|
. |
| Both sides of gun debate square off in public hearing
By KIT WAGAR The Kansas City Star JEFFERSON CITY -- After weeks of delay, both sides in the great Missouri gun debate squared off Tuesday over concealed weapons. A public hearing before a House panel quickly became a struggle between one side defending gun carrying as a fundamental right and the other side warning of carnage in the streets. "We can never seem to get past the emotion," said Dale Schmid of the Second Amendment Coalition of Missouri. "(Opponents) come up here `waving the bloody baby,' saying this will happen or that will happen -- every cop is going to be shot at every traffic stop. ... It's the same rhetoric every year." The legislation that sparked the ire of gun-control advocates is a pair of bills that would authorize the carrying of concealed handguns in Missouri for the first time since 1875. Rep. Wayne Crump, a Potosi Democrat and leading gun-rights proponent, merged the two proposals into one bill Tuesday and scheduled a vote on the proposal for Thursday morning. He said the biggest question dogging the bill was why he was raising the issue just two years after voters rejected a concealed-carry proposition in 1999. The vote was close -- 52 percent to 48 percent -- and public sentiment seems to have shifted in favor of guns in the last two years, Crump said. "A lot of elections have been won and lost because of this issue in the last two years, and that's why we should keep bringing it up," Crump said. The legislation that emerged from Tuesday's hearing is similar to the 1999 referendum, but it attempts to answer several criticisms of that proposal. This year's plan would require sheriffs to issue permits to carry a hidden handgun to anyone who meets the qualifications. An applicant would be disqualified by a conviction for a felony or any crime involving a gun or a bomb. A person also would be denied a permit if during the last five years he or she had been convicted of a violent misdemeanor or two drunken driving or drug abuse offenses. Applicants also would be disqualified if they had been dishonorably discharged from military service, were habitually drunk, had been adjudged incompetent or had ever been committed to a mental institution. Permit holders must be U.S. citizens and must have lived in Missouri for at least six months. The bill would require eight hours of classroom instruction on gun handling and justifiable use of force. Applicants would be required to fire a gun at least 50 times. The applicant then must correctly answer at least 53 of 75 written questions and hit a silhouette target at least 15 of 20 times from a distance of 21 and 45 feet. Opponents of the bill argued that the bill would increase violence by
putting more guns on the street, would increase the number of accidental
shootings and would make guns more accessible to troubled teens. The
limited training Kansas City Councilman Alvin Brooks told the panel that guns, even in the hands of responsible people, increased the likelihood of violence. "What is the message this sends to young people that we have to carry a gun to protect ourselves on the streets of America?" Brooks asked. "This is an issue that will not save us from us. But it will create more problems for us." Gun supporters argued that they should have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves. They said an armed citizenry would deter crime. And they said a gun was a great equalizer for a woman attacked by a man. Several complained that the 1999 proposition won in 104 counties but
lost by overwhelming margins in Jackson and "Those few areas decided for the rest of
the state that the To reach Kit Wagar, Jefferson City correspondent, call (816) 234-4440 or send e-mail to kwagar@kcstar.com. |