Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 10:59:07 GMT -5
Quote; Can a state create legislation that could please even the most anti-gun law American? Missouri is going to try to find out.According to The Sentinel, a bill is expected to pass the Missouri Senate that would nullify every Federal gun law and regulation. Additionally, it would make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense.Quote; Like it’s predecessor, SB613, Bill SB367 and it’s companion, House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans. Originally authored in 2014, a former version of the bill was also passed, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.Quote; “All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”Quote; (a) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
( b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and (e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens
www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/03/20/legislation-missouri-moves-ban-federal-gun-control-laws-state/
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 10:59:37 GMT -5
Quote; Sticking it to the federal government when it comes to telling us what we can and can’t do with our own privately owned firearms is a pretty gutsy move, especially in the wake of the New Zealand shooting that took the lives of 50 people.Renewed calls for stricter gun laws could be heard from every corner of the first world. That Missouri is taking the opposite tack and seeing to it that any gunman is going to be confronted with law-abiding civilians is statistically the better move.www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/03/20/legislation-missouri-moves-ban-federal-gun-control-laws-state/
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Apr 3, 2019 11:57:21 GMT -5
What if the federal government as a response just cuts off federal funding for whatever state projects? The thing is that if they wanna remain part of the union and have the benefits of being in the union they have to abide by rules set by the union. They can make laws stricter but not void the existing. Or at least that’s how I thought it works!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2019 12:45:08 GMT -5
As far as I know, all gun laws are unfunded mandates.
No money involved.
|
|
PK Bucko
Junior Associate
Joined: Aug 29, 2011 9:06:37 GMT -5
Posts: 5,098
|
Post by PK Bucko on Apr 3, 2019 13:16:03 GMT -5
I love my state.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,399
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 3, 2019 13:32:59 GMT -5
That was a lot of reading. It sounds like there will be zero restrictions for guns. Why would that please the anti-gun people?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,882
|
Post by happyhoix on Apr 3, 2019 16:33:16 GMT -5
What if the federal government as a response just cuts off federal funding for whatever state projects? The thing is that if they wanna remain part of the union and have the benefits of being in the union they have to abide by rules set by the union. They can make laws stricter but not void the existing. Or at least that’s how I thought it works! It's my understanding, too, that state laws have to be at least as strict as the fed laws. I'm not sure, though, since some states have relaxed rules about pot while the Fed still maintains pot is illegal.
Gun advocates have always claimed there would be no crime or mass shootings if everyone had a gun. If the voters of Missouri are willing to try that out, I'd be interested to see what happens.
I know how the US domestic partner homicide rates and suicide by gun rates compare to those 1st world countries that have more gun control, already. It would be interesting to compare it to a 1st world country (or at least, a state) that has zero gun laws. I'd also be curious to see if mass shooting death rates are lower, since everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter, or higher, because everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter but get confused about who the shooter is, because everyone has a gun.
Go for it, Missouri! Inquiring minds want to know - and I don't live there, so go for it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 3, 2019 18:01:36 GMT -5
“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
given that there are approximately zero such laws, that should be pretty easy to enforce.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 7:56:44 GMT -5
That was a lot of reading. It sounds like there will be zero restrictions for guns. Why would that please the anti-gun people? happyhoix , thyme4change It would please people who don't like anti-gun "laws" .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 8:00:58 GMT -5
“ All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.” given that there are approximately zero such laws, that should be pretty easy to enforce. I believe they are looking down the road for possible federal rifle bans, federal expanded background checks etc. Already introduced in the House by Feinstein, I believe. This is an interesting experiment to say the least. Edit; As an aside, wasn't a magazine size limit ban just struck down by a judge in California?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 8:11:48 GMT -5
What if the federal government as a response just cuts off federal funding for whatever state projects? The thing is that if they wanna remain part of the union and have the benefits of being in the union they have to abide by rules set by the union. They can make laws stricter but not void the existing. Or at least that’s how I thought it works! It's my understanding, too, that state laws have to be at least as strict as the fed laws. I'm not sure, though, since some states have relaxed rules about pot while the Fed still maintains pot is illegal.
Gun advocates have always claimed there would be no crime or mass shootings if everyone had a gun. If the voters of Missouri are willing to try that out, I'd be interested to see what happens.
I know how the US domestic partner homicide rates and suicide by gun rates compare to those 1st world countries that have more gun control, already. It would be interesting to compare it to a 1st world country (or at least, a state) that has zero gun laws. I'd also be curious to see if mass shooting death rates are lower, since everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter, or higher, because everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter but get confused about who the shooter is, because everyone has a gun.
Go for it, Missouri! Inquiring minds want to know - and I don't live there, so go for it.
You placed a premise of "since everyone has a gun" in your post. I don't think more people will own guns because of this. Do you have a source for this everyone will own a gun statement ? Or are you just advancing another hoax ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 8:21:32 GMT -5
I do too. Your state and mine both have constitutional carry. The way it should be.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Missouri
Apr 5, 2019 8:33:17 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zibazinski on Apr 5, 2019 8:33:17 GMT -5
What if the federal government as a response just cuts off federal funding for whatever state projects? The thing is that if they wanna remain part of the union and have the benefits of being in the union they have to abide by rules set by the union. They can make laws stricter but not void the existing. Or at least that’s how I thought it works! Yet if you cut off funding for sanctuary cities, you’re vilified. Not following the law there. I don’t get it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2019 8:36:04 GMT -5
What if the federal government as a response just cuts off federal funding for whatever state projects? The thing is that if they wanna remain part of the union and have the benefits of being in the union they have to abide by rules set by the union. They can make laws stricter but not void the existing. Or at least that’s how I thought it works! Yet if you cut off funding for sanctuary cities, you’re vilified. Not following the law there. I don’t get it. And funding to be cut off was to law enforcement, for law enforcement no less. Give us the money 💰 We'll choose what to enforce.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Missouri
Apr 5, 2019 8:37:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by zibazinski on Apr 5, 2019 8:37:35 GMT -5
It’s confusing
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,399
|
Post by thyme4change on Apr 6, 2019 0:12:40 GMT -5
It's my understanding, too, that state laws have to be at least as strict as the fed laws. I'm not sure, though, since some states have relaxed rules about pot while the Fed still maintains pot is illegal.
Gun advocates have always claimed there would be no crime or mass shootings if everyone had a gun. If the voters of Missouri are willing to try that out, I'd be interested to see what happens.
I know how the US domestic partner homicide rates and suicide by gun rates compare to those 1st world countries that have more gun control, already. It would be interesting to compare it to a 1st world country (or at least, a state) that has zero gun laws. I'd also be curious to see if mass shooting death rates are lower, since everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter, or higher, because everyone has a gun to shoot the shooter but get confused about who the shooter is, because everyone has a gun.
Go for it, Missouri! Inquiring minds want to know - and I don't live there, so go for it.
You placed a premise of "since everyone has a gun" in your post. I don't think more people will own guns because of this. Do you have a source for this everyone will own a gun statement ? Or are you just advancing another hoax ? I would think that law abiding gun owners already own guns. The only people who would run out and get a gun are people who can't get a gun legally now.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Apr 6, 2019 6:38:08 GMT -5
Look at the federal tax returns per state and your confusion will promptly go away! States that have sanctuary cities are generally the “payers” in the federal budget whereas states like Missouri...not so much! All I’m saying is “what if the federal government returns to them just what they paid in after taking out its share for the costs of national defense and whatever other programs that benefit the whole country?” Pin such case most of the so called “red states” will be massively defunded. On the other hand, states like California(which I’m pretty sure you’re hinting at with sanctuary cities) would thrive even moreover than they are!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 8:16:49 GMT -5
Look at the federal tax returns per state and your confusion will promptly go away! States that have sanctuary cities are generally the “payers” in the federal budget whereas states like Missouri...not so much! All I’m saying is “what if the federal government returns to them just what they paid in after taking out its share for the costs of national defense and whatever other programs that benefit the whole country?” Pin such case most of the so called “red states” will be massively defunded. On the other hand, states like California(which I’m pretty sure you’re hinting at with sanctuary cities) would thrive even moreover than they are! Not going to happen and it's actually going the other way. The downside of a Democratic Party that aims for buying the poor vote with handouts/programs. They have to flip those red states you know. We'll keep taking the money and voting Republican. Work hard and pay your taxes. Democrats control the House now. Let's see if they cancel those handouts to their base voters, lol. Republicans are stupid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2019 8:22:23 GMT -5
You placed a premise of "since everyone has a gun" in your post. I don't think more people will own guns because of this. Do you have a source for this everyone will own a gun statement ? Or are you just advancing another hoax ? I would think that law abiding gun owners already own guns. The only people who would run out and get a gun are people who can't get a gun legally now. Can't legally get a gun by federal law restrictions. The number of people who would get a gun because they couldn't before are statistically irrelevant. Criminals don't go to the store/gun shop to buy one.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Apr 6, 2019 17:45:47 GMT -5
But there is a chance that the f3deral government could say “whomever undermines federal laws will not receive their extra cash”. Just the same way building a wall became a “national emergency”.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 17:49:19 GMT -5
But there is a chance that the f3deral government could say “whomever undermines federal laws will not receive their extra cash”. Just the same way building a wall became a “national emergency”. There is no cash involved with unfunded mandates. I don't know what you're trying to say.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 8, 2019 18:40:58 GMT -5
Yet if you cut off funding for sanctuary cities, you’re vilified. Not following the law there. I don’t get it. And funding to be cut off was to law enforcement, for law enforcement no less. Give us the money 💰 We'll choose what to enforce. Pay your own damn bills and we'll choose what to enforce with our money!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 10:27:00 GMT -5
And funding to be cut off was to law enforcement, for law enforcement no less. Give us the money 💰 We'll choose what to enforce. Pay your own damn bills and we'll choose what to enforce with our money! Well, it isn't actually me. It's the working poor in our state. They keep voting Republican to keep local, property, and state taxes very low. They don't care about a lot of local service and prefer to direct their own money to what they need for themselves, vs pay a tax and have a government functionary disburse. The National Democratic Party has a conundrum in regards to flipping red states of maintaining blue ones with help for the poor. The red states poor, eagerly accept the handout, like in a blue state, but maintain control of their taxes locally by voting Republican. Your statement of paying our own bills might best be directed to the leaders of the Democratic Party. I'm not the one voting them in, exactly because of those policies.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 10:32:15 GMT -5
In my county alone, not one Democrat hold's any postion
In the last 15 years, the Democratic Party has been reduced to a phone number at someone's house.
Any Democrat that tries to run on the usual platform is immediately attacked on, 'and where is that money going to come from'.
Nobody gets fooled on this.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 9, 2019 11:03:26 GMT -5
In my county alone, not one Democrat hold's any postion In the last 15 years, the Democratic Party has been reduced to a phone number at someone's house. Any Democrat that tries to run on the usual platform is immediately attacked on, 'and where is that money going to come from'. Nobody gets fooled on this.
You are making absolutely no sense. On the one hand you say that Democrats are "reduced to a phone number at someone's house" yet in the post just prior to that you claim that "Your statement of paying our own bills might best be directed to the leaders of the Democratic Party". How can you hold a party that is "no more than a phone number" responsible for paying bills. Seems to me that the Republican welfare queens in charge need their feet held to the fire and be accountable for payiing your state's bills.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Apr 9, 2019 12:28:32 GMT -5
Look at the federal tax returns per state and your confusion will promptly go away! States that have sanctuary cities are generally the “payers” in the federal budget whereas states like Missouri...not so much! All I’m saying is “what if the federal government returns to them just what they paid in after taking out its share for the costs of national defense and whatever other programs that benefit the whole country?” Pin such case most of the so called “red states” will be massively defunded. On the other hand, states like California(which I’m pretty sure you’re hinting at with sanctuary cities) would thrive even moreover than they are! Not going to happen and it's actually going the other way. The downside of a Democratic Party that aims for buying the poor vote with handouts/programs. They have to flip those red states you know. We'll keep taking the money and voting Republican. Work hard and pay your taxes.Democrats control the House now. Let's see if they cancel those handouts to their base voters, lol. Republicans are stupid. That's cute. YOU don't pay your taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 14:22:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 12:50:48 GMT -5
In my county alone, not one Democrat hold's any position. In the last 15 years, the Democratic Party has been reduced to a phone number at someone's house. Any Democrat that tries to run on the usual platform is immediately attacked on, 'and where is that money going to come from'. Nobody gets fooled on this.
You are making absolutely no sense. On the one hand you say that Democrats are "reduced to a phone number at someone's house" yet in the post just prior to that you claim that "Your statement of paying our own bills might best be directed to the leaders of the Democratic Party". How can you hold a party that is "no more than a phone number" responsible for paying bills. Seems to me that the Republican welfare queens in charge need their feet held to the fire and be accountable for payiing your state's bills.
That was in reference to the local Democratic Party, and why it followed the previous sentence of "In my county alone, not one Democrat hold's any position." (bolded Italics question) The first post you put up was separate from the second piece you also put up in your quote of me. If you take note, the first box you're quoting, was a separate post about local politics only. The second one was a part of a post referencing the National Democratic Party. It was right in the post, "National Democratic Party" Keeping things in context and not mixing the posts, will help you make sense of them. As an aside, the Republican welfare queens (and kings) don't have to worry about paying the bills. They have Democrats voting in programs to pay them. With hard working Democrats supplying the tax $$. Have to keep trying to flip those red states. What we need now, is a Democrat president in two years, to keep these programs going. I already have my conservative Supreme Court judges. I don't need Trump any more. We're going to have around a million immigrants/refugees coming in this year that need healthcare, food, and lodging. They should be processed by the election. We don't need a republican president vetoing the $$ that the Democrat house will be sending their way. Those poor refugees that are escaping the hellholes that they come from, will need lots of help. I commend the Democrats for their largess.
|
|