[buddhafabio]

here in missouri they just made it legal to conceal a weapon. now we all know you need a permit. but i was wondering if it was right of the government of missouri to pass this law if we the voters voted it down in 2000.

now some people may be shocked that i brought this up. being that i am conservitive and was a supporter of the concealed gun vote in 2000. (still support it) but if it was voted down by the people in missouri. why force it on them?

[angelize56]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuters) - Missouri lawmakers on Thursday overrode a veto by Gov. Bob Holden and passed a measure allowing citizens in the Midwestern state to carry concealed guns.

The Republican-controlled state Senate voted 23-10 to override the veto the Democratic governor issued earlier this year. On Wednesday, the House voted 115-43 in favor of the override.

The measure, set to become law in 30 days, makes Missouri the 45th state to grant people permits to carry concealed guns on their bodies and in their vehicles.

Applicants must be at least 23 years old, undergo training and pass a background check.

The National Rifle Association hailed the vote.

"Governor Holden's indifference on the issue of self-defense and the right of Missourians to protect themselves and their loved ones outside of the home was careless," NRA lobbyist Chris Cox said in a statement. "The big winners today are the law-abiding citizens who will reap the benefit of this Right-to-Carry law."

Missouri has fought over concealed weapons for years, putting the issue in front of voters in a statewide referendum in 1999.

It marked the first time in the United States the issue had been put before voters directly. It failed, with urban opponents outnumbering largely rural supporters.

Holden cited the referendum and declared he was following the will of the people in issuing the veto.

[Sarge]

I see it like this. Criminals will be criminals (believe me I know>south bronx native). Those who are law-abiding are the ones who are hurting by these gun law restrictions. The criminals are already concealing their weapons. The criminals do not have to wait an extra 90 days to get their firearms. The criminals dont get fingerprinted. The criminals dont show I.D. The criminals dont worry about automatic weapons laws. If I was a theif, robber, assaulter, kidnapper, etc., I might think twice before committing one of these acts if I knew the possibilities of one of my victims carrying a weapon has increased.

[AlbertB]

Or I might just be a little quicker on the trigger just in case he is now?

[Davey7549]

Very interesting since Wisconsin is going through this at this very moment.

Here are Two Snippets form the article link posted below about Missouri law........

Remember there is a loophole that allows local law enforcement to deny anyone a permit who might be suspected of “negative behavior”. And who’s to say that later on the majority of the state could be legislated into one big “ No-Safe Zone” rendering the concealed weapons legislation useless ?

Seems there is a great deal of control there but why would the government agencies override the general populations thoughts?
Maybe the next snippet from the article sheds some light......

There is also the issue of the “fees” it would take to get the permit in the first place. This concealed weapons legislation could best be summed up as a gun tax that law abiding citizens are forced to pay while complying with forced registration. In my opinion it is unconstitutional and it is just one more example of how the Democrats and the Republicans both work together when it comes to issues of freedom and Constitutional law. If the Republicans are able to override the Governor’s veto what will Missouri residents gain? The government will gain much. They will have the name ,addresses and fingerprints of all the gun owners of Missouri, just in case they ever change their mind about a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

Quoted from this article.

Dave

[Wino]

now some people may be shocked that i brought this up. being that i am conservitive and was a supporter of the concealed gun vote in 2000. (still support it) but if it was voted down by the people in missouri. why force it on them?

No one is forcing anyone to carry a weapon, they have a choice, as it should be.

[Wino]

There is also the issue of the “fees” it would take to get the permit in the first place. This concealed weapons legislation could best be summed up as a gun tax that law abiding citizens are forced to pay while complying with forced registration. In my opinion it is unconstitutional and it is just one more example of how the Democrats and the Republicans both work together when it comes to issues of freedom and Constitutional law. If the Republicans are able to override the Governor’s veto what will Missouri residents gain? The government will gain much. They will have the name ,addresses and fingerprints of all the gun owners of Missouri, just in case they ever change their mind about a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

Precisely why my concealed weapon is carried without a permit. I'll take my chances with the police catching me versus a criminal any time.

[Rockn]

They passed the same law in Minnesota earlier this year except I believe ours was voted in. All the liberals started screaming saying that there would be a major leap in crime statistics amoung other problems like firearms in public places. None of the above have materialized of course. Still kind of odd to me that they would deny a law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a firearm but almost endorse a criminals right to carry one. Just some more twisted logic.

[buddhafabio]

now some people may be shocked that i brought this up. being that i am conservitive and was a supporter of the concealed gun vote in 2000. (still support it) but if it was voted down by the people in missouri. why force it on them?

i was just stating that the majority voted no on this issue. it should have stayed a no vote in the legislature. i feel this even though i support the issue and feel the same way as the other posters. i think if they wanted it passed so bad after it was voted down in 2000 they should have included it in november elections. (it isnt a major election it would have passed)

[twotugs]

Looks like I have to make good on my oath to move to Kansas now. Why would I wish to continue to live in a state that can't respect the will of its citizens?

Ah, well, I can throw a rock over the state line from my apartment. At least it'll be an easy move.

[CyBerAliEn]

Unfortunately... the bad people who are going to use the guns for the wrong reasons are going to have and use weapons (concealed or not) regardless of whether it is legal or not.

Restrictions on guns, as has already been pointed out, only hurt the people who abide by the law.

Irregardless that the people voted it down nearly 3-4 years ago (being it was 2000 then and is nearly 2004, now believe it or not), apparently the congress of your state has now decided that it is time to legalize it.

[angelize56]

Missouri's state motto is "Salus populi suprema lex esto". (Latin, "Let the good of the people be the supreme law") Hmmmmm!

Being a Missouri resident, I can tell you that the good ol' boys in the Ozarks, want to carry concealed weapons. There's more rural property in Missouri, than there is anything else. Of the 2 large cities, Saint Louis and Kansas City, (we can toss Jefferson City in the mix too) I can see why they would vote "No", but, you see, they are not the majority of this state, the rural towns are. I'm of the opinion that the good ol' boys got to someone... hence, it's now legal.

It's like this... In this part of the country, it's not what you know, but who you know. Truly.

[lisaa7002]

ok sarge then lets TELL the criminals we're carrying, but don't actually do it! The more idiots u have out there with guns the more likely someone is to get hurt.
Yeah the right to bear arms, but I think you should have some mental evaluation first if your are allowed to carry in public.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by lisaa7002:
The more idiots u have out there with guns the more likely someone is to get hurt.

i totally agree with you but like it was pointed out earlier, the criminals are going to carry concealed weapons regardless of the law (that is why they are criminals). These laws will only hurt the law-abiding citizens, criminals will still have guns.

Originally posted by lisaa7002:
Yeah the right to bear arms, but I think you should have some mental evaluation first if your are allowed to carry in public.

I somewhat agree with you here also. Maybe like an optomology test