No ConCarry (Update: As Such)

14 09 2016

Jefferson City

The veto session starts today, and Nixon’s veto of SB 656 could be overturned before sunset.

Everyone keeps saying that SB 656 contains Constitutional Carry (concarry), and they’ve been saying it ever since this thing was born in committee, but I’m not seeing it and never have seen it.  Unless I’m missing something.  All I read is a bunch of tweaks.

Maybe they keep falsely claiming it has concarry because they don’t want it to pass for one or more of the tweaks it does make, and claiming it has concarry is the best way to gin up opposition. But I don’t know which one(s) of these tweaks are so horrible or objectionable.

UPDATE

Okay, I’ve asked around, and while there is technically no concarry language in SB 656, what it does do is effectively and on the sly implement concarry by removing the line-item in the list of actions that constitute unlawful use of a weapon (UUW) offenses that refers to carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) without a permit.  This blog’s very first post on September 15, 2003 was on the day of, and about, the General Assembly adopting our initial CCW provisions, and since it happened in September, you can deduce that it happened on an override of a gubernatorial veto.  Part of that package was to eliminate the stand-alone criminal offense of carrying a concealed weapon, and putting carrying without a permit as one of the many items in the UUW laundry list.  Now that it has been taken out, or it will be in about a month, there is no possible criminal sanction for carrying without a permit, except…

…What it does not accomplish is to allow CCW in places where carrying even with a valid permit is overtly legally prohibited, or privately prohibited by the establishment owner or agent per his latitude via state law. And it definitely doesn’t change the list of firearms-prohibited individuals per state or Federal law, meaning that firearms-prohibited individuals can’t legally carry even under SB 656 because they can’t legally possess, and they couldn’t get a permit anyway.

One thing it does is that while it removes carrying without a permit from the list of UUW violations, it adds one to it: What it does is that if you’re caught both knowingly carrying and knowingly possessing enough controlled substances that on the face of the action violate state felony PWID laws, (even before a conviction on that particular PWID action or even in the absence of any PWID conviction), that becomes a UUW line-item category. I actually remember that being shoved into SB 656 during hearings and markup, but now that I know that it goes in while CCW-sans-permit goes out, I now think it’s sort of a legal make-good. Remember, more than five years ago in this medium, I expressed my opposition to concarry in NAM-heavy states for technical reasons, and I think that this new UUW provision mostly compensates for those concerns.

The permit process is still in its same form, and that you will need to go through if you want reciprocity with other states, that is, the other states that recognizes Missouri’s permit.  Illinois still isn’t one of them.

Long and short is that if you’re not a prohibited person and you don’t carry in prohibited places and you’re not in the dope dealing and transporting business, SB 656 does effectively give you concarry.

Confoosled yet?





Dat’s All, Folks

6 09 2016

Jefferson City

NRA endorses Koster.

Because he has a reasonable 2A record, remember, in the Senate, he voted for CCW back in 2003, and he was still an elected Republican at that time and would be for another three years, and because the NRA is reading the tea leaves and realizing inevitability.  Like I’ve been saying, that inevitability is labor union driven.





Indiana’s Fault

23 08 2016

Springfield

First offense, up to 20 years.  Subsequent offenses, up to 30 years.

Except, Illinois, where murder two convicts often don’t do even ten years.

OTOH, this symbolism takes the heat off of Chicago and Illinois politicians for a little while.

It also should be noted that NCIC is required anywhere in the United States anywhere a background check requisite purchase occurs.  Illinois or Indiana.  It’s just that elderly black women in Chicago can vote in Chicago and Illinois elections, therefore, people subject to their democratic influence won’t ever blame their grandsons for violent crime.  Indiana is just the guy behind the tree.





GOTV

10 08 2016

Wilmington, North Carolina

He wants gun owners and allies to vote for him.

The cigar is just a cigar, in this case.

It may be one of the few GOTV drives the media dislike.





Why I’m #NRx

4 08 2016

Washington, D.C.

Tiahrt Amendment?  What Tiahrt Amendment?

OTOH, and in the short term, we don’t need to hear any bitching about the Tiahrt Amendment from the anti-gun-nuts any longer, if the Dictator-in-Chief has made it a dead letter.

 





Somebody’s Getting Their Universal Background Check Violated

24 07 2016

Sweet song, right?

Except, well, 2:15 to 2:29.

No background check.  So, granddaddy, you are summarily sentenced to five years in Federal prison.

Because common sense gun control.





Glock Stock and Barrel

13 07 2016

Dallas

Against my better judgment, because all this gun talk is a diversion to keep us from thinking about who did Dallas and Orlando, I want to respond to this bit about how it’s easier for teenagers to buy a Glock than it is for them to buy a book.

Here’s the catch:  I’m not really going to respond to Mr. Obama’s statement per se.  I’m going to respond to the standard boilerplate mode of conservative response to him and his bon mot.

The problem with it is that, since lamestream conservatives are mostly white people who live in suburbs, exurbs and rural areas, and almost always abide by all Federal and state laws in the process of their acquisition of firearms, their response is couched in their conceptual framework of “teenagers” meaning their (“white”) teenage (“sons”) and the census of dead tree and ink bookstores and book retailers where they live, and the rate at which their teenagers and their people in general own standalone e-readers or have e-reader apps on their smartphones and of the particularities of Federal and the several states’ firearms laws.  In the universe of the lamestream conservative, the teenager can buy a book with just a few taps of a screen, while his attempt to purchase a handgun will be rejected at the local shooting supply store for his underage status.  QED:  “See?  It’s actually easier for my teenage son to buy a book than it is for him to buy a Glock.”

This will be one of the very very few and rare instances in which I defend Mr. Obama in this space, and even at that, it will only be superficially and out of a sense of fairness.

When Mr. Obama said “teenager,” his mental image was that of N’Deshawntavious on the corner of Halsted and A-Hundred-and-Something on ChiCongo’s south side, and when he said “buy a Glock,” he’s not exactly thinking of a brick and mortar retailer where an FLFD fills out paperwork for NCIC runs.  Also, N’Deshawntavious don’t read no mofo books.  He ain’t no oreo, no sellout, no coon, no Uncle Ruckus, no Uncle Tom.  You’ll never catch him acting white!  Therefore, you’re not going to find many B&N stores along Halsted, and ooks’ phones are highly unlikely to have Kindle apps.  So, of course, in Mr. Obama’s conceptual framework, keeping in mind that his community activist career started on such corners, it is actually a lot easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than it is for him to buy a book.  Mainly because the teenagers of his conceptual framework buy a hell of a lot more Glocks than books.

It all comes down to Dilbert’s risk profiles.