Missouri Gov. Bob Holden had good reasons to veto concealed-carry legislation in July. The General Assembly has equally good reasons to sustain Holden's action in the veto session that starts Wednesday.

The legislation, as approved by the House and Senate in May, has plenty of flaws. Holden noted three of them in his veto message:

• The legislation does not adequately protect victims of domestic violence. Contrary to federal laws, it does not prohibit anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from obtaining a concealed-carry permit. [JT: this is a deliberate falsehood. DD: Since federal law supercedes any and all state law, omitting mention of domestic violence in the Missouri statute has utterly no bearing or effect on the enforcement of federal law. Same with background checks, etc., ad nauseum. JT: The governor knows this and lied during his veto performance.  The Star knows this and lied writing this editorial.]

• Citizens could carry concealed weapons into restaurants and bars and into sports facilities that seat fewer than 5,000 people. Restaurant and bar owners rightfully are concerned about the volatile mix of too much alcohol and armed patrons. [JT:  Criminals already carry wherever they wish. DD: The hospitality industry ought to worry about providing inadequate security for unarmed patrons, not about delusional and unfounded fears of liability from concealed carry permitees.]  

• The legislation also would close the records of concealed-carry permits. But Missourians should have the right to know if someone carries a concealed weapon legally. [JT:  Perhaps a law should be passed requiring a posting that there are no guns are in your house .  Missouri criminals should have a right to know if they'll be safe burglarizing your house.]

Beyond this particular bill's shortcomings, a fundamental flaw exists in one rationale used to justify concealed-carry legislation. Some proponents argue that Missouri residents have the right to protect themselves on the street as they go about their daily lives. That seems to suggest that armed criminals lie in wait at every turn to take advantage of defenseless citizens. [DD: Ah yes, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Who are they calling paranoid? The Star's own office and production buildings are guarded by armed security on every floor.]

But even Second Amendment advocates concede that violent crime rates have dropped steadily since the early 1990s, including in states where concealed carry is prohibited. And at least one reputable study notes that 75 percent of robbers commit their crimes unarmed. [JT: Are 100% of the victims unarmed?  DD: Who is the Star afraid of, if crime is so negligible?]

The average American still is more likely to be assaulted by a family member or domestic partner than to be attacked by a stranger. [JT:  Another deliberate falsehood...and the editorial writer knows it.]  And if an individual wants to obtain a firearm to protect a home or business, that is allowed by law.

The General Assembly should recognize that adding concealed guns and uncertainty to public venues is an unnecessary risk. Holden's veto should stand. [DD:  The certainty that every decent citizen is unarmed and defenseless is preferable?]