Missouri CCW article from KC

Status
Not open for further replies.

srschick

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2003
Messages
130
Posted on Fri, May. 02, 2003

Song of concealed guns keeps repeating in Missouri
By LEWIS W. DIUGUID
The Kansas City Star

Some people never tire of the same old song.

In the Missouri General Assembly, the worn-out tune is the bill that would let people carry concealed guns under their clothing or in purses. They also could keep a firearm in the glove box or under the seat of their car.

Gun advocates for 12 years have tried to force this misguided measure into law. They drafted it as a referendum in 1999.

But voters didn't play along. Proposition B failed, with 52 percent of the voters opposing it.

This year the National Rifle Association and other gun lobbyists have a Republican-controlled legislature that wants to turn the conceal and carry bill into a statewide anthem. To no one's surprise, the Missouri House in March passed House Bill 349.

The Senate is expected to pass similar legislation before the session ends May 16. It's a bad sign of the times.

Crime is down, but fear and paranoia are up.

But concealed guns don't protect people. A recent Brookings Institution study showed that state laws allowing people to carry concealed firearms don't reduce crime and may even cause it to increase.

Since 1970, 33 states have passed concealed-carry laws. Thank goodness Missouri has been among the holdouts, outlawing concealed weapons since 1875.

The new bill would change that. It would enable people who are at least age 21 to have concealed weapons.

They'd have to have lived in the state at least six months or have permits issued by another state or local government. The bill also would allow out-of-state people to have concealed weapons in Missouri.

But there is no assurance that other states' laws are comparable to the one proposed here. Legislators are asking Missourians to "trust" that these guns will be in the right hands.

People who aren't citizens couldn't get concealed gun permits. That smells of fear borne from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, preventing documented and undocumented workers from enjoying this gun-toting "privilege."

Missouri's gun bill also surfaces as the Homeland Security law starts letting pilots carry concealed firearms onto passenger jets. Fear over the endless war against terrorism and the war in Iraq has even made some of my anti-gun friends talk of getting guns and concealed weapons permits.

That's never OK. A public packing guns like cell phones will only increase the likelihood of the weapons going off at the worst possible times.

Conceal and carry permits wouldn't be issued to people who in the previous five years had misdemeanor convictions for a crime of violence or more than one conviction for drunken driving or drug possession. People found mentally incompetent or committed to a mental institution in the previous five years would be ineligible.

But who's to say the five-year restriction is long enough or that someone who seems OK today will still be OK tomorrow? Then who's going to take away the gun and the concealed weapons permit?

To get the permits, people would have to receive at least eight hours of training and prove they can handle a revolver and semiautomatic handgun. They'd have to hit a target at a distance of 21 feet with 15 of 20 shots.

The gun bill does prohibit citizens from having concealed guns in police stations. But what about traffic stops, which put officers on the street at risk?

Citizens couldn't take their concealed guns into sports arenas seating more than 5,000 persons. But what about kids' games at fields statewide where parents often go ballistic?

Concealed guns would not be allowed at hospitals, day care centers, schools, casinos, airports, jails, bars, churches or other places of religious worship if the minister says no. But saying no is what legislators should be doing for everyone's safety.

The House miserably failed that public safety test. The Senate will likely flunk, too.

I hope Gov. Bob Holden does the right thing and vetoes the bill, as he's promised, preventing it from becoming a mournful statewide song.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis W. Diuguid is a member of The Star's Editorial Board. To reach him, call (816) 234-4723 or send e-mail to [email protected].
 
OK. just what does this "Brookings Institution" study say, exactly?
I've seen this one mentioned by a few anti's, actually, it's the only type of report for anti-ccw that I've seen. Compared to the many pro-ccw reports available.
 
This guy is the "token" black ultra-leftist on the KC Star. Most of the other ultra-leftists are white. They made him an editor out of guilt, b/c his writing was nothing special and usually revolves around an "oppression" or entitlement theme.
 
Couldn't help myself... had to send something...

"Lewis,

Born and raised in Independence MO, I moved out to the wild west several decades ago and seeing first hand what allowing CCW does to the public, I can't help but agree with you.

Buying a quality firearm, ammunition, paying for and taking the class, lectures learning all about the legalities of carry and use of a deadly weapon, practice at the range, having the FBI do a background check, supplying "mug" shots and fingerprints, more practice at the range, paying the license fee, having your name on a registered list of firearms owners and being certified by the state (and the Feds?) as a "good guy"... its enough to make a person question just WHY one would want to carry a concealed weapon legally.

Some people just think that their life is worth more than a criminal's who would do them harm. Imagine that!

We have shootouts by licensed CCW holders all the time out here in the west. Well, wait a minute...No we don't. But we should have if we believed all the naysayers.

And now the criminal types just don't know for sure WHO is a "certified good guy" and who is a potential victim. Doesn't stop em. Criminals keep killing innocent unarmed victims.

I suppose that Robert A. Heinlein was wrong when he wrote "An armed society is a polite society."

I'm sure that the governor will do the right thing and veto the bill.

Then only the criminals and the police will legally be able to carry weapons. But aren't the criminals already breaking a law by having and carrying a weapon? Shouldn't THEY obey the law too?

I'm just so confused. When I next visit my relatives in Independence, I trust that you will be there to keep me safe from harm, no?

Baba Louie
Las Vegas NV"

Like slamming your head into a wall, but it kills 15 minutes or so.

Adios
 
Last edited:
Gun advocates for 12 years have tried to force this misguided measure into law.

Got this far and just skimmed the rest. :barf:

30+ states have CCW and EVERY SINGLE TIME NONE of what these "Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!" types claim will happen ever does.

Talk about taking advantage of people's short attention spans.
 
This guy pronounces his name "DO-GOOD." I'd say this is appropos - another liberal do-gooder.

ACLU chapter gave him some sort of achievement award around Christmas.
 
Heh, heh... I'm a BAD boy... here's the note I dropped him...

===

Racist leanings

"Since 1970, 33 states have passed concealed-carry laws. Thank goodness Missouri has been among the holdouts, outlawing concealed weapons since 1875."

Don't you REALLY think that this remaining vestige of the Jim Crow laws should be eliminated?
 
Just heard on the radio

a news blurb had Gov. Holden saying that he will absolutely veto this, saying it is even worse than the Prop B. couple of years ago.
The news person said the veto DOES have a chane to be overridden.
What an idiot. At least MO has a chance for CCW, compared to Illanoy where they are trying to go the other way.
 
The reporters and editorial writers in St. Louis and KC both need a real good mugging. Better yet they need the living daylights beat out of them.
 
Lewis' reply?

"Dear Mr. "Baba Louie":

You are one of few who is reasonable on the conceal and carry issue.

Lewis Diuguid"

I thought I was transparently sarcastic... well maybe tongue in cheek.

Some people REALLY don't get it.

Maybe I will call him up next time I go to town to see ma and pa and see if Lew will act as my backup :D . Hopefully I won't have to commit a crime in order to feel safe.

Missouri politics may not be Chicago politics, but deals are made, presents exchanged and the two border towns run the roost.

Adios
 
It's the KC (Red) Star, what did y'all expect anyway? They'll continue to get more hysterical by the day, and if the gov does sign it, or we go back and get veto override in the September session of the legislature, I expect to see the author of the posted article and several others calling for KC to seccede or something similar... This whole thing just shows how completely out of touch the left wing media are with the rest of the state.
 
This guy is obviously devoid of logical thought
the reason MO enacted laws barring concealed carry (in 1875) was to disarm blacks in the face of the clan if i am not mistaken
this guy acts like the current law prevents the bad guys from carrying around their guns anyway
BSR
 
Well like i said in the other thread, apparently it passed by a veto proof margin, assuming no votes will change..

If this fails to over-ride by like a vote or two i'm gonna go nuts. :banghead:
 
Heh heh... I think we may be getting to him...

And I don't think that he understands sarcasm, so that's wasted.

====

Glad you agree. Now, the task at hand is to make sure that we eliminate the racist and sexist laws that keep killing our people. I live in the city, and it takes 20 minutes for police to _maybe_ show up, because they're too busy either eating donuts or taking the upholstery out of some poor person's car. I'd suggest that a couple of web sites you might be interested in are www.pinkpistols.org and www.a-human-right.com.

-------Original Message-------
From: [email protected]
Sent: 05/07/03 03:54 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: RE: racist leanings

>
> OK

-----Original Message-----
From: bogie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 8:33 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: racist leanings


Well, congratulations. All I know from what I see in this state today is
that it must still be illegal to drive while black, and that the only
folks
who actually get protection are cronies of the police or people with high
public visibility. The states that have required the sheriffs to issue
permits regardless of race, campaign contributions, or whether or not
you're
a cousin, taking into account only criminal/mental background (or lack
thereof...), haven't had anywhere near the problems that I've seen in this
backwards state. I've lived a lot of places, and with the exception of
Washington, DC, Missouri is the most racially polarized place I've ever
experienced.

The Jim Crow laws of this sort did nothing but make things safe for
kluckers, and I can't see why any reasonable person would support _any_ of
them. Instead, I see knee-jerk reactions that any black person with a gun
must be a gangster or hoodlum up to no good, rather than a responsible
citizen who, like most of us, lacks a criminal record. Sad.

-------Original Message-------
From: [email protected]
Sent: 05/07/03 02:57 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: racist leanings

>
> I wrote on that topic a few years ago.

Lewis Diuguid

-----Original Message-----
From: bogie [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 7:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: racist leanings


"Since 1970, 33 states have passed concealed-carry laws. Thank goodness
Missouri has been among the holdouts, outlawing concealed weapons since
1875."

Don't you REALLY think that this remaining vestige of the Jim Crow laws
should be eliminated?

>
>
 
It is my sincere opinion that Mr. Holden is nothing more than a liberal idiot.
While this may not be a true fact, it is my personal feeling!
I did not vote for the man !
:banghead: :cuss: :fire:
 
Seems this idiot is only capable of quick one-liners when answering you guys' e-mail. Kinda makes one wonder who wrote his editorial drivel for him. Probably plagarism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.