In Washington, our Second Amendment rights are being threatened by the far-left, liberal radicals. This administration has supported far-reaching restrictions on guns. While in the Illinois Senate, Senator Obama voted in FAVOR of lawsuits aimed at gun manufacturers by victims of gun accidents and crimes. He also cosponsored a bill to limit gun purchases to one per month.
The story is different in Missouri since a conservative majority took the reins in 2003. We passed a conceal carry law which is still in effect today. In the six years it has been in effect in Missouri, there has only been one weapon-related incident involving someone with a conceal carry permit. Conceal carry licenses act as a protection for responsible, law-abiding citizens.
In the upcoming session, we plan to expand the conceal carry permits to include citizens aged 21 and up. Missouri is currently the only state that requires a resident be 23 years old to obtain a license. We believe that all responsible adults should be allowed to conceal carry if they choose.
Additionally, we are looking at increasing the time frame a conceal carry license is valid. Right now, they are only good for three years. I advocate an increase to five years. If, in that time, a person with a permit breaks the law or takes advantage of the law, the privilege should be revoked permanently. Otherwise, let those obeying the law, keep it for a longer time.
One reason the Second Amendment is so vital is protection of families and property. That is why I worked hard to pass the Castle Doctrine in 2007. The Castle Doctrine states that you have the right to defend your family and home from a perpetrator. In 2009, the Missouri House will be working to extend that right to your land as well. A person should be able to protect his/her person, family, home, land and livestock from intruders.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Ruestman still pushing for gun laws
The National Rifle Association's best friend in office, Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, is still pushing unnecessary pro-gun legislation, similar to her castle doctrine bill. Now she is wanting to add on to the castle doctrine bill, which we did not need in the first place. Those items are addressed in Mrs. Ruestman's latest capitol report:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
How do these reforms "add on to the castle doctrine bill"???
All they do is bring the Missouri Concealed Carry law into better alignment with the rest of the country, where a threshold of 21 years of age and 5 year renewal periods have caused no problems.
What specifically is "unnecessary" about them?
BTW, my above 3:49 AM (Pacific Time) posting was not held for moderation....
I was referring primarily to the expansion of the Castle Doctrine law which she mentioned in her column. People have always had the right to defend themselves if their lives are threatened and despite the cries that poor innocent people were being victimized for using that right, no one was ever able to show that this was a problem anywhere in the United States, much less in Missouri. It was another crisis manufactured by the National Rifle Association to keep the dues rolling in.
People have always had the right to defend themselves if their lives are threatened and ... no one was ever able to show that this was a problem anywhere in the United States....
The above statement is at best breathtakingly ignorant, just enter "duty to retreat" into Google. If you can search the archives of the Boston Globe for the period of the early to mid-80s you'll find a lot about the topic as their supreme court repeately nullified Castle Doctrine laws as much as they could (last time I checked, if you were renting an apartment they held you had a duty to retreat unless your name was on the lease).
You have children; would you like to go to jail for staying in your house and killing an intruder instead of adandoning your young daughter to his tender mercies? A real case, I followed it in the Globe at the time.
There are plenty of anti-gun localities where a state-wide Castle Doctrine is the only thing that stands between you and prison and it's going to take more than a demonstrably false assertion on your part to convince me otherwise.
And you still haven't explained how it is "unnecessary" that those 21-22 or age carry concealed or that we don't have to renew our licenses as often.
Then again, a little quality time with Google shows that you don't think concealed carry is necessary at all, e.g. Lawmakers fix law that should never have been passed.
Last time I checked, fundamental rights like self-defense are not properly subject to the popular will. I'm sure I don't have to remind you of the history of minorities murdered with the tacit or full approval of "the people"; our own history shows that all too well as gun control started in earnest to keep blacks in their place as all too many saw it.
Way to Burn Randy the Lib-Tard good poster above.
I'm 21 in Springfield MO and was assaulted by some crazy tweaker (imagine that, an honest citizen being ganked and robbed in the meth capital of the world)
I'm lucky I got away with as little physical harm as I did, considering that being discriminated against by the state because based on my age alone could have gotten me killed.
Its amazing I'm an adult if I feel the need to go out and get as hammered, or too sign up, fight and die for my country. I suppose I'm just not a mature enough adult to protect myself.
Pure Discrimination
If Randy doesn't want other responsible adults to have the same privileges as he has, he can cry about it into another blog
In other words Randy, if you dont want a CCW, dont apply for one. If you dont want me to have one, tough shit.
Keep to your own, and keep your f-up views out of our kids heads. Its bad enough your posting bold faced lies on the internet (such as the Castle Doctrine not being needed) It should be down right illegal for you to have the opportunity to propagandize and indoctrinate children.
Signed, Lance the Discriminated
Post a Comment