Breaking: Missouri Governor Nixon Vetoes Constitutional Carry

Governor Jay Nixon (courtesy

“Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed Senate Bill 656, which would have eliminated the current requirements that individuals must obtain training, education, a background check and a permit in order to carry a concealed firearm in Missouri,” reports. “The bill would have allowed individuals, including those from other states, to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they have been denied a permit because their background check revealed criminal offenses or caused the sheriff to believe they posed a danger.” Well that’s one way of putting it. Judging from his statement, Governor Nixon would certainly agree with that assessment.

“Here in Missouri, responsible gun ownership and support for the Second Amendment are strongly held values. These values are part of who we are, and a tradition we pass from generation to generation. As governor, I have signed bills to expand the rights of law-abiding Missourians to carry concealed and am always willing to consider ways to further improve our CCW process. But I cannot support the extreme step of throwing out that process entirely, eliminating sensible protections like background checks and training requirements, and taking away the ability of sheriffs to protect their communities.”

Meanwhile states with Constitutional carry are experiencing none of those issues. Go figure. Not much figuring required to understand why the Missouri Police Chiefs Association and the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police opposed Constitutional Carry. Respect my authoritey!

In a letter to the Governor, Missouri Fraternal Order of Police President Kevin Ahlbrand wrote, “Make no mistake, we are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. We feel, however, that the enactment of SB 656, specifically the allowance of giving anyone not currently prohibited from possessing a firearms, the ability to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, will cost not only citizen lives but will also be extremely dangerous to law enforcement officers.”

“The Missouri Police Chiefs Association is concerned for the safety of citizens and officers, through the loss of the balance that has existed in Missouri relating to the carrying of concealed weapons for the past several years, and the language in SB 656 that will even allow those persons convicted of crimes to use a verdict that includes a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) to legally carry a concealed weapon,” said MPCA President Chief Paul Williams. “During a time that balanced approaches and solutions are needed more than ever to face increasing challenges, there is no need to create an imbalance, and potentially decrease the safety of citizens and police officers alike, through such a profound change in Missouri’s concealed carry law, which has served this state well over the past several years.”

Maybe Mo can get this done with a Republican Governor. Or . . . a legislative override? Watch this space.


  1. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    It was only “permitless carry” Possible veto override in September.

  2. avatar Vhyrus says:

    Quick everyone! Vote more republicans in!

    1. avatar pg2 says:


    2. avatar mark s. says:

      Follow West Virginias example , override the veto folks and if you don’t have enough votes the first time , go to the poles and vote in some gun friendly folks and bring it back next session . Luckily WV only needs a 51 vote to override and we got it done the second time around .
      Mountaineers are ‘ really ‘ free .
      We should add the ‘ really ‘ to our motto .

  3. avatar Baldwin says:

    If you don’t abide by your oath to our constitution, you should be fired.

    1. avatar Bryce with Defensive Resources says:

      Unfortunately, the Missouri governor is mostly elected by KC and STL. And Springfield (Missouri’s third largest city now), is increasingly becoming more liberal by the year.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        STL? But I thought convicted felons couldn’t vote? 😉

        I loved Missouri. Sadly, it’s economy hasn’t been the best in a long time. 🙁

        1. avatar Bryce with Defensive Resources says:

          Recently it’s been run by Unions via Governor Nixon…

          He vetoed the “right to work” bill, and 3 days later received a campaign contribution from united labor union….make sense of that one

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          Makes sense to me, Bryce. Union mafioso don’t pay the hit man until after the kill is proven.

        3. avatar 16V says:

          As much as I am no fan of union abuses, the fact of the matter is if you turn “right to work” you pretty much have a “right to starve and live like an animal”.

          People live just great on $12 an hour, which was sub-shit money that I wouldn’t have gotten out of bed for in the late ’80s. Nobody could afford to raise a family on it then, and 40 years later they certainly can’t.

          Like unions or not, they raise the wage for all people in their industry and geographic area.

        4. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          @16V Um, no. Unions do none of those things anymore. They are almost entirely anachronistic these days. After having worked in unions, next to unions, and now right to work states, I’ll take the third option anyday, everyday. No dues, same wage, and no BS rules to play games with. All unions do these days is collect dues, pour money into liberal campaign funds (mainly larger unions do this), strongarm workers who just want to work and make a living, and generally dump on everyone. Their time has long since past.

        5. avatar Martin Gomez says:

          Unions do little except scare off jobs and lobby for mass immigration in the hopes of recruiting those unskilled, uneducated workers. They push for $15 minimum wage (with union exemptions, of course) to make free market labor more expensive than union labor. Then when employers lay off, they abandon the victims. Public sector unions organize against the American people and should be illegal. Unions have never been much more than the nexus between organized crime and socialism.

          You cannot force employers to pay more than they’re able to, especially in a globalized economy. Immigration control should be enforced to protect the supply of workers so that everyone can get a job and so no one comes here who is not self-supporting, but the market should set the wage. Otherwise, employers will simply choose cheap foreign labor, automation, or moving to another country, respectively.

          It’s infinitely better to have two workers each earning $7.50/hr than to have one worker earning $15/hr and the other on being paid (welfare) to sit at home and not produce anything (other than more welfare babies). The unions lobbying for maximum pay and minimum productivity simply causes employers to lobby for more cheap, disposable, welfare-subsidized foreign labor that never leave and flood the country with angry, hungry mouths to feed. Unions created unfree trade and scared off all the good jobs, then spend all their time lobbying to scare off everyone else’s jobs. All in the name of “income fairness.”

      2. avatar Tommy Gribble says:

        Jay Nixxon must be a tree hugger and must not care about the constitution and for what it stands for.He needs to look at what the constitution says you know the right to keep and bear arms if he can’t go with that get the hell out of the office

    2. avatar Publius says:

      Fired, fined, and imprisoned.

  4. avatar Bob316 says:

    So, the governor of Missouri is essentially saying he does not trust Missouri citizens to carry responsibly, and that people from states like mine, Arizona, where the predictions of doom-and-gloom did not come true, are more responsible and trustworthy than those in Missouri. Wow! If I were a Missourian, I would be talking impeachment.

  5. avatar John L. says:

    Any chance of a veto override?

    1. avatar Rick says:

      Yes, a pretty good chance it will be overridden, which is a nice thing to do to the prog as a gift to him as he leaves office.

    2. avatar SouthernPhantom says:

      It will be overridden. The veto was symbolic and nothing more.

  6. avatar Bryce with Defensive Resources says:

    Nixon has never been a Pro-gun or Pro-freedom governor. This veto really shouldn’t surprise anyone.

    To the bill itself:

    It was worded horribly. It NEVER did anything they said it was going to. There’s a list of 17 places mentioned specifically in the law that you are not allowed to carry in. If you have a CCW permit, they must ask you to leave BEFORE calling LEO. The only way you can get a ticket or arrested is if you refuse to leave.

    Under the bill that was vetoed, without a permit, you could be arrested on the spot without any request to leave (in those 17 places). Of course, if you had a permit, they would still have to ask you to leave. The new bill really only allowed you to concealed carry in areas it was already legal to open carry.

    Media coverage of the bill and it’s accomplishments has been horrific at best. The override has a chance, but last time they passed a “veto-proof” pro-gun bill, it missed the override by 1 vote.

  7. avatar Mark N. says:

    While I understand the concern that Constitutional Carry might allow convicts from other states to “legally” carry concealed firearms in Missouri, the fact of the matter is that if the individual is a prohibited person due to a conviction elsewhere, that prohibition applies in Missouri as well. Hence, although that person would not be guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, he or she could be convicted of illegal possession of a firearm–just like it is now. Thus, Con Carry does not increase the risk of harm: cons are going to (illegally) carry whether is is Con Carry or not. All ConCarry does is eliminate an additional charge that could be brought if someone is arrested.

  8. “Make no mistake, we are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment. We feel, however, that the enactment of SB 656, specifically the allowance of giving anyone not currently prohibited from possessing a firearms, the ability to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, will cost not only citizen lives but will also be extremely dangerous to law enforcement officers.”

    “I support the 2nd amendment, however…”
    Well then you don’t really!

    And what a bunch scare tactic hyperbole!

    1. avatar peirsonb says:

      “I support the 2nd amendment, however…”
      Well then you don’t really!

      This isn’t always true. As in:

      I support the second amendment, however this ass hat has clearly never read it.

  9. avatar formerwaterwalker says:

    Oh well not surprisingly that po-lice opposed this. Gotta’ get home safe. I sudder to think of the seismic manifestions of this in my next door state of Illinois (hey Chiraq blames Indiana for all their gang shootings). You’d think after Ferguson them white boys would want MORE armed folks…

    1. avatar Bryce with Defensive Resources says:

      CCW permits are controlled by the county sheriff’s office. They get $100 a pop for new applications and $50 a pop for 5 year renewals.

      Hmm….. pro-2nd amendment or pro-money…seems obvious to me where they stand.

  10. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Certain aspects of this are understandable, politically speaking. He needs to hear the concerns and play nice-nice with the movers and shakers in Kansas City and St. Louis. Both large urban areas with large urban problems.

    Still, I think if he had any gonads he would have challenged the Police Chiefs and the FOP to provide evidence to support their claims.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    I was totally flabbergasted to discover that Gov. Nixon, who vetoed Constitutional Carry, is a Democrat. A Democrat against the Constitution! Who woulda thunk it?


    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Demrats gotta libtard.

  12. avatar Keystone says:

    Someone’s going to be out of a job next election.

    1. avatar nate says:

      He is not up for reelection because he is term-limited.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Nixon is term limited.

    3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      So… to all you supporters of term limits, this is what you get: A politician who is a lame duck for four years and does whatever the hell he wants, knowing he won’t have to answer for it in the next election.

      1. avatar scott says:

        Sounds like the Dems from Crook County, with no term limit in place. Looking at you Mike Madigan, John Cullerton.

  13. avatar JasonM says:

    “The bill would have allowed individuals to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they have been denied a permit because their background check revealed criminal offenses or caused the sheriff to believe they posed a danger.”

    I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure it’s not legal in Missouri for a person whose background check would reveal “criminal offenses” (felony convictions?) to so much as hold a firearm, so it wouldn’t be legal under that law to carry one concealed.
    Also, Missouri is a shall issue state, so the sheriff’s beliefs should have about as much influence on the approval as Bloomberg’s.

    But hey, why let pesky things like facts get in the way of a good narrative?

  14. avatar ready,fire,aim says:


  15. avatar Joe R. says:


    If you are a liberal, progressive, communist, then you are the problem.

    Your governor does not trust you MO, we don’t trust you either, For no $, or other consideration, your governor took away your Constitutional right(s).

  16. avatar The Trouble with Timbo says:

    His assertion that he can GIVE us more rights tells you all you need to know about his understanding or misunderstanding of the Constitution

  17. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Nixon Now! Nixon’s the one!

  18. avatar JB Karns says:

    Another collectivist Oath-breaker.

    This particular exemplar shows an utter lack of understanding, or at least an utter lack of respect for, what is a ‘Right’ vs what is a govt-granted, govt-controlled ‘privilege’.

    This collectivist-gerbil is factually unqualified to remain in any elected or appointed govt office.

  19. avatar MIkial says:

    Just another elected public servant refusing to actually represent and support the wishes of the people he’s supposed to serve.

  20. avatar Rick says:

    Here’s my shocked face O_o that Jaybo vetoed this bill. Our rep, Eric Burlison, who spearheaded the bill, is pretty sure that the veto proof majority in both houses will vote to override. I hope so, cause Nixon has done this to us way more than enough. Glad he’s term limited and won’t be able to run again, although his protege, Chris Koster, another prog dem is running. There are several really good candidates on the Republican side and we’ll choose one in August. Unfortunately, we have murder inc along the Miss/Mo confluence and KC on the other side of the state, and I’m sad to say you’re right Bryce, Springfield is trending more and more left, and I’ll be damned if I can figure out why. It’s like a virus that continues to spread and will eventually, if not stopped somehow, kill off the host. I live just outside Springfield and will be moving from this trending left to just outside a very left area of the state, just outside Jefferson City. Crap, crap, crap.

  21. avatar Rlc3 says:

    Oddly enough, even MSNBC readers disagree with Nixon….92% support open carry.

    Hit it, and pass it along…

  22. avatar Roger Cain says:

    Thank God I moved out of that sh-t hole of a state. Nixon is a punk, pure a simple.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Compared to Illinois, Missouri is a freedom lover’s paradise.

      1. avatar 16V says:

        The Mississippi has been referred to as “The Iron Curtain” since I was a child in the early ’70s.

        We’re it not for junkyards and strip clubs, I’d be across the water about once every 10 years, or when someone dies. And I was born in Chicago.

  23. avatar Bob R says:

    No “democrat” would ever approve such a bill.

  24. avatar Brick Rivers says:

    The Legislature made a point after passing it that his signature was pointless… they have more than enough votes to override him. Interesting fact: Jay Nixon is the most overridden governor in the history of Missouri. Twenty or thirty some times?

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Veto-proof majority kinda helps that metric.

      I’m not a fan of the bill as it doesn’t go far enough and has very sloppy wording. That said, it’ll be law in a few months.

  25. avatar LHW says:

    What a tricky Dick.

  26. avatar David Z says:

    Thank god there is one sane politician in my state. Thank you Jay Nixon, who by the way is pro second amendment, but he’s also reasonable about limits.

    1. avatar cjstl says:

      Yup, a lot of these posters have no idea what they’re talking about. Nixon is one of the most conservative Democrats I’ve ever seen. I voted for him twice, and he’s only made me shake my head once or twice in eight years. Plus, as someone else mentioned, some of our Republican senators and reps are notorious for pushing very poorly-written, ill-conceived legislation that could do more harm than good. I’d rather have a permit that kept me out of trouble than an open carry law with loopholes that could be exploited to cause me legal woes. I also happen to know a local police chief, who is very conservative and pro 2A, and he is against this piece of junk.

  27. avatar PeterK says:

    I’m still mad this happened in Utah. Hope it passes both places eventually.

  28. avatar Libertarian says:

    To bad the droped the bus/train legalizing and campus carry from bill so it only lowerd the bus felony to misdeamor in that form to same level for train carry ……….
    It s the same ironic as 2014, same bill number and on end override too thats the game.

    50 Dollar in Bitcoins from me that s so end !

  29. avatar Raul Ybarra says:

    It will be settled before a new governor takes over. The expectation is that it will be overturned in the veto session of the legislature due in Sep. All Nixon did was delay the inevitable. I’m seriously considering ditching Illinois and moving to the Missouri side the of the river. Might get me a shorter commute to work, actually.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email