What the... A Pro CCW St. Louis Dispatch Article??!


PDA






Mizzoutiger
May 14, 2003, 04:27 PM
St. Louis Post Dispatch Article (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/news/34FFDFACA06E136386256D220031C4F1?OpenDocument&highlight=2%2CJohn%2CRoss&headline=Right-to-carr)

Right-to-carry
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.

:cool:

If you enjoyed reading about "What the... A Pro CCW St. Louis Dispatch Article??!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
themic
May 14, 2003, 04:30 PM
i know! saw that earlier today...
granted, it was argued mainly from the point of "hey let's not alienate all our voters cause they won't vote for us"
as opposed to "hey gun control is stupid"
...but i'm certainly not going to be picky!

always good to hear a step in the right direction

bogie
May 14, 2003, 04:32 PM
Uh, campers...

Look at who the author is...

And notice his political affiliation while you're at it.

Yup. That's him.

Mizzoutiger
May 14, 2003, 04:34 PM
Yeah, that's true. It's a democrat writing in a liberal newspaper about how signing this bill would be good for the democrats. These MO dems are in a real pickle.

Frohickey
May 14, 2003, 05:03 PM
John Ross... the same John Ross that wrote Unintended Consequences.

bogie
May 14, 2003, 06:01 PM
Yup. That's him. He's an old-fashioned democrat, from back when they were more like today's libertarians...

Standing Wolf
May 14, 2003, 06:09 PM
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.

It's too late for the Democratic (sic) party; it's not, however, too late for Missouri.

If you enjoyed reading about "What the... A Pro CCW St. Louis Dispatch Article??!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!