Setback for Missouri Concealed Carry

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:00:00 GMT
From kaba:
"I would rather be thought a radical by the timid than a softy by the strong." -- Angel Shamaya - Editor-In-Chief - cartoon commentary on the source of those letters from the soldiers in Iraq. Hehe.

John Ross - Spoke Too Soon, or Never Underestimate the Mendacity of Your Political Enemies - Mr. Ross was joyful about Missouri's new concealed carry law in his last article. Well, a judge was convinced to put a restraining order on the new law, so they don't have concealed carry in Missouri yet. He's optimistic that the courts will sort it out.

A few days before this date, a varied group of anti-carry individuals filed a motion for a temporary injunction to hold up the implementation of Missouri's License-To-Carry law. The judge told them they did not have standing in the case, sothey got the Sheriff of the City of St. Louis to join them. They listed a bunch of imaginative reasons: 1) The law was "vague;" 2) A referendum was held four years ago on a similar issue, so the legislature didn't have the right to take the matter up again (I'm not making this stuff up); 3) The law violated the prohibition on unfunded mandates (other states turn a profit on $25 licenses but Missouri will apparently lose money on a $100 one); and best of all, that the License-To-Carry law was unconstitutional. The strategy of these people seems to have been to throw a bunch of mud and see what sticks.

At 4:00 PM St. Louis City judge Steve Ohmer dismissed the first three claims in clear, confident language. Then I watched as he fumbled for his water pitcher, seemed to think better of the idea, put it aside, licked his lips, and looked very nervous. "Watch the body language," my friend sitting next to me said. "He's about to violate his oath of office." My friend was spot-on. The fix was in. Judge Ohmer said that his ten-year-old could see that the new law was in contradiction to Missouri's Constitution. He granted the temporary injunction to stop the law from taking effect in St. Louis, and set a date for briefs and arguments two weeks hence to make the injunction permanent.

Tillie Fong at Rocky Mountain News - Gun activist accused of threatening judge - Rick Stanley's arrest gets some press in Denver. [smith2004]

A Denver gun advocate has been arrested on charges that he threatened a Thornton judge who sentenced him to jail on a dangerous weapon conviction.

Rick Stanley, 49, was being held without bond Monday at Adams County Jail on a police hold from Thornton. He faces two felony counts of attempting to influence a public official.

A Denver SWAT unit - along with officers from Denver police, the FBI, the Adams County Sheriff's Office and Thornton police - were involved in arresting Stanley at his home Saturday.

I wrote the following letter to the editor of the SUNY Brockport Stylus, in response to this editorial (will likely move here next week).

Paul Rusin asked me to respond to the editorial in the October 22 edition of The Stylus, "Weapons unnecessary to feel safe at SUNY Brockport". The right to life is one of my major issues, so, even though I live way across the state east of Albany, I feel moved to honor his request.

Guess what? you can have all the rules about firearms ownership that you want. No one with bad intent will care. They will carry and use whatever weapons they want whenever and wherever they want. If you are not armed, you will not be able to do anything about it. A personal weapon, e.g. a handgun, is an emergency tool, like a fire extinguisher. You don't need it very often, and you hope you'll never need it, but if you do, you will need it right now, and your life may depend on it. Why would you deny honest, peaceful people the ability to defend their lives and the lives of those they love?

L. Neil Smith is one of my favorite science fiction and political writers. He wrote an essay a while back entitled, "Why Did It Have to be ... Guns" (go ahead, Google it). His real political focus is individual liberty, but this essay says why he talks so much about guns. The following excerpt also highlights what I think is the real meaning of the second amendment's "shall not be infringed."

"Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

"If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

"If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

"What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?"

Bill St. Clair

I started a Kel-Tec Sub2000 Resources page, for links about my new toy. Not much there yet. If you have something to add, please send it along to the address at the bottom of this page.

Add comment Edit post Add post