Democrat Governor Jay Nixon can choose to sign a symbolic veto of pro-liberty gun laws in Missouri, but the fact remains that the legislature has veto-proof majorities ensuring that a raft of new self-defense laws will soon go into effect.
Getting a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Missouri is a pretty straightforward process.
Applicants have to complete a gun safety training class and pass a criminal background check performed by the local sheriff. With a clean record and no history of mental illness, a permit must be issued.
But a bill sitting on Gov. Jay Nixon’s desk would make that system moot for many Missourians by eliminating the requirement to get a permit to legally walk around in public with concealed guns. The penalty for carrying a firearm into buildings where it is not allowed would be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor.
The wide-ranging legislation, which was approved by Missouri lawmakers in the final hours of the 2016 legislative session, would also implement a so-called stand your ground law that says people no longer have a duty to try to retreat before using lethal force if they think their life is in danger.
It would also expand the castle doctrine to permit invited guests in a home to use deadly force on intruders. And for those who still want to get a concealed-carry permit, the bill creates a lifetime version that never expires.
Anti-gun Democrats (and indeed, the Kansas City Star reporter covering the story) can’t hide their disdain for the revisions to Missouri’s self-defense laws. They’re claiming, as they always do, that ensuring law-abiding citizens have their right to self-defense protected from overzealous prosecutors will lead to “a return of the wild west,” that “blood will flow in the streets,” etc.
The thing is, none of the provisions in this law are new or novel. They’ve all been proven in other states.
Fully a fifth of the nation already has “constitutional” or permitless carry, and it has not lead to an increase in shootings anywhere it’s been implemented.
Half the states in the nation have a version of “stand your ground laws,” which merely mean that someone under deadly force attack can defend themselves anywhere they may legally be, without having to turn their back an attempt to retreat, which would increase their likelihood of getting killed or injured. Despite incredibly dishonest attempts by the mainstream media and gun control supporters, “stand your ground” laws does not give people a right to to hunt down other people, and played no part at all in the trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of drug-abusing illegal gun trafficker Trayvon Martin.
The expansion of castle doctrine merely means that a guest in your home can also legally help defend it if you’re under attack from violent criminals.
These are the very definition of “common sense gun laws,” if your definition of common sense is ensuring that law-abiding citizens are protected under the law if they are forced to defend themselves against violent criminals.
Of course, most left-leaning journalists have a completely different definition of “common sense gun laws,” which only make sense if you favor legislating firearms out of existence.