HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » I need clarification rega...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:52 AM

I need clarification regarding report, "Missouri Dems Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms".

I have a lifelong friend with whom I often disagree...especially about politics. This article was posted on his Facebook wherein I was the primary addressee...

He posted with link to:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

.............This one is for "Farpoint". How many times did I see you post--"Their not coming for your guns." Incrementalism. These tyrannical Democrats will ultimately be unsuccessful; I still feel there is belief in the Constitution left in the hearts of men in our judicial system. The mere fact that these bums are even considering it, is enough that they should be kicked out of office.

> end


I never heard of this website either....I sense it may be satire but really don't know. I thought this forum would be a safe place to secure appropriate feedback and discussion so that I can set the record straight with my friend....who has drank a lot of koolaide. He is also an Air Force War Veteran.

16 replies, 1960 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply I need clarification regarding report, "Missouri Dems Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms". (Original post)
FarPoint Feb 2013 OP
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #1
FarPoint Feb 2013 #2
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #3
FarPoint Feb 2013 #5
gejohnston Feb 2013 #4
FarPoint Feb 2013 #6
Flyboy_451 Feb 2013 #7
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #13
FarPoint Feb 2013 #14
gejohnston Feb 2013 #15
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #16
SayWut Feb 2013 #8
jmg257 Feb 2013 #9
iiibbb Feb 2013 #10
jmg257 Feb 2013 #11
FarPoint Feb 2013 #12

Response to FarPoint (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 12:57 AM

1. Its not true. No state is confiscating weapons. not yet, anyway. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:00 AM

2. How do I dispute this?

My friend truly believes this...which is his problem but then, education is a great tool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:05 AM

3. Tell him or her to read the news.

It would be a huge deal if any state would go after their peoples guns, and obvioulsy would make headlines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #3)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:13 AM

5. This is what I posted....

then came here for support.

" This is the first I heard of it. Strange behavior and thinking from Missouri...essentially a red state. Missouri Democrats even love guns. Let me investigate this to see if it is satire or fear mongering ..."I'll be back"."

> end

You make an excellent point...it would indeed make national news....




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:11 AM

4. MO HR 545

It may have been introduced or the St Louis pol might have been grandstanding. Either way, I don't picture MO passing it. Of course, I defer to someone more knowledgeable about MO. The Republicans as a retaliation introduced a bill that would make introducing a future bill like it a felony.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
http://www.facebook.com/DGOCofMO

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #4)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:28 AM

6. Wholly crap!

Thank you...it is real! I'll be dammed....

Is that clip fox news? I'm surprised this didn't make more news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:48 AM

7. Yep...HB545

But don't worry, those of us that have been showing the extremist anti-gun advocates for what they are, well, we're just paranoid and full of the RW/Fox news Kool aid.

You have nothing to fear from your benevolent leaders. They wish only for our happiness and bliss. We are not meant to understand their Devine inspiration and understanding. Just accept they that know best.

JW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:37 PM

13. You may have missed this one on most of MSM because it was being framed as an NRA Talking Point:

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/27/the_national_guard_in_public_schools/

I mean, who wants a liberal Democrat proposing a plan which could be termed "NRA on steroids?" The last paragraph in Salon's take is most telling.

When it doesn't comport with MSM's narrative, it is quickly canned or discredited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:41 PM

14. Thanks for the salon link...

I see your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:49 PM

15. I'll have to bookmark it for these paragraphs

A generation ago, a handful of liberal constitutional laws scholars wrote detailed and compelling analyses of the Second Amendment’s roots. The University of Texas’ Sanford Levinson’s readable history, The Embarassing Second Amendment, and more recent work by Yale Law School’s Akhil Reed Amar, reluctantly conclude that the U.S. Constitution’s framers, Congress and many states since then want “strong” gun rights.

The New York Times’ legal reporter Adam Liptak wrote in 2007 how these scholars and other liberals gave new intellectual ammunition to the pro-gun lobby to legally challenge and overturn local gun-control laws. He quoted pro-gun lawyers as crediting the liberal scholars’ more open-minded assessment with boosting their arguments in federal court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #15)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:46 AM

16. The academic works you mention coincide roughly

with the debacle over Michael Bellisiles' "Arming America" where what was to be a crowning anti-gun achievement turned out to be largely fraudulent. IMO, America's academic community began to shy away from what passed as gun control "research." Intellectually, it appears to have been a turning point in the debate over 2A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:23 AM

8. Here's the bill in question.

 

Disregard the news source and your FaceBook friend for the moment, and draw your own conclusions.




FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 545

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY





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

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk



AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.


Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.023, to read as follows:

571.023. 1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:

(1) "Assault weapon", any:

(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

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;

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

(c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

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

b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

c. 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; or

d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

(d) Semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

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;

d. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or

e. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(e) Shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or

(f) Conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.



Assault weapon does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable;

(2) "Detachable magazine", an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm and includes a magazine that can be detached by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with a finger or by use of a tool or bullet;

(3) "Fixed magazine", an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action;

(4) "Large capacity magazine", any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

3. This prohibition shall not apply to:

(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;

(2) The manufacture of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees, provided the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal and state laws; or

(3) The sale or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a dealer that is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.








http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarPoint (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:34 AM

9. There was talk of these types of proposals in the NY SAFE Act too...

they were wanted by those pushing for the strictest laws; many were compromised out in order to get the bill passed.

However the hi-cap magazine restrictions remained in, and currently owned mags with greater then 10 capacity must be dumped. Currently owned assault weapons may be registered, but the 11+ mags must be disposed of.


Not surprising such proposals exist, since grandfathering allows the targeted arms and/mags to stay in circulation - this was a major complaint by both sides on the toothlessness of the original AWBs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:54 AM

10. This may yet be challenged. The 7 round specification doesn't match any manufacturer

 

Since that constitutes a "taking" certain aspects of SAFE law probably won't hold up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iiibbb (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:20 AM

11. Thanks for the info...will be interesting to follow. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 06:15 PM

12. Agreed...

Healthy discussion with valid data points....well it helps me....this issue is not going away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread