SB656, a bill designed to change Missouri’s self-defense laws – and make Missouri the first state since the Trayvon Martin incident to pass a stand your ground law – was vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon today (June 27). After sailing through the state’s Senate and the House, the bill had been awaiting approval or veto by Nixon since May 13.
It is possible for a gubernatorial veto to be overridden by the state legislature.
Nixon, a Democrat, faced enormous pressure from the Republican-led Missouri legislature to enact the law. The bill has been widely considered “veto-proof”; however, a bill which faces opposition by the Governor after passing through the legislature can be challenged with a veto override in the next legislative session, and still become law in the future.
SB656 would have allowed deadly force to be used by anyone who has permission to occupy private property, such as a house guest, and also make it a misdemeanor, and no longer a felony, for anyone carrying a concealed weapon into a place that has restrictions on concealed carry.
The bill also would have allowed open-carry without a permit, and expanded the state’s self-defense laws to include the words “does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, vehicle, private property that is owned or leased, or anywhere else a person has a right to be – the very definition of stand your ground law – making Missouri the first state since Trayvon Martin incident to pass such a law.
Did you know there is at least one municipality in America that requires the head of household to own a gun? It’s just one of the many “gun laws” that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has pushed to enact across the nation. In fact, Thom Senzee reports on Advocate.com that there are other “crazy” gun laws – like stand your ground – that put our lives at risk.
The NRA has been so effective at defeating just about every proposed gun control measure in the U.S. Senate, the House of Representatives, and in state houses across the country that it may be time to replace the term “lobbying” with a new one.
The NRA and its executive director, the unyielding Wayne LaPierre, have been working hard to enact pro-gun laws. For example, according to Mother Jones, LaPierre and company are bent on bringing stand your ground laws to all 50 states.
During the past four decades, the NRA has fundamentally changed the very meaning of the term “gun laws.” If you think “gun laws” refers to laws that limit the availability of guns, think again. This list of absurd legislation (and proposed legislation) shows how some are fighting to extend the right to bear arms to even schools and workplaces. See 7 Crazy Gun Laws That Put Our Lives at Risk on advocate.com
After each mass shooting in America, a voice is heard somewhere in the wilderness of the gun control debate preaching the myth that “nothing stops a bad guy but a good guy with a gun.” This worn-out statement has been used in support of stand your ground laws, but it’s unlikely stand your ground laws would stop a mass shooting.
The good guy myth is repeated by the gun lobby – like a sales pitch for a reliable car – almost every time there’s a high-profile murder of innocent people, or a vigilante kills a perp, and it’s simply not true.
In the wake of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, at the Pulse night club in Orlando, we heard it again. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, an NRA supporter, is likely to have said it again by the time you read this.
Stand your ground is dangerous
Some gun owners may argue that engaging a threat is the best solution. In Florida – the birthplace of “stand your ground” laws – it’s highly possible that several patrons or employees of the night club were armed, and reports are that an armed security guard fired back at the gunman during the frenzy. It’s unclear if the club had a system to check for weapons at the entrance.
Chances are, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, like any other mass shooter, probably didn’t bother to make a normal entrance on his hours-long rampage, as he killed 49 people and wounded 53 others. it was only when police fired on him that the shooting ended.
Stand your ground law relieves a person of a duty to retreat. That means there is no obligation to try and escape any danger or call police in the face of a threat. It allows for the use of deadly force to meet deadly force.
But without any warning or firepower to match, who can stand their ground against an AR-15 assault rifle firing 45 rounds a minute – a weapon designed for war – wielded by a crazed gunman intent on carnage?
At it’s deadliest worst, there is also an increased chance during an active shooter situation that any number of innocent people may be hurt or killed by “friendly fire” from an untrained civilian – who happens to be a “good guy with a gun”. There could also be criminal or civil legal repercussions.
Manufacturers of these high-powered weapons of war are facing lawsuits from some families. Families of Sandy Hook victims have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers they say made a weapon that shouldn’t be sold to civilians. In response to the Orlando shooting, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said “It reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.”
There should be state and federal bans on assault-type weapons designed more for war than for hunting, such as was in effect from 1994 to 2004. It’s estimated that there are millions of these weapons in circulation. Efforts to reinstitute the ban have been underway but encounter resistance from the gun lobby.
It’s up to lawmakers in each state who recklessly feed into NRA rhetoric and NRA money to act now – with urgency – and address the epidemic of gun violence by enacting gun laws for safety that may protect us. Anything less will continue to diminish our pursuit of happiness.
Having a stand your ground law can’t help stop a mass shooting, but sensible gun laws can help. We must hold state lawmakers responsible if they want our votes. We must demand that they take action to make America SAFE again.
Ever wondered what a certain person had said or who said what about stand your ground laws? Some statements against stand your ground laws made in the aftermath of the trial in Trayvon Martin’s death were very controversial, and overshadowed the tragedy itself. Here are a few notable – or infamous – memorable expressions:
“If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?… when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.”
“It’s time to question laws that senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods. These laws try to fix something that was never broken. There has always been a legal defense for using deadly force if no safe retreat is available. But we must examine laws that take this further by eliminating the common-sense, age-old requirement that people who feel threatened have a duty to retreat, outside their home, if they can do so safely. By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety.”
“The law just allows people to go on the offensive…it doesn’t do what people think it does, and people will get the idea that they can shoot people wherever they want. I just think we went too far.”
“Florida has to fix this problem because Florida created this problem with the kind of law that we placed on the books, so we have to change the law or we are going to see more Trayvon Martins.”
“Stand your ground would do nothing but turn our state into the Wild, Wild West.”
“Whether it’s trick-or-treaters or kids playing in the yard of someone who doesn’t want them there or some drunk guy stumbling into the wrong house, you’re encouraging people to possibly use deadly physical force where it shouldn’t be used.”
“‘Shoot-first’ laws like those in Florida can inspire dangerous vigilantism and protect those who act recklessly with guns. Such laws – drafted by gun lobby extremists in Washington – encourage deadly confrontations by enabling people to shoot first and argue ‘justifiable homicide’ later.”
“These laws give anyone with a gun more permissive rules of engagement in America’s communities than our troops have on the battlefield.”
“I decided today that until the Stand Your Ground law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again.”
“The laws are also more permissive than 19th-century law, despite the fact that dueling remained legal until 1859, when most states outlawed it. Unlike Stand Your Ground, both parties in a duel were armed and had an equal chance of success. Duels were also voluntary, whereas a person who is shot under Stand Your Ground has no choice in the matter.”
With ownership of a car comes the responsibility to drive it safely and properly. Why is it easier in some places to get a license to own a gun than a license to drive a car? For a gun owner, there should also be a responsibility to use a gun safely and effectively. Do you think everyone should own a gun?
Most movie theaters have a policy that forbids firearms, and you may think anyone would be a little uneasy in a dark theater where open carry is allowed, but results of an unscientific recent twitter sample poll indicate that some people would feel comfortable in a theater which allows open carry.
Surprisingly, some respondents (11%) appear to indicate they’d be fine with open carry and voted “Yes”, while a few (3%) indicated they don’t know how they would feel. Nonetheless, a majority of participating respondents -86% – voted “No” to the question “Would you be comfortable in a movie theater that allows open carry of guns?.” The twitter poll, conducted May 6-13, 2016, was offered to approximately 590 followers by the movement to change or repeal stand your ground laws.
Other questions asked in recent quick twitter polls by the movement include, “Should a blind person be allowed to own and use guns?” (the result was undoubtedly 100% ‘no’), a 3-day poll, and “Would guns on campus make colleges drop sensitive topics or be cautious discussing them?” (the result was 67% yes and 33%no), in a 5-day poll.
Check out final results of the movie theater poll below, and post what you think in the comments. You just might be a Floridian or Texan – if you are comfortable watching a movie in a theater that allows open carry.
Would you be comfortable in a movie theater that allows open carry of guns?
In the gun-toting society that we live in, doesn’t it sometimes feel as though we’re all under the gun and we need to wear armor? The goal of two new gun-themed documentary movies, which debut on television this week, appears to be an attempt to shed light on America’s culture of guns and help us explore ways to reduce gun violence. I haven’t seen either one yet, but “Armor of Light” focuses on religion vs. guns and “Under the Gun” asymmetrically explores the gun debate.
Armor of Light premieres on the PBS “Independent Lens” series at 8:00 p.m. ET, Tuesday, May 10. It whisks us into the pulpit of evangelical minister Rob Schenck, an anti-abortion activist, and on a part of Lucia McBath’s journey, fighting for the legacy of her son, Jordan Davis, murdered by a misguided gun owner over loud music as he sat in the back seat of a friend’s SUV.
The film explores the balance of religion vs. guns. Schenck breaks with religious tradition and risks alienating his longtime friends when he questions if being pro-gun is consistent with being pro-life.
Under the Gun, produced and narrated by Katie Couric, premieres at 8:00 p.m. ET, Sunday, May 15 on EPIX, and dives head-first into the gun debate, examining events and people who have kept the gun debate fierce and the progress slow, even as gun deaths and mass shootings continue to increase.
The documentary looks at why politicians find it difficult to act and what’s being done on the state and local levels. It features families impacted by mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, Isla Vista and Tucson, as well as people in other cities who experience gun violence on a daily basis.
Be sure to tune in and watch each one of these ambitious projects, then please come back and leave your thoughts below.