[Rickstir]

SB 0083 authorizing permits for concealed carry was introduced on the first day of the pre-filing period for legislation to be considered in the upcoming 2003 session. Senator John Cauthorn from Mexico Missouri is the sponsor of a bill that combines parts of bills passed by both the house and the senate last year. Manuvering at the end of the year kept it from coming up for a vote in the senate. This combination of bills will hopefully make house-senate conferences on the bill move faster.

The republicans hold an even greater majority in the senate and have taken over the house also. There is enough power to override a veto from the govenor, if he should choose to do so.

I just got off the phone with the senator's office (he is the senator from my district), and they have assured me they are committed to getting it passed this year.

Now is the time for all Missourians who want the RKBA, to contact your state senator and representative and let them know you are behind this legislation. :D

[Monkeyleg]

Good luck, Rickstir. We'll be starting soon here in Wisconsin, with a similar politcal landscape.

Wouldn't it be great to have 2003 be a "two-fer" for concealed carry?!

[El Tejon]

Rick, good luck. Go get them, Missourians! (You guys really got hosed in `98).

[suvdrvr]

I still won't buy HallMark cards because of their contributions to the anti's in the defeat of the concealed carry effort in 98'.

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

New Jersey has had a CCW bill held up in the Law and Public Safety Committee. .Assembly Bill A2014 (Shall-Issue Concealed Gun Carry) has been held up since 1997.:banghead:

We are starting up a group in NJ to push for it in 2003. Visit us at:

www.njcsd.org

If you live in my state, GET INVOLVED! :scrutiny:

[Gray Peterson]

Make it a 4 seater. Missouri will pass, and so will Minnesota (with a friendly governor). Now that leaves Wisconsin and Ohio, and it looks like Ohio pro-CCW folks may not be willing to make deals with the governor anymore over the issue.

[sm]

Good Luck to all. Anything any of can do outside your states-holler!!

[RAY WOODROW 3RD]

I'll hold you to that re1973. We need all the help we can get in NJ! Trying to convert the masses will be like

:banghead:

Know what I mean?

[sm]

Yep I know what you mean. Klinton came from my state --'nuff said :D
I mean really you guys what can we do? We're all in this thing together-right?

[mjustice]

Good luck in MO. I am studying the "next wave" carefully, in hopes of trying to jump-start the movement here in NY.

MJ

[Kamicosmos]

Link to the bill on the Missouri Senate website:

http://www.senate.state.mo.us/03INFO/bills/SB083.htm

Kamicosmos

[Monte Harrison]

So what killed it the last time around, aside from big-city socialists in StL and KC?

[Diesle]

After the surprise in November... anythings possible. Go get em!

Diesle

[Blackhawk]

Make it a 4 seater. Missouri will pass, and so will Minnesota (with a friendly governor). Now that leaves Wisconsin and Ohio, and it looks like Ohio pro-CCW folks may not be willing to make deals with the governor anymore over the issue.Sure hope you're right, Lonnie.

[KMKeller]

That's good news.

[Kamicosmos]

Monte--

Besides the big city socialists in St Louis and KC...there was a lot of conspiriatorial rumors.
I know for a fact that several polls closed around KC several hours before they should have. The excuse was they ran out of ballots. Um. Yeah, right. It was a big vote, but seriously. There was talk of a recount, but everyone knew the Govnar would have veto'd anyway.

I'm hoping it goes well this time. I need an excuse to buy a Ruger SP101... :evil:

Kamicosmos
KCMO

[Gray Peterson]

I forgot Colorado. Anyone know what's going on there?

[David Scott]

Please push hard, so my son in St. Louis can get a carry permit. He works graveyard shifts and the parking lot isn't well lit.

[Gray Peterson]

David:

I'm doing my best from here in Oregon. I have friends there who would take advantage of the CCW permit procedure immediately.

I even gave a phone call over to Senator Cauthorn to voice my concerns over the language of the proposed statutes in regards to airports.

Hopefully, it'll pass.

[Shooter 2.5]

What about Kansas? Is there anyone there who would be willing to sue the state for their Rights like they have in Ohio? Here's the Kansas State Amendment: Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).

[Shooter 2.5]

Sorry for the last post. I know it bears repeating but that was ridiculous.

[Kamicosmos]

Well Kansas doesn't have CCW. Probably if Missouri passes it, then Kansas will follow suit. Also, I would imagine that they'll have some kind of dual state thing since so many people live on one side and work on the other.


Now, Thinking back, not sure if it would be a ballot issue in Kansas like in MO. I was thinking that maybe last time it will simply be a modification of the existing law to reword it to allow concealed carry, since open carry is allowed.

Then again, I'm pretty sure MO allows open carry, but for some reason MO would need public vote...

Kamicosmos

[Rickstir]

The public vote in Missouri was some wild a$$ scheme. Would have worked if all the dead people didn't vote in St. Louis and Kansas City.

This will get done in the legislature, where the representatives and senators realize that despite the shanangans pulled in the election, most people in this state are demanding their RKBA rights.

Mood in the legislature is good, although there was an ill mannered statement about allowing it in some areas of the state and not others. That was quickly put down. There is some support for coupling the bill with a provision to require trigger locks on all gun purchases. Fine by me, just let me be able to carry and protect my family, my self, and my possesions.

[Shooter 2.5]

That's the point I was trying to make until it was buried in the multiple pastes.

Three residents of Ohio were able to force the legislature of Ohio to consider a CCW because of the wording in their state constitution. The same type of wording is in the Kansas Constitution. All it takes is one person from Kansas to sue the state government on Civil Rights grounds and their "no ccw' state could go straight to a Vermont law.

[waynzwld]

CCW in Kansas is probably dead for 4 years, commie loving/Klinton groupy Sabelious (sp?) has to be dumpped first.

[Shooter 2.5]

The three people in Ohio didn't wait for the legislature. The state consitution is clear. The people in Kansas can have one person sue for their Civil Rights. That's all it takes to force the politicians to introduce a CCW law. Now if your state supreme court rivals that of the California 9th Circuit Court and can't read English, that's another story.

In Ohio, the SAF is the organization that helped the lawsuit and the NRA is in the negotiations. Call up the GOA and see if they want to be the first ones in Kansas.

[Silver Bullet]

Good for Missouri, I hope they succeed.

"I still won't buy HallMark cards because of their contributions to the anti's "

I didn't hear about HallMark. Can anyone elaborate ?

[fmjcafe]

Hallmark contributed money to help defeat CCW last go round.

[mcole]

i would agree, if missouri can pass, there will be lots of pressure in kansas.
shooter 2.5, what do you mean/refer too on the constitutional law thing and vermont ccw? it would be great the have a vermont style ccw in kansas. mcole

[Shooter 2.5]

Check what's happening in Ohio.
Three residents sued because the Ohio State Constitution has a clear Second Amendment. Their Supreme Court ruled that their lack of a CCW law was unconstitutional. That forced the legislature to introduce some sort of CCW law because the alternative would be a Vermont Law. The NRA is still in negotiations but it's so screwed up, they should just bring it back to the court so they have to have a Vermont Law.

Kansas has a clear Second Amendment in their Constitution.
Mimic what's happening in Ohio and you get your CCW law.

[Frohickey]

http://www.atr.org/graphics/states_shall_issue_large.gif

Now, if only Kalifornia would be a 'Red' state instead of a 'Blue' state...
I don't see that happening short of a voter revolt, or a really ugly lawsuit.

...Paging Mr Jim March... Paging Mr. Jim March...

[mjustice]

New Mexico should not be listed (yet). The New Mexico Supreme Court tossed their CCW law since the opt-out provisions were considered to be unconstitutional.

Can someone confirm that Sprint or Sprint PCS (in addition to Hallmark) was a contributor to the demise of CCW proposition in 2000? I'm looking for a reason to dump Sprint, and this could be it.

MJ

[Shooter 2.5]

The states that have clear concise Second Amendments in their state constitutions are Wisconsin, Kansas, Michigan and Nebraska.

Hawaii's Second Amendment has the exact same wording as the U.S. Second Amendment.

Anyone in those states feel like suing for you Civil Rights?

[Al in Md]

In my opinion it is a HUGE mistake to put your rights up to a vote. If defeated by the voters the mantra "the people have spoken" will be heard by the antigunners. Even in a progun state the media spin can be devastating. It happened in Mo. In Md. we have little chance for CCW reform. The safe place for CCW is with the legislature and courts. Al in Md.

[mcole]

yes, sprint, sprint pcs and hallmark have been and i'm sure will remain major contributors and supporters to defeat ccw in kansas and missouri. it appeared to me, and i think the general consensus was, that hallmark was key in the last missouri defeat. they certainly patted themselves on the back and puffed out their chest after the defeat.
i don't know that much about missouril, but in kansas, the problem is the generally neo-liberal and enlightened wichita-topeka-kansas city "axis". my sense is that the greatest single concern of most of these people is whether the day's load of fresh starbuck's coffee came in. mcole

[Don Gwinn]

I went back to TFL to find Bill "Gunslinger" Elliott's explanation of the blatant voter fraud in MO. This deals with the referendum on CCW, and Bill's explanation is the best I've seen on it. He's right about the media blackout, even in NRA and similar publications. I would never have known about this were it not for Bill. Unfortunately, he's gone now, but he was a good man.

____________________________________________________




I'm going to have to type this slow because I've got to stop and take a deep gulp of air now and then to keep from exploding.

I'm from Missouri and some of you may have noticed that every time I've written "Missouri" since the April 6 election I've followed it with (the ballot fraud state). I'm not just doing that here on TFL. If I'm having a telephone converstation with someone from out of state and have to give my address I always say "the ballot fraud state" after MO. As you can well imagine most people will ask "what?" "why do you call it that?" or something. I tell them!!!

We Missourians were *allowed* to vote for CCW in April as ya'll stated. Her wholyness Hillary Rotten@$$ Clinton AND Sarah (I wish she'd been between Hickley and Jim on that faithful day) Brady both visited our fair state to campaing against the bill as did many HCI, CeaseFire supporters, various gun grabbers, et. al.. The federal government, non-profit churchs and all came out of the woodwork to fight our rights.

On the day of the election the ballot tabulating computers went down in Jefferson City after HALF the votes had been counted. At that point the bill was PASSING in the state by a margin of 52% to 48% including St. Louis County with the exact same figures. The state computer did not come back up until shortly after midnight. AFTER all other counties (114) had reported St. Louis County THEN reported there final count. Ironically heretofore either St. Louis County or Jackson County (the second largest county in the state, which is located in Kansas City) is the FIRST to report. The bill was defeated by a margin of only 3%. The margin was due SOLELY to the St. Louis County final count. In order for the final vote to have been what they reported the votes AFTER the computer went down would have to had been 87% opposed. St. Charles and Jefferson Counties, which join St. Louis County voted to pass the bill by 70+%. Both counties traditionaly ALWAYS have VERY similar counts to St. Louis County.

Now for the fun part. Greene county was the second to last to report (114th) after the computers came back up. In order for them to have posted the results they did the votes taken after the computer went down would had to have been 104% against the bill. THAT WAS NOT A TYPO.

By statute in order to protest a count the citizens protesting must post a bond ensuring the state can recoup their expense in doing a recount. This can not be done until the governor "certifies" the election, which he's required to do within 30 days. Carnahan as of a month ago had still not certified or discertified the election in direct violation of state statute.

Some body needs to be investigating something down here.

I apologize for the rant and for straying so far from the topic but I'm still pissed over this and plan to stay that way.

Bookkie and CMOS I'm glad to see that others from out of the state are still talking about the BS surrounding that bill. Thanks.

------------------
Gunslinger

[Kamicosmos]

Thanks for reposting that from TFL...I remember reading it during the time, but couldn't remember the details clearly.

BTW, www.moccw.org is the site that was monitoring the status. It's still live, although has no updates since 1999. It does have a cool marque thing that scrolls the names of companies that contributied anti-gun money.

I'm not real slick on my politics, but I think Kansas can just change the exisiting law without a vote. (But would only do so if MO passes it first, peer pressure, eh?)
MO needs the vote because we don't have a law regarding carrying firearms at all, hence we need to make one, which requires a vote.

Am I roughly correct on that?

Kamicosmos

[Gray Peterson]

I'm not real slick on my politics, but I think Kansas can just change the exisiting law without a vote. (But would only do so if MO passes it first, peer pressure, eh?)
MO needs the vote because we don't have a law regarding carrying firearms at all, hence we need to make one, which requires a vote.

Am I roughly correct on that?

Nope. The reason why MO had a vote was because Governor Mel Carnahan said "I'm going to veto this bill". According to the Missouri Constitution, a bill can only pass without approval of the governor on a majority vote with a positive vote from the voters in the nearest time for a special election.

Same in Kansas. Legislature can pass a bill, but requires a signature or "no veto" from the governor.

[Rickstir]

There are two bills that are head and shoulders above the others submitted.

HR 138 and SB 83. If these are passed by a majority of each chamber, and there is no need for a conference to iron any differences (which the bills were written to avoid such a thing), then one chamber will vote on the others and that will go to the govenor.

If the govenor vetos the bill, it would be up to the senate to override a veto. The reason the measure was taken before the voters is that in 2000 there was not a chance to override. Things are different in 2003! With a 20 to 14 advantage for the republicans and a number of sympathetic democrats, an override is probable. But politics is politics. This state is looking at a hugh budget shortfall, as most are. This is why pressure needs to be put on the legislatures to get this matter settled before the in-fighting and deals are made over the budget.

Legislators do not like emails. Feeling is that it is too easy to do. So fax or write or call your representatives. Urge them to co-sponsor the legislation. It is always impressive to hand the govenor a bill with many co-sponsors who sit on committees the govenor needs to work with. Contact the Speaker of the House Catherine Hanaway and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder. Get the message in front of them that we are looking for results.

[Kamicosmos]

Thanks, Lonnie and Rickstir. Cleared it up a bit. A friend of mine is much more up on the who's and how's of political workings, so he usually advises me on this type of thing.

I do plan on writing my congressman about the issue, and as last time, I'll display the bumperstickers and yard signs, and hand out leaflets and things like that. And make sure I get to the voting booth if it goes to that!

Kamicosmos

[bogie]

It's probably not going to be a ballot issue again. FWIW, it was the first CCW ballot initiative in the country.

Best thing to do now is bother your legislative critters, and have your wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, kids (legit and otherwise), friends, neighbors, etc., bother 'em too...

When someone tells me that it was defeated, I tell 'em that it was defeated by the St. Louis vote - and do they feel safer in the city, or out in the counties that voted for it?

[trapshooter]

Kamicosmos,

Unfortunately, the MO Constitution mentions a bit about the right to carry weapons may be restricted.

It was changed in or around 1874. (After the one that was more specific got tossed, see following sentence). Used as a Jim Crow law up until the 60's or 70's.

Really is stupid. One of the dumbest (non) systems in the US. I had a CCW in Commiefornia, for crying out loud (Siskiyou County), and have absolutely NO chance here, given my reluctance to buddy up with a County sheriff or CoP somewhere and be a 'Reserve' ossifer. Probably doable, given my background, but that would be cheap and unethical. I live in a county with an ok sheriff, as far as I know.

In my eyes, I have far less use for CCW than my wife, or any other woman. But NOOOOO. Can't have that! Far better to subject the distaff side to the whims of the next rapist/kidnapper/murderer they encounter, rather than let them carry a GUN! Happens quite a bit around Mighty MO, but pretty much is ignored by the likes of Gephardt, and One-Term Bob.

I could go on a long time, but anyone who lives here knows the score, and would just hack off everyone else, for no good reason.

[Shooter 2.5]

Trapshooter,

Here's the Kansas "Second Amendment" for their Bill of Rights:
§ 4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
It sounds like it only takes one person to sue for their Civil Rights and the state will go to a "Vermont Law".