Missouri Lawmakers Ignore Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Campaign: Pass Constitutional Carry, ‘Stand Your Ground’ Bill

Despite the best efforts of anti-gun New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Missouri state lawmakers passed a bill yesterday that creates a “stand-your-ground” statute and allows Missouri residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

The legislation is now awaiting the signature of Missouri Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon, who says he plans to give the bill a “comprehensive overview,” according to the Springfield News-Leader. If he chooses to veto, Republican lawmakers will have a chance to override the veto in September.

If successful, the legislation enacts three measures:

  1. Allows Missourians to carry a concealed weapon without training or a permit in areas that do not prohibit open carry.
  2. Expands Missouri’s “castle doctrine” to allow invited guests (such as babysitters) to use deadly force against intruders.
  3. Creates a “stand-your-ground” statute, which removes an individual’s duty to retreat from danger in any place they are legally entitled to be present.

The legislation would make Missouri the eleventh state to allow for “constitutional carry” within its borders, according to the National Rifle Association. Idaho, Mississippi, and West Virginia have enacted similar legislation this year.

“I’m overjoyed,” Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Springfield, said of the bill after the session ended.

According to the News-Leader, the legislation passed the Republican-led Senate on a 24-8 party-line vote. The House then gave it final approval 114-36, with a little over an hour remaining before the session’s mandatory end.

Both votes came in the face of a flurry of anti-gun ads released by the Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and the Missouri chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (see video above).

According to the Washington Free Beacon, Everytown labeled the bill “a dangerous package of gun proposals that would dismantle Missouri’s concealed carry permit requirement” in an email to supporters.

“Senate Bill 656 is embarrassing and dangerous,” St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay, a member of Everytown for Gun Safety, said in a statement. “The Missouri Legislature has abandoned this state. It is more concerned about the endorsement of the NRA than the safety of its citizens.”

Some Missouri legislators took particular issue with Missouri’s new stand-your-ground statute, holding that it actually makes the state more dangerous.

“It doesn’t make the state safer, it opens it up to murder,” Democratic Rep. Brandon Ellington told the Associated Press..

“To me, this is modern-day lynching,” Democratic Rep. Kimberly Gardner chimed in. “This bill would allow open season for vigilante-style behavior and put all of us at risk.”

Despite these criticisms, the bill passed by overwhelming majorities.

“There won’t be blood in the streets,” Republican Rep. Joe Don McGaugh said in the AP report. “But what there will be is more people protected by the right to bear an arm legally.”

What do you think? Do constitutional carry and stand-your-ground laws make states safer or more dangerous?

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck.

{ 27 comments… add one }
  • Dave March 22, 2019, 7:46 pm

    I live in WV and we have constitutional Carry and have never heard a word of anyone being mugged,rapped,robbed etc. Why? Mostly because I think the criminals don’t know who’s armed!

  • Andrew N. July 8, 2017, 1:50 am

    History has shown that with CCW, the “blood in the streets” is coming from the right people, the criminals. Now if only other states will see through the Bloomberg idiocy. It’s too late for Washington, and it passed in Nevada by a narrow margin, but can’t be implemented due to “lack of funds” for the State paid additional checks. It may be hard to believe, but Bloomberg misled Nevada about the costs to them. Shocker! Bloomberg lies.

  • Rickey Morris November 4, 2016, 11:46 am

    Since I originally moved here to Missouri from Arizona, where we have had the same laws enacted for several years, I can tell you that our crime rate in assaults, thefts, have not increased, in fact things are much safer. That, when you factor in the high numbers of Illegals crossing the border there, and the crime that just comes with it when they enter has mellowed some because they don’t know who is armed now. People are responsible, and gun owners even more so than most since they realize the duty, and danger they carry. We still have our gang activities, and store thefts, and a certain amount of break ins, but the number of people being shot by Concealed carry owners did not shot through the roof, nor have we had a rush of people being shot in public by these people. This shine an even brighter light on the police officers there being shot by Illegals which has increased. I now proudly call Missouri my home since my wife passed, and I am also an FFL licensee. Our Governor did Veto these bills, and our House and Senate did over-ride his vetoes, so our laws will take effect in January, in spite of the Bloombergs, and the Soros gangs, and Democratic naysayers who feel their power threatened by our freedoms, which makes the title of Democratic being applied to that party a bit of a misnomer. The actions have been more of a Socialist/Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov style party of the last several years, as they attempt to mass power towards more of a monarchy instead of a Republic. I’m proud that Missouri has taken a stand to send King George back with Bloomberg and his buddies.

  • Glen Odom`1SG USAF (Ret) May 28, 2016, 7:45 am

    I realize that I am somewhat late in putting in “my two cents worth” (forgive the cliche), but I feel that early as well as advanced school credit curricula in this area is especially important. After all, we have shop mechanical classes, drafting and driver ed, even archery in some schools. I can think of no better addition to school programs than firearms safety.

    As a past military marksmanship instructor and team shooter I can attest to the value of firearms safety training in our schools.

    The Constitution grants us rights to ensure it’s survival as well as the continued survival of our great Republic. As you all know, those of us who took the oath, in essence signed a blank check as it were, payable to the order of our great Nation for all that we have or ever would have if cashed: has no expiration date.


  • David Kissee May 20, 2016, 5:20 pm

    This comes at a very good time. It will promote the public’s ability to protect themselves at a time where Police Departments throughout the state are losing more and more officers, such as was recently seen with Kansas City, Missouri. The Democratic government promised no positions would be eliminated upon the renewal of the earnings tax and then as soon as it was passed, 100 Police Officer Positions were eliminated (which is the exact number threatened if the earnings tax was eliminated). No Police to protect citizens who are left to protect themselves, their families and their businesses. It is much better that the citizens will be armed while protecting themselves and their loved ones.

    • Max Morgan May 21, 2016, 12:12 pm

      Kansas City has too many cops (and firemen) to start with. Losing some of them will only make the populace safer. More cops = more crime. The unions have got control of the Council and thus the monkeys are running the zoo. But that’s a separate issue. Anything that removes some of the hubris from these members of the Fraternal Order of Police is a good thing. Ted Nugent is right (about so many things…), “The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry permit.”

    • Kelly May 23, 2016, 11:00 am

      I live in KCMO and I can tell you from personal experience that if you dial 911 you will be on hold for at least five minutes, ha.

  • Erik in Missouri May 20, 2016, 2:51 pm


  • Ralph May 20, 2016, 11:06 am

    This article states “creates a “stand-your-ground” statute and allows Missouri residents to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.” I’m sorry but I think I’m missing something? If what was stated, then a crook who carries concealed isn’t breaking the law, right?
    As for me, I’m in favor of having training and testing to prove my competency in getting and maintaining a driver’s license. Subsequently, I’m also in favor of the same standards for carrying concealed.

    • WillR May 20, 2016, 11:48 am

      A crook isn’t a crook until he commits a crime. If he commits a crime with the gun then of course he’s breaking the law. Unless you have access to precognition, you can’t label someone as a crook before they commit a crime. If they’re felons, they’re precluded from owning at all, much less carrying. I don’t understand where your logic disconnect is. Your preference for requisite training is understood, and I agree with it for the most part, but real criminals are already carrying without license and training and sure aren’t waiting around for this law to be passed to start. I think that training in competency and responsibility should be a requisite to owning in the first place, and once proved, carry should be allowed either in open or concealed form, at the owners discretion.

      • David Hampton May 23, 2016, 12:04 pm

        So let’s mandate that public schools provide this “Apparently” much needed education. Look, the cry for education for gun owners is simply a ploy of the left to make it more expensive for gun owners to own and if we give them that, then I promise you that before long we’ll be paying huge sums of money to satisfy them that we are appropriately trained. The answer is, “NO!” We do not need training or testing unless the government is going to foot the bill.

        • Bill Branum January 7, 2017, 12:18 pm

          Who do you think funds the government?

    • Victor May 20, 2016, 12:57 pm

      Ralph: Convicted felons are not allowed to own weapons. However, the law is never an issue for these thugs. Although you are in favor of having the same standards for carrying concealed in terms of training and testing as a driver’s license applicant, the reality of the matter is that the concealed carry permit process is far less demanding than the testing for a driver’s license. And in fact there is no written test and only a few minutes of actual firing at very close range. The concealed carry licensing concept was in reality just another form of taxation. The process does little or nothing to ensure whether or not an applicant can effectively carry and operate a firearm. Therefore this new bill which has been passed allowing an individual to carry concealed without a concealed carry permit/license only in areas that do not prohibit open carry is better suited for rural areas where there are no laws against open carry. Most of your heavily populated areas have ordinances on the books prohibiting open carry whether you have a permit or not. I do not see “blood in the streets” happening like the Bloomberg Machine and liberal
      anti-gun Democrats would like you to believe. It’s a step in the right direction, but until a person can carry legally anywhere without a permit, the legislature and governing laws have a long way to go.

  • buh May 20, 2016, 10:04 am

    My missouri ccw is good in other states that have ccw and vice versa, I expect this to start out like that, but it’s all b.s.!
    this is a right and we shouldnt have to pay for it. and it shouldn’t matter what state we are in. why do we follow idiotic laws passed by ignorant f*%@ing democrats? they only make us less safe. I carry where i feel like i need to, not where politicians say i can. and just stay out of p.o.s. states like illinois, california, new york……, crooks who don’t follow the rules won’t give you time to gather up your gun parts so you can shoot them.
    I don’t like the idea of no training needed for this though as there are so many new, inexperienced 1st. time gun owners that don’t know how to train or practice properly, and buy guns not suited for them, mostly glocks that were not designed for ccw, but used that way, then we see all the glockleg videos of idiots shooting themselves when drawing their weapon. you can’t drive a boat without taking a class and a 1 or 2 day class for gun safety shouldn’t be a problem for new gun owners

    • DIYinSTL May 20, 2016, 11:22 am

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. So in theory, I support the concept of constitutional carry. In practice, I worry that out of sheer ignorance someone will use their firearm in a manner that will cost us some freedoms we have regained over the past few decades. While I don’t like the $100 fee to get your 5 year CCW ($50 for renewal) it at least insures that those who carry (legally) have had instruction in safe gun handling and the legal basics on use, where you cannot carry, when to not get involved, etc. The other 2 parts of SB656 are fine and I’m disappointed the bill allowing licensed carry on public transportation did not pass.

    • david May 23, 2016, 12:16 pm

      Although I don’t wholeheartedly agree with your post, I do see and kind of agree with your point. Some training – one time only and good for life in any state in the USA and paid for by government is a good idea, but then again, why should people who are or have been police officers or soldiers (the word soldier covers personnel from all branches of the military) have to take additional training? Or how about my hunter safety class, would that satisfy the gun control Nazis as sufficient training? I doubt it. So let’s not go down that road at all. If the left wants training then mandate it as a public school curriculum requirement.

  • Tripwire May 20, 2016, 10:03 am

    My forever question has been ” Why do people who are diehard gun owners keep voting for DimOcraps? If the party you vote for is constantly trying to take away one of your basic rights would you not stop voting for that party? I know such people, they own guns, they are ardent supporters of the 2A but they still vote Dimo.
    I realize there are many issues besides the rights in the 2A but if a political party believes it can take one right would they not then be free to take other rights?
    I myself don’t care if the congress votes 100% in abolishing the 2A I will not obey period, some things in life are worth fighting and if need be dying for and freedom leads the list.
    I believe “We the people” would be better served if we abolished all political parties, let each politician run for office on his own merits, would he honor and protect the rights of the people? Would he always follow the Constitution? Is his word his bond? When a politician says he believes one thing then changes under pressure from others is he being honest? is he keeping his word? if not then he lied to gain office and is unfit to represent the people.
    Is any of this hard to understand?
    I made a joke one day in a local gun shop, I said I had quit the GOP and was now a member of the “Independent Libertarian Anarchist” party and later ran into a man who heard me say that, he wanted to joint the party. Third party? I say NO party.

    • Paul Patriot May 21, 2016, 8:56 am

      Answer: They don’t for the most part. Problem is, that the decades.of anti gun, anti self defense propaganda, has swayed the majority of the sheeple, brain dead population, so that even though freedom loving citizens try to vote of DEMONcrats, they are simply over numbered.

      I know because I grew up in Mass., relocated to Connecticut, lived through the whole sandy hook, and registration tyranny, and leftist mentality simple rules there. When I seen my supposed pro gun citizens standing inline in Middletown ,Ct to register their “high cap mags and legally purchased “black evil rifles”

      I knew that the fight was meaningless, and sold everything to move to a free state.

      So, in my experience, majority of legal gun owners do not vote democRAT but, they do allow the bully politicians to trample on their rights without really standing up and saying NO!

  • Ricky tic May 20, 2016, 8:27 am

    This is all a mute point. The 2A affirms my right and no city, county or state can take away or ‘allow’ me this right. There is no need for further clarification, because the 2A say ‘…shall NOT be INFRINGED’.

    • McRuger May 20, 2016, 10:48 am

      The truth is that even 2A does not matter. We have a right to protect ourselves, our family, our property and our way of life. The 2A exists to force government to protect and guarantee this right. Any restriction legislated by state, local or federal government is a violation of our natural right and we need to start acting that way.

  • 50bmg api May 20, 2016, 6:46 am

    To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. – Voltaire

    Yeaper, the goyim must be disarmed according to Bloomberg and his synagogue side-kick minions.

    Ooh, and Ted Nugent was 100% correct on who is behind the disarming of the goyim, just saying…

    • Aaron May 20, 2016, 12:12 pm

      I got kicked off twitter for saying this, but if you’re correct them why haven’t you been killed? You’re revealing the “big secret” so you’re a threat to the “them”.

      So why haven’t they killed you, if they rule everything? The fact you’re alive negates any validity you ever had on this topic.

  • Aaron May 17, 2016, 12:06 pm

    I need to verify with government officials, but I don’t understand how constitutional carry only applies to residents of the state.

    If I can carry in Kansas without a permit, why do I need a permit to carry in Missouri (once the legislature overrides the veto)?

    Why do I need an address in Missouri to have rights in the state? Or am I misreading the text?

    • Jordan Michaels May 18, 2016, 10:47 pm

      That’s a good point, Aaron. I would need to check with government officials as well, but I don’t think you would be required to have a Missouri address to carry a firearm in MO without a license. The article says “Missouri residents” only because those are individuals who will benefit most from the law.

      • Jim May 20, 2016, 12:04 pm

        Aaron and Jordan, some states only allow permit-less concealed carry to state residents, Maine, for instance, allows Maine residents to conceal/carry without a permit, but only Maine residents. Missouri residents, like myself, who may travel to Maine cannot carry in that state without a Missouri CCW. I’m not sure if Missouri will be like that or not. Kansas, on the other hand, allows concealed carry regardless of residency.

    • Ak May 20, 2016, 12:22 pm

      You do know this site, on which you’re freely posting, is owned and run by a Jew, Alan Korwin, who is as much of a fighter for your rights as Bloomberg is an advocate for removing them.

      • S.H. Blannelberry May 20, 2016, 12:34 pm

        Alan isn’t the owner, he is a contributor. Paul Helinski is the owner.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend