KINDER'S COMMENTARY: PROPOSED RIGHT-TO-CARRY LAW WOULD GIVE STATE WHAT MOST HAVE

Well, well, well. So the big guns -- pardon the pun -- are against your right to carry a concealed weapon which, properly and fully understood, is a healthy and natural extension of your right to self-defense. Missouri voters are set to decide the issue April 6.

This week's newspaper featured a well-covered news conference by U.S. Attorney Ed Dowd, of the distinguished St. Louis Dowd family, joined by local notables Morley Swingle and Larry Ferrell. Swingle is the Cape Girardeau County prosecuting attorney. Ferrell, a former Cape County prosecutor, is assistant U.S. attorney in the Cape Girardeau office. Dowd is a Democrat. Swingle and Ferrell (who works for Dowd) are Republicans. Dowd and I graduated from the same law school. All three are friends.

And with all due respect, all three, in my judgment, are wrong.

At issue is whether to extend to Missourians the right to carry a concealed weapon, a right discharged responsibly by citizens of dozens of other states. Right-to-carry laws take two forms. The variety we will vote on is known as "shall-issue." By this we mean that if you meet the requirements, complete a 12-hour firearm safety course, pass a background check and pay the $80 fee, the sheriff shall issue a permit to carry. (Missouri's permit would be for three years, with renewals at $35.)

Thirty-one states have shall-issue laws. Is right to carry extreme? Recently, Democratic legislatures have passed and Democratic governors have signed the law in neighboring Tennessee (1994) and Kentucky (1997). Democratic Gov. Zell Miller of Georgia, a client of presidential snapping turtle James Carville, signed it into law. Hugely populous Florida has had it since 1987, while Texas passed it and Gov. George W. Bush signed it into law nearly three years ago.

The other kind is "discretionary issue," meaning there are few or no objective criteria, leaving it law enforcement authorities' discretion to decide whether an applicant receives a permit. Twelve states have this version. The upshot is that Missouri is one of only seven states that have no such law. Query: Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who want to keep Missourians in the tiny minority of states with no such law?

We who back your right to carry believe that the spread of these laws explains a portion of America's falling crime rates. (Criminologists can be found on both sides, and you can pay your money and take your choice.) One study showed that in states that had passed right to carry, crimes against people -- rape, assault, robbery, murder -- actually declined, while crimes against undefended property -- burglary, auto theft -- actually rose. This suggests a sort of rational calculation -- a cost-benefit analysis, if you will -- on the part of criminals. After right-to-carry, the criminal no longer enjoys his current paradise: A government-certified guarantee that his victim will be unarmed.

For opponents, scare tactics are the order of the day. None of the hysterical predictions made by opponents has come true in states that have passed right to carry. For the shopkeeper closing up late at night, for the teacher heading downtown to take a night class toward that masters degree, for the lady out on the interstate on a long trip, Missourians need the right to carry.

Others can side with the liberal editorial writers, in their ivory towers, if they choose. Me? I trust Missourians to discharge a right that citizens of most other states already have. Why don't they?

It's all in your hands April 6.

~Peter Kinder is assistant to the president of Rust Communications and a state senator from Cape Girardeau.