Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

SECOND AMENDMENT

Dems In Missouri Try To Confiscate Guns

Assault Weapons Owners Would Have 90 Days To Turn Them In

Next>

by David Mark

Editor-in-Chief t

Image: AP

State House Democrats in Missouri want some of your guns. There's no subtlety about it.

FOX Nation reports on legislation they've introduced that give firearms owners 90 days to turn in assault weapon or large capacity magazines. It's one of the strictest gun control measures introduced since the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre.

According to House Bill 545, assault rifles are defined as any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that has one or more of the following characteristics:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock; or

d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel.

The law also applies to certain semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic shotguns with similar characteristics.

Via Fox Nation.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

Is this a good idea?

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • CPT_Ethanolic
    !
    The is more idiotic posturing by children - exactly the same as the house GOP bringing up repealing Obamacare for a vote every other week. It's amazing how childish elected officials can be.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @CPT_Ethanolic

    INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

    Betcha these clowns won't be in office after their next election either.
  • Rocker
    !
    Grandstanding. I don't think it will either. If it does there will be a lot of open seat in the next election. This gun ownership topic seems to span party lines. I know a lot of Dems that will not support it and a few Repubs that agree with control. So it seems to be more of an individual social preference subject. Somehow, I get the feeling that it really comes down to wanting everybody else to give up the guns but I'm gonna keep mine mentality.
  • Rocker
    !
    @Thunderchicken - Point them to work on St. Looie. That place is getting unruly. If it works, let us know. Nashville and Memphis needs some fine tuning as well. We do OK out here in the sticks.

  • View all 15 replies >

  • CPT_Ethanolic
    !
    Assault weapons were banned in the 90s. High capacity magazines were banned in CA until the early 90s. Where was the slippery slope then? The slippery slope argument makes no sense when history consistently shows otherwise.
  • justapirate
    !
    @CPT_Ethanolic Wasn't it just two days ago the anti-gun bunch was downplaying confiscation? And then- here we are.
    Nah, it's pretty slippery.
  • CPT_Ethanolic
    !
    @justapirate
    You're mistaking grand standing and posturing for serious legislation. And again - assault weapons were actually banned not too long ago, now they're not. By your slippery slope argument, hand guns should be illegal now, not the opposite.
  • justapirate
    !
    @CPT_Ethanolic Eh, the show ain't over. Lessee what happens next, shall we? My first suspicion was right. Bet my other suspicions see the light of day. Wanna bet?
  • CPT_Ethanolic
    !
    @justapirate
    Gun confiscation will NOT happen. This is just grandstanding and attention whoring off a topic that is red meat for the left. No different than the dog whistles that the right blows constantly.

  • View all 15 replies >

  • u
    DapperDave
    !
    Good luck with this "waste of time" effort. Trying to take an assault rifle from a gun worhshipping kook - even though that kook has a storehouse of other weapons stashed in his/her house/car/truck/- will prove to be more difficult than taking a new toy from a child on Christmas....and you'll be subjected to the same level of irrational, childish kicking and screaming, crying and temper tantrum throwing. I say let the wackos have their AR's; maybe we'll get lucky and they'll end up annihilating each other.
  • u
    thumper11
    !
    One can only wonder - as to the source of your infernal hatred of good, peaceable, hard-working, tax-paying, productive, law-abiding American citizens (presumably your fellow countrymen). Thankfully, you chose to be a pacifist. There are many (like you) who just shouldn't EVER have guns.
  • u
    DapperDave
    !
    @thumper11 Yeah, makes perfect sense. I don't think assault rifles should be widely available, therefore I shouldn't ever have a gun, or guns. Well, you're a day late and a dollar short, boo boo. I already own a gun for the purpose of protecting my home, but I'll never own an assault rifle. Leave it a foaming-at-the-mouth, second amendment rights advocate to proclaim that another American should not have a gun. The laughable hypocrisy of these kooks is truly something to behold.
  • u
    thumper11
    !
    @DapperDave,
    Considering your interminable hatred for so many Millions of peaceable, law-abiding, fellow-citizens (which you seem so eager to express at every opportunity)- I urge you to reconsider your choice to exercise your 2nd-amendment.

    Perhaps you are more restrained in face-to-face encounters with your co-workers and neighbors. If not, I urge you to consider anger-management counseling, or some type of professional therapy - before you injure or kill an innocent.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    I searched the net for the original story, but could not find the names of any of the "Missouri Democrats" who introduced this bill. Since this is exactly the sort of doomsday scenario predicted by anti-gun control people, it makes me suspicious that this might actually have been introduced by people who oppose it, sort of like the way Mitch McConnell introduced legislation on the debt ceiling that he had to filibuster himself.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    I just spent some time looking through Missouri's list of bills up for vote. They seem to spend a lot of time talking about firearms. The vast majority of bills are pro-gun. They spend so much time introducing bills and counter-bills, I would be surprised if they have any time to vote on any of them.

    http://house.mo.gov/billreport.aspx...
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @Thunderchicken Here's some interesting bills on the table in Missouri:

    HB 436 Funderburk, Doug
    Establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which rejects all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution(LR# 1204L.01I)

    HB 468 Higdon, Galen
    Gives sheriffs or any other law enforcement officer absolute immunity when conducting service of process at the direction of any court(LR# 1249L.01I)

    HB 425 Wilson, Kenneth
    Specifies that all law enforcement officers are immune from personal civil liability for acts that are within the scope of their official duties, discretionary, and not performed in bad faith or with malice(LR# 1319H.01I)
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @Dan_Tien

    We have a legislature to debate ideas. That's just what these bills are. I'm sure there are dozens of bills that will never be seen outside of their respective committees.

    The clowns who sponsored this bill should be prepared to loose their seats. I'm looking forward to doing my part to make that happen.

  • View all 9 replies >

  • DerivePI
    !
    @DARSB - so if a weapon is in common use at this time, the supreme court holds (according to your link) that possession of these weapons is protected. Sounds like Missouri is doing an end run on the constitution and the SCOTUS's previous interpretation.

    "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Is Missouri infringing on people's right to keep and bear arms? Yes.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    Funny how folks can either pretend "shall not be infringed" isn't there, ignore it, think it doesn't apply to this gun but does to that gun or just flat out change the meaning to support what they feel.
  • u
    DapperDave
    !
    @Buzzfriendly Is it as funny as when people either pretend "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." isn't there, ignore it, think it doesn't apply or just flat out change the meaning to support what they feel? "Ah ain't gonna be part a no milisha and risk muh life to secure no free State. Ah just wanna be aball ta have me a hole heep a shotguns, rifefuls ,pistuls, buzukas n granaid lawnchurs and otha wepuns."

  • View all 48 replies >

  • u
    lochlomond
    !
    And how many gun owners do they think are going to rush to turn their weapons in? Unless the lawmakers are willing to fund a quasi-military task force to collect them it is unlikely that there will be a mad dash to relinquish them.
  • u
    thumper11
    !
    It's not so much that they want to actually confiscate guns. Rather, their primary objective is to instantly convert the majority of the (objectionable) citizens - from law-abiding citizens, into felons (subject to the states will). That way, they can then simply storm-trooper the (newly-made) felons' homes whenever they want (at their leisure and discretion)- without having to bother with warrants and court-orders, and all that due-process stuff.

    Essentially, it's an effective way to instantly transform "citizens" into "subjects" - because (unlike "citizens") "felons" are wards of the state - subject to it's administrative jurisdiction. Any weapons that they initially collect - would just be a bonus.
  • u
    lochlomond
    !
    @thumper11 I see your point. I am not a fan of Obama's but the shrinking of the liberties of the Bill of Rights has been going on for quite awhile. Allowing legislation to "tweak" the second amendment incrementally by identifying "offensive" types of guns while allowing others to remain on the market until they gradually disappear is a way around actually having to address the matter of gun ownership as a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. The 2nd Amendment reads "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The geniuses who think that the right of the people to bear arms is connected to the concept of a well regulated militia apparently do not understand the structure of the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment begins with "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The Second Amendment is a continuation of the first in the enumeration of the rights of citizens. It is implied that "Congress shall make no law ..." The Second Amendment is not a complete sentence but is a continuation of the First Amendment, separated because it deals with a different matter.

    According to Article V of the Constitution, requires 2/3 of each house of Congress must propose an amendment .2/3 of the legislatures of the several states can make application to call a Convvention. In either case, the proposed amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the legislatures of the now 50 states. If we were going about this according to the blue print established by the founding fathers it would be a simple matter to make the proposal in Congress, have both houses vote on it and then turn it over to the legislators in all of the states.

    We know of course that the last thing ANYBODY in Washington wants to do is to go through a process in which the states have the final word. Thus they continue trying to find ways of whittling down the Bill of Rights "for our own good" or because they are archaic and do not reflect the modern world.

    Although posters on this site have a wide range of political philosophies, if polled, would not get the necessary 3/4 approval that is required for a modification of the Second Amendment.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    This is incredibly stupid. Nobody thinks the bill will become law, and it only inflames the already over-excited dittohead types. The only purpose behind this is to give a politician a talking point in his next election. I hope he loses.

    But maybe this is a test, to see how people would react to a federal law of the same sort. I hope that whoever is interested for that reason realizes that it violates the Constitution in several ways, and could not work without the collusion of the supreme court.
  • kathyparsell
    !
    I feel strange in saying, Thank you, Missouri, but now the issue can come before the Supreme Court; whom we all know has already spoken, and then although the liberals will wail and cry, probably tear up, but be forced to realize that the issue of guns has already been settled. Inforcement the laws that are constitutional and give up on blaming guns for the problems society face.
  • hwyangel
    !
    Actually I have no problem with Missouri banning guns in THEIR state. I still believe in diversity and not forcing my values on other people. I just won't move to Missouri.
  • harold_lloyd
    !
    @hwyangel

    How effective do you think a statewide ban would be?

    Nobody expects this to become law, it was designed to test the waters nationally, to see if anyone was prepared to resist it effectively.
  • WMCOL
    !
    Purely symbolic, and some of these Democrats are gonna lose their seats come election time.

    There are twice as many Republicans as Democrats in Missouri State House.
  • u
    Grubby
    !
    It won't pass in Missouri, and even if it did they would never get the guns. The state I live in is much more likely to pass something stupid like that. I know they won't be able to find my guns, clips and ammo. All it will do is turn the law abiding citizens into paper criminals. No real criminals will turn in their guns. Nothing will be accomplished except to label good people as bad.
  • u
    tomincali
    !
    more proof the looks of a gun scares some weak minded,or is it just an excuse to take more from the citizens.

    a couple of movies made push button knives be restricted as if they are more dangerous than any other knife no matter how fragile they are.
  • u
    tomincali
    !
    @culinary

    a thumb hole now makes for an assault rifle.

    how about threaded barrels on a shotgun,i guess that goes after the ones we can screw a choke on for pheasants
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    Ahh to be a Libertarian is rough sometimes. Here is what I see.

    Liberals have no problem wanting ID’s, background checks, training in order for someone to exercise their Constitutional right to own a gun, which clearly states that shall not be infringed.

    Conservatives have no problem wanting ID’s to vote even though the Constitution clearly details in many sections where a person can’t be denied the ability to vote.

    Liberals and conservatives both have come up with reasons that they feel are valid and so important that they are comfortable in making difficult to exercise our Constitutional rights for the greater good.

    As a Libertarian I feel the US Constitution is the greater good and that no matter what the unintended consequences are of a particular amendment we should always resist the desire to circumvent or limits our rights. And yes that means a baby may die because of the second amendment or person gets elected through fraudulent means and does all sorts of nastiness.
  • justapirate
    !
    Personally, I have no interest in owning an 'assault' rifle. What I already own is far more than sufficient for my needs. I have no need for more than a five round clip. Where the problem lies is this interesting little anti-gun maneuver isn't going to do a thing about crime except create a new kind of criminal- being an innocent American who owns some protection. I can't agree with that and there isn't anything this PC attempt is going to do to change my mind.
  • Buzzfriendly
    !
    It's a Constitutional right no reason required. Shall we infringe on your first amendment right of free speech to prohibit you from asking 'why"?
  • Russell797
    !
    @Buzzfriendly So if you guys are steadfast in your opposition to solving problems, you have no right to complain when they comes back to bite you personally in the ass. Mayhem with guns is something you don't have a problem with, so no one else should either. Let the killing continue, what do you care?
  • u
    AnnieO
    !
    @Russell797 The killing will continue anyway, ban or not. The criminals certainly aren't going to hand over their weapons.

  • View all 18 replies >

  • dances-weebles
    !
    @SomethinsFishy boer war... thank you for catching my typographical error. it was very kind of you to point it out for me. one way or another, a bunch of rednecks standing around with their pretend military weapons won't stand any more of a chance in any sort of battle with a government that is armed with highly superior firepower and trained military personnel than did the african aborigines who should shaking their sticks and throwing rocks at the advancing airplanes laden with bombs.

    think about it.
  • R Load more comments...