In May the Missouri legislature passed an omnibus gun legislation reform bill, SB 656, on the last day of the session. While widely heralded as a permitless or “constitutional carry” bill, there were several other notable features. From the NRA-ILA, if signed into law, the bill would:
- Recognize Missourians right to Constitutional/Permitless Carry where open carry is not prohibited
- Expand Missouri’s current Stand your Ground laws
- Expand Castle Doctrine protections for anyone legally allowed into your home, vehicle, business and property
- Specify that except for credit card fees incurred, no additional fee beyond $100 may be charged to process concealed carry permits and allows military members extra time to renew their permits
- Implement 10, 20 and 50 year options for non-reciprocity issued permits
- Allow components of firearm training for RTC permits to be online
Governor Nixon vetoed SB 656 on June 27, on the last day that it was expected for him to do so. The chances for a veto override, however, are very good. Two years ago, another omnibus firearms law reform bill was also vetoed. It was numbered SB 656. The legislature overrode that veto on September 11th 2014.
The likely Democrat nominee for the governor, Attorney General Chris Koster, has recognized that reality. He says that he would have signed SB 656, and that it’s a good reform bill.
Missouri Democrats face an uphill fight to sustain Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill eliminating training requirements to carry a concealed firearm.
Same goes for another bill Nixon vetoed that would require voters to provide a government-issued photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot.
Complicating their efforts is the fact that their all-but-certain nominee for governor supports both bills.
Attorney General Chris Koster, who faces only token opposition in the Aug. 2 Democratic primary to replace term-limited Nixon, said he saw no reason to veto the wide-ranging gun bill.
Koster, running as a pro-Second Amendment, pro-union, centrist Democrat in an increasingly red state, is probably a good strategy, especially in this “outsider” election year.
I have said that if the Democrats would truly embrace the Second Amendment, they would win far more elections. People who are passionate about protecting the rights of an armed population outnumber those who wish the population disarmed many times over. Fifty years ago, serious support for the Second Amendment was a popular Democrat position. If the they lose this November, it may become popular with them again.
Idaho, Mississippi and West Virginia that have passed similar legislation in 2016. The other constitutional carry states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming.
©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Ah, I long for the day when the entire map is green.
Hopefully in our life time
The 2A should make all states green, and even remove the necessity for a map differentiating the states, unfortunately we know how easily the constitution is subverted.
Keep dreaming. California and New York are never going to allow it.
Yet another reason to split up the state. sooooooo much of it is conservative and Pro 2-A, but ya can’t do anything when 2 metropolitan districts and Sacramento county have 100% control of everything.
If you turned off the federal money to them they would be constitutional carry next morning…… those blood suckling syphilis ridden leeches know where their bread is buttered
To be honest, many of the states listed as may issue are actually no issue (MD, NJ, HI, etc) and several others are no issue depending on location (NY, CA). It’s getting better and worse at the same time.
I was also thinking along those lines. In MA, it depends on your town and PD. In RI, it’s supposed to be “shall issue” but some towns pull some BS. (One town staffer told an applicant that she couldn’t find the form and even if she did, there was no assigned staffer to process it.)
Its the way of the burrocrat…
Can we make it a darker shade of green? I find that neon is too close to the yellow, and it now looks like we are somehow losing ground in the US 😉
the map is a bit misleading. Many of those blue states allow open carry without a permit, and require a permit for CC only.
And again, Dean, you lose all credibility in asserting that Wyoming is constitutional carry.
It’s not, unless you are a Wyoming resident.
Look at the bottom of page 1: http://handgunlaw.us/states/wyoming.pdf
Well, permitless open carry for anyone (resident or not) is still a heck of a lot better than many states.
It certainly is. But it is NOT constitutional carry, and it’s downright dishonest of Dean to tout it as “constitutional carry” when he’s been called on it several times.
I have not seen a single case where an out of state resident was charged for carry without a permit. It probably will not happen, because such a case would almost certainly fail in court, on equal protection grounds. I understand your point. I simply do not believe it is valid in any significant way.
My suspicion is that no one has raised a test case, because they cannot find anyone who is willing to make such a charge.
There’s a similar case here in Colorado; we have a mag capacity restriction that no one bothers to enforce it. That doesn’t mean we don’t have gun retailers who follow it, out of state vendors who won’t ship to Colorado, and so on.
And if I go to Wyoming and decide to cover up, I’ll have my CO permit with me.
The fact that no case has been brought under this law doesn’t mean the law is not constraining behavior; it certainly is intended to, or they’d just have blanket repealed the requirement for a permit. I wouldn’t be surprised if at one point some bad actor gets arrested and violation gets tacked on as “throw the book at him” charge. (It has happened once or twice in the case of our otherwise-unenforced mag restriction here.) It may be a while though; out-of-staters carrying concealed without a permit–whilst committing some other heinous crime that would tempt an LEO to throw the book–is probably pretty rare in WY. Which just suggests that perhaps we really DON’T know how an officer would react if he actually caught an out of stater CCing with no permit. He’d probably shrug in some areas of the state (such as where Mama Liberty lives) but along I-80 where the populace is somewhat more (il)liberal?
Yep. The dems have missed a huge opportunity to gut the support of the gop by harshing out on guns.
But now, how would the dems ever earn the gun owners trust? Baby steps. Drop all moves for gun control. Condemn bloomie, soros and hillary. And push thru a bill in DC tomorrow to make constitutional carry the law of the land.
Yep. Simple baby steps.
If condemn involves a wall and a last cigarette (or as libtards joint).
If the dumbocrats support gun rights I still will never vote for one. There are a few “good” dems in Illinois but none anywhere near where I live. Downstate Illinois hunting country. SEE: National platform.
I would imagine that if “the dumbocrats” as a whole supported gun rights…they’d change what it says in their platform. (A few might, in which case your point would stand, but no one would describe that as “the dumbocrats support gun rights,” more like “some rare dumbocrats support gun rights.”)
It’s not going to happen, so it’s not really an issue.
And If …….
In practice many of the “yellow” states should be red. If you aren’t connected / haven’t bought a politician or two you aren’t going to get a carry license in HI or NJ and NYC is as bad or worse. We really need Congress to force all states to accept carry license reciprocity, just like a drivers license.
In other words, “may issue” amounts to “won’t issue.”
Reciprocity is a red herring.
Arguing for reciprocity is arguing that the States, and the federal government, do in fact have the right to infringe on “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”
Any permission slip, fee, or training regulation is a violation of the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms, as in “…shall not be infringed.”
I have to disagree. 2A only protects the right to keep and bear arms. Thanks to the militia clause, it doesn’t protect the process of obtaining arms. It doesn’t even take a skilled attorney to argue the meaning of a well-regulated militia. Regulation can take many forms – licensing, training, regular weapons inspections – those are just a few. Since a re-write of 2A is highly unlikely, and probably wouldn’t go our way in the current political climate, we need to focus our attention on obtaining a favorable interpretation of “well-regulated” and get those laws passed at the federal level.
Grammatically the Militia Clause has no bearing upon the Right. The Right preexists the 2nd Amendment and the Militia clause is not a grant of power to the Federal government.
When the Founders penned “well-regulated” it meant basically “in proper working order” – it had precisely sweet FA to do with “rules and regulations”.
You need to read the majority opinion in Heller. Even though the SCOTUS was wrong in their belief that some regulation of firearms somehow does not “infringe”, their analysis of the “Well regulated militia” clause was masterful and spot-on.
As noted above, the “Militia clause” is not the operative portion of the amendment, it is a statement of WHY the amendment is important. As in: A healthy breakfast being necessary to well-being, the right of the people to eat Wheaties, shall not be infringed.
“It doesn’t even take a skilled attorney to argue the meaning of a well-regulated militia. Regulation can take many forms – licensing, training, regular weapons inspections – those are just a few.”
But it does take a basic knowledge of history. In the 2nd Amendment, the word “regulated” has absolutely, positively, NOTHING–zero, zilch, nada, none–to do with “regulations”, “laws”, “licensing”, or [required] “training”.
What it does mean is left as an exercise to the reader, for their own edification.
It is just such a position that will ensure the death of gun rights. No Constitutional provision is worth the parchment it’s penned on if a strong majority (60%) will not insist upon it’s being observed. That’s simply a fact of political life. The Right-to-remain-Silent is now deeply engrained in our culture and it is that – not a SCOTUS ruling – that serves as its bedrock.
What we need to work on is to get an increasing percentage of Americans comfortable with guns. That will happen with 50+1 jurisdiction acceptance of the Right-to-Carry. When the people of NJ, MD, CA, HI etc. become accustomed to knowing that 10 – 20 – 30% of the people around them are carrying concealed then the 2A will have established itself just as the 5A and other Constitutional rights (e.g., voting).
What are our prospects if we insist on holding our breath until the last of 20,000 gun laws are stricken from the books? We will turn blue; and the major population centers’ blue-blooded voters will turn the tide against us.
National Reciprocity is, IMO, THE critical step to breaking the Antis’ cause.
First, Congress doesn’t force states to recognize each other’s driver’s licenses. That’s a voluntary agreement among states called the Driver License Compact (DLC). States already have it within their power to recognize each other’s carry licenses. Some choose not to, for whatever reasons, which is their prerogative. What? You don’t believe in state’s rights? Or you do, but only when states do what you want, and if not, you want to bash them over the head with Congressional action? Shame on you.
If Congress imposed national reciprocity if carry licenses, you’d regret it. They’d load it up with so many restrictions and it’d take so many “compromises” to get it passed, that the benefits would be unrecognizable and useless, while the drawbacks would be ever present and painful.
My guess, they’d stick us with “universal background checks”, aka, a ban on private sales of firearms and a national firearm registry. Those are precursors to confiscation. Thanks a lot! Think I’m wrong, that the government wouldn’t use national reciprocity as a vehicle for further firearm infringements? Ok, answer me this:
Why is there a DLC? Why do states even recognize each other’s driver licenses? It’s so they can report back to each other your tickets and accidents incurred in each other’s states. That’s right, ut used to be that a ticket out of state had to be paid (or else you’d have a warrant out for you there), but it didn’t affect your points and driving record back home, and thus your insurance rates. Also, accidents and tickets you have in foreign countries, where you have no due process rights, go on your home state driving record, too, thanks to DLC.
Reciprocity of driver licenses, by desire and design, functions to limit your rights and suppress your freedom, not expand it. Now you think they’ll give you national carry reciprocity and just leave it at that, with all goodies and no screw-yous???
You have a LOT to learn about how people in power operate. Hopefully, you’ll learn that on your own time and your naiveté won’t screw us all in the process.
Drivers license reciprocity existed for decades before states began agreeing to assess points for violations out of state–in fact, I’m pretty sure that’s only happening amongst some groups of states. Insurance companies have, so far as I know, never given a damn where your accident or ticket occurred. That’s appropriate, because they’re insuring you, not your state, and if you were a reckless ass in Tennessee one time, it should make no difference that you live in Arizona.
It’s already the case that you lose CCW “privileges” due to violations in another state, especially if those violations are felonies. It’d certainly be lovely if I didn’t lose my CCW because I did something in New Jersey that was legal in Colorado (such as having an unopened box of hollowpoint ammo in my car), but they don’t make distinctions like that.
This is patently racist legislation and dovetails into a 5 year strategy to deny the 2nd amendment to folks in Kansas City and Saint Louis without singling out black folks. Plausible deniability and all that.
Our mayor in Kc, after a whole state history of unregulated open carry without incident, outlawed open carry in kc right before amendment 5 was passed. This wasd so that when it was passed, he would have the ability to regulate it. It is now tied to the requirement to posses a ccw in order to legally open carry. This, combined with a high fee and a 6-10 month wait time to even apply for a permit and another 6-12 month processing time frame makes both concealed and open carry nearly impossible for the truly poor and a huge pain in the ass for those of us with the means and time.
And fuck the special carve outs too.
Koster is a pro-Second Amendment, pro-union, centrist Democrat? I think I just fell into a time warp and emerged in 1956.
I grew up in MO and my Dad was involved in politics there as a conservative independent. The kind of Democrats you’re talking about still exist in MO. Keep in mind the whole state, except for the St. Louis and KC areas, tend to be conservative, but also tend to be blue-collar. If you’re not pro-gun, you don’t stand a chance in most of the state, but you also have to be pro-union and pro-farm subsidies.
So the state-wide offices always get won by liberal Democrats, because of population density of STL and KC, but the legislature is filled with Republicans and at least centrist Democrats.
Democrats are becoming increasingly sketchy in Missouri. The Socialist disease is spreading. The one Democrat who voted for permitless carry is rumored to be unwilling to vote against the Democrat Governor.’s veto.
This is Missouri, friend. The only way a liberal Dem wins a statewide election is if her opponent says something epically stupid, like God would never allow a woman to get pregnant from “legitimate” rape.
I thought Missouri’s liberal Dems spent years challenging Illinois’ liberal Dems for the honor of being the only no-issue state left in the country, finally to lose in 2007.
Wisconsin and Illinois were the last two holdouts with no permit system whatsoever. Wisconsin flipped to “blue” (on Dean’s map) with gusto. Illinois had to be dragged there, kicking and screaming, by a federal judge.
MO got permits in 2003. I got mine in 2005.
The former SEAL (R, duh) just won the primary, so I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it’s a safe bet….
You mean the “R” who endorsed the liberal Democrat Mayor of St. Louis?
Huh? Last I checked, Slay wasn’t seeking re-election, he’s stepping down when this term is over. So how would Greitens (or anyone else) ‘endorse’ him – other than to say he certainly isn’t the worst mayor in STL history.
The other constitutional carry states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming.
Unless something has changed that I’m unaware of, arkansas is only quasi constitution carry. I believe awhile back the arkansas ag said unlicensed open carry is not technically forbidden, but I don’t think there has been a test case. I don’t know anyone who does it.
As in Nevada, the legal concept being, “That which is not prohibited is allowed.” Unless you’re a shady looking character in North Las Vegas, then all bets are off.
Yea! Now if those D(umb) F(*#%’in) L(iberals) in the state to my north would adopt constitutional carry…
‘I have said that if the Democrats would truly embrace the Second Amendment, they would win far more elections.’
You’re asking a lot of a bunch of Mensheviks. How are they supposed to advance the cause of the proletariat if the bourgeoisie are allowed to keep their arms?
If Missouri enacts Constitutional carry and we could get Nebraska to do the same, a person could drive from the Gulf of Mexico all the way to Canada diagonally across the United States with a concealed handgun and not need any license/permit. How cool would that be?!?!?
Or not according to SteveInCO’s comment above about Wyoming. (Party pooper.)
Then what the hell will you do with your gun, once you get to Canada?
I would prefer a “sea to shining sea” type of map.
Nor in Missouri. You misunderstand this legislation.
-this is in response to uncommon-sense.
The headline should have the word “veto” in it.
I clicked on the article expecting to find that the reforms were going to be overturned.
Yes, the wording is misleading, just didn’t say what it meant to.
“If the they lose this November, it may become popular with them again.”
Not likely. No matter how many times they lose elections by focusing too much on guns (as Bill Clinton has been warning anyone who will listen since 1994), they’ll just keep doubling down. The Democrat party of 2016 isn’t the Democrat Party of 1952. Modern liberals have spent too much time and effort brainwashing each other about how evil guns are to back off now.
If there’s one thing today’s “progressives” absolutely cannot do, it’s admit that any of their beliefs might be in any way flawed.
This isn’t constitutional carry folks. Kc and stl both regulate open carry so you must have a permit to carry (maybe other cites too). Period. This was a scheme to keep the major metrolitan areas unarmed (black folks in particular) while leaving the rural areas open. This has been the plan all along. It is a form of gun control and leaves many doors open for the long game of civil disarmament. Its a trojan horse.
If in future the maxium restriction for any public place white open carry choose for any non abc load weapons is the blue standart you can be lucky but this is utopia 🙁
“I have said that if the Democrats would truly embrace the Second Amendment…”
Not to state the obvious but the chances of the aforementioned actually happening when the Democrat Party is led by Communists like BHO, Clinton, Sanders, Pelosi, Pocahontas, Sanders etc. are about as good as that very same Party subscribing not only to the Second Amendment but the Bill of Rights and Constitution at large…Traditional America is an anathema to the Democrat Party and as BHO clearly stated while running for POTUS in 2008, they seek a ‘Fundamental Change’ in America including changed in our traditions and values forcing us “Hicks” to stop clinging to our guns and bibles…The day of expecting the democrat Party to swing towards the center are over as that boat sailed long ago in the 60’s…
Illinois is not a “shall issue” state de facto. ANY cop from ANY jurisdiction can object to the CCL application (for free, doesn’t cost them anything) and your app. is sent to the newly created Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board:
“There is hereby created within the Department of State Police a Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board to consider ANY objection to an applicant’s eligibility to obtain a license under this Act submitted by a law enforcement agency…” Translation- every cop you ever met can object, if he feels like it, and hold up your application. There are thousands of citizens in Illinois fighting the cops and the licensing board with no help from the NRA or the state affiliate ISRA. But that’s the whole point, the lawyers make money.
Check out the resumes of the licensing board members:
“The Board shall consist of: one commissioner with at least 5 years of service as a federal judge; 2 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience serving as an attorney with the United States Department of Justice; 3 commissioners with at least 5 years of experience as a federal agent or employee with investigative experience or duties related to criminal justice under the United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, or Federal Bureau of Investigation; and one member with at least 5 years of experience as a licensed physician or clinical psychologist with expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness.”
Now there’s a pro-gun group! Feds, lawyers and a shrink! The open ended privacy waiver that NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde threw in the original 2013 bill will come in handy when they access your private medical records. What do you expect from the lobbyist who fought to keep Duty to Inform IN the “NRA backed” carry bill?
As we speak, Vandermyde is pushing a bill to legalize suppressors in Illinois. That helps the corporations increase sales, and isn’t that what NRA, Inc. really is all about- money? How much do Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham pay Vandermyde for this “work?” It must be great to have a job where his supposed superiors are 800 miles away and don’t really care if he sells out the Consitutional rights of 12 million people in Illinois, plus anyone else unfortunate enough to pass through.
Ah, I see you have returned.
Oh, just shut the fuck up already.
In the HELLER case, the Court did not say that some gun laws were constitutional. What the Court said was that since they only considered the limited area of laws in Washington, DC and not even all DC gun laws.
They issued a warning that until those laws in all 50 States were examined, those laws would still be enforced.
It is a strength and a weakness that our Justices do not examine and rule on all possible effects of the laws. They look at limited and they are limited to review and they do not have the power to write laws.
There are cases where the courts have written laws, activist courts, and this is a problem that the voters must control.
But voters seem to interested in TV game shows or ball sports and elect people who often have plans to expand their power and object to teh idea of a Bill of Rights.