Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FarPoint

(12,287 posts)
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:52 AM Feb 2013

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I need clarification regarding report, "Missouri Dems Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms". (Original Post) FarPoint Feb 2013 OP
Its not true. No state is confiscating weapons. not yet, anyway. nt darkangel218 Feb 2013 #1
How do I dispute this? FarPoint Feb 2013 #2
Tell him or her to read the news. darkangel218 Feb 2013 #3
This is what I posted.... FarPoint Feb 2013 #5
MO HR 545 gejohnston Feb 2013 #4
Wholly crap! FarPoint Feb 2013 #6
Yep...HB545 Flyboy_451 Feb 2013 #7
You may have missed this one on most of MSM because it was being framed as an NRA Talking Point: Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #13
Thanks for the salon link... FarPoint Feb 2013 #14
I'll have to bookmark it for these paragraphs gejohnston Feb 2013 #15
The academic works you mention coincide roughly Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #16
Here's the bill in question. SayWut Feb 2013 #8
There was talk of these types of proposals in the NY SAFE Act too... jmg257 Feb 2013 #9
This may yet be challenged. The 7 round specification doesn't match any manufacturer iiibbb Feb 2013 #10
Thanks for the info...will be interesting to follow. nt jmg257 Feb 2013 #11
Agreed... FarPoint Feb 2013 #12

FarPoint

(12,287 posts)
2. How do I dispute this?
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:00 AM
Feb 2013

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

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
3. Tell him or her to read the news.
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:05 AM
Feb 2013

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

FarPoint

(12,287 posts)
5. This is what I posted....
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:13 AM
Feb 2013

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....




gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
4. MO HR 545
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:11 AM
Feb 2013

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

FarPoint

(12,287 posts)
6. Wholly crap!
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 02:28 AM
Feb 2013

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

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

Flyboy_451

(230 posts)
7. Yep...HB545
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 08:48 AM
Feb 2013

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

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
13. You may have missed this one on most of MSM because it was being framed as an NRA Talking Point:
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:37 PM
Feb 2013
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.

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
15. I'll have to bookmark it for these paragraphs
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:49 PM
Feb 2013
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.
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
16. The academic works you mention coincide roughly
Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:46 AM
Feb 2013

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.

 

SayWut

(153 posts)
8. Here's the bill in question.
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:23 AM
Feb 2013

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

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
9. There was talk of these types of proposals in the NY SAFE Act too...
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 09:34 AM
Feb 2013

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.

 

iiibbb

(1,448 posts)
10. This may yet be challenged. The 7 round specification doesn't match any manufacturer
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:54 AM
Feb 2013

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

FarPoint

(12,287 posts)
12. Agreed...
Wed Feb 20, 2013, 07:15 PM
Feb 2013

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

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»I need clarification rega...