[Sarge]

On KCTV station, known for an anti-gun editorial stance...

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/2176886/detail.html

Thanks to all participants..

[ahadams]

Thanks for the tip sarge - it was passed on to others in MO as well.

[PATH]

Looks like the yes vote is pretty far ahead. Go and keep up the numbers folks.

[WonderNine]

Only for people age 23 and older???

[Greg L]

Yes 189 91%
No 16 8%
I'm undecided 2 1%

**

The 23 years old part has me scratching my head too. :confused:

Greg

[El Tejon]

Nice to see even opinions are subject to arbitrary age limits of the left.:rolleyes:

92%, take that Saint Louis and KC!

[Unisaw]

Just voted. Yes: 92%. Ditto on the age limit.:scrutiny:

[cobb]

Let's keep it rolling. ;)

[Sarge]

Your help is appreciated. As far as that "23" thing goes, I don't know what that's about. We seem to have a knack here for totally absurd "riders" on legislation, and it's getting downright embarrassing. If I can find out I'll let you know.

[Watchman]

Intresting.

You can join the Army when you're 17, advance through rank and attain the rank of Sargent by the time you're 21. You can lead a platoon of men that have automatic weapons, along with some of the highest tech weapons ever seen on a battlefield and actaully have more responsibilty than than some people will ever have their whole lives.

But when you get out and come home to Missouri, you have to be 23 to get a CCW ?

Amazing.

Where do they come up with this stuff ?

[Standing Wolf]

23?

If you're a legal adult at eighteen, you should have all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereunto pertaining.

[ahadams]

look guys - stupid stuff is included in the law to avoid more stupid or bizarre stuff being included...the age limit can be changed, the number of years the permit is good for (say from 3 to 5 or longer) but that is only going to happen *if* the bill becomes law to begin with. It ain't everything *you* want, it ain't everything the originators wanted - but it's still a reasonable start, and we probably wouldn't have gotten this far except for the fact that it was a bipartisan effort and several of the most experienced (and knowledgable) state senators were on *our* side. One of our guys had to literally pull a procedural move that's normally not done in the senate, just to get the antis to shut up and allow a vote.

Now it's just whether or not our leftist governor realizes that now that he's been abandoned by the urban left (they're running somebody else against him in the primary) his only hope of holding onto his party's nomination is to cater to the rural democrats who support this legislation... we're really not certain he's bright enough to understand that. :rolleyes:

[stevelyn]

Just about every state that has passed "shall issue" ccw legislation has had at some point or another, gone back and re-addressed specific issues and tweaked and streamlined their laws after discovering impractical elements of the law. Missouri's ccw law is going to be no different.
The main thing is to get the law passed and start the public on it's way to getting used to the idea that it's in place and that citizens are carrying. Then those who are affected need to observe the implementation and practical application of the law looking for things that can be addressed in separate legislation at a later date such as age, fees, etc.
This will also give the public time to realize the usual rhetoric and dire predictions by the antis have not come to pass.
Two issues I remember that came up after Alaska's ccw law passed was the fee which was set at $125.00, and the ccw license was caliber and revolver/auto specific. This was amended in later legislation and cleaned up the law dropping the specific caliber/revolver/auto requirement on the license and substantially lowered the fees.

[SkunkApe]

stevelyn is right about later changes. The law was revised here in Michigan 2 years after inception. As of July 1 of this year, we'll be able to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol and the permit term goes from three to five years.

[general]

I voted...current results.
Percent of 864 votes
Yes 802 93%
No 56 6%
I'm undecided 6 1%

[JeepDriver]

Added another vote. For YES of course. We are way out in front!!!

[TarpleyG]

Looks like they got exactly what they didn't want. I'll bet those poll numbers ever show up anywhere to help our cause.

GT

[Missouri Mule]

I live in "Rural" Missouri. A few years ago when the issue was put up to a vote. The major concentration of the voters were in KC and St. Louis and a couple other minor metrpolitan areas.
Please correct me if I am wrong. This is my understanding.

The rural areas overwhelmingly a passed the CCW. The Dems flooded the urban areas with anti gun propaganda. Basically, the cities voted the issue down due to scare tactics and distorting the truth, my opinion. Even though these urban areas in this state, physically comprise a small part.

These same people then have the nerve to expect me to pay higher taxes to pay for their new sports stadium and their kids education. I have relatives that live South County. Sortly after the election I ask some of them what their stand on the CCW and Stadium issues were. Let's just say I am not as welcome as I used to be.

These people just don't get it. :fire:

This newspaper poll is meaningless. Not only that our esteemed governor has vowed to veto the legislation when it does finally reach his desk. Unfortunately I don't think there is enough support in the Missouri congress to overide his veto.

You may be wondering if I voted for Mr. Holden.

NO! I did not! :barf:

[clange]

Yes, KC and STL are why the bill didnt pass. Not to mention some really under-handed stuff by carnahan and his daughter. Hopefully they'll have a veto proof margin this time, cause i dont see holden having the brain power needed to see that passing it is in his best interest.