advertisement

DAVID ROSMAN: Missouri should decide who carries a concealed weapon in the state

Friday, October 21, 2011 | 11:31 a.m. CDT; updated 9:04 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, October 26, 2011

As my regular readers know, I am not an anti-gun person. My wife, Kathy, and I have owned various firearms over the decades.

In a previous life, Kathy was a hunter. In a previous life, I had to carry for my job.

I strongly support mandatory gun training requirements for the ownership of handguns, rifles and shotguns.

I also believe that all hunters need to attend an annual firearms safety program. It is my belief that such training will reduce the number of accidental shootings in the U.S., especially by children who somehow get ahold of a parent's handgun or rifle.

What I am against is weapon ownership without the responsibility that goes along with owning a tool that is designed only to kill — unlike a knife (the normal argument from the pro-gun ownership people), which is designed as a utility tool as well as a weapon.

On Oct. 14, the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary conducted its final review of HR 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.

The bill will allow an individual with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit and photo ID to carry concealed handguns in multiple states, if that individual abides by the restrictions of those states.

This is generally known as a “compact law,” a law to which multiple parties have working agreements because it concerns a mutual interest or interests.

There are other laws that allow this reciprocity. Your Missouri driver’s license is recognized in all other states, for example.

We also have some notable exceptions to "compact laws." For example, some states do not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, though legal in the state where the marriage license was issued.

At issue in HR 822 is not the conceal-and-carry permit, nor one's rights to gun ownership.

It is, as the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns suggests, a "measure (that) would strip states of the right to decide who can legally carry a hidden, loaded gun in our communities."

Gun control has returned as a states' rights issue. A survey, conducted by Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint, indicates that "74 percent (of respondents) say that 'each state should decide for themselves.'"

I could not find a National Rifle Association survey saying anything different.

Here is where conservative states' rights and liberal gun control people seem to agree. This is not a case of gun ownership, of Second Amendment rights or whether mandatory firearms training should be required for everyone for the purpose of ownership.

It is a case of who gets to make the laws about who can and cannot carry a concealed weapon — in this case, in the state of Missouri.

Should not Missouri decide whether or not to permit a non-law enforcement person who is duly licensed to carry a concealed pistol in his home state to carry a concealed weapon in the Show-Me State?

The proposed law is clear about one thing: The person crossing state lines with a concealed weapon must abide by the laws of the state he is entering. So, no matter what, no one will be permitted to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois, which does not allow such permits.

This means that state would have to "opt out," something that conservative legislators would never do.

There is a bigger question, at least for me. It is not whether one can carry a concealed firearm across state lines, but how does this bill affect the bigger issue our legislators are supposed to be tackling: Does it create jobs?

This Republican-sponsored bill is doing nothing to meet that immediate goal. In fact, this tactic only diverts the voter's attention from the real problems of the day to a relatively minor but emotionally raw subject.

Reps. Vicky Hartzler and Blaine Luetkemeyer are co-sponsors of this bill. It is time we tell Hartzler and Luetkemeyer to stop messing around and get to the business at hand.

Either fix the economy and create jobs or your re-election in 2012 will be shot down.

David Rosman is an editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in Communications, Ethics, Business and Politics. David’s new book, “A Christian Nation? An examination of Christian nation theories and proofs” is now on pre-release sale at Books.InkandVoice.com.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

mike mentor October 21, 2011 | 1:29 p.m.

"Either fix the economy and create jobs or your re-election in 2012 will be shot down."
___________________________________________________________

I guess Owe-Bama is a goner...

(Sorry, David. I couldn't help myself. Good article right up to the last couple of paragraphs. Those inspired me to be snarky...)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams October 21, 2011 | 1:57 p.m.

I dunno. The 2nd Amendment...."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"....seems to indicate this is a national issue rather than a state one. The important words are "right" and "bear" and "not be infringed".

Personally, the words "not be infringed" are rather strong ones with little-to-no other interpretation. They mean "you can't do it, no way, no how." Is there another interpretation?

Yet, I'm in agreement that some that should NOT be allowed to carry....folks like felons and those proven unstable.

I took a recent vacation out west. I also carry loaded weapons in my vehicles. Before I went, I checked to make sure I could take a weapon in all the states I would visit. Of the 8 states through which I was going to travel, two had restrictions that worried me....Kansas and Oklahoma. Oklahoma required that any handgun had to be kept unloaded in a locked container (separated from me...and therefore 'quite' useful!), while certain Kansas jurisdictions did not allow a loaded weapon in a car. In the end, I did not carry. Gotta admit, tho, if I was doing it again, I'd risk it.

I'd like to see what Rosman has to say about jurisdictions within the various states. If Missouri says we can carry, I suppose Missouri can also say that various jurisdictions can override the state....that seems an absurd position to me, tho...an easy state-version of getting around the Second Amendment. After all, a state can usurp a "right" just as easily and harshly as a nation can.

Which, after all, is the same thing Mr Rosman is proposing by letting the states decide, overriding the 2nd amendment.

I agree with Mike Mentor, tho, about the last part of Rosman's missive. You should have stuck with your topic. If you want to discuss your dismay at the legislature for paying attention to this topic rather than jobs, that's ok. Or just discuss guns.

But, putting them in the same article is simple rambling and disjointed. It diminished the impact of the whole article, although it did...I think...get to what he finally wanted to say anyway.

"Guns" was just a hook. A bad one, tho.

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt October 21, 2011 | 4:34 p.m.

(I strongly support mandatory gun training requirements for the ownership of handguns, rifles and shotguns.)

I am strongly opposed to the state even knowing if I own firearms.

(What I am against is weapon ownership without the responsibility that goes along with owning a tool that is designed only to kill — unlike a knife (the normal argument from the pro-gun ownership people), which is designed as a utility tool as well as a weapon.)

Guns have several uses 1. Target shooting. 2. Collecting. 3. Investment. 4. Just hanging on the wall.
I have owned guns I never had ammo for. I have owned older guns that was passed down from grandparents, etc.

(The bill will allow an individual with a valid state-issued concealed carry permit and photo ID to carry concealed handguns in multiple states, if that individual abides by the restrictions of those states.)

If you've read this far you know I oppose this too.

I do agree our elected officials need to do what they are elected to do or risk being fired at the next election.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor October 21, 2011 | 5:02 p.m.

@Gerald
I think it is difficult to have a short discussion under the blanket term "guns". Would you be strongly opposed to the state knowing that the ex-con that just got out of jail for blowing up his neighbors house and who has moved in next door to you owns a tank?

I agree with your statements as far as shotguns and hunting rifles go...

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt October 21, 2011 | 5:49 p.m.

Mike:
(Would you be strongly opposed to the state knowing that the ex-con that just got out of jail for blowing up his neighbors house and who has moved in next door to you owns a tank?)

I had not thought of a tank as a gun. What color is the tank ;)?

I once lived next door to an ex-con, the most agreeable fellow you ever met he even kept his grass well within limits. He'd been there and did not want to go back.

(Report Comment)
frank christian October 21, 2011 | 7:01 p.m.

Not quite on subject, but I hope that the new, hopefully, democratically elected governments in the Middle East will do something about the use of firearms among their people. I probably am most upset because we and others are paying for the bullets needlessly fired into the air by the Arab population in celebration of their victories in revolutionary battles. One report alleged that during the celebration following Saddam's fall, six people were injured by falling bullets. The ultimate example may have occurred in today's coverage of the death of Gaddafi, one held up (maybe 45 degrees) an automatic weapon while another fed a whole belt of ammunition thru it.

With some education (not from our government) we might possibly export some "firecrackers" that they could view and enjoy after the picnic. If I'm dreaming, don't wake me up!

(Report Comment)
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 4:30 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 4:30 a.m.

Funny how the second amendment does not infer in any way shape or form that self defense is limited to the home only.

It does however have the all encompassing phrase "shall not be infringed".

Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause of a complex sentence, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

Yet David now claims the dependent clause (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

Funny how you refuse to understand basic english words, sentence structure and that effect on words meanings, and you, a person who makes their living on such a thing, just proves your real bias!

Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual. Funny how concealed caryy existed long before any militia or laws.

(Report Comment)
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 4:31 a.m.

Only designed to kill, lol!

Why is it, that over 99.6% of the time a firearm is used, it is not used to kill? Even funnier, that does not include the tens of millions of rounds shot in practice or competitions. But hey such obvious facts have no place in your emotional ka ka!

Man if I were a gun, I would be horrified and extremely upset that I failed so miserably at the only thing I was ever created to do, kill every single time I was used!

Anyone who believes or cites the extremist minority group MAIG, where less than 600 of the mayors of the 19,335 cities and towns in the US (2.8%) have only an agenda of people control supports their lies. Besides, if MAIG's purpose was truly to only reduce violence, why is it that ALL mayors have not signed up to such an organization, lol? Funny how actions say much more than any propaganda lies MAIG spews.

Last point, the pro gun movement was started in response to the activities of the anti freedom anti gun zealots. You created us, we are your child essentially, and you taught us how to play the game. Now that we have all grown up, and play the game better than you, you poor widdle anti's are all upset. You should be proud of what you created, but as the fact is, your extremist minority should be looking in the mirror and yelling at yourself for doing such a good job of lying and infringing on peoples rights, your actions created us!

Hey David, when you can prove a state has rights (e.g. is a sentient being) versus what it does have (powers enumerated by and at the discretion of the people), please let us know ahead of time so we can dress warm for hell freezing over.

(Report Comment)
Michael Spivey October 22, 2011 | 8:31 a.m.

Michael Spivey
------------
David,

You claim to be a gunnie, but apparently you are unaware that under MO's current permit law every "non-law enforcement person who is duly licensed to carry a concealed pistol in his home state" is also and already allowed to do so in MO.

News Flash for you. The 2nd Amendment to our US Constitution DOES NOT "Grant" to the people a right to bear arms, it restricts the government from interfering with a right that the authors of the amendment already recognized as preexisting, that pesky unalienable rights concept.

(Report Comment)
Bambi Buchowski October 22, 2011 | 9:33 a.m.

Actually, guns are not "designed to kill". They are designed to put a small (usually lead-alloy) projectile at a selectable point in space at a given velocity. Often that point in space is a paper target. Sometimes it's a game animal. Sometimes it's a human. But just as a car can be directed down the highway at the legal speed limit, or used to cause mayhem by crashing it into a crowd (or simply driving drunk), the inanimate object doesn't have a pre-determined use.

If one is going to suspend the constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms at state borders, how about the non-protected privilege of driving a car? I lived in Missouri for a while, and never have I seen such a large number of drivers who will get right on your rear bumper and stay there - despite adjacent lanes being empty. This is highly dangerous behavior!

Perhaps the solution is to not honor Missouri state drivers licenses? Perhaps the "Show Me" state drivers should have to "show me" they can drive by taking and passing a driving test every time they cross the state line? I'm sure the adjoining states don't want just ANY Missouri driver on their roads. Don't they have a right to exclude the dangerous Missouri drivers by testing ALL Missouri drivers each time they enter their state to make sure they are safe drivers? After all, more people are killed by automobiles than are killed with guns.

Or to paraphrase the author:

"Should not Illinois decide whether or not to permit a person who is duly licensed to drive a car in Missouri to drive a car in the Prairie State?"

Sounds sort of silly, doesn't it? And yet, the right to bear arms is a CONSTITUTIONAL right, entitled to and deserving of higher protection than the mere "privilege" of driving a car.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman October 22, 2011 | 3:50 p.m.

Oh the silliness of some and the seriousness of others. This is not so much about gun rights, ladies and gentlemen, but about state's right. And, by extension, the rights of local governments, such as a city or county.

In 1789, when the Bill of rights was adopted, the term "militia" was used to define an all volunteer army, not local gangs of hoodlums to take justice into their own hands. In 1789, each state was responsible for their own militia and all able-bodied men were required to enter the army in a time of war. And because the government was so "poor," most members of state militias were asked to bring their own rifles. And thus the language in the Second Amendment.

The argument is really about definition and punctuation.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Should the comma between "state" and "the right" have been a semi-colon? This is a question that 1) cannot be answered because few notes survive from the individual state discussions concerning this and the other nine amendments, and 2) because there was no standardization of punctuation, grammar or spelling in 1789. Jefferson, Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison did not have grammar and spell check in their quills.

Did Madison and Henry really mean that all should own rifles and guns regardless of need or background? I do not think so.

So Michael, I am glad to read that you agree with me in part. But like the other amendments, there are limitations and restriction connected to our "rights."

For Bambi and others who believe that hand guns, rifles and shot guns NOT designed to kill... You are the ones that I use as examples for mandatory firearms training.

David, You are correct in McDonald v. Chicago and again in District of Columbia v. Heller, but the court did uphold Miller v. United States and the National Firearms Act providing a an avenue to limit the types of firearms that can be owned.

But, again, this is not about firearms and the limitation of ownership. This is about state v. federal rights. Your argument should concern :The federal government can giveth and they can taketh away."

(Report Comment)
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 5:20 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 5:21 p.m.

Now for some MORE SARCASM, Bravo, Bravo, you are now in line for whatever the world famous award exists for literary genius where you have single handedly rewritten the rules of english sentence structure. Where do you want that award sent to, court of the Queen of Hearts, Alice in Wonderland?

You do realize changing the meaning of sentences as such, will require all those court rulings that depended on such exact understanding are now void and will have to be reviewed and ruled upon again?

You do realize the funniest part of this is that all those 20,000 useless gun control laws will now have to be reviewed and re-ruled upon as what they stated before, is no longer what they mean, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO.

By joing the union that is the UNited States of America, the states agreed to be held to and follow the laws of the land. That is the US Constitution & BOR.

SO SINCE YOU REFUSE TO READ THE TENTH AMENDMENT, WE WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN FOR YOU.

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that POWERS not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people.

(Report Comment)
David Nielsen October 22, 2011 | 5:22 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Derrick Fogle October 22, 2011 | 10:28 p.m.

Arms? What kind? The public only gets pea-shooters compared to what Law Enforcement and Military have. The 2nd amendment died a long time ago.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 23, 2011 | 5:52 a.m.

Derrick Fogle wrote:

"The public only gets pea-shooters compared to what Law Enforcement and Military have."

I wouldn't say that. The only real difference is LE and military can use automatic weapons, where the average private gun owner cannot (and even they could get a special license for them).

If I wanted, I could purchase (with a special license) and shoot this:

http://www.anzioironworks.com/MAG-FED-20...

Only $35/round - however, it would put a major hole in just about anything I can think of outside of a modern tank or other armor.

DK

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle October 23, 2011 | 10:00 a.m.

Tanks? RPG's? Explosives? Microwave beam and sound beam weapons? Arms are a lot more than guns.

*Nobody* is going to successfully repel a SWAT raid. Your 2nd amendment rights mean nothing.

(Report Comment)
frank christian October 23, 2011 | 10:14 a.m.

D. Fogle - 2nd Amendment does not stipulate that firearms may be possessed only for defense against "Law Enforcement and Military". Firearms may be used for protection against home invasion, and personal attacks from perhaps one belonging to the more 23,000 gangs now prevalent in our country, or from drug induced situations that today's hard working, responsible American might face.

"The 2nd amendment died a long time ago." Another fallacious post from the King.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman October 26, 2011 | 1:59 p.m.

Mr. Nielsen - If you are going to quote the Tenth Amendment, then quote it.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"Federalism" is nowhere to be found.

And who says that the Amendment cannot be interpreted as such to provide for restrictions? Restrictions are certainly felt for the First Amendment, so why would the Second, or in that matter, any Amendment to the Constitution or the Constitution itself. This is the responsibility of Congress. Constitutionality is determined by the courts.

But in the process of opening the door to the Tenth Amendment, wouldn't you consider HR 822 a problem based on even your reading of the Amendment?

I may suggest that you read the ABC-CLIO series "Supreme Court Handbooks" and discover how the Constitution has been repeatedly reinterpreted over the last 220 years, since Chief Justice John Jay. You may be surprised on how often it happens.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements