General

NRA and Bloomberg Go Head-to-Head in Missouri — NRA Wins!

Woman wearing blue jeans green shirt and a firearm

The anti gun and pro Second Amendment forces came to a showdown in Missouri. The legislature spoke, the executive vetoed, and before you knew it, it was the gun rights of law-abiding citizens that hung in the balance. Then, Bloomberg and the NRA entered the fray. Here is the full release from the NRA.

Woman wearing blue jeans green shirt and a firearm
Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk.

The Missouri General Assembly’s override of Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of an important pro-gun self-defense measure is a true victory for law-abiding gun owners and all residents of the Show Me State.

But you wouldn’t know it if you get your news from so-called “mainstream” media sources like The New York Times.

First, some background.

On Wednesday, the General Assembly voted to override Nixon’s veto of Senate Bill 656. The new law will allow anyone legally allowed to possess a firearm to carry that firearm, while also maintaining the current permit system. In addition, the bill:

  • Expands Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground protections
  • Adds additional permit options to include extended and lifetime permits
  • Specifies that with the exception of credit card fees, no additional fee beyond $100 may be charged to process concealed carry permits
  • Allows members of the military extra time to renew their permits

Those are all good things, of course. That’s why the bill passed earlier this year with overwhelming support.

NRA-ILA logo However, next came Nixon’s veto of the bill. Then, as override efforts grew, billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg swept into the Show Me State with a grassroots effort led by Missouri gun owners, hunters, and others interested in expanding liberty. In the end, freedom won. And that was something that The New York Times just couldn’t quietly accept.

In the end, freedom won. And that was something that The New York Times just couldn’t quietly accept. In an op-ed hysterically titled, “Missouri: The Shoot-Me State,” the Times editorial board called the veto override “an alarming victory for the gun lobby,” and declared that it “provides further evidence that gun safety cannot be left to state lawmakers beholden to the gun lobby.” Of course, the Times and other national media outlets have always liked to warn that any expansion of Second Amendment rights will cause Wild West shootouts and blood running in the streets. They did so when the movement for concealed carry first began in Florida decades ago, and since then violent crime has dropped precipitously. Now, they warn of equally ominous possibilities with this new Missouri law.

Winchester PDX
Winchester’s PDX load is a good personal defense load.

In fact, Missouri joins several other states that have deregulated the concealed carry process, allowing citizens to practice their Second Amendment rights without jumping through hoops and paying the government a fee to do so. And none of those states are seeing an increase in violence as a result.

The truth is, the override of the veto will go a long way toward making all Missourians safer, not putting them in danger. After all, violent criminals already carry firearms anywhere and everywhere they want without a permit. Why shouldn’t law-abiding Missouri residents have the same opportunity to do so for defense of themselves and their families? NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox put it best when summing up the successful veto override: “This is a great day for freedom in Missouri. The legislature stood strong for the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by overriding Gov. Nixon’s misguided veto. Despite the best efforts of Michael Bloomberg and out-of-state gun control groups to defeat the override vote, their agenda was rejected.”

Missouri was a win. How have the anti-gun and pro Second Amendment forces fared in your state. Share your answers in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (13)

  1. I don’t know who the gal is in the picture, …… I would love to honor, cherish, obey, and worship her for the rest of eternity

    but let’s start off with dinner soon, I will meet you at the firing range this Saturday.

    Cheers!

  2. I can see it now: Conestoga wagons lining Route 66 just like the 1800s. Only this time, they’ll be headed EAST TO ST LOUIS and not the other way ’round! I sure hope they leave the freakin’ flower children and sanctuary city proponents behind. Instead of pioneers, we can call ’em 66’ers or 20-20’ers or something like that.

  3. I am happy for the folks in Missouri and the NRA’s ability to overcome Bloomberg’s meddling. However things did not fare so well in Washington State with Initiative 590. The west-side liberals, Bloomberg’s millions, and a silent NRA spelled certain defeat for us pro-gun rights, east-side conservatives. AND now the states attorney general, supported by our Democratic governor, is leading the charge to introduce new legislation that will ban ‘assault rifles’ and high capacity magazines (http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/state-ag-proposes-assault-weapons-ban/). The Californication of Washington State may not have the support it needs in the Legislature, but I foresee Washington State will continue to be the battleground for the anti-gun agenda.

  4. I’m pretty sure Bloomberg wasn’t the one to lead a grassroots effort of hunters and gun owners against gov. Nixon. I am grateful for this article, but more and more I’m seeing glaring mistakes that can confuse people who are new to these issues.

    1. Agreed. I had to re-read this several times to try and make sense of it before I realized it was just editorial errors. There’s also the section where a bit of text is repeated twice. I did get the gist of it, though.

    2. Sorry but – a bit of text repeated twice. That would mean there was a bit of text four times. Doesn’t it?

  5. Everyone should join the NRA, or at least contribute to the NRA-ILA. You can also contribute to your favorite gun rights group through smile.amazon.com, then choose the group. Every purchase gives a portion to the group. Can you imagine how different these attacks on the 2A would look if the NRA was 50 million strong instead of 5 million?

  6. Kudos for the General Assembly of Missouri ! Now it’s time for them to proceed with the impeachment of Governor Nixon for his blatant violation of his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of our country.

  7. I really am overjoyed that the anti-freedom Governor of Missouri has been put into his place. What’s his place? A servant of the people. He’s obviously not on board with that. While it is true that our representatives that we send to the State houses around the country and into Washington D.C. to use their best judgment on many issues, it is also true that when an obvious and overwhelming desire or choice by the people you represent you, AS THEIR SERVANT, should vote the way the people choose. As a servant of the people, if you cannot abide by the choices of your constituents, you should reside immediately.

    Jay Nixon: You should resign today. In disgrace.

    Now, the elephant in the room is the U.S. Federal government. While it is clear to anyone with half a brain, that the 2nd Amendment tells the world that American citizens have the right, right, not government given privilege, to own and carry weapons of all descriptions, there is a clear movement from the progressives in Congress, and certainly on the Supreme Court, that the Federal government does have the ability to not only restrict gun rights, but also to ban guns. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is most likely to be elected President. When she appoints, and the foolish Senate consents, a wildly progressive justice to the court we will see a massive swell of test cases making their way to the court within just a few months. Once these test cases are heard, I predict that gun rights will be severely restricted if not done away with. I hope I’m wrong, but I see grim times ahead for the country.

    I say again: the only straw honest citizens have is an Article V Convention of the States.

  8. The most frustrating aspect to all these pro-gun victory stories is that they aren’t really victories when we should never have been put through this crap to begin with. What we are actually doing is spending tireless hours and effort mopping up after immature anti-gun liberals just to restore things back to a state of normalcy that should have existed since the Second Amendment was ratified.

    As long as these ignorant anti-gun liberals continue to ignore the Second Amendment, their actions will always amount to nothing more than a complete waste and abuse of our tax dollars. It is such a shame the liberals can’t realize they will forever be on the losing end of this issue. It is truly the definition of insanity, as Albert Einstein would say – “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    1. G-man;
      While I agree with you in principal about your message, this continues to be a free country. This country thrives on diverse opinions and I for one endorse the opportunity for each and everyone to be able to express their opinions, whatever it is. Look at prohibition and how that ended up. Look at the “Red Scare” and McCarthysm that took the nation and how it ended up. I know think were in a new “Scare” named terrorism. The press neglects to reports stories that show citizen carrying guns that stopped or shortened a criminal in the act and flash the world when a lone angered gunmen shoots a group of people in an media effort to impassion the populace into action. Unfortunately, instead of limiting imigration of people into our country who think this is an appropriate way do deal with their anger, they try to limit guns. Most reading this blog and article will probably see the folly of this line of thinking but taking on an angry demeanor and name calling is only going to provoke more angry.

    2. @ Scott,

      While I am certain you think you’ve made sense, your “message” instead came out as topically disconnected in relation to the very distinct and factual issue I laid out – as it relates to this article’s content.

      Before I dissect the failed logic driving your misguided comments, I must first point out how utterly unnecessary it was for you to open your statement with, “this continues to be a free country”. However, your wasted sarcasm was duly noted.

      Now then, where you indisputably and completely missed the mark is when you equated violations of peoples constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights with one’s ability to “express their opinions”. It is painfully obvious you’ve confused the Second Amendment with the First.

      The Constitution does not give any government entity the authority to pass or veto laws which violate the Second Amendment. The only way your comment would make sense is if you view these unlawful anti-gun violations as some form of protected expression. If that is the case, you’d still be wrong.

      You either need to re-read the article along with my comment so you can gain the proper context or move along to some First Amendment blog so you can police the comments over there.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.