The author wants everything right now, perfection, or nothing.
The Republic and rights were never perfect, they have always had some compromises. We can get close, but perfection is unattainable.
If we were governed by angels, then the laws would be perfect. Then again, we would not need any laws.
I don’t see all of these restrictions as being senseless. So they need to be parsed into senseless and sensible.
To start with, hospitals. Obviously you do not want sparks or open flame anywhere near oxygen. Or anything metal near an MRI. Less obvious is that doctors can make some people very angry. And just because a patient is in the hospital does not mean that those angry with him, who might have put him there, are done with him.
Granted, gun restrictions will not keep out somebody who is really angry. So this part needs fine tuning.
Sports arenas and stadiums and gated area of amusement parks. Not sensible.
Private property posted off-limits. This is a common restriction, and pretty sensible. The same with churches, casinos, and child-care facilities. My place, my rules.
Schools and colleges. This should be changed later, based on the experiences of other states, which are fairly new.
Bars are usually not a problem, though many places do not permit alcohol consumption by an armed person.
Government-owned buildings and government meetings. Not sensible. The one exception is for meetings to discuss very argumentative and angry subjects, for which they should install portable metal detectors.
Courthouses or buildings used by a court. This one is still open to argument. Again, mandated metal detectors are increasingly common here.
Polling places on election day. Instead of restricting guns, they should have serious laws against “brandish & display with intent to intimidate”, basically forbidding only open carry, flashing and menacing.
Police, sheriff or highway patrol office or station. Instead of forbidding guns, they should post a sign for a “secure gun check” at the front desk. Authorization should be sought if intending repeated visits.
While I certainly believe that the Second Amendment is nothing more than confirmation on a person’s inherent right to self defense I would have to quibble a bit with the author on at least two of the items from his list of restrictions. A private property owner SHOULD have the right, if he so chooses, to keep firearms off his property. If you disagree and don’t want to leave your weapon at home or in a vehicle, then stay off that person’s property. A First Amendment analogy is appropriate. Anyone has the right to hold a peaceful protest, but they don’t have the right to come onto my private property without my permission to hold that protest.
The other quibble I have is that the leadership of a church should be permitted to prevent firearms inside the church or on church proprrty, for much the same reason; a church is private property belonging to that church organization. Those who disagree are free to attend a church that allows firearms on its property. In the same vein, the First Amendment gives you the right to give a public speech, but not the right to give it in a church without permission from the leaders of the church.
Missouri is a pretty good place to own guns.
Having said that, the laws are confusing.
Status quo before 2014: open carry not at all prohibited by state law, but could be overridden by local law. Concealed carry cannot be overridden other than the exceptions noted, most of which do not carry “force of law” — in other words the property owner/manager can ask you to leave and there is ZERO penalty unless you keep doing it, and even then, it’s not criminal.
2014: Concealed carry permit holders can’t have open carry rights overridden by any of the thousands of municipal codes. Note that this applied to concealed carry holders only.
2017: No concealed carry permit required IN PLACES WHERE YOU COULD ALREADY OPEN CARRY (only).
Confusing? Pointless?
The right of self defense is not superior to the right of ownership of private property. They are equal in their authority. As such, to be on a private property (be it hospital, church, bar etc) requires the private property owners permission. Therefore, the owner of that property has the RIGHT to require conditions be met to be on that property. One of those conditions can be the disarming of individuals.
Having said that, creating a law that automatically disarms a citizen is perhaps a step too far. In my opinion, the carrier should be confronted either by signage or in person and asked to leave. If they do not leave, charged with trespass.