Republican Missouri state Rep. Mike Leara of Sunset Hills launched a wave of blog posts and news articles this week (including an earlier article on Patch) when he introduced legislation that, if passed, would criminalize the act of introducing anti-gun legislation.
That's right: Proposing a law could get a member of the General Assembly thrown in the slammer.
Of course, it won't pass. Even he says so, in a statement widely repeated around the Internet in which he calls the proposed law a "statement in defense of the Second Amendment rights of all Missourians."
His proposal would make it a class D felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, to introduce legislation that restricts gun ownership.
That has made a list by Politico of some of the "bizarre" bills that have been introduced in state legislatures around the country — proposals that include allowing Montana state police to license residents to salvage roadkill meat; and allowing miniature horses to serve as service animals in Arizona.
Reaction from articles on the web seems to run from Politico's "bizarre" to incredulous from The Atlantic to fairly down-the-middle from Fox News, which also notes that any gun-control legislation is likely DOA in Missouri's heavily Republican General Assembly.
Now, we wouldn't dare suggest that the floor of the state legislature should restrict open debate and dialogue on issues mundane or extraordinary.
But is there a line? Is this an example of a "waste of time" as someone suggested in the Politico article? Does it make Missouri look like a backwater hick state? Or is it a worthwhile stand on an issue that's very important to millions of gun owners?
PREVIOUS CONVERSATION STARTERS:
- Credit Card Checkout Fees: Have You Noticed Them?
- Newtown Vigil: Is the Missouri Synod Wrong on Its Stance?
- Is the Economy Improving In Missouri? Nationwide?
In the (unlikely) event this bill were to pass, would you break the law? If so, are there other laws which you hold yourself above? Why would it be OK for the Legislature, through a different bill, to forbid LEOs to enforce a Federal law and you to flout a state law?
But you knew that and still...
To answer your question Tench Coxe: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. At the time they were single shots but the sentiment has not changed. Ill not reply further to any of your venom. I happen to live in a part of the state that cherishes our freedom and yeah I do support SB-150 and similar bills. Thank God we can elect our own representation. Im proud to say up until this year Brian Munzlinger was my state senator. Yeah he is not one you would vote for Im sure but despite what you would like to believe the majority of us outside your urban cesspool dont agree with you.
As to single-shot weapons, should you and the No Real Acumen Klub hew to the true meaning of the amendment? After all, they had only those weapons which were current at the time; since they knew not of multiple-shot weapons, why should the latter be not merely an interpretation of their thoughts? Ain't their ORIGINAL thoughts sacrosanct? Did the amendment say something to the effect of "...or whatever weapon may be devised in the future"? Did I miss that? How do you know I do not live in a similar rural cesspool as do you?
OT, but I will give you props for being brave enough to post under your own name.
You really shouldn't be lecturing anyone on poor choices. I would also offer the opinion that perhaps you have other things to be ashamed of besides your country: http://stcharles.patch.com/articles/police-man-nabbed-for-making-meth-five-months-after-lab-explosion-burned-woman
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/us/to-lower-suicide-rates-new-focus-turns-to-guns.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 You'll probably just brush it off saying The New York Times is too left-leaning to be credible, even though it's regarded as the best newspaper in our country. Read the article and tell me if you can find any bias.
Curly did have a solution, you just missed it or didn't care or didn't understand. Ask yourself this: The criminal doesn't follow the 50 guns laws now on the books, why would the follow the 51st?
Like curly said, you can't legislate "CRAZY"
That's right, they were owned by private citizens. Here's a shocker, guns capable of firing multiple rounds were in existence at the time of the writing of the constitution. In fact, the first machine gun was designed and built in 1718. Yes, the framers of the Constitution took all of this into account. Tom, your argument is invalid.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle This mult shot air rifle was in use back then. If you think none of the Founding Fathers (who numbered some of the brightest and most educated people in the nation) even knew of it, why did they not say "the right to keep and bear muskets shall not be infringed"? They used a generic term "Arms" because they knew from history that technology changes over time and did not want to limit the right.
I do not dispute it is the accepted law of the land. I just think it is wrong. I am not arguing before a court. I was just curious if anyone actually reads "shall not be infringed" and thinks to themselves ....you know...that really means they actually wanted a bunch of regulations and laws infringing the use of this right. If you interpret something totally different then what it actually is....what is the point of it to begin with?
For myself, I consider myself above any man made law that takes away my rights. Would you give up freedom speech or religion if the government told you to?
So "I don't wanna obey this law; in MY perception, it violates my rights - so I won't obey it." Unfortunately, we don't have a choice in choosing which laws to obey and which laws to flout, based on our caprice.
I will grant that some privately-owned cannons MAY have been used against the British. However, virtually all were captured British cannons and those purchased from France. The framers of the Constitution did not walk on water; they made mistakes in it. You are being totally unrealistic when it comes to what they meant by "arms." You endow them with a prescience they just did not possess. "Michael," your argument is invalid.
The Girandoni was adopted by only one amy, the Austrian, in 1800. I'd suggest you read about it to learn why only one army in the world adopted it. The multi-shot rifle was NOT in use back then - review the history. You raise a good point about the word "arms" being used; while the framers were, indeed, some of the best and brightest, inferring that they knew of something which had yet to be invented is disingenuous. They did mistakes; remember slavery?
As a reminder, this is the text that was ratified by the States: "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." It is NOT the same as the text passed by the Congress: "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." I don't care about militia. I don't care about stockpiles either. I'm going after the word 'arms'. Arms are not limited to guns. Arms are weapons. A sword is a weapon. A bow is a weapon. A baseball bat is a weapon. A stapler is a weapon. A foot is a weapon. As such, they are all also arms. Oh, and your arms are weapons and are therefore arms. Ban all guns and the people still have the right to keep and bear any other arms they like. Your right to bear arms still exists. I think the Congress could (in theory, obviously) whip out Article 1, section 8, clause 3 and Article 1, section 8, clause 18 of the Constitution and pound guns into dust. The International and Interstate Commerce Clauses could be used to make the importation, transportation, transfer, gift or sale of any firearm illegal. You want to fire guns? Join the police, the FBI, or a branch of the military. Enjoy. Before you question my patriotism, I was in the U.S. Navy from July 1985 to November 1989. Suck it.