December 6, 2013,

As you know, the 2013 Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) was passed by veto proof majorities in both the House and Senate last spring. Governor Nixon vetoed that bill anyway, which meant we had to wait until September 11 to see if the House and Senate would override the veto.

The House overrode the veto, but four senators, including president pro tem Tom Dempsey and majority floor leader, Ron Richard, changed their support and voted with the governor. We missed the override by one vote.

Those two Republicans were greatly affected by a last minute statement issued by Attorney General Chris Koster and the fire storm of opposition that statement generated from the law enforcement community. Although Koster's complaints were largely red herrings, Dempsey and Richard thought it best to take a cautious approach.

Although their switched votes killed our chances of enacting Second Amendment protections in 2013, they also committed to fast tracking a replacement bill in 2014 -- one that addresses the concerns raised by Koster and law enforcement. They have agreed to pass a bill and deliver it to the governor early enough in the session to override any veto before the end of the session in May.

Today (Friday), the first major step has been accomplished to that end.

After a cooperative effort by Sens. Dempsey and Richard, along with proponents of HB 436, a new bill has been drafted and was pre-filed by Sen. Brian Nieves today. It is HB 613.

The new bill is not a "compromise" in the sense that its effectiveness is in any way diminished. In fact, some language tweaks from Dempsey and Richard actually make the bill more powerful in some ways, and the proponents of HB 436 made sure the accountability clauses stayed in the bill.

The official bill page for the 2014 SB 613 is HERE.

The bill text may not be posted for several days, but you can download the official text HERE.

NOTE: Rep. Doug Funderburk is expected to file an identical bill in the House next week.

We'll keep you posted on the latest developments. In the mean time, please pass the word. Ask friends to join Missouri First to get on the email list.

sweet

If Sen. Brian Nieves is for this bill, I trust it without reading it.

*like

Keep up the good work Mike.

Cynical asshole checking in...


I'll believe it when they pass it.

I'll believe it when they override the veto.

I'll believe it when the SOS is defending a federal suit.

ETA - I need breakfast

Pretty much this.

You didn't include the links

Just curious, was the concerned law enforcement community the same one that broke the existing law in obtaining CCW information from the DOR and sending it to the Feds?

Yes, the Missouri State Highway Patrol was one of the agencies raising hell about HB436. And they were the ones that sent all the names of MO CCW holders to the feds.

I'll believe it when the senators and representatives build their own un-registered suppressors and shoot them at a public range next to a uniformed ATF agent.

I'm guessing they fancy themselves buddies with Fed law enforcement?  Sounds like we need new leadership at the Patrol.  Someone who knows they work for Missouri, not DC.

I'll second that, State Patrol has always set the standard for LE in this state, they need to clean house.

Why does Law Enforcement deserve the opportunity to have their say on the 2nd Amendment?  You already swore to uphold the Constitution, just enforce it.  If they have concerns as citizens, they should be free to raise them as any other.  I highly dislike the concept of any sort of special interest group getting input on laws dealing with our constitutionally protected rights.  Of course, I don't like the idea of any laws dealing with the Bill of Rights to begin with so I'm just a cynical ass either way.

Haven't seen a summary of the bill but did they remove the prohibition on publication of gun owner information as was rumored?  

http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/pdf-bill/intro/SB613.pdf

Look at lines 188-199. That is not good. Sent Senator Nieves a email last night with a question about this.

Wow, you guys obviously don't know or haven't deal with him in the past.  I wouldnt trust him farther than my 3 year old can throw him.

On gun issues? I've never heard anything bad about him (until now), and everything I've seen relating to guns he's been very much on our side.

Lines 188-189 on what page of the .pdf?  Those lines occur multiple times in the linked document.

I only see 188 twice.  My guess is that he doesn't like the DOR involvement in the ID process on page 21.

I've talked with him at length on gun issues. I've been shooting with him at a site member's house. I've gone to his office in JC and had detailed group conversations on 2nd Amendment topics with him.  Our sons attended pre-school together and we have been in social contact for 10 years now.

I don't know the guy at all.

Upon rereading it,  I'm sure you are right.  Unless/until DOR can be forced away from REAL ID, etc., I don't want them handling CCW.