time and money in court to prove you were staying within the law.

edit because I forgot to add:

I've had it happen in a real life example. I came home from the range one day and was in the process of carrying everything back into the apartment. I had a holstered weapon, two longguns in their case's in one hand, and my range bag in the other. As I entered the building, two little girls were running down the hall towards the me. Let me say here that they didn't even belong in my building in the first place. One stops in front of me and asks if I have any kids they could play with. Immediately after asking, she notices the gun on my hip and exclaims "You've got a got a gun!", and proceeds to run out the door in a somewhat loud voice "Ahh He's going to kill me!"

Was I breaking the law? Hell no! If mom or some other nosy neighbor happened to overhear her, well, I'll let you imagine the many scenarios that could have happened out of that.
Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:41:33 PM EST
Excellent response Shaky...

Forgot about the Soccer Moms...

Jeff City is full of Liberals, so I'd be stopped before I crossed the street...

Link Posted: 5/16/2003 4:55:52 PM EST
So that means it must be concealed completely. Bummer. Would have rather carried the other way and just be a little more discrete about it.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 7:20:44 AM EST
Don't forget that in most cities, open carry is called "brandishing" and is a crime.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 8:19:11 AM EST
Even if the "brandished" weapon is clearly holstered???

That's a damned thin line...

Link Posted: 5/17/2003 5:56:09 PM EST
Well, if we get this one passed we can start working on fixing the open carry issue. You know, chipping away to regain or Constitutional rights.
Link Posted: 5/17/2003 8:13:52 PM EST
feed the hogs?

Link Posted: 5/17/2003 8:42:20 PM EST
From what I've read of states with shall issue laws, the weapon must stay out of sight. In florida brandishing a gun is a felony. Supposedly a would be attacker/mugger/ne'r do well who was thwarted at gun point has even turned around and brought charges.

However, this is all moot anyway, just walk in front of a strip mall a visit a store with your side arm holstered. See how long it takes for the police to arrive. Can you say "disturbing the peace". You would be stopped, most likely the police would have a "tell it to the judge" attitude in all but the most rural setting. Some Missouri towns even have ordaninces against open carry.

In Ohio, one of the main arguments that led to the court striking down anti-concealed legislation was (to paraphrase) `still, no one yet has been able to tell us how a person walking may carry a firearm legally. To carry openly is to disturb the peace, and otherwise is to carry concealed. Thus the Second Admendment to the Constituion is in fact nullified'
Link Posted: 5/19/2003 8:44:52 PM EST
Can we sue cops for disturbing the peace in St. Louis City? Boy do I have enough stories of them and the U City PD disturbing the peace! LOL!

They're playing with our lives and property rights folks. The Secret Service can grab my best friend and slam him his head against a wall (while having St. Louis Post credentials) for taking pics of Lord Bush at the Ritz, but none of us sure as hell can carry a gun wherever private property owners allow it and defend our own bodies.

John Ross is a good guy. I met him once at Wash U. He's very articulate and an excellent writer. He brought some of his friends along, all socialist Democrats! LOL! He's a hell of a lot better than Jim Talent though, that's for damn sure. John Ross has balls whereas Jim Talent lacks scruples as a lawyer.
Top Top