It has been a long time coming, but another important landmark is about to

be passed, when the total number of LTC permits issued exceeds 12,000. A

Missouri Assistant Attorney General told me back in June of this year that

when it came to LTC politics, the whole landscape would change when there

were 10-12,000 permits issued. I asked why. He said politicians would

then *start* to see it as a voting block. I told him it was a voting block

already, witness the changes to the Missouri House and Senate since 1991.

 

On October 1, 2004, the Sheriff of Osage Co. says he will start issuing,

leaving St. Louis Co., St. Louis City, and Jackson Co. as the only places

in Missouri where local governments want their law-abiding adult

constituents to be unarmed. Why is it that those elected officials do not

want to rid Missouri of the last vestiges of Jim Crow laws, now only

enforced in their jurisdictions? Why don't they Trust *their* citizens?

 

 

Some Sheriffs Charging Nothing for Process Permits

 

It all started with Sheriff Kenny Jones of Moniteau County who issued the

first LTC Permits in Missouri. Sheriff Jones only collects the $38 fee

required by the Missouri State Highway Patrol for fingerprints. He was

sued for issuing LTC Permits by Plaintiff's attorneys Miller and Newman,

who alleged his issuing was a Hancock violation. He *had* been charging

the $38, plus $30 for the Moniteau Sheriff's Dept. After he was sued, he

and the smart lawyers representing him figured out half of the Plaintiff's

lawsuit went away if he charged nothing, nada, zero, zilch, $0. So, when

the citizens of Moniteau Co came in to pick up their LTC Permit, they also

got their check for $30 back. Six other sheriffs have followed his lead

and also charge nothing. No other lawsuits against sheriffs have been

filed.

 

I don't think Miller and Newman thought of this "Unintended Consequence" of

filing suit. They were heard to say, "Doh!" when they found out.

 

And as Paul Harvey would say, "Now you know the rest of the story."

 

Moniteau Co is in the center of the state, just west of the Missouri River,

SW of Columbia, and NW of Jefferson City.

 

 

The St. Louis Co. Lawsuit Set For Hearing

 

The much anticipated and frequently delayed St. Louis Co. lawsuit on the

Hancock issue is set for a Hearing in Jefferson City this Friday, October

the first. The outcome of this suit will determine if the people in St.

Louis Co. get the ability to effectively defend themselves through the

court system or if the Legislature has to address the problem again in the

next session. One hundred and twelve Missouri counties *have not* found a

Hancock problem, only St. Louis and Jackson Co. see what no one else

sees. I'm planning on being in attendance and will report the Court's

actions in the next LTC News Update.

 

 

 

The Race for St. Louis County Executive

 

There are three candidates running for St. Louis Co. Executive. Charles

Dooley, the Democrat, is the person who, along with St. Louis Co Counselor

Patricia Reddington, has wasted tens of thousand of taxpayer dollars

pursuing the St. Louis Co. lawsuit reported above. Ted Brown is the

Libertarian candidate who is Pro-LTC. Gene McNary is the Republican

candidate.

 

Last Friday, Sept. 24, 2004, I traveled to St. Louis Co and, along with

Greg Jeffrey and Michael Meyer of GCLA (Gateway Civil Liberty Alliance),

met for over an hour with Gene McNary's CM (Campaign Manager). It has

taken me a few days to get the time and perspective to sit down and write

out my thoughts about this meeting.

 

A Little History

 

In the Republican Primary for St. Louis Co Executive, gun rights activists

in St. Louis Co had contacted Mr. McNary's campaign but were never called

back. They were also contacted by Mr. McNary's opponent, Kurt Odenwald.

Mr. Odenwald was asked and came to a GCLA meeting and stated his position

and answered questions and actively solicited our support. He said he was

in favor of LTC and would work to get the process going in St. Louis Co

ASAP. He received GCLA's support and the backing of most pro-LTC people in

St. Louis Co.

 

On Aug. 2, 2004, Odenwald lost in the Republican Primary. McNary's people

have not forgotten that we backed his opponent in the Primary.

 

Friday Sept. 24, 2004

 

Greg, Michael and I met with the CM of McNary's election team. Michael had

set up this meeting, and we looked forward to it due to what we were

hearing from voters who had contacted campaign HQ and asked McNary's

position on LTC. The feedback reported that they wanted the legislature to

address the Hancock issue prior to Mr. McNary taking *any* action.

Historically, people who take that position are not our friends, and we

wanted to know McNary's position without it being reported second hand.

There had been a number of calls from LTC supporters to the McNary's

Campaign HQ expressing our best case scenario of how the next Executive of

St. Louis Co would handle the lawsuit. We wanted the costly

tax-dollar-consuming lawsuit to be dismissed by the next County Executive

upon taking office and St. Louis Co Counselor Patricia Reddington (who was

behind the filing the lawsuit) fired. In the first ten minutes of the

meeting, the CM made it clear that was *not* going to happen and, further,

that Mr. McNary was not going to do *anything* that cost him support in

this election or in the election two years from now. The CM stated that

they already had the support from North and South St. Louis Co which favors

LTC and that they did not want to lose support of West St. Louis Co where

LTC is not a popular issue. He said that helping us and speedily resolving

the St. Louis Co Lawsuit would cost McNary votes in West St. Louis Co.

 

Their position was bad news indeed. As they say in the State Department,

it was a frank discussion.

 

When I started talking about the 12,000 permits in the hands of Missourians

everyplace except St. Louis and Jackson Co, and all the FLA Permits and out

of state permits in St. Louis Co, and all the citizens there who wanted

Missouri Permits, and that we *needed* a reason to support McNary, I was

told something I have never heard before from someone trying to elect any

politician.

 

"We don't need your support."

 

I was shocked. While I have felt and expressed for some time that some

Republicans treat us (Pro-LTC voters) like some Democrats treat black

voters (that is, taken for granted, as in "where else do you have to go"),

I have never heard someone state it honestly to my face.

 

The conversation then changed tone, and we asked what was the *most* that

could be said by the McNary Campaign in support of LTC. We were told that

Mr. McNary recognizes the Missouri Supreme Court has ruled, and supported

that LTC is the law in Missouri, and that after the lawsuit and Hancock

issues are resolved, he will carry out and implement the LTC Law. All this

was, of course, dependent on Mr. McNary being elected. This isn't much,

and is the least that can be expected of law-abiding elected officials, but

it is more than we have now. So where does that leave us?

 

The Lesser Of Two Evils

 

There are two corollaries to the above adage: 1) The lesser of two evils

is still evil, and 2) it *is* still the *lesser evil*.

 

It is clear that Dooley and Co are vehemently against LTC and will do

anything and everything in their power to keep LTC out of St. Louis Co. We

know what Dooley *will* do on the issue of LTC in St. Louis Co because he

has done it already. We were *told* that Mr. McNary will implement the law

once the problems are resolved. I've thought about the meeting a lot in

the last few days, and I don't know what my recommendation for this race

will be.

 

I do know this: Mr. McNary, when it comes to not needing our support, "Be

careful what you wish for, you just might get it."

 

The last thing discussed was how we and the Campaign Manager might

characterize the meeting. I said, I thought it had been *productive*. He

thought for a minute and agreed. What I meant by *productive* was; all the

cards were on the table, and we knew where each side stood.

 

 

The *Only* Reason I Need To Vote For George W. Bush.

 

Texas and Missouri were both having difficult struggles trying to pass

concealed carry in the early 1990s. Both houses of the Texas legislature

passed concealed carry in 1995 only to have it vetoed by Gov. Ann Richard.

George W. Bush made the veto a campaign issue and said if elected, signing

concealed carry would be his first act as Governor of Texas.

 

George W. Bush *was* elected Governor of Texas and was good for his word.

 

If Gov. Richard had not vetoed CCW, Bush would not have been elected. If

Bush had not been Gov. of Texas and signed CCW into law he would not be

President today. If he were not President today we would most likely not

have concealed carry in Missouri.

 

I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, I am an Independent who thinks for

himself and votes for the man and not the Party. George W. Bush was good

for concealed carry and that's good enough for me and why he gets my vote.

 

 

In Other News

 

My company, Learn To Carry, LLC has provided the training required under

Missouri's LTC Law to approximately 500 students throughout the state. A

number of students have also completed Advanced Course to be able to better

defend themselves and their family.

 

There are fall courses with openings on the following dates and locations:

 

Basic LTC Course to meet the training requirement will be at Ozark Shooters

near Ozark MO on Oct. 17, 2004 and in Columbia MO on Oct.30, 2004. For

those who have the training required or already obtained their LTC Permit,

there is an Advanced CCW Course at Ozark Shooters on Nov. 8 & 9, 2004.

 

For more details on course and news and information on LTC in Missouri see

the web site: http://www.LearnToCarry.com