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

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:03 PM

Post the most extreme example of gun control legislation you've seen proposed recently

Sen. Meyer, here in CT, proposed a bill banning guns in citizen's hands of any gun capable of firing more then one shot:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm

It's been referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary where I expect that it will die.


31 replies, 2588 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Post the most extreme example of gun control legislation you've seen proposed recently (Original post)
Lurks Often Feb 2013 OP
Puha Ekapi Feb 2013 #1
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #2
holdencaufield Feb 2013 #5
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #7
Glassunion Feb 2013 #3
iiibbb Feb 2013 #4
virginia mountainman Feb 2013 #6
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #8
gejohnston Feb 2013 #11
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #14
gejohnston Feb 2013 #18
oldhippie Feb 2013 #15
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #17
gejohnston Feb 2013 #20
oneshooter Feb 2013 #9
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #10
gejohnston Feb 2013 #12
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #13
gejohnston Feb 2013 #16
SecularMotion Feb 2013 #19
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #21
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #22
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #23
markgee Feb 2013 #30
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #24
Light House Feb 2013 #25
Lurks Often Feb 2013 #26
Light House Feb 2013 #27
kudzu22 Feb 2013 #28
appal_jack Feb 2013 #29
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #31

Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:13 PM

1. That's pretty

fucking extreme, and really, really stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:20 PM

2. Nothing tops this extreme anti-gun control legislation from Missouri

Missouri bill would imprison legislators proposing gun control

A Missouri lawmaker is proposing to send colleagues to prison for introducing gun control legislation a plan even its sponsor acknowledges has no chance of passage.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/02/19/4075002/missouri-bill-would-make-introducing.html#storylink=cpy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #2)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:45 PM

5. Going to prison for trying to destroy the Constitution?

 

Makes more sense than going to prison for smoking pot or unpaid parking fines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to holdencaufield (Reply #5)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:04 PM

7. Because passing gun control legislation is destroying the Constitution

but passing laws against passing laws is not.



You need to brush on your civics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:44 PM

4. Some of the stuff proposed by our more authoritarian and emotional friends right here on DU

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:59 PM

6. You can bet that these silly bills, will be used by the NRA to remind voters in most of the nation..

That Democrats want to take YOUR guns..

And you know what...with all the press coverage, it WILL stick this time....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #6)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:08 PM

8. The NRA fearmongering may still work on the paranoid gun nuts, but no one else is buying it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:48 PM

11. that is what the bill says

what are you missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #11)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:01 PM

14. Where's the part that bans all guns?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #14)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:05 PM

18. doesn't matter

it is accurate as long as the qualifiers are not used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #8)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:02 PM

15. I don't know about that ....

 

I have many relatives back in New York, die hard democrats, that I didn't think ever owned a gun between them in their lives. Now several of them are going batshit on facebook posting pro 2nd Amend and anti Cuomo stuff. A couple of them are really pissed off. I'll talk to them when I go back to visit this summer, but it sounds like at least a couple could turn against the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldhippie (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:05 PM

17. Cool story, bro

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #17)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:24 PM

20. not like that,

like this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:35 PM

9. Written by Missouri Democrats


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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:36 PM

10. Sounds reasonable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #10)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:50 PM

12. you missed the relevent paragraph

of "turn in" which is the same as confiscation. I didn't see anything about compensation, which would violate the 5A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #12)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:56 PM

13. That's just a minor detail. I'm sure they'll come up with fair compensation.

How about gift cards for Starbucks. Gun nuts love Starbucks, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #13)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:04 PM

16. law says fair market value

I'm guessing you value the fifth as much as the second. Personally, I think Starbucks is over rated hipster chic. Best simile for Starbucks is that it is like Vespa owners wearing biker colors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #16)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:06 PM

19. Coffee at Starbucks ain't cheap!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 10:56 PM

21. The one that authorized the police to go to a gun owner's home once a year...

...to check for safe storage. There was a thread on it here on DU. I forget which state it was. Since it hit the media, I think that measure has been withdrawn. I think that one was the most extreme. Yes, it was proposed by a Democrat. The 2014 elections are going to be tough. The general population tends not to vote much in the off-year election but gun owners will be highly motivated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #21)

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:08 PM

22. That bill died a swift and hilarious death.

I asked the local sheriff about it and he said 'they want me to do WHAT?!'.

He ain't got time for that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:40 AM

23. I've noticed that many of the rank & file police show a distinct lack

of enthusiasm for the more aggressive gun control approaches being suggested by the politicians.

Pity the politicians can't be bothered to talk to the police actually out on the streets, they might get some workable ideas on what can really be done to reduce crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 02:45 PM

30. I'd say any sherrif that enforces it

 

would be out of deputies pretty quick. Could you imagine... "alright, I want all of you to go door to door of all these gun owners." "You want me to go where? to hell with this, I'm getting into construction."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:27 AM

24. From what I am personally seeing in CT

and hearing elsewhere, is that gun owners are very motivated and getting more and more organized at a local level. I think the 2014 elections at the Federal and State level are going to result in anti-gun politicians losing their seats, which is going to result in Republicans picking up seats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:41 AM

25. That's got to be the stupidest bill I've seen yet.

 

How does that restrict the criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Light House (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:14 PM

26. No clue what Sen Meyer is thinking

one would think a former prosecutor would have a firmer grasp of what will stand up to judicial scrutiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:23 PM

27. Or stand up to common sense.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lurks Often (Original post)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 12:50 PM

28. What saddens me with all these bills

is that the Democratic Party has spent 20+ years trying to dispel their image of being the party that wants to take away people's guns. And now in 3 months they've completely undone all that work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kudzu22 (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 01:57 PM

29. Yup, oops.

Yup, oops. How will the message in 2014 about how "we are not coming for your guns" be phrased, exactly?

It will not be pretty.

I will keep pushing for a Democratic Party that stands firm on the entire Bill of Rights and for all civil liberties.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 04:49 PM

31. This....

 

Since I've been here I've been called a troll more than a few times.
But this is the one issue where I want to change minds.
Why would I post here on threads I agree with?
Preaching to the choir.

I really wish dems would get off of the gun control mantra.
It hurts us, and belittles the idea that we are for individual rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread