Saturday, September 13, 2014

Missouri Mainly Republican Legislators Vote to Expand Gun Rights

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon

Missouri lawmakers expanded the potential for teachers to bring guns to schools and for residents to openly carry firearms, in a vote Thursday that capped a two-year effort by the Republican-led Legislature to expand gun rights over the objection of the Democratic governor.

The new law will allow specially trained school employees to carry concealed guns on campuses. It also allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns openly, even in cities or towns with bans against the open carrying of firearms. The age to obtain a concealed weapons permit also will drop from 21 to 19.

A more far-reaching measure that sought to nullify federal gun control laws had died in the final hours of the legislative session in May. Gov. Jay Nixon had vetoed a similar bill last year that could have subjected federal officers to state criminal charges and lawsuits for attempting to enforce federal gun control laws.

The new regulations, which this time garnered the two-thirds majority needed to override Nixon's veto, take effect in about a month.


  1. Good to see the Missouri legislature standing up for the people (who are obviously intelligent enough to deeply value their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as evidenced by their overwhelming support last month for Amendment 5, amending the state constitution so that it states that the right to keep and bear arms--including concealed firearms--is unalienable).

    We shall overcome.

    1. "Fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms." Ha. It's no more a fundamental human right than it is to "keep and bear" a nail clipper or a teacup. Keep relying on the bastardized version of the 2nd Amendment, that's really all you've got.

    2. Although I'm sure it's possible to kill with nail clippers and tea cups, I think it would be tough to successfully argue that these implements are sufficiently useful as "arms" to fall under the umbrella of the Second Amendment, particularly with this Supreme Court.

      Guns, on the other hand, can be quite useful as arms, and can, in the right hands, even be used to kill with some efficiency.

    3. "Under this Supreme Court," you said that right.

    4. I know I "said it right"--I generally do.

      Hopefully, future Courts will take a broader, less watered-down, and thus more accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment.

    5. Yeah, maybe they'll get back to the original intent, you know, the 18th century concept of militia and the use of muskets.

    6. Muskets? What does the Second Amendment say about muskets? About as much as the First Amendment says about quills and parchment, and Gutenberg printing presses.

      Militias? I am a militia of one, and I regulate my militia quite well, thank you very much. Hint--the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about "the right of the militia," but instead describes a fundamental human of the people. As it turns out, I'm one of those, too. The fact that I'm also a well regulated militiaman is simply the reason I am necessary to the security of a free state.

    7. And maybe they'll also realize that the First Amendment was for a time when we only had printing presses, and it wasn't so easy to totally ruin a person's reputation or disseminate lies that are against the public good. Then we can get back to the Real First Amendment--print and distribute what you like, but let the government get a better handle on the newer, more dangerous forms of spreading hate and misinformation.

    8. You're slippin', Kurt.

      "a fundamental human of the people"

      And it's doubly embarrassing since you love to use the (sic.) designation at every opportunity.

    9. My apologies, and I am indeed embarrassed. That said, care to address the point?

    10. Kurt, in spite of all your tough talk, you are unfit for militia duty, however you define it, not only physically because of your disability but also psychologically. I think you're one of the ones a psyche screening would identify as unstable and dangerous.

      I know, I know, we don't yet have psychological screening for gun ownership. But, it's coming.

  2. . . . you are unfit for militia duty, however you define it, not only physically because of your disability but also psychologically.

    It's a very good thing that that's not your call, and never will be. Your silly fantasy of disarming me and like minded militiamen will never approach reality, even remotely.