Missouri: The Shoot-Me State – The New York Times
Missouri Republicans just stripped law enforcement of necessary authority and allowed people to forgo a gun permit or training.
I mean what could go wrong?
"The law will let citizens carry concealed weapons in public without a state gun permit, criminal background check or firearms training. It strips local law enforcement of its current authority to deny firearms to those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals. And it establishes a dangerous “stand your ground” standard that will allow gun owners to shoot and claim self-defense based on their own sense of feeling threatened."
Keith Simonian says
You hear the NRA whine about reasonable gun control ( back ground checks, permit for concealed weapons ) but they seem to have no problem with unreasonable gun ownership. What could possibly go wrong with everybody carrying a concealed weapon?
George Rapko says
Nothing. It won't change a thing.
Monkey Me says
This is about as bad as the federal government dumping class 3 weapons in Chicago's poorest areas to fuel gun violence their.
George Rapko says
+Keith Simonian unreasonable gun ownership? What does that mean?
Paul Spoerry says
um… those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals? Is it reasonable to sell them a firearm or allow them to carry one, openly, without a permit?
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry If it's not, make the penalty for those crimes a loss of that right, but don't just leave it up to a random Sheriff dept. to strip that right.
Steve Vance says
Missouri, the new Florida just all shooty and shit.
Paul Spoerry says
+George Rapko but this new law allows them. It's nothing to do with current rights, it expands it to even those guilty of domestic violence and to other high-risk individuals. But you know… 'Murica! PEW PEW PEW
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry please explain how this law would give people guilty of domestic violence the legal authorization to carry a weapon.
Paul Spoerry says
+George Rapko Feel free to actually READ the link.
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry oh, I read the link. Why don't you read my previous comment? If the state wishes to make domestic violence a reason to restrict the right to carry, they should make the penalty for domestic violence the restriction on that right.
Paul Spoerry says
Maybe you don't read to good. Prior to this law they woul dhave been denied a permit to carry. Because of this law they can. "…it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check."
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry maybe you don't understand so good. The state can restrict those rights with a change in the sentencing for those specific crimes that the state believes warrants that punishment.
Paul Spoerry says
Of course they could but they didn't.
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry but at least they make the law clear.
Paul Spoerry says
I have no idea what that last comment is supposed to mean.
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry that different crimes warrant different punishments and the legislative branch of that state should be the body that defines those punishments. That's not a difficult thing to comprehend.
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry Hell, after reading some of Missouri's gun laws, no a person who is convicted of a felony cannot now carry because of this law change.
Paul Spoerry says
sigh I never said felony. Additionally, domestic violence is not always classified as a felony.
George Rapko says
+Paul Spoerry sigh federal law already prohibits someone convicted of dv from carrying a weapon.