Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) is quoted in today’s Warrensburg Daily Star Journal (front page! above the fold!) on the subject of HB 645 which would allow concealed-carry on a university campus:
…”I haven’t taken a position on this. Before I took a position, I’d want to talk to the president of the university, I’d want to talk to the Faculty Senate, I’d want to talk to Public Safety and get some comments because this would be a very controversial issue, especially here in a college town,” Hoskins said.
The letter writer, Hoskins said, agreed to correct the letter…
Is he quoted as saying that his position on this is that he has none?
Let’s see, Denny Hoskins has been on campus since the original story broke and spoke to the student who wrote the letter. Did he speak to the university president on this subject, or to complain about the Muleskinner? Just asking. Evidently he’s called a faculty member on the phone and discussed this.
Denny Hoskins has had enough time to talk to the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal about this. And write a letter to the editor of the Muleskinner (the student newspaper). Yet he claims that he has “taken no stand on the issue.”
Let’s take a look at those letters in the Muleskinner. First, Denny Hoskins’:
…Upon meeting Derek by chance in the Union Friday, we had the opportunity to discuss his letter. He explained my position to me on this issue by saying, since I am a Republican, he automatically knew I was for allowing concealed weapons on campus. We both agreed next time it would be a good idea to discuss the issue with me first, instead of assuming my position based on a political stereotype. My door is always open. Derek also agreed to write a retraction statement in this week’s Muleskinner…
And the student’s “retraction” in the same edition?:
Rep. Hoskins was concerned with some incongruencies within my letter. He claimed that he has no position on House Bill 645 (the bill that would allow for firearms on college campuses), and that he has never voted on such a bill. This is true that he has never voted on this bill…
…In writing my previous letter, I assumed that Hoskins supported such a bill because he is strongly in favor of the current conceal and carry laws, and has vowed to uphold the Second Amendment absolutely. I made this assumption because if he really upholds the Second Amendment, he would be in favor of this bill. In our conversation, he even mentioned that he was going to get his conceal and carry permit soon…
…I find his ignorance on this topic questionable at best and dishonest at worst. This bill was introduced in February, and Hoskins should have had plenty of time to take a position on such a bill that would directly affect the safety of his constituents…
Yep, the Missouri republican party paid for a really expensive campaign mailing on Denny Hoskins’ behalf, touting his true
blue red support of the 2nd Amendment. I don’t recall him correcting the record back then.
“…I find his ignorance on this topic questionable at best and dishonest at worst…” Now, that’s some “retraction”.
“”…this would be a very controversial issue, especially here in a college town…” You think?
It remains that Denny Hoskins has not taken a public position on HB 645. I wonder why? Could it be that taking the “wrong position” would put that NRA “A” rating in jeopardy?:
A Solidly pro-gun candidate. An “A” incumbent who has supported NRA positions on key votes. May also describe a non-incumbent “A” candidate (one not represented with an *) who has previously held other office and cast consistent pro-gun votes, or an “A” candidate who hasn’t held office but has expressed strong support for NRA positions on Second Amendment issues. It should be noted that a “non-incumbent” candidate may have been awarded the “A” rating due solely to their responses on the NRA-PVF candidate survey.
“…I haven’t taken a position on this…” That’s what you call “a profile in political courage”.