Rickstir
May 2, 2003, 04:24 PM
CCW just passed in the Missouri Senate by a vote of 23 to 7 !!!
On to the governor's desk. :D :D :D
On to the governor's desk. :D :D :D
Hall-a-fricking-lu-ya !!!! From Missouri
If you enjoyed reading about "Hall-a-fricking-lu-ya !!!! From Missouri" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mizzoutiger
May 2, 2003, 04:25 PM
WOOOOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
keyhole
May 2, 2003, 04:31 PM
Congrats! Now if we can just get them to consider it here!
Yer neighbor to the west. Heck I live just 5 miles from the border!:banghead:
Yer neighbor to the west. Heck I live just 5 miles from the border!:banghead:
Justin
May 2, 2003, 04:37 PM
Wow! Congratulations! Fingers crossed hoping it passes.
CZ-75
May 2, 2003, 04:47 PM
What margin in the house?
I'm wondering if it can get 2/3rds there, like it obviously can in the senate.
Bob "One-Term" Holden will probably get all the TV cameras gathered around as he announces he's not going to sign it - for the children. :barf:
I'm wondering if it can get 2/3rds there, like it obviously can in the senate.
Bob "One-Term" Holden will probably get all the TV cameras gathered around as he announces he's not going to sign it - for the children. :barf:
GregoryTech
May 2, 2003, 04:50 PM
Hasn't it already passed in the House, or no?
StLGlocker
May 2, 2003, 04:55 PM
Yes, it's already passed the House, and with a veto-proof margin there as well.
Now the only question is, will those representatives and senators stick by their votes when Holden vetos the bill?
I'm sending -every- House rep and Senator who voted in favor of this a thank-you letter. Let them know that continuing to support this bill is a priority, even if Holden follows through with his veto promise.
Now the only question is, will those representatives and senators stick by their votes when Holden vetos the bill?
I'm sending -every- House rep and Senator who voted in favor of this a thank-you letter. Let them know that continuing to support this bill is a priority, even if Holden follows through with his veto promise.
sm
May 2, 2003, 05:03 PM
Myself and others here in AR have sent letters also.
Just being neighborly and all...
Just being neighborly and all...
Bartholomew Roberts
May 2, 2003, 05:07 PM
Congratulations! Hopefully you'll soon have some reciprocity agreements going as well!
Skunkabilly
May 2, 2003, 05:12 PM
If it goes well, buy a Hallmark card (based in Missouri), send it to their head honcho and tell them: NEENER NEENER NEENER
cobb
May 2, 2003, 05:31 PM
Now if we can just get Iowa and Wisconsin to jump on board.
Frohickey
May 2, 2003, 05:56 PM
Missouri will make it #36.... 14 more to go after that.
Wisconsin, and Ohio are the ones I think have some CCW bills on the legislature.
May Issue:
1. Kalifornia (help Jim March, better yet, don't get in his way :D )
2. Delaware
3. Hawaii
4. Iowa
5. Maryland
6. Taxachusettes
7. New Joisey
8. New Yawk
9. Rhode Island
. Colorado (shall issue as soon as the law SB24 takes effect)
. Minnesota (shall issue as soon as the law takes effect)
No Issue:
10. Illinois
11. Kansas
12. Missouri (bill HB349 to Gov 'I'm gonna veto it for the children' Holden-democRAT, veto-proof votes from the House and Senate)
13. Nebraska (bill LB265 in legislature)
14. Ohio (bill HB12 passed House veto-proof, on to the Senate - May 7, 2003, help out at www.ohioccw.org (http://www.ohioccw.org)
15. Wisconsin (help out at www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com (http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/)
15 1/2. Washington DC
Wisconsin, and Ohio are the ones I think have some CCW bills on the legislature.
May Issue:
1. Kalifornia (help Jim March, better yet, don't get in his way :D )
2. Delaware
3. Hawaii
4. Iowa
5. Maryland
6. Taxachusettes
7. New Joisey
8. New Yawk
9. Rhode Island
. Colorado (shall issue as soon as the law SB24 takes effect)
. Minnesota (shall issue as soon as the law takes effect)
No Issue:
10. Illinois
11. Kansas
12. Missouri (bill HB349 to Gov 'I'm gonna veto it for the children' Holden-democRAT, veto-proof votes from the House and Senate)
13. Nebraska (bill LB265 in legislature)
14. Ohio (bill HB12 passed House veto-proof, on to the Senate - May 7, 2003, help out at www.ohioccw.org (http://www.ohioccw.org)
15. Wisconsin (help out at www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com (http://www.wisconsinconcealedcarry.com/)
15 1/2. Washington DC
jdege
May 2, 2003, 06:01 PM
Nebraska has a bill still in play.
Frohickey
May 2, 2003, 06:03 PM
Missouri Governor bob holden is a democRAT. He was elected in 2000, and is up for reelection on 2004.
If he vetoes this CCW bill, as he has said, he should be targeted for defeat in 2004. That is, if you Missourians can make sure the dead people do not get out from their graves and vote for him.:evil:
If he vetoes this CCW bill, as he has said, he should be targeted for defeat in 2004. That is, if you Missourians can make sure the dead people do not get out from their graves and vote for him.:evil:
CZ-75
May 2, 2003, 06:04 PM
I did the footwoork for my Mom and her friends, so they can call their reps. and Gov. Bob's office to pressure them.
jdege
May 2, 2003, 06:11 PM
http://www.senate.state.mo.us/03info/daily.htm
HB 0349 - Crawford - Allows issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S offered (Caskey)
05/02/03 -- SA 1 to SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S offered & defeated (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S adopted
05/02/03 -- SA 3 to SS S offered (Bray)
05/02/03 -- SA 1 to SA 3 to SS S offered & defeated (Bland)
05/02/03 -- SA 2 to SA 3 to SS S offered & defeated (Bray)
05/02/03 -- SA 3 to SS S defeated
05/02/03 -- SA 4 to SS S offered (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 4 to SS S offered & defeated (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SA 4 to SS S withdrawn
05/02/03 -- SA 5 to SS S offered & defeated (Coleman)
05/02/03 -- SA 6 to SS S offered & defeated (Bland)
05/02/03 -- SA 7 to SS S offered & defeated (Kennedy)
05/02/03 -- SS, as amended, S adopted
05/02/03 -- S Third Read and Passed
HB 0349 - Crawford - Allows issuance of permits to carry concealed weapons
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S offered (Caskey)
05/02/03 -- SA 1 to SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S offered & defeated (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 2 to SS S adopted
05/02/03 -- SA 3 to SS S offered (Bray)
05/02/03 -- SA 1 to SA 3 to SS S offered & defeated (Bland)
05/02/03 -- SA 2 to SA 3 to SS S offered & defeated (Bray)
05/02/03 -- SA 3 to SS S defeated
05/02/03 -- SA 4 to SS S offered (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SSA 1 for SA 4 to SS S offered & defeated (Jacob)
05/02/03 -- SA 4 to SS S withdrawn
05/02/03 -- SA 5 to SS S offered & defeated (Coleman)
05/02/03 -- SA 6 to SS S offered & defeated (Bland)
05/02/03 -- SA 7 to SS S offered & defeated (Kennedy)
05/02/03 -- SS, as amended, S adopted
05/02/03 -- S Third Read and Passed
cobb
May 2, 2003, 06:15 PM
jdege, I guess I don't understand what you have posted. :confused:
Updated....never mind.
Updated....never mind.
Jim March
May 2, 2003, 06:24 PM
Ya, MO will make 36, if you lump Vermont in with the shall-issues :).
Interesting point: Conn. and one of the Southern states that starts with an "A" (I can never remember which!) are both "discretionary in statute but out of deference to equal protection principles are handling it shall-issue". We tend to class them as shall-issue; the Brady/VPC types class them as discretionary. So the "count" will always be at least two off :).
Eventually, we'll have to do something about those two. Not THAT big a deal though.
Interesting point: Conn. and one of the Southern states that starts with an "A" (I can never remember which!) are both "discretionary in statute but out of deference to equal protection principles are handling it shall-issue". We tend to class them as shall-issue; the Brady/VPC types class them as discretionary. So the "count" will always be at least two off :).
Eventually, we'll have to do something about those two. Not THAT big a deal though.
CZ-75
May 2, 2003, 06:28 PM
You're thinking of Alabama.
Frohickey
May 2, 2003, 06:37 PM
Hmm....
www.packing.org does say that Connecticut and Alabama are not really Shall-Issue.
I guess I should update the list.
I wish that www.atr.org updates their color map. Maybe put hash marks on CT and AL, and something else for VT.
www.packing.org does say that Connecticut and Alabama are not really Shall-Issue.
I guess I should update the list.
I wish that www.atr.org updates their color map. Maybe put hash marks on CT and AL, and something else for VT.
jdege
May 2, 2003, 06:44 PM
Frohickey,
If you don't like their map, use mine:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
If you don't like their map, use mine:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
ojibweindian
May 2, 2003, 07:11 PM
Alabama is a "may issue" state. In reality, $10 and a clean record WILL get you a permit for the year.
El Tejon
May 2, 2003, 07:11 PM
Illinois is slowly being encircled!:D
Your liberation is coming, brothers. Hang on!
Your liberation is coming, brothers. Hang on!
Cliff
May 2, 2003, 07:12 PM
Congrats, I hope it passes, my dear mother in Kansas City is looking forward to packing heat again.:D
GregoryTech
May 2, 2003, 07:44 PM
www.packing.org does say that Connecticut and Alabama are not really Shall-Issue.
CT law is shall issue, but with a "suitable person" clause. However, but per the courts, it is not a clause that can be exploited or applied capriciously. The result is that CT is functionaly shall-issue.
CT law is shall issue, but with a "suitable person" clause. However, but per the courts, it is not a clause that can be exploited or applied capriciously. The result is that CT is functionaly shall-issue.
jdege
May 2, 2003, 08:50 PM
That sounds a lot like what Rhode Island may be, if their recent court decision sticks.
Airwolf
May 2, 2003, 08:51 PM
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/86256C7E00525A1B86256D1A007E4E70?OpenDocument&Headline=Senate+passes+concealed+weapons+bill
Senate passes concealed weapons bill
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Supporters of a bill that would allow Missourians to carry concealed guns forced the measure to Senate passage Friday by employing a rarely used procedure.
After more than 11 hours of debate over two days, proponents voted to abruptly end debate, then passed the bill over objections from those who had been trying to block it.
The Senate's 23-7 vote returns the measure to the House, which passed a somewhat different version in March on a 108-33 vote.
Just hours before the Senate voted Friday, Democratic Gov. Bob Holden said he would veto the measure if it reached his desk.
Under the Senate bill, Missourians age 23 and older could apply to their county sheriffs for a permit to carry concealed guns. Applicants would have to meet several qualifications, and concealed weapons would be banned from churches, day care centers and certain other locales.
The final vote was taken after Sen. Harold Caskey moved the ``previous question'' -- which halts debate and forces a vote on the bill. The motion to end debate passed on a 20-11 vote.
While the procedure is more commonly used in the House, the Senate has employed it during just five other debates in the past 33 years. The Senate last used it in 1999 to dispense with an amendment on a bill banning certain late-term abortions so that debate could continue on the legislation itself.
Caskey, who handled the concealed guns bill, said his motion to end debate was a tough decision to make. He has served since 1977 in the Senate, where the tradition of ``free and fair debate'' is so esteemed that the slogan is etched into the chamber's wall.
``This is an issue that has been here so long and we just needed to get it behind us,'' Caskey, D-Butler, said later Friday. ``There was no alternative to get the issue to a vote.''
Missouri voters narrowly rejected a concealed guns proposal in April 1999, with urban residents generally opposing the measure and those in rural areas generally supporting it.
This year's legislation would not go to the ballot, but rather to the governor's desk.
``I have a philosophical problem with conceal and carry,'' Holden said Friday. ``And the people of the state spoke on it. If they want the people to speak again, then go back to a vote of the people.''
As passed by the House, the legislation set 21 as the minimum age for obtaining a concealed gun permit. Caskey raised it to 23 -- a compromise, he said, with opponents who wanted to make 25 the minimum age.
Applicants for concealed gun permits would have to take an eight-hour gun safety course and pass background a check. Permits would be denied to people with certain criminal histories or mental conditions. They would cost $100 and be valid for three years.
Seven Senate Democrats had tried to prevent the bill from coming to a vote. Among them was Minority Floor Leader Ken Jacob, who said he was ``disappointed'' that debate had been shut off.
``I would never use that procedure personally,'' said Jacob, D-Columbia. ``People in this state rejected concealed weapons, and I have fought this issue for 20 years. I think the world will be a more dangerous place with people carrying concealed guns.''
Jacob voted for the bill. But he said that was a procedural move that could allow him to seek reconsideration of the measure's passage.
The debate capped a week in which the Senate had devoted nearly 10 straight hours to an abortion-bill debate, echoes of which found their way into an exchange Friday between Caskey and Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis.
``I agree with the senator ... that men should not discuss abortion if she would agree with me that women should not discuss guns,'' Caskey quipped.
``I might agree to that if the senator was as good at having babies as I am at shooting,'' Bray replied.
Rep. Larry Crawford, the House sponsor of the bill, was on hand for the Senate vote and predicted that a Holden veto would be defeated. The original version had cleared the House in March with just one vote less than the 109 needed to override a veto, but 22 members did not vote on it.
``I feel there's going to be a huge amount of pressure on the governor not to veto this legislation because of the popularity of this issue,'' said Crawford, R-California. ``I certainly think we will have enough votes for an override.''
Thirty-five other states already have similar concealed gun laws, said Kelly Whitley, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association in Washington, D.C.
``Right to carry has proven to make people safer in those states that have given them that right,'' Whitley said.
------
Concealed guns bill is HB349.
On the Net:
Missouri Legislature: http://www.moga.state.mo.us
Senate passes concealed weapons bill
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Supporters of a bill that would allow Missourians to carry concealed guns forced the measure to Senate passage Friday by employing a rarely used procedure.
After more than 11 hours of debate over two days, proponents voted to abruptly end debate, then passed the bill over objections from those who had been trying to block it.
The Senate's 23-7 vote returns the measure to the House, which passed a somewhat different version in March on a 108-33 vote.
Just hours before the Senate voted Friday, Democratic Gov. Bob Holden said he would veto the measure if it reached his desk.
Under the Senate bill, Missourians age 23 and older could apply to their county sheriffs for a permit to carry concealed guns. Applicants would have to meet several qualifications, and concealed weapons would be banned from churches, day care centers and certain other locales.
The final vote was taken after Sen. Harold Caskey moved the ``previous question'' -- which halts debate and forces a vote on the bill. The motion to end debate passed on a 20-11 vote.
While the procedure is more commonly used in the House, the Senate has employed it during just five other debates in the past 33 years. The Senate last used it in 1999 to dispense with an amendment on a bill banning certain late-term abortions so that debate could continue on the legislation itself.
Caskey, who handled the concealed guns bill, said his motion to end debate was a tough decision to make. He has served since 1977 in the Senate, where the tradition of ``free and fair debate'' is so esteemed that the slogan is etched into the chamber's wall.
``This is an issue that has been here so long and we just needed to get it behind us,'' Caskey, D-Butler, said later Friday. ``There was no alternative to get the issue to a vote.''
Missouri voters narrowly rejected a concealed guns proposal in April 1999, with urban residents generally opposing the measure and those in rural areas generally supporting it.
This year's legislation would not go to the ballot, but rather to the governor's desk.
``I have a philosophical problem with conceal and carry,'' Holden said Friday. ``And the people of the state spoke on it. If they want the people to speak again, then go back to a vote of the people.''
As passed by the House, the legislation set 21 as the minimum age for obtaining a concealed gun permit. Caskey raised it to 23 -- a compromise, he said, with opponents who wanted to make 25 the minimum age.
Applicants for concealed gun permits would have to take an eight-hour gun safety course and pass background a check. Permits would be denied to people with certain criminal histories or mental conditions. They would cost $100 and be valid for three years.
Seven Senate Democrats had tried to prevent the bill from coming to a vote. Among them was Minority Floor Leader Ken Jacob, who said he was ``disappointed'' that debate had been shut off.
``I would never use that procedure personally,'' said Jacob, D-Columbia. ``People in this state rejected concealed weapons, and I have fought this issue for 20 years. I think the world will be a more dangerous place with people carrying concealed guns.''
Jacob voted for the bill. But he said that was a procedural move that could allow him to seek reconsideration of the measure's passage.
The debate capped a week in which the Senate had devoted nearly 10 straight hours to an abortion-bill debate, echoes of which found their way into an exchange Friday between Caskey and Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis.
``I agree with the senator ... that men should not discuss abortion if she would agree with me that women should not discuss guns,'' Caskey quipped.
``I might agree to that if the senator was as good at having babies as I am at shooting,'' Bray replied.
Rep. Larry Crawford, the House sponsor of the bill, was on hand for the Senate vote and predicted that a Holden veto would be defeated. The original version had cleared the House in March with just one vote less than the 109 needed to override a veto, but 22 members did not vote on it.
``I feel there's going to be a huge amount of pressure on the governor not to veto this legislation because of the popularity of this issue,'' said Crawford, R-California. ``I certainly think we will have enough votes for an override.''
Thirty-five other states already have similar concealed gun laws, said Kelly Whitley, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association in Washington, D.C.
``Right to carry has proven to make people safer in those states that have given them that right,'' Whitley said.
------
Concealed guns bill is HB349.
On the Net:
Missouri Legislature: http://www.moga.state.mo.us
Standing Wolf
May 2, 2003, 09:04 PM
Well done, Missouri!
jdege
May 2, 2003, 09:26 PM
You can't let up, yet.
The two versions have to be reconciled, and then passed again.
And then after the veto, the veto has to be over-ridden.
The antis do not give up.
Up here in Minnesota, the Senate Metrocrats are pushing an a bill that would basically overturn the bill that was just passed this week.
Odds are it won't make it through the House. But they are keeping up the hysteria.
Wes Skoglund was on TV, today, ranting about how the two multiple murderers who were arrested today could have obtained carry permits, because "even if the sheriff knows they are bad guys he is not permitted to say anything about it."
That is, of course, an absolute lie.
But they are simply unable to accept reality.
The two versions have to be reconciled, and then passed again.
And then after the veto, the veto has to be over-ridden.
The antis do not give up.
Up here in Minnesota, the Senate Metrocrats are pushing an a bill that would basically overturn the bill that was just passed this week.
Odds are it won't make it through the House. But they are keeping up the hysteria.
Wes Skoglund was on TV, today, ranting about how the two multiple murderers who were arrested today could have obtained carry permits, because "even if the sheriff knows they are bad guys he is not permitted to say anything about it."
That is, of course, an absolute lie.
But they are simply unable to accept reality.
Sarge
May 2, 2003, 10:33 PM
and you wouldn't believe the greif I got from some of my fellow LE folks here for supporting CCW when it went to the people for a vote.
Watch violent crime take a nose dive within one year of enactment of this bill.
Watch violent crime take a nose dive within one year of enactment of this bill.
Mizzoutiger
May 2, 2003, 11:02 PM
Twenty-f:cuss: 'n-Three Years of AGE!!!!!
You gotta be kidding me!!
I just turned 21!!!!
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
Missouri has got one pissed off voter on their hands.
You gotta be kidding me!!
I just turned 21!!!!
:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
Missouri has got one pissed off voter on their hands.
srschick
May 2, 2003, 11:28 PM
So.. as I read the Bill text, the reciprocity will be for anyone licensed in any state?.
WoooHoooo! those of us that live in the St.Louis Metro east in Illannoy can get our Florida license and pack in MO, which is where I spend most of my time at anyway!
Quoted by El Tejon:
Illinois is slowly being encircled!
Your liberation is coming, brothers. Hang on!
PLEASE HURRY!!!! :cuss:
WoooHoooo! those of us that live in the St.Louis Metro east in Illannoy can get our Florida license and pack in MO, which is where I spend most of my time at anyway!
Quoted by El Tejon:
Illinois is slowly being encircled!
Your liberation is coming, brothers. Hang on!
PLEASE HURRY!!!! :cuss:
Monkeyleg
May 2, 2003, 11:40 PM
"I would never use that procedure personally,'' said Jacob, D-Columbia.
Horsefeathers! Last year the WI senate Democrat majority leader used every procedural rule in the book--and some that didn't even exist--to force the senate to adjourn prematurely, just so the concealed carry bill would not be brought to a vote.
Can the public be so dumb as to not see when "procedural maneuvers" trump "votes?"
Sorry, I forgot that the majority of the public gets their news from Jay Leno and Oprah.
Horsefeathers! Last year the WI senate Democrat majority leader used every procedural rule in the book--and some that didn't even exist--to force the senate to adjourn prematurely, just so the concealed carry bill would not be brought to a vote.
Can the public be so dumb as to not see when "procedural maneuvers" trump "votes?"
Sorry, I forgot that the majority of the public gets their news from Jay Leno and Oprah.
CZ-75
May 2, 2003, 11:42 PM
I just turned 21!!!!
And just about the time you're legal to carry, you can pay back Gov. Bob and the boys at the voting booth.
And just about the time you're legal to carry, you can pay back Gov. Bob and the boys at the voting booth.
ahadams
May 2, 2003, 11:43 PM
deleted since I hit the wrong button too soon...
ahadams
May 2, 2003, 11:49 PM
okay guys, look:
First off the only difference between the two bills is that the house bill says 21 years of age and the senate bill says 23 years of age - this can be handled with minimal problem.
the issue here is that it may very well go to a veto override session this fall. If it does we will need every (and I mean EVERY)
2 A supporter of both genders (but especially female - since it jams the gears both of the leftist pols and of the leftist media) down there for the special session of the legislature.
REMEMBER: this is a START. Once we get this law in place we can improve on it, but the important thing is to get the law in place first. This will accomplish that essential step.
Would be interested in hearing what the next step might be (hint VT carry is not doable, neither is eliminating the fee, at least in the near future.)
I have some input into one of the state level decision making 2nd Ammdt groups so let me know what you think.
First off the only difference between the two bills is that the house bill says 21 years of age and the senate bill says 23 years of age - this can be handled with minimal problem.
the issue here is that it may very well go to a veto override session this fall. If it does we will need every (and I mean EVERY)
2 A supporter of both genders (but especially female - since it jams the gears both of the leftist pols and of the leftist media) down there for the special session of the legislature.
REMEMBER: this is a START. Once we get this law in place we can improve on it, but the important thing is to get the law in place first. This will accomplish that essential step.
Would be interested in hearing what the next step might be (hint VT carry is not doable, neither is eliminating the fee, at least in the near future.)
I have some input into one of the state level decision making 2nd Ammdt groups so let me know what you think.
Mizzoutiger
May 2, 2003, 11:59 PM
CZ-75 - Ain't that the truth? To be honest, I wouldn't vote for him anyways :rolleyes: , but I still have to flex my voter's muscle over this.
I think the best I can hope for is that the house works it out and sends in a 21yr bill. Don't get me wrong, if it goes into law as a 25yr bill, it's a big step for our state and I would be happy. However, should that happen, I imagine I would be well above the legal age when we finally change the law to 21. Oh well... so goes the slow moving government.
I think the best I can hope for is that the house works it out and sends in a 21yr bill. Don't get me wrong, if it goes into law as a 25yr bill, it's a big step for our state and I would be happy. However, should that happen, I imagine I would be well above the legal age when we finally change the law to 21. Oh well... so goes the slow moving government.
Don Gwinn
May 3, 2003, 12:22 AM
Yeah, or we could just move across the stupid border, which is looking better and better every day.
Diesle
May 3, 2003, 12:27 AM
What a banner year its been! Good luck Missu...
Diesle
Diesle
PATH
May 3, 2003, 01:45 AM
Keep up the fight brothers and sisters. Better days are a coming!
Lets go Missouri. Pass that bill!
Lets go Missouri. Pass that bill!
Gray Peterson
May 3, 2003, 04:10 AM
As passed by the House, the legislation set 21 as the minimum age for obtaining a concealed gun permit. Caskey raised it to 23 -- a compromise, he said, with opponents who wanted to make 25 the minimum age.
QUIT COMPROMISING WITH ANTI-GUNNERS!!!!!!!!!!
QUIT COMPROMISING WITH ANTI-GUNNERS!!!!!!!!!!
Shooter 2.5
May 3, 2003, 10:35 AM
Oh, sure Lonnie. Sit back and dream of a Vermont law.
By the way, Freep this poll or whatever you guys call it.
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/2176886/detail.html
By the way, Freep this poll or whatever you guys call it.
http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/2176886/detail.html
Bainx
May 3, 2003, 11:09 AM
Alas, yet another state that the family and I can feel safe in!
44Brent
May 3, 2003, 01:12 PM
The MO bill has to go back to a House-Senate conference committee before it gets sent to the governor. The MO bill recognizes all other states' permits.
CasualShooter
May 11, 2003, 12:40 PM
Journal of the House
First Regular Session, 92nd General Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTY-FOURTH DAY, Monday, May 5, 2003
Speaker Hanaway in the Chair.
On motion of Representative Crawford, SS HS HCS HBs 349, 120, 136 & 328, as amended, was truly agreed to and finally passed by the following vote:
AYES: 111
Abel Angst Avery Baker Barnitz Bean Bearden Behnen Bivins Black Bough Bringer Brown Bruns Byrd Cooper 120 Cooper 155 Crawford Crowell Cunningham 145 Cunningham 86 Davis 122 Davis 19 Deeken Dempsey Dethrow Dixon Dougherty Dusenberg Emery Engler Ervin Green Guest Hampton Harris 110 Henke Hobbs Holand Hunter Icet Jackson Jetton Johnson 47 Kelly 144
Kelly 36 King Kingery Kuessner Lager Lembke LeVota Liese Lipke Luetkemeyer Marsh May Mayer McKenna Merideth Moore Morris Munzlinger Myers Nieves Parker Pearce Phillips Portwood Pratt Purgason Quinn Ransdall Rector Reinhart Richard Roark Ruestman Rupp Sager Salva Sander Schlottach Seigfreid Selby Self Shoemaker Shoemyer Smith 118 Smith 14 St. Onge Stefanick Stevenson Sutherland Taylor Threlkeld Townley Viebrock Wagner Wallace Ward Wasson Whorton Wilson 119 Wilson 130 Witte Wood Wright Yates Young
Madam Speaker
NOES: 043
Bishop Bland Boykins Brooks Burnett Campbell Carnahan Corcoran Curls Darrough Daus Donnelly El-Amin Fares Fraser George Graham Harris 23 Haywood Hilgemann Hoskins
Johnson 90 Jolly Jones Kratky Lowe Meiners Muckler Page Schoemehl Skaggs Spreng Thompson Villa Vogt Walker Walsh Walton Wildberger Wilson 25 Wilson 42 Yaeger Zweifel
PRESENT: 001
Schaaf
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 008
Adams Goodman Hubbard Johnson 61 Lawson Miller Schneider Willoughby
Speaker Hanaway declared the bill passed.
ON TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK!!! :D :D
First Regular Session, 92nd General Assembly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIXTY-FOURTH DAY, Monday, May 5, 2003
Speaker Hanaway in the Chair.
On motion of Representative Crawford, SS HS HCS HBs 349, 120, 136 & 328, as amended, was truly agreed to and finally passed by the following vote:
AYES: 111
Abel Angst Avery Baker Barnitz Bean Bearden Behnen Bivins Black Bough Bringer Brown Bruns Byrd Cooper 120 Cooper 155 Crawford Crowell Cunningham 145 Cunningham 86 Davis 122 Davis 19 Deeken Dempsey Dethrow Dixon Dougherty Dusenberg Emery Engler Ervin Green Guest Hampton Harris 110 Henke Hobbs Holand Hunter Icet Jackson Jetton Johnson 47 Kelly 144
Kelly 36 King Kingery Kuessner Lager Lembke LeVota Liese Lipke Luetkemeyer Marsh May Mayer McKenna Merideth Moore Morris Munzlinger Myers Nieves Parker Pearce Phillips Portwood Pratt Purgason Quinn Ransdall Rector Reinhart Richard Roark Ruestman Rupp Sager Salva Sander Schlottach Seigfreid Selby Self Shoemaker Shoemyer Smith 118 Smith 14 St. Onge Stefanick Stevenson Sutherland Taylor Threlkeld Townley Viebrock Wagner Wallace Ward Wasson Whorton Wilson 119 Wilson 130 Witte Wood Wright Yates Young
Madam Speaker
NOES: 043
Bishop Bland Boykins Brooks Burnett Campbell Carnahan Corcoran Curls Darrough Daus Donnelly El-Amin Fares Fraser George Graham Harris 23 Haywood Hilgemann Hoskins
Johnson 90 Jolly Jones Kratky Lowe Meiners Muckler Page Schoemehl Skaggs Spreng Thompson Villa Vogt Walker Walsh Walton Wildberger Wilson 25 Wilson 42 Yaeger Zweifel
PRESENT: 001
Schaaf
ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 008
Adams Goodman Hubbard Johnson 61 Lawson Miller Schneider Willoughby
Speaker Hanaway declared the bill passed.
ON TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK!!! :D :D
another okie
May 11, 2003, 12:54 PM
You guys are celebrating way too soon. It's true that the bill passed by veto proof margins, but these votes must be cast again to override the veto. There will be some legislators who voted for it originally who will not vote to override the veto, since the veto gives them some political cover. You just have to hope enough stick with it to do so. Even after that it might get tied up in court somehow for a long time.
Mizzoutiger
May 11, 2003, 06:11 PM
When was the last time you remember Missouri to be so close to having government permission to exercise our God given right of self defense?
The movement has steam. If it gets shot down this year, we'll be pushing for the endzone once we boot One Term Bob.
See ya later Bobby!
The movement has steam. If it gets shot down this year, we'll be pushing for the endzone once we boot One Term Bob.
See ya later Bobby!
Roper
May 11, 2003, 07:19 PM
.....the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Is it not an infringment to legislate mandatory license to bear a firearm? Can it now be legislated into the abyss of no return?
Sorry for the cold water.
Sorry for the cold water.
bogie
May 12, 2003, 12:49 PM
Oh fahchrissake!
The world is not perfect.
The currently existing Jim Crow laws are about to be overturned, and you're upset that Misery isn't turning into Vermont? One major problem that us "gun folks" have is that we want it all, and that we tend to avoid compromise. It's FAR easier for a single man to shift a pile of sand spoonful by spoonful than it is to try to move it all at once.
The world is not perfect.
The currently existing Jim Crow laws are about to be overturned, and you're upset that Misery isn't turning into Vermont? One major problem that us "gun folks" have is that we want it all, and that we tend to avoid compromise. It's FAR easier for a single man to shift a pile of sand spoonful by spoonful than it is to try to move it all at once.
twoblink
May 12, 2003, 10:07 PM
Congrats!
Now if the PRK would just follow..
Is Vermont considered a "Shall Issue" state?? They seem to follow under the "No Issue" catagory, as that's closer to the truth.. Whatever catagory, I like it!
Now if the PRK would just follow..
Is Vermont considered a "Shall Issue" state?? They seem to follow under the "No Issue" catagory, as that's closer to the truth.. Whatever catagory, I like it!
Chris Rhines
May 12, 2003, 10:43 PM
Here's the problem, Bogie. First, I have no confidence that the bad provisions in a questionable CCW law will ever get re-examined. For example, the minimum age provision. Assuming the bill passes, do you really think that they will ever lower the minimum age to 18? Yeah, I know, 23 vs. 18 is a small thing to get riled over, but from the perspective of a 19-year-old gun owner, what's even the point? This bill buys them nothing.
But that aside, what you describe as compromise seems to me more like appeasement. Our property rights are absolute, and we should be demanding them at the top of our lungs, at every opportunity. Why demand too little? By accepting questionable CCW law, we make it look like we're asking for favors, not demanding our basic civil rights.
- Chris
But that aside, what you describe as compromise seems to me more like appeasement. Our property rights are absolute, and we should be demanding them at the top of our lungs, at every opportunity. Why demand too little? By accepting questionable CCW law, we make it look like we're asking for favors, not demanding our basic civil rights.
- Chris
clange
May 13, 2003, 01:57 AM
I'd rather get his on the books and go for a change later then blow this thing out of the water and wait god knows how long until we ever get a CCW law. Yeah, 23 sucks, but it's a ton better then what we have now. If it takes that compromise to get the over-ride numbers, then i say they did the right thing.
StLGlocker
May 13, 2003, 10:06 AM
There's plenty of precedent for 'get it on the books in -some- form first, improve later'. In many cases a given state's RTC law has started off fairly restrictive, and then been relaxed later on after all the Chicken Littles look up and see that the sky did not, in fact, fall.
Without the restrictions, the current bill would have died long before reaching Holden's desk. Now he's at least in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with it. Even if he vetos it AND we fail the override, the stage is set for all the angry gun owners to kick him to the curb in the next election, and put someone in who is pro self-defense - I imagine the next Republican candidate will use it as a campaign promise. Then, the legislature can advance a new bill (without all of the lame restrictions) with confidence that it'll get signed. That's pretty much what happened in Texas ten years ago, when Ann Richards vetoed their CCW bill. Come election time, George W. Bush ran against her and promised to sign another bill, and that was the end of Richards' service as governor.
An all-or-nothing attitude will most often get you nothing.
Without the restrictions, the current bill would have died long before reaching Holden's desk. Now he's at least in the uncomfortable position of having to deal with it. Even if he vetos it AND we fail the override, the stage is set for all the angry gun owners to kick him to the curb in the next election, and put someone in who is pro self-defense - I imagine the next Republican candidate will use it as a campaign promise. Then, the legislature can advance a new bill (without all of the lame restrictions) with confidence that it'll get signed. That's pretty much what happened in Texas ten years ago, when Ann Richards vetoed their CCW bill. Come election time, George W. Bush ran against her and promised to sign another bill, and that was the end of Richards' service as governor.
An all-or-nothing attitude will most often get you nothing.
Russ
May 13, 2003, 10:38 AM
Chris,
Get the CCW law passed first even if the age is 23. You'll be 40 before you know it believe me. It may not seem like it now but life is short and does go by faster than I would like.
Keep fighting for the rest once you get a foot hold.
Get the CCW law passed first even if the age is 23. You'll be 40 before you know it believe me. It may not seem like it now but life is short and does go by faster than I would like.
Keep fighting for the rest once you get a foot hold.
Don Gwinn
May 13, 2003, 12:34 PM
Dude, I'm 25, and it feels like I just got out of high school some days. But the real point is that by hanging together, we DO get something out of laws that don't directly affect us.
Personally, for instance, I don't hunt ducks and I don't shoot machine guns. I might rent a full-auto every now and again, but I wouldn't lay out the cash to shoot one even if the prices weren't inflated. Too much ammo for a few seconds of noise.
Does that mean I shouldn't support the machine-gunners if they try to get Illinois' ban overturned? Of course not! Every bit of freedom, every bit of public acceptance and understanding of what we do, helps me too. I don't have to want a machine gun to get the benefit.
Think it over carefully--isn't it a lot better to have to wait two years to carry, than it would be to know you'll never get that chance?
Personally, for instance, I don't hunt ducks and I don't shoot machine guns. I might rent a full-auto every now and again, but I wouldn't lay out the cash to shoot one even if the prices weren't inflated. Too much ammo for a few seconds of noise.
Does that mean I shouldn't support the machine-gunners if they try to get Illinois' ban overturned? Of course not! Every bit of freedom, every bit of public acceptance and understanding of what we do, helps me too. I don't have to want a machine gun to get the benefit.
Think it over carefully--isn't it a lot better to have to wait two years to carry, than it would be to know you'll never get that chance?
bogie
May 13, 2003, 01:17 PM
Remember that the anti's strategy tends to be incremental. They don't "ban guns." They ban "this" gun, or "that" gun, or they institute some sorta "minor" restriction, and before you know it, you've got 20,000 gun laws on the books...
Small steps toward progress are better than no steps toward progress.
We're our own worst enemy. Heck, I've talked to a couple of hardheaded fools who voted AGAINST Proposition B a coupla years ago because they thought it wasn't enough - they wanted Vermont style, or nothing. Well, they got nothing.
Small steps toward progress are better than no steps toward progress.
We're our own worst enemy. Heck, I've talked to a couple of hardheaded fools who voted AGAINST Proposition B a coupla years ago because they thought it wasn't enough - they wanted Vermont style, or nothing. Well, they got nothing.
If you enjoyed reading about "Hall-a-fricking-lu-ya !!!! From Missouri" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.