TO: Missouri Political Reporters and Editors

FROM: Amy Pennington and Brett Feinstein

RE: “No on B” Misfires #1 (A continuing series…)

DATE: March 16, 1999

In their effort to distort the facts and scare Missourians from allowing themselves the right to self-protection, the “No on B” team is trying to have it both ways.

Consider this statement from Jim Brady, a prominent spokesperson for the No on B effort:

``Gee, I thought that's why you have Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police. They usually do a pretty good job of keeping people safe. If they don't, they're not there all that long,''

So Mr. Brady thinks our law enforcement does a good job. That’s fine, but how does that square with the No on B crew’s “loopholes” argument?

The No on B folks have been running around screaming that the sky is falling and that child molesters, stalkers and other undesirables will have access to a permit.

But if they would take a breath and just read the bill behind Prop B, they would know that local law enforcement has the right to deny a permit for any reason.

That means if a local sheriff saw an applicant had something unseemly in their background, they could just say no and deny the permit.

And one would imagine Missouri law enforcement would do just that since, after all, as Mr. Brady noted, “They usually do a pretty good job of keeping people safe”.

So next time you talk to the No on B team ask them this. Do they think law enforcement will continue to do a “pretty good job” by using their discretion to deny permits as necessary? Or do they think that law enforcement will turn a blind eye to potential threats and just give anyone a permit no matter what comes up in the background check?

Which way do they want to have it?

For further information, visit our website at or send email to .

[Home] [Donations] [Bookstore]