If Amendment 5 passes, people convicted of serious felonies, including career criminals with multiple felony convictions, who cannot currently possess firearms will be able to do so under the laws of this state.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. We can’t have that.
Walking around with guns?
That’s crazy talk. Thank goodness it’s illegal so it’s not happening now:
Currently, here in Boone County my office is prosecuting many “felon in possession” cases and we are, accordingly, often able to take trouble making criminals off our streets by utilizing this particular law.
So, some felons are carrying weapons now, despite the fact it’s prohibited by law?
How is that possible? Who are these people?
Many of these people arrested for “felon in possession” are gang members, drug dealers or habitual criminals who have committed other dangerous crimes which may remain unsolved due to lack of witness participation.
Sounds like they might be defined as “violent felons.”
Sounds like these folks would still be prosecuted by Missouri law.
In the North Side neighborhood of St. Louis, which is pierced by sirens and pockmarked with boarded storefronts, Korey Davis, a 22-year-old resident, grimaced at the ballot measure. To Ms. Davis, who is black and once was held up by ”an itsy-bitsy boy with a great big gun,” putting more guns on the street would turn some urban neighborhoods ”back to the Wild, Wild West.”
So, let’s take the two assumed facts by the left and agree that they are true.
First, the Wild West had stricter gun control laws.
Second, the Wild West was a dangerous place where people were getting shot…a lot.
Not a single gun shop can be found in this city because they are outlawed. Handguns were banned in Chicago for decades, too, until 2010, when the United States Supreme Court ruled that was going too far, leading city leaders to settle for restrictions some describe as the closest they could get legally to a ban without a ban. Despite a continuing legal fight, Illinois remains the only state in the nation with no provision to let private citizens carry guns in public.
And yet Chicago, a city with no civilian gun ranges and bans on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, finds itself laboring to stem a flood of gun violence that contributed to more than 500 homicides last year and at least 40 killings already in 2013, including a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old girl on Tuesday.
Three decades ago, at the dawn of municipal self-government in the District, the city’s first elected mayor and council enacted one of the country’s toughest gun-control measures, a ban on handgun ownership that opponents have long said violates the Second Amendment.
Although studies through the decades have reached conflicting conclusions, this much is clear: The ban, passed with strong public support in 1976, has not accomplished everything that the mayor and council of that era wanted it to.
Over the years, gun violence has continued to plague the city, reaching staggering levels at times.
In the first six months of 2013, murders fell by nearly 7 percent, compared with the same period in 2012. Aggravated assaults fell by 6.6 percent, and robberies are down 1.8 percent. “All of the offenses in the violent crime category—murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and robbery—showed decreases when data from the first six months of 2013 were compared with data from the first six months of 2012,” according to the FBI. Overall, violent crime in the U.S. fell by 5.4 percent. Burglaries, larceny and auto thefts also decreased.
It’s also worth noting that gun-ownership rates in the Midwest (39 percent) and South (50 percent) far exceed gun-ownership rates in the Northeast (22 percent), yet violent crime is down more in the Midwest and South than it is in the Northeast, according to the FBI statistics. And rural areas, where gun-ownership rates also are higher than average, saw a larger reduction in violent crime that metropolitan areas, where gun-ownership rates are lower than average.
So, can we conclude that stricter gun control is a contributor to gun violence? After all, if we accept the premises supplied by the left, that the Old West had stricter gun laws and it was a crazy shoot-fest, and compare it with the levels of violence in cities with the strictest gun laws, the results are very similar.
By taking this action, is the Kansas City City Council making the city more dangerous?
Their own arguments, along with current facts, would say they are.
The reality of this is it will do nothing to impact gun violence in Kansas City. The people currently shooting people don’t care if they can open carry.
They are shooting people.
This just infringes on the Second Amendment right to self-defense for those who would like to peaceably open carry a gun.
Missouri ProVote, “a statewide coalition of labor unions and community groups,” rates him at 11 percent progressive.
That’s probably why the unions are bankrolling a primary candidate against him.
According to the Missouri Ethics Commission, Mike Swyers has raised $57,529 to Bahr’s $20,383.05.
Where did Swyer’s loot come from?
Nearly all of it has come from unions.
Of the $57,529, almost 18 percent, or $10,309, came directly from unions.
Another 79 percent came from Carpenters Help In The Political Process, CHIPP. They’ve donated $45,500.
CHIPP is basically a front group for the Carpenter’s District Council of St. Louis, as they share the same address.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Swyers is a “Business Agent at Carpenters District Council of Greater St.Louis”
What’s a “business agent?”
According to Teamsters.org, it’s a “full-time representative of a local union whose job is to represent members in the local.”
You can make a pretty good living as a union rep, too:
CHIPP has been around for a while and has made other donations. They gave $2,500 to Progress KC, $10,000 to Kander for Missouri, $20,000 to Missourians for Koster, $25,000 to the MO Democratic State Committee, $25,000 to Missouri Early Voting Fund.
Oh, and they threw $25,000 to Jay Nixon in 2011.
Clearly they are all about electing left wing, pro-union candidates.
It’s obvious what’s happening here. Unions are trying to buy themselves a seat in the 102nd.
In 2012, Bahr won 62 percent of the vote. That followed more than doubling his opponents votes in 2010.
Ryan Johnson, president of the Missouri Alliance for Freedom said, “This is not a primary. This is a general election under the guise of a primary.”
Evidence from the most recent elections supports Johnson. Whoever wins the primary will probably be the next Representative for the 102nd District.
The choice is between a pro-union candidate supported by progressives, and a free-market candidate supported by advocates of freedom.
Sen. Claire McCaskill was on Fox 2′s new show, “Hancock & Kelley,” a Missouri focused political show featuring John Hancock, a Republican strategist and Mike Kelley, a Democratic stratigist. The show format is much like “Hannity & Colmes” used to have back in the day, only with less debate.
Hancock asked Sen. McCaskill about the crisis on the border and wondered why Congress couldn’t pass comprehensive policy on immigration.
McCaskill blamed Speaker John Boehner for the failure to pass amnesty.
The problem is, the crisis we see on the border isn’t because of a failure to pass the Senate’s amnesty bill. It’s because President Obama signed an Executive Order granting amnesty to DREAMers, a signal across Central America to send their kids.
It’s also because of a very loose (read: incorrect) reading of a child trafficking law.
These children aren’t being trafficked. They are being smuggled. There’s a big difference.
That’s but one of three reasons it’s wrong to point to the Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 as justification for the relocation of all these kids:
First, it appears that a significant majority of children coming across our borders illegally are not “unaccompanied alien children” according to the definition found in federal law. Federal law defines an “unaccompanied alien child” as an illegal alien under the age of 18 who is without “a parent or legal guardian in the United States.” Data from government agencies suggest that the overwhelming majority of minors arriving on the U.S. border have family in the United States.
McCaskill makes this point, inadvertently, when she points out that “a majority of these kids have been placed already in the homes of relatives.”
Third, even if all people coming across the border illegally were “unaccompanied alien children” and victims of trafficking, the 2008 act includes language that gives the president some leeway in its application. … In other words, the law does not necessarily require that all recently arrived illegal immigrants receive a day in court.
She also makes the assertion that border security is stronger now than under President Bush and illegal immigration is less than under Bush.
I quote Vice-President Dick Cheney when I say, “So?”
That’s like my kid telling me she’s standing there with the front door open less than her younger sister, so it’s acceptable.
The door is still open.
I don’t care if it’s better. It’s still bad.
Finally, McCaskill says the number of children is down because they’ve gotten the word out to the families in Central America that they’re being lied to and their kids won’t just become American citizens.
I wonder why they didn’t send that message back in January when they were hiring 65,000 escorts for the unaccompanied minors they were expecting. I mean, wouldn’t it have been cheaper just to send the message then, rather than deal with all this mess now?
I don’t think they’ve spent $3.7 billion sending that message, which is what President Obama wants to solve the problem.
It’s almost like the Democrats wanted this problem to happen. But that would mean they were willing to allow tens of thousands of children to subject themselves to a dangerous journey from their home country to America, submitting themselves to the whims of coyotes who have been known to rape the people their smuggling.
Democrats wouldn’t let that happen just to score some political points, would they?
At a recent candidate forum at a county fair, representatives were there to review all the amendments that citizens will be voting on on August 5th.
The person explaining Amendment 7 was an engineer for the Department of Transportation. He said he wasn’t there to persuade us either way, but by the way, here’s everything you’ll get if the Amendment passes (wink, wink).
He read the ballot language and then took questions. Once again, I let people ask all the questions they wanted and when there was a lull, I raised my hand.
Me: “The General Assembly could add all this money from the general revenue to MODOT’s budget, couldn’t they?”
Engineer: “They could.”
Me: “So, instead they spent all that money somewhere else and are now asking us to give more.”
Engineer: “…That’s an accurate assessment.”
You make up your own mind. It’s true MODOT needs more money.