Missouri to Legalize Concealed Carry Without Permit

I recently learned of this bill passed by the Missouri House of Representatives which would nullify the statues which criminalize concealed carry, making it legal to concealed carry without a permit in the state of Missouri. The Missouri Senate is next in line to vote on the bill, and should they favor it as the House overwhelmingly did, and should the governor not veto it, then the citizens of Missouri will find themselves more free and safe. I was excited when I heard this, and so I decided to tell my senator what I thought, especially since he's a democrat who's never made himself very clear to me where he stands on the issue of gun rights. This is my email to Senator Joseph Keaveny:

I've just heard about the victory in the Missouri House for a state-wide legalization of concealed carry without a permit. As a holder of a CCW endorsement myself, and as a member of a family of firearm owners, I welcome this advancement toward the cause of freedom, as does my family. Criminals will purchase and carry firearms whether they're allowed to or not, because they're criminals, and criminals commit crimes. In a city which routinely ranks in the top ten most dangerous, the right to carry adequate protection is an important freedom, particularly here. When one of your constituents are faced with the aggression of a criminal, their victimization is usually long completed by the time SLMPD arrives to aid them, and that's why the CCW was so important. To value the safety and wellbeing of ones constituents is also to value their right to an armed defense.

You undoubtedly remember that when the CCW came to Saint Louis, our city spoke loudly in protest, nearly shouting "the end is neigh" with the myriad claims of a coming civil catastrophe and "blood running through the streets." When the Missouri CCW was passed into law in 2003, the murder rate dropped from 111 in 2002 to 73 in 2003, and robberies fell from 2818 to 2303. Our overall crime rate has also dropped, including in comparison to the US average. In 2002 we scored 1165 in comparison, and in 2013, the last year in which data is available to me, we scored 790 in comparison. It's always been a fact that standing in a room full of armed law-abiding citizens is a much safer position than to stand among a pack of disarmed prey. After the CCW passed, criminals were less confident when faced with the threat of an increasingly armed citizenry, which lead to them being more reluctant to perpetrate their victimization.

It would've helped nobody but the criminals to obstruct the passing of CCW in 2003, and the same can be said for the efforts represented by HB 1468 today. As we presently stand, acquiring a CCW is a privilege only allowed to those who have both the time and money to afford one, because the process through which one gets one is both superfluous and costly. One's already required to submit themselves for a background check when purchasing a firearm, and even if that wasn't the case, one would still be unlawfully carrying a firearm under the same conditions which would result in a denial of their endorsement. If a police officer were to encounter a citizen in possession of a firearm, they would could run their information for reasons to suspect they shouldn't be in possession of it, regardless of whether or not they're an endorsement holder. In that case the CCW represents a backup to a backup to a backup. In that case everyone's just wasting their time, and your constituent was needlessly inconvenienced along the process. After all, the same people who can't legally obtain the endorsement and are persuaded not to concealed carry without an one are the same people who wouldn't carry because they know they're not legally permitted own a firearm, or to possess a firearm at that particular place. It doesn't make sense, especially when the "training" required to obtain the endorsement is expensive, time consuming, and less than meaningful.

The people don't need to spend $125 to sit in class for two days reading over the same single page of information. Nor do they need to step onto a range in order to demonstrate that they're capable of, at least most of the time, hitting a stationary sheet of paper a few feet in front of their noses, with a caliber far less powerful than what they're actually likely to carry. Nor do they need to spend another $90 to have their background checked again at the police station, and yet another $40 every time they renew the permit. Nothing about the process of obtaining a CCW makes sense, and that's without even discussing the constitutionality of "infringing" on the people's "right to keep" (own) "and bear" (be presently in possession of) "arms" in the first place. The people should always be afforded the right to an adequate defense, and that right should never have been one required to be bought and paid for before being allocated to them. I've no doubt that future generations will look back on the CCW of today and think similarly of it as the present generation perceives the right to vote being only been extended to land owners, as existed at the time of the founding of our nation. For the benefit of your constituents and all Missouri residents, I urge you to help our state take the next step on the long path to freedom ahead. Permit us the right to a free and adequate self defense. Free us of this fee for freedom.

So that's how I feel. I wonder how Senator Keaveny feels. I hope he feels compelled to aid in the expansion of liberty in our country where freedom is an increasingly rare thing.

Good luck with that. Nixon will veto.

Then it's a matter of whether or not the legislature can override him. They've been able to in the past on a few matters, so they might manage it with this.

Well this should go over real well in the high crime areas of St Louis and Kansas City.

Although those areas might already be "conceal carry".

a reply to: ketsuko
That he may. The Desoto Democrat is well known for his wish to outright ban semiautomatic weapons. As I explained in my message to Senator Keaveny, it really makes absolutely no logical sense to oppose this bill, even if one's not a supporter of Second Amendment and gun ownership in general. This wouldn't allow anyone to carry a firearm who wouldn't otherwise be qualified for one of the current CCW permits. It's simply conducive of a more free society, while simultaneously layers of superfluous red-tape which stands to benefit no one but CCW instructors. Nixon has never been much of a visionary or a leader either, so I imagine he'll not contemplate the matter further than what best suits his own private interests. His performance in Ferguson is demonstrative of that.


This issue seems a popular one at the moment though. If the Missouri Senate sends the bill to his desk, I imagine there'll a great deal of public support for it. The fact that Desoto's representative is supportive would seem to indicate that his home district is as well, and the fact that an overwhelming majority of the House voted in favor of the bill would suggest that Missouri supports it. I think this might have more chance than one might initially suspect.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well this should go over real well in the high crime areas of St Louis and Kansas City.

Although those areas might already be "conceal carry".

All of Missouri already has a concealed carry permit. This bill is about legalizing concealed carry in general, in order that the citizens no longer need to put themselves through the hassle and expense of obtaining and renewing one. I also perceive it as a step in the direction of state-wide open carry. Saint Louis, however, wasn't very supportive of the CCW permit when it came into being though. Big cities usually aren't, especially those with higher crime rates, strangely enough. Cities are of course usually liberal-leaning, and liberals aren't known for their support of gun rights.

Mayor James has been all over anti-gun rhetoric. I don't think much of his constituency listens to him though. We either are pro-gun rights or the other side simply carries illegally.

a reply to: ketsuko
Which makes otherwise law-abiding citizens criminals for their efforts to ensure their ability to adequately defend themselves. Jailing people who've hurt no one, and who wanted only to ensure no one hurt them. In that, Sly James breeds crime, because he's created crime by practically arbitrarily making criminals of the people who's entrusted them with his leadership and service. That can be said of any politician supportive of victimless crime - the only victim is the "criminal." This is why people are routinely locked away in cages in America just for smoking a plant. Truth be told though, if Kansas City were to become a true democracy tomorrow, they would still not vote away all victimless crime. They're conditioned and misguided, just as the politicians which they elect are.


It's a shame when a man willingly dominates and oppresses the people who he's supposed to be looking out for, and its an even greater shame when the people willingly vote for their own domination and oppression.

a reply to: Navarro

Eh, he can't tick us off too badly. He wants a new airport and we all have to vote on that. The idea is currently not at all popular with anyone, so if he wants it, he'll need to keep us all happy and try to con us into voting yes. Gun measures would not be a good way to start that dialogue.

a reply to: Navarro

It'd be nice if more states took this to heart.

I feel that CnC licenses are an infringement anyway.

If the rioting , burning and looting ever starts again , maybe there will be a "quick" end to it.Or , better yet, it will never happen again

a reply to: Gothmog

People are already exercising the option of "school choice" in higher education and Mizzou is paying the price.

It's interesting how no one reports on the effects the student body temper tantrum is having on their reputation.

This passionate backlash doesn’t appear to have been a bluff. Already, freshman enrollment is down 25 percent, leaving a $32 million funding gap and forcing the closure of four dorms. The month after the protests, donations to the athletic department were a mere $191,000 — down 72 percent over the same period a year earlier. Overall fundraising also took a big hit.

I think if the concealed carry thing were an option all over, rioting would be a short, sweet thing if it takes place in the wrong place.

a reply to: Navarro

It boils down to whats the point? I am a licensed concealed carrier for years now. And I assure you...the whole time? The f'in (sorry) lowlifes walkin' down my streets WITHOUT permits...are carrying.

So its a draw(sorry again...no pun intended). But, fine. It would be absolutely better if this comes to pass that everyone takes some responsibility of learning proper gun safety and defense.

Problem with this...is that we're just arming everyone. Shove it in their purses or pants and off to church, games, schools and election booths.

That is scary. At least us licensed legal CPL/CCW holders have had SOME required training in safety, usage, legalities and storage.

originally posted by: Navarro

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well this should go over real well in the high crime areas of St Louis and Kansas City.

Although those areas might already be "conceal carry".

All of Missouri already has a concealed carry permit. This bill is about legalizing concealed carry in general, in order that the citizens no longer need to put themselves through the hassle and expense of obtaining and renewing one. I also perceive it as a step in the direction of state-wide open carry. Saint Louis, however, wasn't very supportive of the CCW permit when it came into being though. Big cities usually aren't, especially those with higher crime rates, strangely enough. Cities are of course usually liberal-leaning, and liberals aren't known for their support of gun rights.

I am not opposed to the second amendment, however, I do like the idea of CCW permits needing to be renewed. My son open carries most of the time in the state, but I do like the idea of licenses being renewed. I know it is a pain in the behind, but we might catch a few crazies.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Navarro

It boils down to whats the point? I am a licensed concealed carrier for years now. And I assure you...the whole time? The f'in (sorry) lowlifes walkin' down my streets WITHOUT permits...are carrying.

So its a draw(sorry again...no pun intended). But, fine. It would be absolutely better if this comes to pass that everyone takes some responsibility of learning proper gun safety and defense.

Problem with this...is that we're just arming everyone. Shove it in their purses or pants and off to church, games, schools and election booths.

That is scary. At least us licensed legal CPL/CCW holders have had SOME required training in safety, usage, legalities and storage.

As a former Infantryman of the US Army and as a former law enforcement officer of several years, I can tell you without a moments hesitation that the training required to obtain a CCW is meaningless to the point of being laughable. When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not you know "to always treat a gun as though its loaded," the basics of weapon maintenance/cleaning, how many feet away one must remain from a school while concealed carrying, or whether or not you in fact spent your whole fifteen minutes on the range firing a heavy 6"+ barrel 22LR double action revolver from the cocked position at a stationary target five or teen feet away from you while taking your time. You've learned nothing of significance, and you're just as dangerous with your weapons as someone who's never received any of that training at CCW school.

While it isn't my intention to be harsh, that is the reality. We should be encouraging extensive personal training, not that - and I've seen statistics which show that most CCW holders never fire a weapon again after their CCW course. There's absolutely nothing more to be concerned about from those who've never received any CCW training compared to those who have. Besides, the fact of the matter is that the Constitution already gives us the right "to keep and to bear arms" and also guarantees that under no circumstances shall the right being "infringed." This could not have been stated any more clearly, and it's the Constitution of the United States, the highest law of the land. It doesn't meaningfully alter their degree of safety or accuracy to take those courses, and the Constitution has guaranteed that they be allowed to be armed at any time of their choosing and in any place which they desire to be, without infringement of any form - so they don't require that meaningless course anyway. In those days any member of the public could walk into the White House with a pistol on their hip or more likely a rifle slung across their back and speak to George Washington personally, while open carrying, because that was your "god given" and "inalienable right." Which, again, under no circumstances may it be infringed.

That course doesn't make people meaningfully better, and the our Founding Fathers have already spoken, and said one needn't participate in such a course because carrying arms is a right, not a privilege.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

I am not opposed to the second amendment, however, I do like the idea of CCW permits needing to be renewed. My son open carries most of the time in the state, but I do like the idea of licenses being renewed. I know it is a pain in the behind, but we might catch a few crazies.

While I absolutely respect your opinion BubbaJoe, I can't agree with your position. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr once eloquently clarified, "one man's freedom ends where another mans begins." While everyone wishes to be safe, which is the very motivation for the law-abiding citizen to concealed carry, to deny even one citizen the right to an adequate self defense simply because they hadn't the finances, time, or for some reason the inclination to pursue the course necessary to acquire a permit, is wrong. As I explained in the post above this one, the Constitution already guarantees all citizens of the United States "the right of the people to keep and to bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed." Per the highest law of the land, it's their right to concealed carry, not a privilege which they must obtain through some bureaucratic process. It's also our responsibility to not only uphold the Constitution as citizens and patriots of these United States of America, but it's also our morale responsibility to ensure that no person be left defenseless before an attacker on account of our fears that they may be "crazy."

In truth, a crazy person isn't concerned about laws, rules, regulations or even normalcies as you and I are, and so, like a criminal, they'll carry their concealed weapon without a permit anyway. So the permit has no effect on preventing anyone from carrying a firearm who shouldn't. It only serves to prevent rational, law-abiding citizens from carrying because they're not able to obtain the permit due to some form of hardship, likely financial. We must not judge the value of ones life by the size of their wallet. If the only people who would be obstructed from concealed carrying through a permit are good and reasonable people, then we must not obstruct them. Both the law and ethics demand it.

a reply to: Navarro

Thanks. 1st, thank you for your service. Where I live you must qualify every 4 years by hours on the range to renew. Any course or courses and range practice is better than none you must agree on that. And this proposal suggests none of that I think. Buy a gun, shove it in your pants and go.

In many ways, its a return to the wild west. Its just everyone is assumed to be carrying because we just wouldnt know. For me, thats fine. And probably you as well with your background.

I go through my days in Emergency Response and Search and Rescue/EMT work, and respond to FEMA and am Homeland Security trained in Incident Command. As such...I just have the attitude everyone I meet...either in disaster or emergency response or walking my dog...anyone and everyone may be armed. They have that right.

So the whole issue doesnt change my thinking or the way I carry myself or my firearm each day. I agree with you and our constitutional rights.

But with your background...you have to admit. Arming the entire population can have unimaginable consequences. Many dont have the mental capacity...yet would have an equal right to carry. What to do? Respect the constitution.

I support that as our forefathers designed... as the "right to bear arms". This is America.

Thank you for your insight. MS

a reply to: mysterioustranger
Most only train for the permit requirements anyway. It is what it is...right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We're just so consenting these days to clever liberal lawyers that it's as if we can't make decisions for ourselves. We simply buy into it hook, line, and sinker. Now, you add firearms into the equation where indecisive people need to make split second choices and yeah... That's truly scary.

a reply to: mysterioustranger
That's pretty interesting. I believe that Missouri's CCW is valid in more states than any other, and only compares to Utah and Florida's, which are approximately equal in number of states which recognize them. Yet I'm in no way exaggerating when I describe the process through which one obtains one here, which is needless to say magnitudes less than your own state. It's great that your state wants to influence its concealed carriers to practice shoot from time to time, but I see it as the wrong execution of the right idea. We shouldn't be forcing people to do anything before we allow them to carry the tools necessary to adequately protect themselves. As I said it's a matter of Constitutional law and in my opinion, one of ethics too. There was nothing wrong with the armed citizenry of the wild west. It was the finest example of "an armed society is a polite society." If a "bandit" came along to "hold up" your neighbor, then your neighbor wasn't necessary standing there defenseless as is common today. Everyone had the opportunity to be on equal footing, because the government wasn't yet widely obstructing you from possessing firearms.

I could buy a pistol for $50 or something reasonable on sale for $200, or I could come into possession of a family firearm handed down to me, but I can't necessarily also afford the several hundred dollars necessary to become a legal carrier. If someone is able to come into a working firearm and ammunition, then who are we to stand in their way and obstruct them from an adequate self defense? It's the constitutional thing, and it's the ethical thing. If that guy's not bothering anybody and just wants the peace of mind and knowledge that he's capable of fending off an aggressor, then let him be. He's got just as much potential to harm others without it if he's some form of crazy. I'm pretty sure a two ton car will kill just fine, and I've heard knives have a tendency to kill too. Where's the cries for background checks and permits for people purchasing medieval swords? It's said that on 9/11 a handful of guys killed thousands and they achieved that through box cutters.

After all, a main purpose of the Second Amendment to provide the public with a means to arm themselves in order that they might defend themselves against the government. Does it really make sense to allow the government to decide who should be allowed to purchase a means to defend against it? Does it make sense at all to regulate, legislate and otherwise hinder ones ability to simply be safe? In fact, how many people do you suppose are imprisoned right now for nothing other than "illegal" possession of a firearm? Could one really support putting these people in a cage for desiring to defend themselves, including in the case of those who could obtain a permit, but fail to do so out of protest given that the Second Amendment already guarantees their right to carry? How about all those who would be alive today, if it wasn't for the fact that they weren't able to legally carry and had the misfortune of crossing paths with a violent criminal? Are their sacrifices really necessary, in order to maintain our current version of law and order?

Ultimately, if we're talking about a permit, then we're also talking about all these things. We're talking about favoring circumstances which have lead to the imprisonment and deaths of countless human beings. If "sacrifices must be made," then surely there's an upper limit to that. So how many is too many? 100 imprisoned or dead? A thousand? A million? A hundred million? How many lives is a permit worth to the avid supporters of the permit? I know that you've never consciously chosen to support the sacrifice of anyone through CCWs, but this is where victimless crime always leads. People become oppressed, and others become dead. If one's not concerned about what the Constitution has to say about the matter, and if they're not concerned about the injustice to those who can't acquire a permit but are decent members of the community, then I think there can be no doubt that even the most hard-lined proponents of gun control must feel some concern for those who's fate leads them to either cages or coffins if we continue the permit paradigm. Everyone might not be comfortable with it, but absolute freedom to carry is in fact the only honest and ethical direction. Yes, absolutely, respecting the Constitution is the only way.

I appreciate your input as well. A great conversation, and it doesn't hurt that you saw the light at the end either.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

I think you're way off base here. I live in Arizona and we have had this no permit needed law for years. Guess what happened "NOTHING". No rise in crime, no shoot-outs in the streets, no guns in our schools. There MAY be more people carrying a weapon and there may not. I own a number of firearms but I still don't carry one on my hip all the time. I think people watch too many movies. Bottom line is just because you can do something does not mean you must do it. It's not fair to the decent people of this world to be punished for the actions of others. If you want to worry about something worry about the 17,000 people killed every year by drunk drivers (Not counting the drunks).That's more than ALL other forms of homicide combined. Or the 75% of Americans over the age of 16 admit that they do or have driven drunk at least once, and those are just the ones who admit it. How many more are there who claim they only had 2 beers, or think they drive better when they are drunk. Or how about that 65% of TC's are caused by people on their cell phones (Talking not Texting) Tests have proven that taking on the phone, even hands-free, is the same as a .10 BAL. So if drinking and driving puts you in jail at .08 why doesn't cell phones .10, texting is even worse. It can be as high as .25 or more. I for one don't care how many people carry a gun, I worry about the kid with the phone and keys to dads car.

a reply to: MikeA

I agree with both sides here. Let me break it down simply. Yes, you should be able to carry open or concealed. Yes, you should also take or learn or practice periodically some sort of training...even if you just watch some videos. Knowledge is a powerful thing. The nutcases just pull, point and shoot. The dimwitted parents or grandparents leave a loaded gun around their 3 year old grand-daughter who finds it and kills herself(this week here in the Detroit Area). Its just crazy. Both sides of the fence.

I dont think theres any simple answer. Yes, I support the right to own and bear arms, and although I dont necessarily agree with registering each and every one we buy or get from grandpa...there needs to be some means of control. But, by whom? We dont want the government coming for our guns cause like now, they know where we live. The criminals? They dont. Its a catch 22.

In closing here...protect yourself and others...learn a few things...practice some and/or often, heed to safety. And there are a couple things I want to pass along.

1. I would rather have a gun at the end of my hand than a telephone to 911....
2. As long as the thugs and lowlifes and losers and crazies have them and get them anywhere unknown...so should you, me and the next guy...have the unrestricted right to own and carry.*

*Where Im employed...better than 60-70% of city, county workers, men, women, truck drivers, desk workers, police, fire, ER, grass cutters, Rec. Depts...carry. Legally. Everywhere. Work, home and on the road to and from. Im only saying that to stress how the practice is changing. They say its one out of every 5 people in line at the grocery store are packing. I think it may be higher in some spots.

Thank you very much for your thoughts. Stay well, carry safe and protect yourself, your family, neighbors and friends.

MS

PS There was a woman here who killed someone with a crockpot! Do we ban cooking?