The state of Missouri has come a long way. I remember friends living there talking about getting a permit to purchase and having to wait for a few days before buying a firearm.
Now, this is a state that tried to nullify all gun control laws. It's a beautiful thing to see, especially as so many other states try to head in the opposite direction. But as Missouri tries to expand gun rights further, they're meeting opposition, and that opposition makes some stupid arguments.
First, let's look at the measure that would address the current exception to preemption, which is that municipalities can restrict open carry to some degree. St. Louis bars open carry without a permit and has done so since 2023.
Moms Demand Action, aptly named to disguise the anti-Second Amendment group behind the broken record of emotionally charged monikers masquerading as public safety organizations, sent volunteer Mary Gross to testify against the Constitutional rights of Americans at a hearing earlier this month.
“Consider the county where the bill sponsor lives, Stone County, has a population density of 70 people per square mile… St. Louis city has a population density of 5,000 people per square mile,” Gross spouted about.
I wasn’t aware there is a population density clause in the Bill of Rights, Mary, but I’d love for you to point that out when you have a moment. I’ll wait. She went on to express concerns about SB 74 interfering with local autonomy, a curious prioritization as she expressed no concern for interfering with the Second Amendment.
Funny, isn't it?
Let's note that Moms Demand Action folks never seem to blink at restricting gun rights for those living in places with a lower population density. Gross seems to acknowledge that the two areas are different and face different needs, yet she and her fellow "Moms" can't resist imposing gun control on those other parts of a given state.
Plus, as Nercesian notes, it's bad enough trying to keep track of what the gun laws are across state lines. It'll be a hundred times worse trying to keep them straight across city limits, county borders, etc.
Then there is the bill that would change state law so that there's a presumption of innocence in a self-defense shooting.
Leftist opposition to the measure wasted no time jumping on the opportunity to make outlandish claims, including some members of the law enforcement and judicial community (you know which ones) who deployed their predictable hyperbole in stating the bill would allow murder without consequence.
“All you have to do is say, someone threatened me, and now I can kill them… This is not the state or the method to make murder legal,” said Parke Stevens from the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
I wonder if he said that with a straight face. I’m kidding; these guys are excellent at lying and masking their contempt for Americans’ rights without flinching.
Even the Missouri chapter of the NAACP came out of the woodwork, not to be left behind when foolishness abounds, as Sharon Geuea testified in opposition to the bill, using the case of Ralph Yarl, a 16-year-old shot in Kansas City after ringing the wrong doorbell in 2023. What she left out, however, was that the shooter, Andrew Lester, was indicted and pleaded guilty to the shooting.
Bingo.
And before someone tries to claim that the law in question would have changed that, let's not forget the case in Clearwater, Florida where a man named Michael Drejka tried to claim he was afraid for his life and shot a man, only to be convicted of manslaughter because there was no legitimate threat.
See, this is a common claim, but keep in mind that all this does is put a presumption of innocence in place in self-defense shootings just like exists with literally every other charge. It doesn't mean that prosecution can't happen if there's evidence that the claim is bogus--and yes, that evidence can be found in cases where it's not a legitimate self-defense shooting.
This basic idea exists in numerous states, and guess what? People get convicted of murder all the time.
At its core, this is just the current version of the "the streets will run red with blood" argument so many of us have heard for decades whenever a new bill comes about that would restore gun rights. Despite all of the claims, though, it never comes to pass. That's because it's absolutely bogus.
These activists have to use fear because they know on some level that it's really all they have.
We're just not falling for it.
Tom Knighton is a Navy veteran, a former newspaperman, a novelist, and a blogger and lifetime shooter. He lives with his family in Southwest Georgia. He also puts out a daily newsletter of non-Second Amendment stories at https://tomknighton.substack.com/ and on YouTube.
