 |
Battle lines are rural vs. urban
By JO
MANNIES
05/11/2003
For almost a decade, Missouri's concealed-weapons backers have
been searching for a few good votes.
Since 1995, the state House - under Democratic, and now
Republican control - has made it an almost-annual tradition to
overwhelmingly approve a measure that would allow most Missouri
adults to get permits to carry concealed weapons.
But the House victory tallies were never large enough to counter
a governor's threatened veto. And in the Senate, a filibustering
minority could be counted on to kill off the bill.
That scenario continued after the 1999 statewide referendum,
where voters narrowly rejected the concealed-carry idea. Last
year, the House voted 2-to-1 for a bill; the Senate duly killed
it.
This month's overwhelming victories in the state House and
Senate suggest that backers may finally have achieved their
goal. The supporting votes in both chambers were enough to
override an expected veto by Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat.
But behind the scenes, Republican legislative leaders fear that
Holden still has the edge - especially in the state Senate,
which once again could serve as a concealed-weapons graveyard.
"The outcome of an override is in doubt," said state
Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder, R-Cape Girardeau, a
concealed-weapons supporter who suspects his side may end up a
vote or two short.
The Senate's 23 supportive votes were exactly the number needed
to overrule Holden, but one was cast by a concealed-weapons
opponent as part of a failed parliamentary maneuver to block
passage. That senator, Ken Jacob, D-Columbia, is expected to
side with Holden on any override effort.
Kinder isn't sure he has a pro-weapons replacement, although the
lone Republican opponent - state Sen. Michael Gibbons of
Kirkwood - indicated Friday that he might switch sides.
But Kinder suspects that at least one of the three Democratic
backers might defect to Holden's side, saying he's been told
"they don't want to embarrass their own governor."
In the state House, the final vote was 111-43 for the bill; the
minimum number needed for an override is 109. Speaker Catherine
Hanaway has no doubt that her bipartisan cadre of
concealed-weapons supporters will amass an override tally
"in the neighborhood of 115 votes."
But since each chamber must vote to override, the size of the
House victory is meaningless if the Senate support falls
through.
Because of that, both sides seem to be focusing lately as much
on the politics of the concealed-weapons votes as on the
policies surrounding the issue.
Among other things, Republicans and Democrats are carefully
trying to craft partisan arguments that take into account the
true, nonpartisan nature of the dispute.
Although a Democratic governor leads one side, and Republican
legislative leaders head up the other, the foot soldiers in each
camp traditionally have been bipartisan.
Missouri's concealed-weapons fight is yet another case of the
rural-urban divide that plagues many of the state's most
volatile issues, from transportation to education.
The 1999 referendum starkly illustrated the split: voters in 104
rural counties backed the measure, while voters in 10
others - mostly urban and suburban - joined the cities of St.
Louis and Kansas City in opposing it. A huge urban and suburban
turnout sealed its defeat.
As late as last year, Hanaway was among the suburban Republicans
in the Legislature who regularly joined with urban Democrats to
oppose concealed weapons measures - largely because many of
their constituents believe that such a law won't make big-city
streets safer.
Rural legislators of both parties long have embraced the issue
as a matter of personal rights and public safety.
Holden, who hails from rural southwest Missouri, says he's aware
of the geographical split - and the one within his own party. He
has been careful to add that the issue "is not a litmus
test for being a Democrat."
But the Democrats are accusing Republican leaders - notably
Hanaway - of doing just that, because only two Republicans in
the Legislature voted against the measure this time.
This year's lineup of state House supporters included several
suburban legislators - generally Republicans - whose districts
would normally mandate otherwise.
"Catherine Hanaway coerced her members to reward her
campaign contributors who helped her become speaker," said
Roy Temple, a state Democratic Party consultant.
Hanaway says Democrats are misrepresenting her position and her
reasons.
As she campaigned for Republican House candidates last year,
Hanaway says she did agree that she would allow the
concealed-weapons issue to be brought up for a vote if she were
elected speaker. But she adds that she made clear she wasn't
sure what her own position would be.
Hanaway says her views on the matter have "evolved,"
and have been influenced - as have those of many voters, she
adds - by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "People
are more security conscious on all levels," she said.
Her aides assembled a list of seven largely suburban freshmen
legislators - three Democrats and four Republicans - who voted
in favor of the concealed-weapons bill and came from districts
where previous legislators opposed the measure.
"Republicans and Democrats that are pro-gun are winning in
suburban areas," said Chuck Caisley, Hanaway's chief of
staff. "I would argue that concealed weapons are becoming
more accepted."
Holden disagrees, adding that he's confident the public will
rally to his side when he explains that the Legislature's bill
"allows guns to be carried into restaurants and to
ballfields where Little League games are played."
With no veto session until the fall, the governor plans an
anti-concealed weapons campaign this summer.
Backers like state Rep. Chuck Portwood, R-Ballwin, say they plan
to spend the summer promoting the bill's provisions - such as
finger-printing applicants - that they say make it "the
strictest concealed-carry law in the country."
For years, a number of national groups - notably the National
Rifle Association (for) and the Million Mom March (against) -
have taken prominent positions in Missouri's debate. But this
year, most of the groups kept a lower profile.
Said state Rep. Tom Villa, D-St. Louis: "The opposition
wasn't nearly as visible this time around, because they believed
they were going to get their ears boxed."
Kelly Whitley, a spokeswoman for the Virginia-based National
Rifle Association, said the group supported the Missouri
Legislature's action.
"Right now, we're going to focus on encouraging the
governor to sign the bill," she added.
Sharing the governor's concerns are 450 self-insured restaurants
with the 4,000-member Missouri Restaurant Association. Forrest
Miller, president of the self-insured group, said they're upset
because the measure leaves enforcement up to the businesses.
For example, restaurants could post anti-gun signs outside their
establishments. But if someone brings in a gun anyway,
"that means we have to take action," Miller said.
"I don't want that responsibility."
The governor accuses some concealed-weapons supporters of
continuing their battle in the Legislature because they're
afraid to turn to the public. "They know what the voters
would say," he said.
Replied Kinder, "I don't support . . . putting a right
that's in the Bill of Rights to a public vote."
Jo Mannies covers local, state and congressional politics for
the Post-Dispatch.
Reporter Jo Mannies:
E-mail: jmannies@post-dispatch.com
Phone: 314-340-8334
|
| |
|
