Jay Nixon

 

On the last day of their just-concluded session, the Missouri legislature passed SB646, which reforms the state’s gun laws.    The bill was passed with a veto-proof majority in the house, 111- 28 and a potentially veto-proof majority in the Senate, 21-7. Potentially, as four senators did not vote. Two more votes are needed to make the Senate vote veto proof. Three of the non-voting Senators have voted pro-Second Amendment rights in the past . . .

From opencarry.org, here is some history:

 Mike Parson Rep Voted for nulification bill
Bob Dixon Rep Voted previously to overide veto of nullification bill
Kiki Curls Dem anti-gunner
Mike Cunningham Rep Co sponsor of previous pro-firearm bills

Two senate seats are empty. Empty seats are a bone of contention with the legislature. Some legislators are saying that Democrat Governor Jay Nixon’s failure to quickly call elections – votes that would likely go against his party – for empty seats is one of three offenses for which he should be impeached.

Here is a summary of the reforms in Senate Bill 656, from the NRAILA:

  • Allows the open carrying of firearms in all localities with a carry permit.  Some localities currently have ordinances that ban open carrying of firearms, even by those with a valid carry permit.
  • Allows a school district to designate a teacher or administrator to qualify as a school protection officer and carry a firearm on school property with the proper training. Current law already allows a school district to allow those with a concealed carry permit to carry a firearm on school property – this would allow school personnel to undergo extensive police training.
  • States that no law shall require health care professionals to inquire about a patient’s ownership or possession of firearms and prohibits the documentation of such information into a database.
  • Reduces the age from 21 to 19 for those wishing to apply for a concealed carry permit.
  • Allows someone to qualify for a concealed carry permit using a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, rather than having to qualify with each firearm.
  • Requires one instructor for every forty people for the classroom portion of a firearms safety training course.  Current law allows only forty people per classroom regardless of the number of instructors present.
  • Specifies that no public housing authority shall prohibit a lessee or a member of the lessee’s immediate household or guest from personally possessing firearms within an individual residence, common areas, or from carrying or transporting firearms to and from such residence in a manner allowed by law.

The bill is still sitting on Nixon’s desk. He has three options. The fourth listed below does not apply because SB656 is not an appropriation bill.

VII. SIGNING BY THE GOVERNOR

Bills Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed are signed in open session by the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem of the Senate. At the time of signing, any members may file written objections which are sent with the bill to the Governor. The Governor has fifteen days to act on a bill if it is sent to him during the legislative session; and forty-five days if the legislature has adjourned or has recessed for a thirty day period. The Governor has four options:

1. Sign the bill, making it become part of Missouri law. 2. Veto the bill. In this case, the bill is returned to the General Assembly where a two-thirds vote of both houses is required to override the veto.
3. Not sign the bill. Should the Governor take no action within the prescribed time, the bill goes to the Secretary of State, who then enrolls the bill as an authentic act. It then becomes law.

4. Veto line-items in an appropriation bill. On appropriation bills only, the Governor may choose to veto selected items within the bill. The General Assembly may override this veto by a two-thirds majority of both houses.

Because the legislature isn’t in session, the Governor has 45 days to decide on what action he wishes to take. By my calculation, that would be the 18th or 19th of July.

The NRAILA listed this phone number and the email contact system for the Governor.

Governor Jay Nixon:
(573) 751-3222
E-mail

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch

34 Responses to MO Governor Nixon Mulls Gun Law Reform Bill

    • He is a Nixon after all. Regardless if there’s any relation to the guy that had concentration camps built in Colorado for political dissidents.

  1. I have a feeling his veto will be over run and he will be impeached (remember impeachment means put on trial, not necessarily found guilty)
    Impeachment is a long process for anyone, and voting against the vast majority of state legislature might be enough to get support for it.

    • Vetoing a bill is not an impeachable offense. In fact, it is not an offense at all. Making it an offense would nullify the veto power granted by the state constitution.

      • “Some legislators are saying that Democrat Governor Jay Nixon’s failure to quickly call elections – votes that would likely go against party – for empty seats is one of three offenses for which he should be impeached.”
        I never said vetoing was impeachable, but it may make other legislators realize that impeachment is a reasonable option.

      • Impeachment isn’t really a court-like proceeding against a politician for some offense.

        It is really a political act by a legislature. If a legislature deems the political acts by an executive to reach the threshold necessary to start the process, they’ll gin up some charges to make it appear nice and legal.

        • The two parties have no interest in upsetting the apple cart like that. Look what happened to the Republican party after the Clinton impeachment.

    • Gov. Nixon was re-elected in 2012 with 55% of the vote, in a state carried by Romney with 54% of the vote. In 2008, Nixon first won the Governorship also with 55% of the vote, while McCain carried the state in a squeaker with a mere 49.4% vs. Obama’s 49.2%.

      Factor in that Nixon was in private practice for only five years in the early 1980s after graduating from law school, and has since without interruption been a state senator, state attorney general, and now governor, and you have a guy who knows his way around MO politics.

      He’ll do whatever he wants and figures the voters will be on his side.

    • I bet MO law does indeed allow for pocket vetoes, but remember what that actually is. That’s when the executive neither signs nor formally vetoes the bill and the legislature then adjourns during the period the executive which the executive may still take action.

      In this case, the legislature may just still be in session, so that even if he doesn’t formally veto the bill, his inaction would result in the bill become law. In other words, if you prefer a football analogy, he may have less time on the play clock than the legislature does on the game clock, so he’ll even have to take a snap or lose the down. He can’t just run out both clocks without running a play of any kind.

      • remember what that actually is. That’s when the executive neither signs nor formally vetoes the bill and the legislature then adjourns during the period the executive which the executive may still take action.

        Yes, and I thought the legislature adjourned.

    • Good. Pocket vetos are for crappy, scared little politicians. If you want it vetoed, veto it and stand by your decision, don’t pigeonhole it and hope people forget.

    • It would appear Danny is correct.

      3. Not sign the bill. Should the Governor take no action within the prescribed time, the bill goes to the Secretary of State, who then enrolls the bill as an authentic act. It then becomes law.

    • having worked with and bred snakes (colubrids, constrictors of all sizes, hots, etc) for many years I second this… One point of contention though:
      “trust” is not really appropriate. I “understand” snakes. I understand how they work, and I can quickly figure out an individual, but they can’t really be trusted. It’s more of an “evil you know” kinda situation, if you catch my drift.

  2. This is probably a lose-lose situation for him. If he vetoes the bill, thers is a good chance that the State legislature will produce enough votes to override it after all. If he doesn’t sign it at all, it still becomes law. There is essentially very little chance that he can avoid this bill becoming law on his watch, and his constituents will hate him for it however it happens. They will likely call for his impeachment if the legislature doesn’t do it first.

    • The bill refers to the CCW permit. There is not a separate permit for open carry, and don’t give them any ideas!

      Missouri is an open carry state (sans permit), but some municipalities prohibit it. This bill would allow permit-holders to ignore those prohibitions.

  3. One state at a time. The pols are getting the message. We are millions, we are the majority and we are paying attention.

  4. Mr Weingarten forgot to mention that there is an Aug 5 general vote re amending MO Constitution essentially to make gun laws subject to strict scrutiny. Bloomy’s folks tried to get the election tossed b/c of a challenge to the wording. A judge ruled against them. Ergo, if Nixon vetoes the 656 bill, he will guarantee pissed off voters showing up august 5th also voting against dems down the ballot. Hence, he probably will just do nothing and let it become law

  5. When MO. passed its CCW Law back in 2004, the Law was in turmoil until the Missouri Supreme Court ruled in its favor validating its constitutionality–Nixon was the MO. State Attorney General and only enforced the CCW Law when the MO. SC mandated such. Like most Dems he is an Anti…That said, I think the MO Legislature will garner the necessary votes to over-ride any Nixon veto. Missouri has been a Red State now for some time (Romney carried The Show Me State) and is only closely contested because of the huge urban cities of ST. Louis and KC, MO. The rest of the State is solid Republican now and forever.

    • It’s always a little strange that these bills always seem to be an offset-after-the-fact. Here’s a link from FOX News today about a gun-grab if mental health issues are suspected. CT and IL cited as being two states after Sandy Hook to sanction police confiscation of an individual’s firearms pending a 14 day hearing (which with their current due-process backlog = the latter of 6 years or the death of the individual in question.)
      http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/06/states-look-to-gun-seizure-law-after-mass-killings/

      We instead need legislation that allows for a citizen to temporarily term-limit some power-crazed citizen (a/k/a “a duly elected official”) who suggests stupid stuff like this, pending a 14 day hearing.

      If the government (a member of “We the People”) tells you that they cannot protect you until you give up the means with which you can protect yourselves (especially against them, elected-psycho-dogooders), only the first part of their statement is true. Tell them they are ineffective and to pack their gear and go home and sleep it off, you will return their power to them after the appropriate hearing. The U.S. government (in light of incidences such as this) shifts from a march towards irrelevancy to a sprint. Keep your guns for the end of America [no one could guaranty it won’t be today, or tomorrow and it would be wrongful for them to do so] so that you have a vote in what comes next. That is the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment. (TERMS, J.M.Thomas R., 2012)

      • Sorry, I should have said ‘the return of such confiscated weapons only occurring after a hearing in 14 days’

  6. “States that no law shall require health care professionals to inquire about a patient’s ownership or possession of firearms and prohibits the documentation of such information into a database.”

    This is Federal law, yet the information is still being recorded.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *