Good Friday Report

I apologize for not posting yesterday. I had a dental appointment and didn’t get home until late in the day.

***

For millions of Christians, today is a day of remembrance. Some ignorantly claim it’s a celebration. It is not. It’s an acknowledgment of debt to one who paid all for all of us. The celebration is on Easter. The unchurched and ignorant dcann’t discern the difference between the two days.

This blog, however, is political rather than religious. In many cases, the two views are in alignment. In one such arena is the choice of mass welfare. On one hand many claim that we should support those in need. I doubt anyone would argue against that. However, many of those in ‘need’ are not. They are in a situation of their own making and refuse to extricate themselves from that situation. They depend on the largess of others while doing nothing to better themselves, to remove themselves from a life of parasitism. Generations subsist in such environments and blame others for their own failings.

Those of us of a conservative bent prefer to help those who are willing to accept that help to better their livelihood, to better their skills in search of employment, to work, study, learn, to educate themselves so they need not be dependent on the charity of others. We had a small victory in the Missouri Senate this week. An attempt to extend dependency in Missouri, to bolster the cult of parasitism failed in Jeff City.

Missouri Senate defeats proposal to expand Medicaid

Mar 31, 11:33 PM CDT

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri senators have defeated a proposal to expand eligibility for Medicaid.

The Senate on Tuesday voted 25-9 against the measure.

Democratic Sen. Paul LeVota proposed adding the amendment to a bill that would ensure the state continues to receive certain funding for Medicaid.

The vote follows rallies in the Capitol and across the state calling on lawmakers to debate expanding the joint federal and state health care program for low-income residents.

States can receive additional funding for raising eligibility under Democratic President Barack Obama’s health care law.

But Missouri’s Republican legislative leaders have called the measure a nonstarter.

This amendment should be a nonstarter. The democrats ignore one extremely important proviso of Obama’s assistance—it’s temporary. And when the subsidies expire, Missouri will be left holding the bag for ALL the costs of the medicaid expansion. Why? Because Medicaid is a primary component of Obamacare. The feds, by themselves, cannot pay for the enormous costs of Obamacare. They need to steal from us to do so…one way or another. Expanding medicaid is one such scheme.

***

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed legislation yesterday permitting concealed carry by Kansas residents without a permit. Existing Kansas concealed carry permits will still issued as before to allow Kansans to carry out-of-state where the Kansas CCW permit is recognized.

A similar bill has been filed in Jefferson City. It too would allow concealed carry without a permit while retaining the existing CCW permit structure. The bill was filed late in this year’s session but it is being sponsored by well-known supporters. The bill, along with allowing CCW on public transportation was heard in committee this week.

***

In local news, the liberals in Kansas City, lead by Mayor Sly James, are proposing to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15 and hour. Seattle did so last year and the results are in—restaurants are failing and closing all over the city. Sly James would like to do the same to Kansas City—kill jobs and close businesses.

Many of Kansas City’s business owners are unaware of this proposal. During my visit to the dentist yesterday, he said he had just given his assistant a raise to $9 and hour. I told him that soon he’d have to raise her to $15 an hour if Sly James had his way. He was unaware that could happen. He’s a small businessman employing just three people. Wages and salaries are a significant portion of his business expense. A sudden increase in his cost of doing business could put him in dire constraints!

He asked if they knew of the consequences of such an increase. “How could anyone be so stupid?” he asked.

And stupid it is. The increase wouldn’t hit just the food industry. It would affect many small businesses like my dentist as well as large organizations…like the Kansas City School District.

Many (most?) of the school districts para-professionals are only paid $8-9 and hour. They would be affected too and the increase would bust the already horribly large school district budget. According to the Kansas City district’s payroll data, the increase of the minimum wage would affect 1,447 employees of the district who are currently paid less than $15 and hour. How many of these employees would have to be laid off?

This situation is what we’ve come to expect from the incompetency of the left. Money appears whenever they want it from an overflowing pot of money that is magically extracted from…somewhere. Taxpayers however, know who is the source of this rapacious demand for more and more money—democrats.

 

Time’s up!

Yesterday, July 14th, was the deadline for Governor Nixon to veto, sign or ignore the pile of bills on his desk. One, SB 656, was one of those waiting for Nixon’s action. Late yesterday—at the very last minute, he vetoed SB 656.

What was SB 656? It was a bill that among other things, allowed teachers to protect their students after extensive training and certification by law enforcement, similar training, in fact, that LEOs undergo.

Nixon vetoed it saying it endangered the children. He prefers School Resource officers. So he said. Some school districts cannot afford hiring police to patrol their schools every day nor does every police department have extra officers to station them at every school.

Regardless of his motives, what Nixon has done was to leave schools open for more shootings. Our students must continue to be taught in free-fire zones.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:49

http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Jay-Nixon-kmov.jpgMissouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed legislation Monday that would have allowed vetted and trained teachers and school administrators to carry firearms on campus. The measure had passed the Republican-dominated state house by a strong 111-28 vote and the state senate in a 21-7 vote.

“I cannot condone putting firearms in the hands of educators,” Nixon said. “Arming teachers will not make our schools safer.”

Nixon said he supports the use of duly authorized law enforcement officers employed as school resource officers.

The bill, SB 656, was designed to allow school districts to cross-train faculty to a new “school protection officer” standard. These volunteer teachers and administrators would need a valid Missouri concealed-carry permit and complete a Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission certification course. Following these steps, they would be allowed to carry on school grounds if the district opted to allow armed personnel on campus.

Over the summer, no fewer than 10 school districts have sent selected teachers and staff through up to 75 hours of training in anticipation of the bill being signed by the governor. This required training ran at a cost of $17,500 for every two staff members.

Bloomberg surrogates, Moms Demand Action, are ecstatic that student remain endangered.

***

In another firearm related issue, Jackson County quietly passed an ordinance earlier this year prohibiting firing a firearm within the county. The way the law is written, if you have to shoot to protect yourself, you will be arrested, regardless of the merits of the act, for shooting within the county.

Kevin Jamison, one of the creator’s of Missouri’s CCW law and President of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, had this to say.

Jackson County has an ordinance which prohibits shooting in the “urban tier” of the country. There is a map of this urban tier but it takes some effort to get. It does not exempt self-defense. The ordinance was slipped through last December without public notice. It does allow for ranges but does not define them and no county permit for ranges exists. This complicates some of the CCW instructors who have a home range. There was a hearing on a repeal sponsored by County Legislator Greg Grounds. The hearing was continued to 28 July, 2014 at 2:30 in the Jackson County Independence courthouse, in the basement. There were a great number of people there today. That always gets a politician’s attention.

The Jackson County Sheriff’s office says that they did not request this ordinance.

Spread the word.

***

SJR 36, also known as Amendment 5 on the August 5th ballot continues to be under fire from gun control activists. An appellate hearing occurred yesterday before the Missouri Supreme Court. Ron Calzone, a gun-rights activist was present and made this report.

What do you think “unalienable right” means?

Today I went to the MO Supreme Court hearing over the ballot title for Amendment 5, the super strong gun rights amendment sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer.

The lawyer for the anti-gun side said, (beginning at about 2:50 of the audio link): “The effect of the word ‘unalienable’ has no legal meaning, as we argued in our brief. Three states have, that I have found, have the phrase “inalienable right’ in their constitution. In all three of those states their Supreme Courts have said, specially, that the use of the word ‘inalienable’ does not trigger strict scrutiny standards and that they will review those under rational basis.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/SUP/index.nsf/fe8feff4659e0b7b8625699f0079eddf/46c3c6fb6b7bd9eb86257d0a00634fcf/$FILE/SC94293.mp3

This type of thinking is exactly why, in SJR 36, we advocated for the addition of a specific requirement that gun rights be protected by “strict scrutiny” standards in court.

For a 4 minute primer on Strict Scrutiny vs. the Rational Basis Test, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzETeTvYDu4

You’ll see that the rational basis test the anti-gun lawyer argued allows government restriction on gun rights for about any reason. You can also see why it’s so important to pass Amendment 5!

The 5th of July Follies

Yesterday was the 150th Anniversary of the last day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The battle started on July 2nd when elements of the Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia met The Army of the Potomac, under newly appointed commander, George Mead, at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The movie, “Gettysburg” released a decade ago, based on Michael Shaara‘s, “The Killer Angels,” provides an accurate accounting of the battle.

Michael and Jeff Shaara‘s historical novels, history written in the form of a novel, provides insight into historical characters and give life to history. One of the purposes of the books, in a statement attributed to Jeff Shaara, was to educate citizens and patriots in history as it really happened, giving life to the thoughts, living conditions of the soldiers and to the philosophies of the times.

Leading up to patriotism, the Gallup Poll conducted a survey earlier last month, June 1-4, 2013, a poll on a subject not often covered: Who is more patriotic, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, or Democrats? The poll confirmed long held opinions by Conservatives and Republicans.

Gallup: Republicans more proud to be American than Democrats

By CHARLIE SPIERING | JULY 4, 2013 AT 8:50 AM

The Patriot Poll

The Patriot Poll

In recognition of Independence Day, Gallup has released a poll on whether American citizens are still proud to be American.

Ninety-three percent of Republicans indicate that they are “extremely/very proud” to be American while only 85 percent of Democrats feel the same way.

Eighty-one percent of political Independents indicate they are “extremely/very proud.”

Likewise, 89 percent of poll respondents who identified themselves as conservative are “extremely/very proud,” to be American compared to 76 percent of liberals.

Come on, now, you always knew this, didn’t you?

***

It seems that just about all political pundits have opined, in one form or another, on the George Zimmerman trial. Some pundits attempt to report the facts of the case as they are presented in court. Others, like Al Sharpton, are stirring up controversy to gain more face time on TV.

I’ve not weighed in on this subject other than to note it appears that the Judge and Prosecutor in the case seem to be more interested in convicting Zimmerman than in serving justice. In general, conservatives seem to side with Zimmerman’s version of the events, while liberals side with Al Sharpton and the Prosecutor.

One “conservative” (I’ve put that in quotes because I’m not convinced he is a conservative,) who sides with the prosecution is Michael Savage. On Tuesday of this week, speaking on his radio program, Savage said Zimmerman was guilty of the charges levied against him. Now Savage, like everyone, is free to espouse their opinions on everything or anything. Savage did that and exposed himself as being an ignorant fool.

 

Michael Savage on George Zimmerman: ‘You have to find this man guilty’

Jeff Poor, Media Reporter

On his show on Tuesday night, talk show host Michael Savage said that George Zimmerman, who is currently on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin, should be found guilty of second-degree manslaughter based on two things: 1) The state of his firearm and 2) The language he allegedly used on a 911 call when he was first reporting his suspicions about Martin.

But first Savage explained why his insight should be valued over others in the media covering the trial.

“I’m about to break an analysis that no one yet in the media has done, as you would expect from me — being the senior member of the American media and possibly the most insightful,” Savage said. “And I have to blow my own horn because everyone else tries to break my horn.”

Savage laid out his case, saying that the murder could have been avoided, but based on Zimmerman’s gun having a round in the chamber with the safety off, Zimmerman intended “to find some he could shoot or intimidate.”

“Zimmerman was carrying a Kel Tec semi-automatic 9mm handgun,” Savage said. “So? Big deal. It is a big deal because he had a bullet chambered in the gun and he had the safety off… Had he not chambered a round prior to meeting Trayvon, and had he not taken the safety off, even if Trayvon, during the altercation even if Trayvon had tried to grab the gun away from Zimmerman — had that gun not been chambered with a round and safety off, Trayvon Martin would have had to use two hands. You can’t do it with one hand.”

Anyone with a Concealed Carry permit or one who is familiar with firearms will immediately notice the errors in that statement. The comments below the article point out the fallacy of Savage’s position.

fltactical

As an owner of the Kel-Tec PF9, I can say that Savage (whom I normally generally like) is a fool. There is no safety on this weapon. It has a 2 stage trigger with a long and heavy trigger pull. This acts as a “safety” and is the most common trigger on concealed carry firearms. Also, I don’t know anyone who carries that doesn’t keep a round in the chamber. If you are attacked, you have no time to rack your slide and chamber the round. I am shocked at Dr. Savage’s lack of knowledge on this subject.

Fltactical is more polite than the next commenter in the queue.

seattle61-> fltactical

Agreed.. I was getting ready to post the same thing. Savage is an idiot

Savage has a history of jealousy with Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin. Those three usually ignore Savage as a whiner. That is until this week. Mark Levin let loose on Savage.

Mark Levin blasts ‘transgendering’ ‘snaggletooth’ ‘troll’ Michael Savage

5:44 PM 05/24/2013

On his radio show Thursday night, conservative talker Mark Levin scorched his former radio competitor Michael Savage for attacking fellow conservative talkers.

Levin took on Savage for attacking two of his colleagues, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.“I’m thinking of doing a one-hour special on the life and times of Michael Weiner,” Levin said. “Little Weiner, Weiner Nation calls himself ‘Savage,’ changes his name but you can’t blame him. He’s named after male genitalia. He is a real cancer on this business. He is a phony, fake conservative. All you have to do is Google his name and Google ‘Allen Ginsburg’ and Google ‘Fiji’ and all kinds of stuff pops up.”“Now he goes on the airwaves and he trashes a couple of my friends — Rush [Limbaugh], Sean [Hannity] claiming they’re not conservative enough, you know, like him,” Levin continued. “I don’t know, I’ve never seen Weiner Nation at a tea party rally. I’ve never seen Weiner Nation helping the conservative movement.”

“Let me tell you something, you little troll, you little nobody,” Levin said. “I kicked your butt in the ratings head-to-head from one end of the nation to the other. That’s why you’re late night, got it? I’d like you to come back at 6 p.m. against, Eastern of course, so I can do it again, snaggletooth. I know all about you. All your little secrets — how you trash other hosts, how you try to position them to the left of you. You’re a puke. I’m going to tell you something else — I’m not finished on this subject. I am not finished.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to you,” he continued. “But this thigh rash — this thigh rash is a hideous person. Yes, I remember what he said about parent’s with autistic children. I remember all of that. Yeah, I think I might do one-hour special: ‘The Weiner we didn’t know.’ You like that Mr. Producer? No, ‘The little Weiner we didn’t know.’ Actually, ‘The transgendering Weiner,’ or something like that. I’ll figure it out. Head’s up there pal.”

Ah, Levin, he certainly has a way with words. I have listened to Savage from time to time when I was out driving and there wasn’t anything else on. Anyone listening to Savage will quickly note one personal characteristic—he’s a hate-filled man.

A Productive Session for Firearms from the Missouri Legislature

I doubt that it’s a record but the Missouri Legislature produced a bumper crop of legislation this year—bills that reined in the scope of the FedGov while addressing school safety and increasing the state’s support for the 2nd Amendment.

The summary below was created by Marc Perez, a Missouri 2nd Amendment activist.

HCS/SB 75 – This act modifies provisions relating to public safety.

SHERIFFS: This act provides that no person will be eligible for the office of sheriff unless he or she holds a valid peace officer license under Chapter 590. Any person filing for the office must have the license at the time of filing. These provisions do not apply to St. Louis County or St. Louis City. (Section 57.010)

Every sheriff must maintain, house, and issue concealed carry permits beginning January 1, 2014. (Section 57.100)

The sheriff of any first class county not having a charter form of government, second class county, third class county, or fourth class county may employ an attorney to aid and advise the sheriff in the discharge of his or her duties and represent him or her in court. (Section 57.104)

Under current law, prisoners in a county jail must pay the costs of their board. This act requires the circuit clerk in each county to report to the Office of State Courts Administrator the names of people certified by the sheriff as being delinquent in the payment of money owed for a period of imprisonment in a county jail. Whenever a person has satisfied his or her debt or begun making regular payments to the sheriff, the sheriff must notify the clerk that the person is no longer considered delinquent. (Section 221.070)

The sheriff of any county may establish and operate a canteen or commissary in the county jail for the use and benefit of the prisoners. The revenues received from the canteen or commissary must be kept in a separate account and must be used to acquire the goods sold and other minimum expenses of operation. Any excess moneys must be deposited in the Inmate Prisoner Detainee Security Fund. (Section 221.102)

These provisions are substantially similar to HCS/HB 464 (2013) and HCS/SCS/SB 42 (2013).

ASIRT: This act establishes the Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training for Schools Program (ASIRT).

By July 1, 2014, each school district and charter school may train teachers and school employees on how to respond to students with information about a threatening situation and how to address a potentially dangerous or armed intruder or active shooter in the school or on school property.

Training may be conducted on an annual basis. Initial training may be eight hours in length and continuing training may be four hours in length. All school personnel must annually participate in a simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals, as described in the act.

Program instructors must be certified by the Department of Public Safety’s Peace Officers Standards Training Commission. (Section 170.315)

EDDIE EAGLE GUNSAFE PROGRAM: Each school district and charter school may annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students, or use a substantially similar or successor program of the same qualifications.

The purpose of the program will be to promote safety and protection of children and emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors must not make value judgments about firearms. Firearms are prohibited from the teaching of the program. Students with disabilities will participate to the extent appropriate. (Section 171.410)

FIREARMS OWNERSHIP RECORDS: Any records of ownership of a firearm or applications for ownership or an endorsement that allows a person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm are not open records and will not be open for inspection except by order of the court to persons having a legitimate interest. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. (Section 571.011)

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS: Under current law, a person seeking to carry concealed firearms must apply to the sheriff for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement. Upon the issuance of the certificate, the person must then present the certificate to the Department of Revenue, which issues a driver’s licenses or nondriver’s licenses with a concealed carry endorsement.

This act repeals the provisions requiring the person to present the certificate to the Department of Revenue for a driver’s license or nondriver’s license with a concealed carry endorsement. Instead, the permit issued by the sheriff authorizes the person to carry concealed firearms. (Section 571.101)

Concealed carry permits will be valid for five years from the date of issuance or renewal. A concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 must continue for a period of three years from the date of issuance or renewal, as described in the act. (Section 571.101)

This act changes the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry permit. Non-citizens who are United States permanent residents are eligible. Currently, an applicant must not have pled guilty or pled no contest to certain crimes punishable by a prison term of one year or less. This act increases the prison term to two years. This act adds closed records to the documents in which a person cannot have engaged in a pattern of behavior considered dangerous to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Applicants must also not otherwise be prohibited from possessing a firearm under section 571.070 or 18 U.S.C. 922(g). If an applicant is not a U.S. citizen, the application must include his or her country of citizenship and any alien or admission number issued by the federal Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement.

An applicant must show a government-issued photo identification only for the purpose of verifying the person’s identify for permit renewal. (Section 571.101)

The concealed carry permit must specify only the following information: the permit holder’s name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature; the signature of the issuing sheriff; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. (Section 571.101) The permit must be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches and must be of a uniform style. The permit must be assigned a Missouri uniform law enforcement system county code and must be stored in sequential number. (Section 571.101)

Biometric data is prohibited from being collected from the applicant. The sheriff must perform an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If no disqualifying information is identified, the sheriff must issue the permit.

However, if the required background checks are not completed within forty-eight hours and no disqualifying information has come to the sheriff’s attention, the sheriff must issue a permit. The permit will be valid until the sheriff issues or denies the certificate of qualification. If the background checks identify a disqualifying record, the sheriff must revoke the permit. (Section 571.101)

Sheriffs must keep a record of all applications for concealed carry permits or permits. Any record of an application that is incomplete or denied must be kept for a period not to exceed one year. Records of approved applications must be kept for one year after the expiration and non-renewal of the permit.

Beginning August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must not keep any records of applications for concealed carry permits. Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to an application for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must be given to MoSmart and the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides. (Section 571.101)

Certain personal protected information is required to not be batch processed for query and is only available for a single entry query if an individual is a subject of interest in an active criminal investigation or is arrested for a crime. In addition, the distribution of bulk downloads or batch data to federal, state, or private entities is prohibited, except to MoSmart as provided in the act. Any state agency that has retained any documents or records, including fingerprint records provided for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must destroy them upon successful issuance of a permit. (Section 571.101)

For purposes of chapter 571, the term “concealed carry permit” will include any concealed carry endorsement issued by the Department of Revenue before January 1, 2014 and any concealed carry document issued by any sheriff or under the authority of any sheriff after December 31, 2013. (Section 571.101)

If a permit holder is convicted, as described in the act, the court must forward the permit to the issuing sheriff. (Section 571.104)

To renew a concealed carry permit, a renewal application must be completed. In lieu of the fingerprint requirements and firearms safety training, the applicant need only display his or her current concealed carry permit. A name-based background check, including an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, must be done for each renewal.

The process for renewing a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 will be the same as for renewing a concealed carry permit except that the applicant need only display his or her current driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing an endorsement in lieu of the fingerprint and firearms safety training requirement. (Section 571.104)

Late fees assessed for a renewal and notice of expired certificates to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system and the individual are extended to concealed carry permits. Also, when a permit or endorsement holder’s permanent address changes and he or she reports the address change to the sheriffs, the sheriff of the new jurisdiction may charge a fee for processing not to exceed ten dollars.

If the person has a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, he or she must also furnish proof to the Department of Revenue. The sheriff must report the residence change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. A ten dollar fee may be charged for the replacement of a lost or destroyed permit or a driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing a concealed carry endorsement.

A sheriff may charge a fee not to exceed ten dollars for name changes. The sheriff must report the name change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. (Section 571.104) This act repeals the requirement that a concealed carry endorsement suspension be reinstated at the time of the individual’s driver’s license. (Section 571.107)

FIREARMS SAFETY INSTRUCTION: This act reduces, from fifty to twenty, the number of minimum rounds of live firing an applicant must do to receive a certificate of firearms safety training course completion by a qualified firearms safety instructor. Certificates from a firearms safety instructor course approved by the Department of Public Safety must be notarized.

This act allows a qualified firearms safety instructor to submit a copy of a training instructor certificate, course outline bearing a notarized signature of the instructor, and recent photograph to the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides. The sheriff must collect an annual ten dollar fee from an instructor who chooses to submit the information and must retain a database of qualified instructors.

This information will be a closed record except for access by any sheriff. Any firearms safety instructor who violates any provision of section 571.111 will be prohibited from instructing concealed carry permit classes and issuing certificates. (Section 571.111)

OTHER CONCEALED CARRY CHANGES: The forms used to petition a court to revoke an individual’s concealed carry permit or endorsement will be updated to incorporate changes in the law, including: the previously mentioned allowable increase in prison term from one year to years’ imprisonment; the effect of the issuance of a provisional certificate of qualification; and disqualification based on 18 U.S.C. 922(g). (Section 571.114)

The term “concealed carry endorsement” is replaced, or supplemented with, the phrase “concealed carry permit” throughout to reflect the change from the issuance of a concealed carry endorsement to a concealed carry permit. The terms “provisional certificate of qualification” and “certificate of qualification” are changed to “permit.”

In addition, “permanent resident” is added in conjunction with “United States citizen” or “U.S. citizen.” (Sections 50.535, 302.181, 571.030, 571.037, 571.107, 571.114, 571.121)

PROHIBITION ON SHARING RECORDS OR DEVELOPING DATABASES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: This prohibits state agencies, departments, contractors and agents working for the state from constructing, enabling, maintaining, participating in, developing or cooperating with the state or federal government in developing a database or record of the number or type of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories that an individual possesses. This provision is also contained in HCS/HB 787 (2013). (Section 571.500)

MOSMART: Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to a concealed carry endorsement must be given to the members of MoSmart. In addition, on August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must begin transferring any records related to the issuance of a concealed permit to MoSmart for dissemination to sheriffs. (Sections 571.101 & 650.350)

This act creates the “Concealed Carry Permit Fund” within the state treasury. The director of the Department of Public Safety must distribute all funds annually in the form of grants approved by MoSMART. The Department must administer all MoSMART grant deposits. Grant funds must be spent first to ensure county law enforcement agencies’ ability to comply with the issuance of conceal carry endorsements, including but not limited to, equipment, records management hardware and software, personnel, supplies, and other services. (Section 650.350)

REPEALED SECTION: This act repeals section 571.102, which governed the effective date of the law based on the date when the Department of Revenue begins issuing nondriver licenses with conceal carry endorsements. (Section 571.102)

This act contains an emergency clause on Section 650.350. (MoSmart) Provisions in this act are similar to HCS/SS/SB 252 (2013) and HCS/HB 787 (2013).

SCS HCS HB 436 — FIREARMS: This bill changes the laws regarding firearms. SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT The bill establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which specifies that although several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties under the powers granted under the United States Constitution, the supremacy does not apply to federal laws that restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the state except to the extent that they are necessary for the regulation of the land and naval forces of the United States Armed Forces.

The bill specifies that all past, present, or future federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution are invalid, will not be recognized, are specifically rejected, and will be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. It is the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of the state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of the state, and no public officer or employee of the state has any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right.

Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Any state citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms under these provisions will have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting the enforcement.

OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS – (My personal contribution—Marc Perez.)  In any jurisdiction that prohibits the open carry of a firearm by ordinance, the prohibition is lifted if the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times, he or she displays the endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer, and the firearm being openly carried is 16 inches or less in overall length. In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun cannot be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest. Any concealed carry endorsement holder who violates these requirements may be issued a citation for an amount of up to $35, but it will not be a criminal offense.

SCHOOL PROTECTION OFFICERS: Any school district may designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer, whose responsibilities and duties are voluntary and in addition to their normal responsibilities and duties. Any compensation for serving as a school protection officer must be funded by the local school district without using state funds.

The bill authorizes a school protection officer to carry concealed firearms in any school in the district, but he or she must keep the firearm on his or her person at all times while on school property. A person violating these provisions must be removed immediately from the classroom and is subject to employment termination proceedings.

A school protection officer may detain any person the officer sees violating or any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any state law or school policy. Any person detained for violation of a state law must, as soon as practically possible, be turned over to a law enforcement officer. Any person detained for a violation of a school policy must be turned over to a school administrator as soon as practically possible. However, a person cannot be detained for more than four hours.

The bill specifies the requirements to be designated as a school protection officer, including requesting the designation in writing to the school district superintendent, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, and submitting a certificate of school protection officer training program completion from a program approved by the Director of the Department of Public Safety. Any school district that designates a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer must notify the department director in writing within 30 days that includes specified information.

A school district may revoke the designation of a person as a school protection officer for any reason. The district must immediately notify the person in writing and must notify the department director in writing within 30 days of the revocation. The department director must maintain a listing of all persons designated as a school protection officer and make the list available to all law enforcement agencies. However, any identifying information collected is not considered public information and is not subject to an information request under the Open Meetings and Records Law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law.

Any school employee who discloses any information to anyone, other than those authorized to receive it, will be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and will be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district. Currently, a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement cannot carry a concealed firearm in any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body or a school official or the district school board. The bill exempts any teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who has been designated by his or her school district as a school protection officer and is carrying a firearm in a school within that district from the requirement of obtaining consent. The substitute requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission must establish minimum standards for the training of school protection officers, the minimum number of hours of training, and the curriculum for training programs and specifies the minimum training requirements. The commission must also establish minimum standards for school protection officer training instructors, training centers, and training programs.

The director of the commission must develop and maintain a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs and make the list available to every school district in the state. The bill specifies the information that must be submitted by each person seeking entrance into a school protection officer training center or program. A certificate of school protection officer training program completion may be issued to any applicant by any approved instructor affirming that the person has taken and passed a program that meets all requirements specified in the bill and that the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

FIREARM OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: A person or entity cannot publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement that allows the person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

A licensed health care professional cannot be required by law to inquire if a patient owns a firearm, document or maintain in a patient’s medical records if the patient owns a firearm, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on his or her status as a firearm owner. These provisions cannot be construed as prohibiting or restricting a health care professional from requesting or documenting the information if it is necessitated or medically indicated by the professional’s scope of practice and it does not violate any other state or federal law.

CONCEALED CARRY ENDORSEMENTS: The bill changes the minimum age at which a person can be issued a concealed carry endorsement from 21 years of age to 19 years of age.

SURRENDER OF FIREARMS: No county, municipality, or other governmental body or an agent of the entity may participate in any program in which an individual is given a thing of value in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the entity unless it has adopted a resolution, ordinance, or rule authorizing the participation in the program and the resolution, ordinance, or rule provides that any firearm received must be offered for sale or trade to a licensed firearms dealer. The proceeds from any sale or gains from a trade must be the property of the entity unless the proceeds are collected by a sheriff, in which case the proceeds must be deposited in the county sheriff’s revolving fund. Any firearm remaining in the possession of the entity after it has been offered for sale or trade to at least two licensed firearms dealers must be destroyed.

HB 533 — FIREARMS This bill specifies that a person who is found guilty or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a prior felony offense and who commits a subsequent felony offense in which the person possesses, displays, brandishes, threatens to use, attempts to use, or discharges any firearm will be guilty of the offense of unlawful possession or use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The offense will be in addition to and not in lieu of any underlying felony offense or other offense for which the person may be charged. The bill specifies that a person who commits the offense by possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 10 years imprisonment; by displaying, brandishing, threatening to use, or attempting to use a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 20 years imprisonment; and by discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to a term of life imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment must be imposed consecutively to any other terms of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.

The bill exempts law enforcement officers or United States military personnel who are performing their lawful duties or who are traveling to or from their places of employment or assignment from these provisions.

The bill specifies that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly possesses a firearm while also knowingly in possession of controlled substances that are sufficient for a felony violation.

This bill specifies that the state cannot prohibit any state employee from having a firearm in his or her vehicle on state property, provided the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. These provisions apply only to the state as an employer, when the state employee’s vehicle is on property owned or leased by the state, and the state employee is conducting activities within the scope of his or her employment.

That’s a long list. I congratulate Marc Perez for documenting all the firearms related changes passed during this session. These bills are now on Governor Jay Nixon’s desk. Early reports appeared to indicate that he would veto these bills en mass. That would require another legislative vote during the Legislature’s Veto Override session in September.

However, a new report as been published that opines that Nixon will let the bills sit, unsigned nor vetoed. That action will allow the bills to pass by default.

On May 22, the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) was sent to Governor Jay Nixon. As of this writing, Nixon, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he plans to veto or sign the bill.

Earlier this month, both houses of the Republican-controlled state legislature passed the bill by an overwhelming majority.

When asked about Governor Nixon’s intention, a source inside his office told The New American that in an effort to avoid multiplying the several scandals already plaguing his administration, Nixon would likely let the bill sit on his desk without signing or vetoing it, thus allowing the measure to become law without his participation. — The New American.

Yes, a very productive session this year, indeed!

Revolt against the DOR

UPDATE (Wednesday, March 6, 2013): I renewed my driver’s license at my local bureau yesterday. I’m over 65 so all I had to show was my voter’s registration card—something to indicate my residence. I asked the lady about the DoR scanning documents. She had not heard about it nor had in instructions to do so.  One difference, this was a franchise office. That may have been the difference.

My Missouri Driver’s License will expire next week. It seems to be coming faster every iteration. My CCW expires in a few months. That will be my 3rd renewal. For you outside Missouri, our CCW license is our driver’s license or a non-driver’s ID card issued by our Department of Revenue with the appropriate annotations added, the letters CCW and an expiration date.

Since the beginning of Missouri’s CCW, its expiration date and that of the driver’s license have had different renewal dates. Our driver’s license term is for four years, our CCW is for three.  There have been a number of attempts to synchronize both for the same term. To the best of my knowledge that has not been done.

This year, both of my licenses are due the same year—different months, but still the same year. I had thought to renew them separately until I read this in the news.

Missouri Dept. of Revenue Allegedly Compiling Data on Concealed Carry Holders, Forwarding It to Company With Ties to Gov’t

Mar. 5, 2013 3:46am

A Southeast Missouri man has sued after being told by a license office that it would make digital copies of documents needed for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The Missouri Department of Revenue has allegedly been compiling data on Missouri residents seeking concealed carry permits and then forwarding it to a third party with ties to the federal government.

Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder held a press conference on Monday and revealed the lawsuit had been filed to fight the action and prevent any violation of Americans’ privacy.

The lawsuit was filed Monday by Stoddard County prosecuting attorney Russ Oliver on behalf of Missouri resident Eric Griffin. Oliver filed the lawsuit as a private attorney.

“I fully support Mr. Oliver in this important legal action in Stoddard County Circuit Court,” Kinder said in a press release. “The case has issues of statewide importance implicating serious privacy concerns for law-abiding citizens. These folks have followed the letter of the law and have been approved for concealed carry by the proper authorities. They must not be required to share that information with any third parties or the federal government.”

The issue was brought to light after Griffin, the Missourian on whose behalf Oliver filed the lawsuit, went to his local Department of Motor Vehicles fee office after passing the application process for a concealed carry gun permit. Oliver says Griffin refused to let DMV employees scan and store some of his documentation — so he was denied his permit.

The Missouri Department of Revenue reportedly installed new computer equipment that records certain information as a part of the federal Real ID Act of 2005, according to Oliver. State laws prohibit the department from retaining and forwarding certain information. The information that was compiled by the DOR was reportedly being forwarded to Morpho Trust, U.S.A., a Georgia company that “specializes in partnering with state and federal governmental agencies,” according to the press release put out by Kinder’s office.

“There are important privacy concerns for concealed carry holders who justly fear their information is being sent to a third party or the federal government,” Oliver said. “Missouri law makes it clear that what is going on here is illegal, and serves no legitimate purpose since the county sheriff is solely charged with the duty of determining applicants’ eligibility for endorsement.”

A trial judge issued a temporary restraining order over the practice Monday — the same day the lawsuit was filed — and scheduled a hearing March 12. Oliver said the order is limited to the Stoddard County license office.

I’m glad Peter Kinder stood up to help block the illegal acts of the Department of Revenue. There has been an injunction issued blocking the DoR from collecting that information. I don’t know how long that injunction will last. It may force me to renew my CCW early.

The Department of Revenue has been operating like a rogue agency for years, if not decades. It’s time the state brought the DoR to heel.

A Revenue Department spokesman said the agency follows the law. — The Blaze.

That response makes me wonder whose law they are following? It isn’t the law of the State of Missouri.

***

Tidbits in the news: Vanity license plate, Freedom, banned in Washington, DC.

‘Freedom’ license plate banned in Washington D.C.

March 5, 2013 | 9:56 am
Banned-in-DC

Banned in Washington, DC.

The word “FREEDOM” is among the list of banned vanity license plate slogans for Washington D.C., according a government file obtained by a Freedom of Information Request filed by the transparency website GovernmentAttic.org.

Other banned phrases include anti-tax messages such as “TAXKLLR” and “TAXRUS4″…

***

Unions, specifically, teacher’s unions, in Michigan, are back in the news. Michigan is now a Right to Work state. The state’s teacher’s union, seeing mandatory union dues disappear are trying a new tactic—forcing teacher’s to pay their future dues in advance—TEN years of dues!

Teachers fight back after union locks in dues payments for next 10 years

2:39 AM 03/05/2013

A school district is attempting to force teachers to pay union dues for the next 10 years, despite being located in Michigan, which is now a right-to-work state that specifically prohibits mandatory unionization.

Michigan became the 24th right-to-work state in December. But the law doesn’t take effect until March 28 — giving unions time to grandfather in their contracts if they can get them approved before the deadline. As part of this effort, the Taylor School District approved an entirely separate “union security agreement” that will force teachers to keep paying the union until 2023.

Under the security agreement, teachers’ only options will be to pay union dues, or pay an agency fee amounting to about $800 a year.

But three Taylor teachers who want to leave the union said enough is enough.

“I believe it is unfair of the union to have a security clause that requires me to be a member for 10 years,” said Rebecca Metz, a Taylor teacher, in a statement.

Metz, along with fellow teachers Angela Steffke and Nancy Rhatigan, is suing to block implementation the 10-year dues extension.

A lawyer representing the three teachers framed the issue as a clear case of a union and a school district attempting to thwart the will of the legislature.

There is more at the website but once again, education unions are acting more like mobsters than like teachers.

Iowa joins with 44 other states to implement the RKBA

In case the acronym RKBA is unfamiliar to you, it means Right to Keep and Bare Arms.  The US 2nd Amendment, in other words.  Iowa is one of six states that has no such right in their state constitution.  They are about to correct that deficit.

Iowa House OKs bill to protect gun rights

Democrats walk out to protest move

By James Frazier, Thursday, March 1, 2012.

CEDAR FALLS, Iowa — Despite increasingly permissive gun laws, Iowa has long been one of only six states without a right to bear arms in its constitution.
Those days may be numbered, as the Iowa House has passed a bill to explicitly protect gun rights in the state constitution despite vigorous Democratic objections that included a mass walkout from the Statehouse.
Democrats in the Iowa House forcefully made their objections known with Wednesday’s walkout, claiming they were protesting the bill being brought to the floor without advance notice. They also had attacked earlier versions of the bill as an extremist bid to strike down all gun laws.
At a press conference, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy characterized the bills as eliminating “all gun laws, gone, not through legislation, but through altering the Iowa Constitution.”

As usual, democrats are more concerned about the loss of state repression of a basic human right than enabling those rights for the citizens of their state.  They follow the usual democrat tactic—fleeing, like those democrats in Wisconsin and Indiana. They refuse to perform their duties as legislators and use this tactic to block the exercise of the other legislators in the state. 

The democrat opposition continues.

We left in protest so that there could be some openness and transparency and some sunlight drawn on what this issue is: very, very extreme,” he said.
Republican leaders dispute that and charge that the walkout was not about the issues but about making a scene — it could not have paralyzed the legislature as a Democratic walkout in neighboring Wisconsin over an anti-union bill did.

Unfortunately for the democrats, this tactic doesn’t work in Iowa. Instead it put on display the idiocy of those “lawmakers.”  You see, the quorum requirements in Iowa is 50% and the split of the state legislators is 64-40, ‘Pubs over the dems.

Oops!

When the dems heard the vote was still scheduled, they returned—and lost the vote 61 to 37.

House Speaker Kraig Paulsen, Hiawatha Republican, had declined to continue the debate until the Democrats had returned so as not to inflame an already sensitive issue, but Thursday he criticized the Democrats for walking out.
“Iowans send us here to go to work. Instead of standing here and debating, doing what Iowans pay and expect us to do, they left the capitol,” Mr. Paulsen said.

Gun rights advocates have made significant headway in Iowa. Concealed Carry was upgraded to make the state  “shall issue” instead of “may issue” and thus broke the power of the local Sheriffs to block Concealed Carry permits to anyone except their supporters.

The statists continue to lose. Illinois is the only state that prohibits this basic human right, the right to protect yourself and your family from the human predators amongst us. Iowa is about to rejoin the other 44 states with an affirmation of this basic right.  That leaves five more state that have yet to implement this right, California, New York, Maryland, Minnesota and New Jersey. It’s interesting to note that these five states plus Illinois have some of the nation’s highest rates of violent crime.  Perhaps if they allowed their citizens to means and ability to defend themselves, those violent trends would reverse.

I’ll not hold my breathe, however.  It’s too much intelligence to expect from the dems.

Pickin’

You may have heard and watched the TV series—Pickin’? Well, Mrs. Crucis and I are heading out in a bit to do some of our own, i.e., we’re getting first pick before some estate sales.  She will be looking for stuff for the Master’s Closet run by our church.  The Master’s Closet provides free clothing for those in need.  Me?  I’ll just look to see what there is to see. Maybe something by Smith, Ruger, Colt, Winchester…  It’s surprising what you can find on occasion. I once found at such a site a S&W Model 13 that I carry from time-to-time.

***

I was listening  to the radio earlier when one of our conservative state legislators said he had no problem with elected officials carrying in the statehouse nor on the floor.  Immediately the libs started their usual mantra, “It’ll be Dodge City on a Saturday night!  There’ll be shootouts in the streets and under the Capitol dome!”  The usual idiocy.

It occurred to me that libs see others as they see themselves. In that case, all that mental instability they label law-abiding gun owners, especially those who have been vetted by law enforcement to be granted concealed carry permits, must be a reflection on the mental stability of themselves.

That makes the concealed carry issue easy to resolve.  We’ll ban gun ownership by dems and libs because of their proven mental instability. In fact, they may need to be made “wards of the state” under close supervision lest they lash out and attack or injure some law abiding citizen. 

Yeah, that’ll work!

They should approve of this move since they want everyone to be supervised by the state.  We’ll start with them since the rest of us are, by definition, are certified law abiding and mentally stable by the law enforcement arms of the state and federal government.

If you didn’t know, you have to be vetted by the FBI, in addition to Missouri Highway Patrol and your local Sheriff, to get a concealed carry permit in Missouri.