Notice to Missouri Gun Owners - HB545

[sdkubota]

DC is still operating outside of their limitations as demonstrated by Ms. Miller's plight and will be challenged again in court eventually which will over rule their obstacles. I only hate to foster the idea that "reasonable" restrictions include denying concealed carry, magazine size, pistol ownership, etc. The left will grab anything they can and twist and contort it until it isn't recognizable.

 

[TripleR]

DC is still operating outside of their limitations as demonstrated by Ms. Miller's plight and will be challenged again in court eventually which will over rule their obstacles. I only hate to foster the idea that "reasonable" restrictions include denying concealed carry, magazine size, pistol ownership, etc. The left will grab anything they can and twist and contort it until it isn't recognizable.

I sure hope you are right, but the 5-4 decision was troubling, all it will take is to change one vote.

 

[MF204Mike]

What gets me wonding what are they thinking is,
Ok they want to take away all the law abiding folks guns.
For the most part, in big cities like N.Y. Chicago, L.A. and so on,
the criminals aren't law abiding

 

[johnrex62]

are they going to outlaw my old Marlin.22 squirrel gun because it has a 16 shot magazine ??
just thinking they said more than 10 rounds, I guess this would have to be turned in ??

Fortunately the bill excludes any .22 tube magazine or any tubular magazine for lever action rifles. Your Marlin is safe. For now, anyway.

 

[Ridgewalker]

I took time to email each of the people on the list. Here is the semi coherent response I got from
Rochelle Gray who claims to not be a sponsor of the bill.

You would think legislators would be able to form a proper sentence.


The Missouri House does have a Republican Speaker and will not move this bill though, this bill has no chance of passing and becoming law, none.

To clarify I DID NOT draft, nor did I file this Bill. I have absolutely NO control of that Bill, but, I did ask the sponsor to please withdraw the bill. We (legislators) do have a RIGHT support people, our colleagues, interests and bills!! MY constituents and myself, in the wake of the various shootings throughout the country, would like to see our gun laws reviewed. That's all. Legislation is a means, for open discussion and debate. Filing a bill never means that the bill will be heard and voted upon, in fact, that rarely happens. However, I have a duty to my residents AND a right to support or not support legislation, that MAY or MAY NOT pass.

This is what I sent to all on the list;

I am writing to remind you that bill HB545 is in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the United States.

I have many friends that feel as I do on this issue and we want it known that we will make sure that any politician that supports
this bill doesn't get re-elected. You should be ashamed and embarrassed for supporting this type of anti constitutional trash.

Don't forget Missouri's constitutional guarantee is stronger and less ambiguous than that of the US Constitution: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned;" Article 1, Section 23.

Politicians need to wake up to the fact that these shootings are not gun issues, they are mental health issues. You would all be better served if you focused your energies on the mental health crisis going on in this country.

Thank you,

 

[sdkubota]

Good for you Ridgewalker...these commies must be called out at every opportunity.

 

[sdkubota]

I sure hope you are right, but the 5-4 decision was troubling, all it will take is to change one vote.

I hear what you are saying and also have those concerns however: the Second Amendment is not a "right" granted by the government nor does the government have the authority to suspend that "right". It doesn't matter if all three branches of government declare guns to be outlawed, they do not have that authority or possess that power...period. If they ever do that they would have effectively declared war against their citizens and would ultimately suffer the consequences. The Second Amendment states: "Shall Not Infringe" and that is its purpose.

 

[TripleR]

I hear what you are saying and also have those concerns however: the Second Amendment is not a "right" granted by the government nor does the government have the authority to suspend that "right". It doesn't matter if all three branches of government declare guns to be outlawed, they do not have that authority or possess that power...period. If they ever do that they would have effectively declared war against their citizens and would ultimately suffer the consequences. The Second Amendment states: "Shall Not Infringe" and that is its purpose.

Just to make it clear, I do not disagree with and fully understand that the Bill of Rights recognizes preexisting rights and does grant or establish them.

I do not accept that the government does not have the "power" to establish laws that are contrary to those rights, slavery was "legal", interracial marriage was "illegal", segregation was "legal" and the list goes on. The 2nd Amendment was literally one vote away from essentially being nullified by the Supreme Court. That would not have changed my belief or that of many that it was contrary to the intent of the framers, but it would have, could have subjected some of us to criminal prosecution and incarceration for exercising our fundamental rights.

In looking at some very restrictive gun laws across the country, I believe the 2nd Amendment has already been weakened and citizens exercise thereof "infringed".

I believe we are essentially in agreement and may just be getting tangled up over semantics for which I may be at fault.

 

[madmax12]

I hear what you are saying and also have those concerns however: the Second Amendment is not a "right" granted by the government nor does the government have the authority to suspend that "right". It doesn't matter if all three branches of government declare guns to be outlawed, they do not have that authority or possess that power...period. If they ever do that they would have effectively declared war against their citizens and would ultimately suffer the consequences. The Second Amendment states: "Shall Not Infringe" and that is its purpose.

Every year, as seasoned citizens pass from this life, and new voters graduate into society, the understanding we have becomes less and less understood or believed. If the trend I mention is true, then in a short time the voters will demand a government that grants them rights.

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said, we gave you a republic, if you can keep it. The founders had strong concerns for the survival of the republic, as they knew it depended as much on the people truly understanding and respecting natural rights.

The fact that the anti gun politicians are elected and reelected is a glaring red flag. In some circles, the same polititions who want to ban guns, discussions of dismantling the constitution and bill of rights are also on the table.

Not everyone living and voting in our great nation truly cares for the future of the nation as a whole entity. Some just want their day of power. Some just want a free ride. Etc. If pro constitution thoughts cannot win in the battleground of ideas, then those thoughts will be completely lost in the actions of the 3 branches of government.

The constitution and bill of rights remain relevant only as long as the voters consider them to be. If the voters see them as outdated, they will be brushed aside. Just like gun rights in the places mentioned earlier.

Even the founders knew that.

 

[sdkubota]

From the infamous words of Charlton Heston: "From my cold dead hands"

Another popular phrase by Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants".

"The first time they knock, they take your guns.
They never knock again."
-- Anonymous Holocaust survivor

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
—Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

1. A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————- ———–
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
——————————
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. >From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
——————————
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
—————————–
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
——————————