Missouri capitol guns moms demand action Governor Parson
courtesy stltoday.com and Robert Cohen
Previous Post
Next Post

Mike Parson became Governor of Missouri in June when scandal-plagued Eric Greitens resigned. Missouri’s one of the most firearms-friendly states in the nation, having enacted constitutional carry in 2017.

But Greitens, a former Navy SEAL who famously shot an SBR and a minigun in a couple of campaign spots, prevented concealed carry permit holders from entering the capitol building almost as soon as he took office. The ban only lasted about a month as Greitens came under heavy criticism for the move from House and Senate Republicans as well as gun rights groups.

Now Governor Parson wants to make the policy allowing concealed carry in the people’s house official policy . . .

Gov. Mike Parson’s administration is poised to make it official: Visitors can bring guns into the Missouri Capitol if they have a concealed carry permit.

Nearly two years after Parson’s predecessor, Eric Greitens, temporarily barred most visitors and employees from bringing concealed firearms into the Capitol, Parson’s administration has proposed a rule change that would make it clear that guns are allowed, as long as they are not brought into the House or Senate chambers or into committee meetings.

Parson has a long pro-gun history.

The change by Parson is not a surprise. As a former sheriff from Polk County, he has received perfect or near-perfect ratings from the National Rifle Association.

As a legislator, Parson co-sponsored an expansion of Missouri’s “castle doctrine” law, which allows individuals to use deadly force in defense of their homes.

Members of Moms Demand Action expressed outrage and horror at the proposed move right on cue.

An estimated 200 members of the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America also called on members of the House and Senate to reject the changes.

Yes, well states like Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota allow guns in their capitol buildings. Texas has long allowed concealed (and now open) carry in its capitol, too. Which only seems just since the rights of the people aren’t suspended just because they enter the seat of government. Or they shouldn’t be anyway.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Yes, well states like Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota allow guns in their capitol buildings.

    And there have been precisely ZERO irresponsible/criminal uses of firearms (negligent discharges, robberies, assaults, murders, terrorist attacks, and spree killings) in those capitol buildings.

    • will prevail until something negative happens…think about how our senators were chased around and harassed during the confirmation hearings…..

      • Ah, but would those chasing and harrassing the Senators been so cavalier about it if our congress critters were legal to carry in DC? Would the incidents of harrassment be reduced, or would the frothing at the mouth damn dem progressive socialists continue?

      • No- I believe the fact that more than a few states allow carry within their
        Statehouses is an indicator that many states are able to do much better for their citizens than a large, unmoving bureaucratic centralized government “somewhere way out there” where most of will never go.

    • When I was with Washington State, they had forms and information for employees that covered EVERYTHING you could imagine. Chewing gum, shooting a spit wad, you name it. Everything a person could possibly do was covered except carrying a firearm. That was totally bypassed.

  2. In 1968, California BANNED open carry of loaded firearms in all urban areas of the state after the Black Panthers had an armed protest IN the Capitol building. As I understand it, the Legislators were absolutely terrified by the incident, and Governor Reagan was more than happy to prevent a repeat. It has only gotten worse since then. The only saving grace has been that notwithstanding the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm, a majority of the counties are shall issue, and a few more are issue with reasonable good cause.

    • In researching my 2A education paper for teaching children about their gun civil rights, I found that the Mulford Act had republican opposition. Not every republican agreed with Gov Reagan. Several republicans who were members of the John Birch Society spoke up against the bill on the state senate floor. State senator John G Schmitz, member of the John Birch Society, spoke out in favor of the black Panthers constitutional right to openly carry loaded guns.

      It has been interesting learning who supports gun rights for black people. John Birch Society members. And those who don’t. Like Tom Ammiano the proud open homosexual white man and law maker who wrote the law making rape victims and everyone else wait up to ten days longer to get gun.

      “Firearm Education: Teaching the Second Amendment in Kentucky school system grades K through 12”

      • Chris, lots of Republicans didn’t like much of what Reagan did – especially as Pres.

        One of our worst Presidents with respect to gun rights, not to mention growing gov’t, and the founder of the just-double-the-National-Debt-they’ll-never-notice-we’re-kicking-the-can-down-the-road club.

    • Mark N.,

      “… the Legislators were absolutely terrified by the incident …”

      And that was the Second Amendment working EXACTLY as intended.

      When bureaucrats and legislators act righteously/justly, they do not have to worry about an armed populace.

  3. Unfortunately, a weasel named Terry McCauliffe issues an executive order banning firearms in our state buildings in VA. The old fool that succeeded him, Ralph Northam, isnt interested in changing that.

  4. “Members of Moms Demand Action expressed outrage and horror at the proposed move right on cue.”

    Nah, looks more like resting _itch face to me. Maybe they are missing their daily dose of daytime tv.

    “Outrage and horror” seems like the media’s incorrect antonym for “thoughts and prayers”

    • These women are like puppets who strings are being pulled by others with not-so-hidden agendas. As long as they get to play dress up and others are paying for them to them to have “fun” they see nothing wrong with it. Yet there are thousands of gun laws in the U.S. and they couldn’t name ten of them if their lives depended on it. They expect to protest and someone will magically wiggle their nose and come up with the “perfect” law that they can take credit for! This would “prove” they are good moms!

  5. We carry (legally) in the Iowa Statehouse. I’ve known many of the service personell at the metal detectors and ask every time I enter if they’ve ever had an issue with it. Always the same answer- “NO”.

    A week or so before the Nov midterms I was standing with our governor and Senator Grassley at the kick off of her final capaign tour with my trusty Glock 43 on board and no one the wiser. I know it wouldn’t have bothered either had they known.

    More curiously, however, most counties don’t allow carrying in their court houses. We’ve got some work to do there.

    BTW- we are also legal in bars and the like up until we hit .08 BAC. If we are “found out” in an establishment that has “no firearms” signage we are still fine with the world unless we would refuse to leave if asked. Great state.

  6. I’m probably in the minority in this particular issue, but I really don’t see an issue with courthouses and Capitol buildings being gun free zones. We use the adage “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy” to defend our right to defend ourselves. In the case of Capitols and courts, there are police standing post specifically to prevent violence. Also, politics and court cases are sensitive issues that stir people to violence more often than others. In this age of Antifa terrorism, I could totally see people carrying into a Capitol building for the purpose of gunning down pro-Trump legislators (baseball shooting, anyone?).

    I must repeat myself for clarity: the only reason why I think a carry ban in such places is tenable is because of the 24/7 police presence there. If it weren’t for the presence of armed guards, I would default to the position that everyone has the right and responsibility to defend themselves.

    • In some areas of the nation, there is no longer a bailiff inside the courtroom. It just depends on the caseload.

      In some situations, a gun-free zone is exactly as stated, as there is not the presence of armed personnel on site.

    • Don’t forget too, it’s not necessarily a need to be armed while there, but while going to/from your vehicle, or public transportation.

      • I believe in Arizona they have a system where you turn in your gun, they put it in secure storage, and then give it back when you’re done with your business.

  7. You mean “pro people?” Really, if you consider most people peaceful and responsible, they’re worth defending, capable of defending themselves, and can be trusted with the means to do so.

    I stand corrected. Powerful weapons should maybe be excluded from every place where people who can’t be trusted tend to collect, like government buildings, for example.

  8. If these Moms were home, teaching their children to be respectful well behaved “normal” citizens and not whining one way little snots trying to restrict rights of law abiding folks ,this world could be a better place. Could it be guilt on moms consciences for failing to teach their own kids to act morally and resolve differences peacefully? Just a thought.

  9. Vote to keep Parson in office. Republicans dropped the ball in the last Congressional race. In MO we don’t want to make the same mistake. At least we got our left wing Senator out of office.

Comments are closed.