SJR 36/Constitutional Amendment 5

[Redbaron007]

For inquiring minds; here is the language for SJR 36/Constitutional Amendment 5 on this Fall's ballot:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/SJR36.pdf

There has been some press, mostly negative against the measure. Here are a couple:

http://www.ky3.com/news/local/auditor-gun-rights-proposal-could-cost-missouri/21048998_26609138

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article591383.html

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_d8ae03ce-4ae1-5845-85bc-b43cbb321071.html

Just in case one hasn't noticed, the anti-gunners are turning up the rhetoric on this bill with a lot of dire doom and gloom. It appears they will attack from a couple of angles: Extremely high cost to the tax payers (although none can be attributed to it, but are citing Louisiana as a reference) and allowing 'criminals' to own guns, you know, drug lords, rapist, etc......

The anti's don't want it to pass. I see the blood in the streets and the wild wild west comments forthcoming!!

 

[Baked on Grease]

(Specifically to one of the linked stories)

"Could lead to significant judicial costs"

Well, if your cops did their job without violating the Citizens' Rights the cost would not go up, now would it?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

From the St Louis Compost and Distract:

Kansas City officials also made dire predictions. They said the constitutional amendment likely would invalidate local firearms ordinances, resulting in an "increase in violence and mayhem" that would require more money for police, courts and neighborhood programs.

Uh...they said that back before CCW was passed too.

Mr. Auditor,

Yes there will be [a litigation cost], unless all these towns repeal their no OC codes enacted under RSMo 21.750.3. This would effectively negate any litigation. Then the Jeff City can simply strike the "regulate OC" part out of 21.750.3, then the state is off the hook for any litigation too.

Why would you not mention this logical conclusion, you are running for Governor are you not. Litigation could be avoided almost overnight if towns and the legislature were so inclined to do so.

STLToday does not have the article open for comments.

 

[Griz]

STLToday does not have the article open for comments.

No need for rational discourse on the subject. Knee jerk reactions are quite adequate.

 

[Redbaron007]

The sheeple are already taking the bait.

A conversation with a fairly conservative man ended up with him saying that due to all the violence in the US; hand guns needed much scrutiny. According to his comment, "from what I've read, the amendment is a waste of time, it's going to create havoc with law enforcement and allow too many to have firearms that don't need it....we don't need more government court costs".

I've known this guy for almost 25 years.....always very conservative......he's a gentleman, semi-retired cattle farmer, hunter and overall very nice guy. Somehow, someway, he has bitten the apple that has poisoned his mind. He wouldn't explain where he got his info to develop his opinion, but had knowledge. Was very sad to listen to his comments.

 

[OC for ME]

The sheeple are already taking the bait.

A conversation with a fairly conservative man ended up with him saying that due to all the violence in the US; hand guns needed much scrutiny. According to his comment, "from what I've read, the amendment is a waste of time, it's going to create havoc with law enforcement and allow too many to have firearms that don't need it....we don't need more government court costs".

I've known this guy for almost 25 years.....always very conservative......he's a gentleman, semi-retired cattle farmer, hunter and overall very nice guy. Somehow, someway, he has bitten the apple that has poisoned his mind. He wouldn't explain where he got his info to develop his opinion, but had knowledge. Was very sad to listen to his comments.

The truth is the antidote to the poison that is being spread. Remember, the anti-liberty crowd said very close to the same things before we got CCW. Remind him of this and he may be cured.

 

[Redbaron007]

The truth is the antidote to the poison that is being spread. Remember, the anti-liberty crowd said very close to the same things before we got CCW. Remind him of this and he may be cured.

This was brought up and discussed; he believed there have been more mass shootings and deadly family disputes resolved by firearms; subsequently, something should be done. :uhoh:

I tried to reiterate the same doom and gloom stories were heard as CCWs were passed across the country; since these have passed, the predictions have not come to fruition. Yes, the mass shootings and family shootings get more air time; however, the amount has not increase as a result of CCW.

Hopefully, he will go back and ponder it and realize his failed thinking/indoctrination.

I will see him in a week or so again; I'll see if he brings it up again.

 

[OC for ME]

This was brought up and discussed; he believed there have been more mass shootings and deadly family disputes resolved by firearms; subsequently, something should be done. :uhoh:

I tried to reiterate the same doom and gloom stories were heard as CCWs were passed across the country; since these have passed, the predictions have not come to fruition. Yes, the mass shootings and family shootings get more air time; however, the amount has not increase as a result of CCW.

Hopefully, he will go back and ponder it and realize his failed thinking/indoctrination.

I will see him in a week or so again; I'll see if he brings it up again.

Here ya go.

(CNSNews.com) – “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent,”says a new report by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The $10 million study was commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

I suspect that the real number of "DGUs" is as iterated in the Businessweek article towards the bottom...684 to 1013 per day nation wide. If there were 5479 per day (the 2 million number) we would be seeing these DGUs on the news far more frequently.....or not, knowing how the media is anti-gun.

But, read the linked stuff if you wish and you may be able to string together a argument to change his mind by using the anti-2A crowds own data.

Good luck.

 

[Redbaron007]

Here ya go.

I suspect that the real number of "DGUs" is as iterated in the Businessweek article towards the bottom...684 to 1013 per day nation wide. If there were 5479 per day (the 2 million number) we would be seeing these DGUs on the news far more frequently.....or not, knowing how the media is anti-gun.

But, read the linked stuff if you wish and you may be able to string together a argument to change his mind by using the anti-2A crowds own data.

Good luck.

Thanks OC....the CDC info in the first link is interesting. I had forgotten about that info...I don't think it was highly promoted by the MSM last year. Although, I'm a little off kelter with the Harvard link....were you drawing a contrast between the CDC and the Harvard report? The Harvard report seems to dated; utilizing information from 1997-2002.

 

[OC for ME]

Thanks OC....the CDC info in the first link is interesting. I had forgotten about that info...I don't think it was highly promoted by the MSM last year. Although, I'm a little off kelter with the Harvard link....were you drawing a contrast between the CDC and the Harvard report? The Harvard report seems to dated; utilizing information from 1997-2002.

Not really, the Businessweek article cites the Harvard "study" and the link did not take me to it, at least on my computer. I found it and provided the link so as to provide both sides of the argument. I think 2 million is high and the Harvard finding too low, just my view based on doing my own feeble research.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

The CDC is no friend of the gun owner but they do use far more statistical data than most folks. The FBI crime stats are hard to distill down into what the "real" DGU numbers are.

 

[Redbaron007]

Not really, the Businessweek article cites the Harvard "study" and the link did not take me to it, at least on my computer. I found it and provided the link so as to provide both sides of the argument. I think 2 million is high and the Harvard finding too low, just my view based on doing my own feeble research.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense

The CDC is no friend of the gun owner but they do use far more statistical data than most folks. The FBI crime stats are hard to distill down into what the "real" DGU numbers are.

I'm following ya now.

Thx!!

 

[logunowner]

Interesting to me is the article and it's finding are being presented as to say, that the DGU can be used to determine if guns will be outlawed in the US or not. The consent debate around guns is getting very old. The debate should be is there enough Liberals to rewrite the 2nd Amendment, if not this issue needs to go away....I know.....

 

[Redbaron007]

Today the Judge dismissed the lawsuit against Amendment #5. Appeals are expected. :cuss:

http://www.abc17news.com/missouri-news/Missouri-judge-rejects-challenges-to-ballot-items/26747112

 

[Firearms Iinstuctor]

The sheeple are already taking the bait.

A conversation with a fairly conservative man ended up with him saying that due to all the violence in the US; hand guns needed much scrutiny. According to his comment, "from what I've read, the amendment is a waste of time, it's going to create havoc with law enforcement and allow too many to have firearms that don't need it....we don't need more government court costs".

I've known this guy for almost 25 years.....always very conservative......he's a gentleman, semi-retired cattle farmer, hunter and overall very nice guy. Somehow, someway, he has bitten the apple that has poisoned his mind. He wouldn't explain where he got his info to develop his opinion, but had knowledge. Was very sad to listen to his comments.

I know many so called conservatives and so called 2nd amendment supporters but when push comes to shove. That when their true colors come out.

I would bet that if you would talk about taking away farm subsidies you would find out how liberal he really is.

Its all those others taking the government hand outs not me that are bad.

Same with gun owners those who say I am pro 2nd BUT are really not.

 

[Redbaron007]

Now the appeal to the MO Supreme Court.

http://www.kspr.com/news/local/miss...ar-challenge-to-gun-measure/21051620_26779114

 

[kcgunfan]

Does anyone know when the SOS posted the ballot language?

Now the appeal to the MO Supreme Court.

http://www.kspr.com/news/local/miss...ar-challenge-to-gun-measure/21051620_26779114

 

[ATCSamps]

when i first heard about this, the section "but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons" was is to be removed if it passes. is that still the case? if so, how does that effect requirement of having to get a permit to CC?

 

[kcgunfan]

Yes and nobody knows.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Redbaron007]

The sheeple are already taking the bait.

A conversation with a fairly conservative man ended up with him saying that due to all the violence in the US; hand guns needed much scrutiny. According to his comment, "from what I've read, the amendment is a waste of time, it's going to create havoc with law enforcement and allow too many to have firearms that don't need it....we don't need more government court costs".

I've known this guy for almost 25 years.....always very conservative......he's a gentleman, semi-retired cattle farmer, hunter and overall very nice guy. Somehow, someway, he has bitten the apple that has poisoned his mind. He wouldn't explain where he got his info to develop his opinion, but had knowledge. Was very sad to listen to his comments.

Well...had a follow up chat with this gentleman this weekend. He sought me out to continue the conversation. Apparently he has done some follow up.....he has moved from being against the bill to, something he can consider. He agreed he had only read the '10-second sound blips' and the 'three newspaper lines' where MDA and the Police Chief were quoted. He doesn't want more restrictions; but finds it hard to under stand the 'strict scrutiny' verbiage when the rights are unalienable. We chatted a few minutes about it, then he thought he could support it. He is still not clear on the rationale of the amendment, but wouldn't oppose it.

 

[OC for ME]

No opposing is not the same as voting for it.