Missouri Governor Vetoes Gun Bill

[Ben]

It sounded like it would have been a good bill. Interesting tact the Governor took, turning his veto into a "gun rights" statement:

"Under this bill, newspaper editors around the state that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime," the governor said in a written statement announcing the veto.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/05/missouri-governor-vetoes-bill-that-nullified-fed-gun-laws/#ixzz2YCiHO1vZ

[Perd Hapley]

What a joke. Hunting in no way implies firearms ownership, even if a gun was used. I haven't read the text of the bill, but it's hard to imagine it was actually written as sloppily as Nixon seems to imply.

This bill should be veto-proof, which is good, since it also includes open-carry pre-emption for permit-holders, and lowers the min. age for the permit.

[zahc]

Not being familiar with the bill or politics, the quote about hunting is a total non-sequitur. The bill made taking pictures of dead animals illegal? 

Can someone please explain the stupid to me?  

[RoadKingLarry]

I think it had something to do with a prohibition on publishing a list of gun owners.
Sounds like a chickenpoop cop out to veto the bill though. Does the MO gov have ambitions of higher office in a Dem regime?

[just Warren]

Even so a quick popping in of an exception should clear things up. If he vetoes it then, then you know what's up.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, I was wrong.

571.011. 1. No person or entity shall publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement which allows such individual to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm.

            2. For purposes of this section, "publish" means to issue information or material in printed or electronic form for distribution or sale to the public.

            3. Any person or entity who violates the provisions of this section by publishing identifying information protected under this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

            571.012. 1. No health care professional licensed in this state shall be required by law to:

            (1) Inquire as to whether a patient owns a firearm;

            (2) Document or maintain in a patient's medical records whether such patient owns a firearm; or

            (3) Notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on the patient's status as an owner of a firearm.

            2. Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting or otherwise restricting a health care professional from inquiring, documenting, or otherwise disclosing a patient's status as an owner of a firearm if such inquiry, documentation, or disclosure is necessitated or medically indicated by the health care professional's scope of practice and such inquiry, documentation, or disclosure does not violate any other state or federal law.

It really is just about that sloppy. 

[Ben]

Well, I was wrong.

It really is just about that sloppy. 

Though if they tighten it up too much, it could leave loopholes to allow a recurrence of a NY CCW type fiasco with perhaps another segment of the gun owning community. Targeted language might be difficult.

[Scout26]

"...without said owners consent."


FIFY.

[T.O.M.]

Nice work Scout.  In  4 words you just proved yourself smarter than the Missouri government.