Questionable Vote (Missouri Senate CCW Veto Override)

[Terran]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/6835409.htm

(This is an editorial regarding additional facts that have come to light in this story. Prior thread here.)

Questionable vote

State Sen. Jon Dolan's handling of a trip from active military duty back to Missouri for the recent veto session raised troubling questions.

<snip>

At first, Dolan said that “no public or private interest group funds” paid for his travels from his post in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He said he and his staff made all the arrangements.

“I've got a huge, gaping hole in my wallet,” he said.

Kind of makes you teary-eyed, doesn't it?

<snip>

It turns out, however, that the gaping hole wasn't in the wallet, but in his story.

An aide to Republican Senate leader Peter Kinder purchased the plane tickets and was reimbursed by the Senate Majority Fund, a GOP political committee.

<snip>

But Dolan's problem with the truth has led to further questions about whether he had authority to leave his active post to vote. He said he did. However, Army officials have launched an investigation and directed him to refrain from political activity while on active duty.

<more>
***

This is really starting to stink like shit. What reason could an elected official have to publicly state a baldfaced lie like that? Could it be he knew damn well he was going to be instrumental in overthrowing the will of the People?

[acmavm]

1. Wolfie or Dickie or maybe even Rumsfarts probably told him that

they would write a note to his c.o. and everything would be all right. "Absence excused, now run on back to duty."

[MissouriTeacher]

2. There was a link on GunGuys.com...

to a message board where Dolan had posted.

The guy came off sounding like a total arrogant asshole. Talking about how he "kicked Holden's ass."

[MuseRider]

3. Hmmmm

I followed this a bit since I am in a neighboring state. I thought it stunk from the beginning. It was big news on the KC radio and it was OK by Missouri law and I did hear at one point that his commanding officer let him go, something about being able to miss some time but he had not been on duty long enough to actually be able to take that time. Now this, I just knew something was up. These votes were too important to the Repubs so I just knew something had been done that was not above board. It will be interesting to see what happens here.

[LastDemInIdaho]

5. This is not a repub / dem issue

The days of prohibiting law-abiding citizens from defending themselves are over. There is NO excuse to not allow law-abiding citizens to carry for their own defense.

The party of those defending us does not matter. They WILL be elected over those denying us our RIGHT to KEEP and BEAR ARMS.

[Terran]

6. In this case it IS a repub/Dem issue

Because the repubs paid for this guy's travel. The whole issue was floated by repubs almost exclusively, but during the veto session a few Dems changed their minds and voted to override. Believe me, I live in this town, and the repubs are smugly partisan about their new domination of our legislature. The bill would not even have gotten out of Committee if Dems still controlled things.

[LastDemInIdaho]

4. The will of the people demand they have the right to self-defense

The only thing "stinking like shit" are the people insisting we don't have a right to protect ourselves. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a defensive weapon is the most idiotic scam I have seen in years.

The first victim of violence because they were not allowed to defend themselves should be allowed to sue every single official and voter that allowed their injury or death possible due to unjust laws.

The days of electing proponents of draconian gun laws are over.

[Terran]

8. Oh please

Don't bring me that strawman BS. Our state Constitution explicitly outlawed concealed weapons prior to this, and until *very* recently no one seemed to give a damn, no one was whining about how "I can't protect myself!" You don't live here, so don't presume you know what you're talking about in reference to anything that happens here.

The facts are indisputable: the republicans rammed this through against the stated wishes of the voters of this state, and now they have the audacity to lie about it. Do you wish to contradict me on those facts or apologize for their lie?

[LastDemInIdaho]

10. The voters must be confused

Perhaps they should read the constitution and bill of rights to refresh them on the rights Americans are blessed with. Even if your state voted 100% against the 2nd amendment they would still be wrong.

You are part of America like it or not. Those that desire to dictate that Americans not be allowed to arm themselves against those that would do them harm should perhaps move to the UK or somewhere that doesn't cater to the rights of the individual.

This is still America and I aim to keep it that way.

[MrBenchley]

14. Too frigging funny, dems

The voters don't want it,, so they must be confused about what they want....

"Those that desire to dictate that Americans not be allowed to arm themselves against those that would do them harm should perhaps move to the UK or somewhere that doesn't cater to the rights of the individual."
Or perhaps we should stay right here and fight the hysteria and horseshit of a crackpot special interest group made up of extremists, racists and a corrupt industry.

And by the way, at least two of the GOP lawmakers who rammed this through against the voters wishes own gun shops themselves.

[Terran]

20. Where does it say in the Bill of Rights

that you are allowed to carry a concealed weapon? It's a matter of interpretation. No wonder some people are "confused."

[DoNotRefill]

26. Where does it say it's prohibited?

Anything not specifically prohibited is allowed....that's a BASIC tenet of freedom.

[DoNotRefill]

13. Sorry, Dirk....you're wrong....

"Our state Constitution explicitly outlawed concealed weapons prior to this..."

Your State Constitution did not OUTLAW concealed Carry, it merely didn't AUTHORIZE it in the Bill of Rights. It left the issue to the Legislature. There's a pretty big difference.

I've got friends in MO, and they were VERY unhappy about the lack of a CCW law.

[Terran]

19. Call it what you want

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/const/A01023.HTM

That looks like something between a prohibition and a failure to authorize. It certainly *is* a statement to the effect that concealed weapons are not ordinarily a desirable thing--otherwise why is it there? If the State Constitution doesn't "justify" the wearing of concealed weapons, what does? Not the Federal Bill of Rights-- it doesn't "authorize" the carrying of concealed weapons.

I also wonder how we managed to survive for almost 130 years under this document if carrying concealed weapons is so goddamned important.

[Romulus]

21. just like other things . . .

I also wonder how we managed to survive for almost 130 years under this document if carrying concealed weapons is so goddamned important.

The same could be said for racial integration or the right-to-choose. People managed to "survive" without both. It was the principle of civil rights underlying those rights that mattered and was eventually recognized.

People should have a right to self defense by means seperate from their reliance on the state for that defense. That's why CCW "is so goddamned important."

[Terran]

23. Your argument is flawed

There is no "civil right" to carry a concealed weapon. The Second Amendment does not explicitly give anyone the right to carry a concealed weapon. When are you guys going to make the distinction between what's in the federal Bill of Rights and concealed weapons?

[DoNotRefill]

25. Well....

the second amendment doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear unconcealed arms"...

In practice, I think you'll find that there has been a longstanding tradition of civilians carrying concealed weapons there. Whites weren't prosecuted for it, Blacks were. Florida's Supreme Court went as far as to say that the anti-CCW laws didn't apply to Whites, only to minorities.

The "no CCW" laws have a long-standing historical tradition of being a tool used by the government to oppress minorities.

[DoNotRefill]

24. Actually...it's a reservation...

of CCW laws as part of the police powers. If it was forbidden, it would have said something like "but no person shall carry a concealed weapon."

[Tannim]

7. Win for demcracy

Whether you like his politics or not, this action was a win for Democracy. He was elected to represent the people that voted for him. When an important vote came up, our society was able to ship him home so that his constituants would be properly represented.

A better solution would be to excuse him from military duty while he's a legislator. That way he's there all the time. It's not like he's shirking his duty as he's serving his country as an elected official.

[Terran]

9. So, you're saying...

that Legislators should be excused from doing military duty they previously signed up to do? Where do you draw the line on that little gem of an idea? The guy who picks up my trash performs a vital function too, I think he should be exscused also.

[Tannim]

12. Yes

That's exactly what I'm saying. It's a question of who is providing a more important service to society. The person who represents the will of the citizens who elected him or the soldier who can be replaced by any other soldier.

In this case the people elected him and important issues at home need his vote to ensure those people are properly represented.

I still say his travel was a win for democratic society.

[DoNotRefill]

29. I think it's a VERY good idea....

Otherwise, I'd think it likely that the Administration would go looking for Democratic legislators in the national guard, and see to it that they were called up and shipped overseas so they could push through whatever they want in the Legislature.

[MrBenchley]

16. A few more wins like this

and we might as well name Karl Rove dictator for life....

[Tannim]

27. That's silly.

Why? Cause legally owned concealed weapons will not allow dictators for life to be placed in office.

If you don't like the results and live in this state, organize an effective campaign to remove the lawmakers that overrode the veto. Even if you don't like this State Senator's position, the faxt he was allowed to represent the people that elected him was a win for our society.

[MrBenchley]

28. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Saddam's Iraq was one of the most heavily armed socieities in history.

"organize an effective campaign to remove the lawmakers that overrode the veto."
It's called the Democratic party.

[LastDemInIdaho]

11. In this case the "will of the people" is bogus

Many years the "will of the people" demanded slavery be legal.

Thank God they did not prevail then and we will not let the "will of the people" disarm us law-abiding Americans.

[MrBenchley]

15. What a pantload...

So we should allow armed neurotics to roam the strreet because Americans want it, and if Americans don't want it they get it anyway because what they want is "bogus."

You'd be right at home in the GOP....maybe you can explain to us how Chimpy didn't really lie when he said "Saddam" and "September11" over and over again...

[MissouriTeacher]

17. There was another article this morning...

that explained the law. The law is, a serviceman cannot be excused from active duty if they are called up for more than 270 days. Dolan had been called up for 365 days, therefore he violated the law. That's why the Dept. of Defense is investigating who gave him authority to leave. Whether anything will come of it is a different matter.

Regardless of your opinion on CCW. This is an issue that should be left up to the voters. In '99 a majority of voters turned it down despite millions of dollars being poured into the state by the NRA.

The problem is that certain legislators voted against their districts. One in particular from the St. Louis area, a Republican, voted for the override even though his district overwhelmingly voted against concealed weapons in '99.

If this one legislator had voted according to the wishes of his district, the veto could not have been overridden.

[Romulus]

18. two questions

1) was that legislator elected after the '99 referendum? Maybe things have changed since then.

2) did the Colorado anti-gay referendum's support by the majority of "Coloradonians" make it right?

[MrBenchley]

22. One thing that's changed since '99

is that now we know what an utter pantload the "more guns/less crime" claim is.

As for the Colorado referendum, didn't the courts toss that out as unconstitutional? I wonder how many of those lying about "special rights" are also the RKBA crowd?

"Panelists speaking at the National Rifle Association annual convention in Reno, Nevada, this week opened in grand style by branding openly gay anti-gun crusader Rosie O'Donnell a "freak."
The comment was made during a two-hour panel discussion which attacked the "biased news media" for distorting the position of gun-rights advocates. Every speaker but one who sat on the panel made some derogatory reference to gay people."

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/record.html?record=19803

"Such homophobia has long been an integral part of Savage's routine; when he wanted to insult the pro-gun control Million Mom March, for example, he dubbed it "the Million Dyke March" "

http://www.fair.org/activism/savage-homophobia.html

"Would anyone now claim that it is time to pick up guns to halt big government, the homosexuals, the feminists, the communists, etc., etc.? I doubt it. And the reason is we know in our hearts that Mr. Heston is right. We know the real reason we are losing our guns is because most Americans no longer know the God who gave us the rights we are trying to protect."

http://www.citizensoldier.org/heston.html

"Gun rights
Eternal vigilance is required to protect our 2nd Amendment rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. HB 489, 592, 786, 815, 821, 825, 860, 905, 906, 1020, 1021, 1035, 1165 and SB 131 all deal with the issue.
Homosexual agenda
* GOOD bills:
HB 382 would prohibit placing children in homosexual foster homes. HB 415 would disallow homosexual foster parents. HB 383 would disallow recognition of a same-sex 'marriage.' HB 464 disallows sexual abuse of a child. HB 14 would mandate a blood test before obtaining a marriage license; HB 717 would require premarital testing for HIV; HB 852 would allow HIV testing of sex offenders."

http://texaseagle.org/alert/1999/0205.html

"Why some people are evil, who knows? Maybe an unidentified mental or personally flaw set off by certain external factors unique to the individual. Or perhaps there were born that way, as liberals claim that homosexuals are.
You can pass all the new laws you want and take away more of our rights as Americans. You can try to "profile" people but human nature is too complicated to identify potential aggressors, the innocent will suffer the sigma of being "identified" and an evil person can slip through the cracks and have their day in the sun. All we can do is be prepared to defend ourselves against them by legally carrying concealed firearms and demand that the authorities have well practiced operational plans to swiftly take the aggressors out. "

http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~jpic/gun20.htm

(The Confederate swastika with its motto on that page is a particularly nice nutbag touch.)