Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Jody Mayes from the St. Joseph area, sights in his new rifle Monday at the Pigeon Hill Conservation Area shooting range, as he and other hunters get ready for the opening day of deer season for firearms this weekend.
Gun enthusiasts are stocking up on firearms out of fears that a Democrat-led administration will result in tougher gun control.
Last month, as polls showed a Barack Obama lead, background checks for gun purchases jumped by 108,000 compared with October 2007 - a 15 percent increase - according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Gun sales as of Oct. 26 were up 8 percent for the year.
Jerry Sharr said gun and ammunition sales have increased significantly since October.
"It's usually been hunters and homeowners," said Mr. Sharr, owner of Jerry's Guns & Shooting Range in Maryville, Mo. The variety of customers walking through his doors not looking for the high-powered rifle for upcoming deer season are homeowners looking for handguns and home defense shotguns, he said.
Business is good, but the gun owners may be getting ahead of themselves in an effort to buy weapons before January.
According to Mr. Obama's official Web site, the president-elect doesn't plan on taking away hunters' weapons or a homeowner's line of defense. The administration says it would like to keep guns away from children and criminals and support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Mr. Obama has said at many of his campaign rallies that he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms but that he favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault and concealed weapons, said Jesse Angst, of St. Joseph.
"I just worry that subtle changes will be just the foot in the door to infringing on our Second Amendment rights," Mr. Angst said Monday while readying for deer season at the Pigeon Hill Conservation Area shooting range.
The avid hunter hasn't scurried off to the local gun dealer but said he knows many who have.
"It's just a paranoid reaction," Mr. Angst said. "It'll pass. But if (Obama) starts taking away gun rights, it would be kind of a 'I told you so.'"
As a U.S. Senator, Mr. Obama voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits, and as an Illinois state legislator he supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms, according to his Web site.
While Mr. Sharr appreciates the increase in his gun business, he doesn't anticipate the average hunter or homeowner to be affected by any change in gun laws. Those owners aren't necessarily interested in automatic weapons and assault rifles, which could possibly be banned under the new administration.
"I'm not worried at all," said Galand Conard, another St. Joseph man shooting at Pigeon Hill.
Mr. Conard has been hunting since he was 5 years old. He feels that since he is a law-abiding citizen, he and his two sons he hunts with shouldn't be affected by any change in gun laws.
Reporter Jennifer Hall can be reached
at jennhall@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
JAFO says...
when i see something like this it makes me think of the butcher and the salami. it someone steals a whole salami, he will notice it right away. but one slice at a time, he won't even notice. be wary, educate your kids. knowledge is power here folks. even though he has a lot to do over the next 4 years, whenever the dems have power repubs are nervous.
November 11, 2008 at 1:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
In July past Obama said: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
When this Socialist/Marxist gets his national police force established, your Second Amendment rights of PRIVATE gun ownership will go out the window. And some of you are SO worried about the Patriot Act! Ha!
November 11, 2008 at 5:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
michaelh..the National Guard is a military organization, not the civilian police force Comrade Obama will establish. In 1930's Germany the similar national police force was informally called "brown shirts."
November 11, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
megafrog says...
Heil Obama
November 11, 2008 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
Who here actually believes the Constitution is giving you the right to own a gun and that it was not specifically talking about a standing militia?
November 11, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
Young Einstein...the Supreme Court, just for starters, when it decided the D.C. case last term
November 11, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10377586 says...
Barack hasn't even taken office yet and the economy has already turned around, just ask the federal firearms dealers in your area, it's a financial upswing.
November 11, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
Now is this Supreme Court liberal or conservative?
November 11, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
No one?
November 11, 2008 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wr49tm says...
Our current Supreme Court is pretty evenly split - 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 swing voter (appointed under Reagan).
November 11, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLK says...
I sit here, shaking my head, thinking about the Second Amendment...boy if only our forefathers had had a crystal ball. To all: when violence in our schools, our workplaces and our streets escalates even more due to a lack of LOGICAL and much needed gun control (thanks NRA lobbyists), everyone get out your AK-47's, your UZI's and your MAC 11's and start shooting in protest! Then, when we're all scared to walk out of our homes, we can back peddle and try to get gun control established then. Makes perfect sense...?! C'mon, do people really believe their right to bare arms is going to come to a screeching halt in the next 4 years...in the next several decades? And the last time I checked, you don't use an automatic assault rifle or pistol to go hunting. Gosh, do you think the Democrats are going to ban hunting too? Riiiiight. Stop whining and start worrying about more important and pressing issues...global warming, animal extinction, human waste...things EVERYONE needs to do something about. Or guns will be the LAST thing we ALL worry about.
November 11, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
We didn't worry about human waste....we ELECTED it!!!
November 11, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLK says...
WOW. That's a mature rebuttal. Well, I guess you better figure out where you're going to live for the next four years if you don't want to be presided over by "human waste". I don't suppose you'll ever take any of that anger and hatred you have and turn it into something good for the benefit of all? Honestly, I love America, but I certainly don't like living with neighbors like you. I'll pray for you though!
November 11, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
Wright,
I just wanted to let you know that McCain lost...
November 11, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
Young Einstein...and your non sequitur means...?
November 11, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
It means... In reference to your post about human waste... We didn't elect John McCain.
November 11, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
Young Einstein...in your formula, does "c" equal stupid?
November 11, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
I don't have to worry about it, MichaelH. I have my guns and JLK is praying for me. All is well so long as Young Einstein doesn't reach critical mass. Think I will go have a nightcap with wildwest. G'night all.
November 11, 2008 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLK says...
While I'm definitely not naive, I do like to be optimistic. Obviously guns are never going to be out of the hands of criminals...but does every Tom, Dick and Harry need an assault weapon? For what...to prove something? Think about the school and mall shootings over the past few years. They were young people, a majority of them kids, and where did they get their assault guns? Not from some illegal gun smuggling ring....they got them from their own home. Of course I'm worried about gun control. While gun control certainly won't get rid of guns in the hands of bad people, as drugs will never be erradicated, I would like to see a modification in gun ownership. There are guns in my home...for hunting and for protection. But I certainly don't feel or see the need to own a MAC 11 or the like. I'm not in law enforcement or the military...why would I need one? And to take the gun/drug comparison a little further...if freedom to own guns of any sort is ok, why not legalize drugs of all kinds? Not all heroine users kill or hurt people, just as not all gun owners do either. But we all know, there is always that chance that the drugs will get into the hands of the wrong person...someone with a lack of control...just as guns do. Government chooses to draw a line and determine what's ok and what's not. And I don't like the fact that the NRA can slip money into the hands of politicians anymore than the drug/weapons dealers can. But I also get tired of the whining about government intervention and "big brother" dictating our lives. I was born in the US, I choose to live in this area because it's safe and quiet, but eventually, guess what? The crime wave (bigger gangs, bigger drug rings) will hit here too and I'd like to think that the government that I help pay for is doing whatever they can to make sure my family and I are as safe as we can be....locally and nationally. Don't ridicule me for trying to be proactive and hoping for a better future for all of us. Reality is what it is...but shouldn't we be focusing on making sure the future isn't worse than the past or present?
November 12, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mr_America says...
I like to shoot guns.
I like reading about guns.
I like Watching programs about guns.
I like owning guns.
I like the idea of a law abiding citizen being able to own what ever type of guns they would like, from pee shooters to full auto assault rifles.
I think I might love guns.
November 13, 2008 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
aafb says...
A thought to share with you in St. Joe area regarding president elect Barrack Hussien Obama - know from whence he came. A child of the 60's hippie love fest. Know what he does, how he has lived his life and how this man can pass security clearances is beyond me. He does not love this country nor does he know the history of this country. Kudos to the one writing the comment a slice at a time we lose our freedoms and control on many aspects of our lives as that is so true. For me I thank God for the corner of the world from whence I came who in broad daylight knew when all they could do had been done, what they had to do to keep them all out of harms way. That is my America, that is my America I fight for. aafb
November 13, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JWBooth says...
eequalsmc2 and JLK,
Perhaps you should actually take a moment and read the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment. If that's too difficult for you, or you still just don't get it, I'd suggest reading "The Embarrassing Second Amendment" by Sanford Levinson, an esteemed legal professor.
The Second Amendment and the right to BEAR arms has nothing to do with hunting. In fact, it has everything to do with the people's right (and responsibility) to be armed to protect itself against a tyrannical government. Remember, that's the whole point of our government - that the power resides with the people, i.e. individuals - and that the government serves at the pleasure of the people. An armed populace is simply another check & balance against the corruption and tyranny of a strong central government.
If the framers were alive today, they'd recoil in horror at the Obamanation (sic - abomination) that our federal government has become.
Some of you sheeple might think this right is fantastical, unrealistic, antiquated, or downright scary. So what - it is what it is. The bottom line is that citizens armed with small arms are currently tying up the best military force the world's ever seen in Iraq. And if you think the Second Amendment doesn't protect an individual's right to possess a semi-automatic military-style weapon simply because that technology didn't exist in 1787, then you must not agree with the St. Joe News-Press's freedom of press extending to its Internet domain. After all, Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet yet in 1787.
In closing, I'd invite you to carefully examine the classification of what's considered an "assault rifle." The common military definition is a fully-automatic weapon, of which the possession/transfer/manufacture of is already heavily regulated and restricted. Semi-automatic copies that merely look like an "AK-47" or an "M16" are no more deadly or lethal than your grandpa's Winchester 70. Banning them simply because of cosmetic features, as was done with Comrade Klinton's Crime Bill of 1994, accomplishes nothing. Further, most crimes are committed with small-caliber revolvers and handguns. Besides a few random, high profile crimes using alleged "assault weapons" - you'll find that the majority are used lawfully for sport/target/hunting and simply by some as a bulwark against the tyranny of man. Sic Semper Tyrannis!
November 13, 2008 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ChrisMeissen says...
"Those owners aren't necessarily interested in automatic weapons and assault rifles, which could possibly be banned under the new administration." Perhaps that's because these were banned by the Volkmer-McClure Law in 1986 and unnaffected by the Feinstein-Schumer ban of 1994, the one that expired.
In reading the article and comments, the level of ignorance regarding the right guaranteed, not granted, by the 2nd Amendment and by Article 23 of the Missouri constitution is appalling. The right to keep and bear arms is an ancient, inherent right of any free person. It is an essential right if one is to remain free.
Our forefathers, the ones who gave us our Constitution, understood this. They understood, as the 17th Century philospher Beccharia wrote, that if all arms were to magically disappear it would only leave the weak, elderly, and those disposed towards peace at the mercy of the strong and criminally inclined. They understood what Machievelli meant when he wrote in The Prince that one who is dependent upon another for his protection becomes that man's slave. That is what they meant when they said that a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia (the whole body of the people capable of bearing arms of their own) is necessary for the security of a free state.
Mr. eequalsmc2 should research a bit further into his nation's history and that of the Constitution. If he read the Federalist Papers,he'd find that the founders intended that every citizen would have unrestricted right and access to "arms little if any inferior to those of the Standing Army." He would learn that what those founders would find shocking is the tolerance and passivity demonstrated by such as he today towards crime and criminals. Those founders held it a duty, repeat a duty for every citizen to actively resist crime. They would have been horrified at the idea of "don't resist, just give them what they want." They would have correctly considered such a philosophy both cowardly and a threat to society as a whole because it encourages crime.
November 13, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
JWBooth,
You are the one who needs to read the Constitution. The right to bear arms is given to the militia in the 2nd amendment. Are you the militia?
November 14, 2008 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryAllison says...
Really? While I admit we can argue what the framers meant by a "well-regulated militia", the second half of the 2nd amendment is about as plain as it can be. What about the phrase "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
November 14, 2008 at 10:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eequalsmc2 says...
For a militia...don't you understand?
November 14, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )