Forum Thread

State Gun Control Legislation

USAman 14,017 2,012 February 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Individual states have enacted or are planning legislation that will implement bans on "assault weapons" and limits on magazine capacities.

Missouri [mo.gov] is now attempting to enact legislation that will make it a felony to possess an "assault weapon" or "large capacity magazine" 90 days from the date of enactment of the law.

They are attempting to legislate confiscation, despite the claims that are heard repeatedly that no one is going to confiscate guns.

Quote :
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.
Is gun and magazine confiscation coming to your state?

758 Comments

1 2 3 4 5

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#2
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 Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#3
...states rights?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#4
Quote from nobama View Post :
Is gun and magazine confiscation coming to your state?
How ominous. The pro-gun movement thrives on irrational fear, like the "THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" line. From the NRA's Wayne LaPierre this week (emphasis mine):

Quote :
During the second Obama term, however, additional threats are growing. Latin American drug gangs have invaded every city of significant size in the United States. Phoenix is already one of the kidnapping capitals of the world, and though the states on the U.S./Mexico border may be the first places in the nation to suffer from cartel violence, by no means are they the last.

The president flagrantly defies the 2006 federal law ordering the construction of a secure border fence along the entire Mexican border. So the border today remains porous not only to people seeking jobs in the U.S., but to criminals whose jobs are murder, rape, robbery and kidnapping. Ominously, the border also remains open to agents of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news...fraid?lite
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by BobDeal February 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#5
Quote from loop610bob View Post :
...states rights?
That's exactly the discussion that separates this thread from the others.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#6
Quote from roughnready View Post :
The pro-gun movement thrives on irrational fear. "THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS." From the NRA's Wayne LaPierre this week (emphasis mine):
Read the text of the MO law. Please explain how the intent of the law is not to confiscate and destroy "your guns"...

Contrary to what some would try to have us believe, it is not an "irrational fear".
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,133 Posts
466 Reputation
#7
Seems they are breaking both the 15th and 23rd sections of the Missouri Bill of Rights.

15th - Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants. [mo.gov]

23rd - Right to keep and bear arms--exception. [mo.gov]

Quote from roughnready View Post :
How ominous. The pro-gun movement thrives on irrational fear, like the "THEY ARE COMING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS" line.
You're right, under the threat of law they want citizens to turn them in voluntarily:

Quote :
(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.
One would guess that after 90 days they would start to take them from those that didn't do it voluntarily though.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by paperboy05 February 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#8
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Seems they are breaking both the 15th and 23rd sections of the Missouri Bill of Rights.

15th - Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants. [mo.gov]

23rd - Right to keep and bear arms--exception. [mo.gov]
And the 2nd Amendment
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2005
L7: Weenie
21,133 Posts
466 Reputation
#9
Quote from nobama View Post :
And the 2nd Amendment
Of course after Miller. But I was referring to the States' rights argument. Certainly a State should still follow their own Constitution if one is going to ignore incorporation.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#10
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Of course after Miller. But I was referring to the States' rights argument. Certainly a State should still follow their own Constitution if one is going to ignore incorporation.
It appears that any Constitution is in their minds irrelevant if the end justifies the means.....
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#11
Quote from nobama View Post :
Read the text of the MO law. Please explain how the intent of the law is not to confiscate and destroy "your guns"...

Contrary to what some would try to have us believe, it is not an "irrational fear".
The irrational fear point was in reference to your question about whether they were coming to your state next. Do you honestly believe that the Missouri legislature has any reasonable chance of passing this into law and having the governor sign it?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#12
Quote from roughnready View Post :
The irrational fear point was in reference to your question about whether they were coming to your state next. Do you honestly believe that the Missouri legislature has any reasonable chance of passing this into law and having the governor sign it?
There were probably many NY residents who honestly believed that NY wouldn't have passed legislation such as they did into law and having the governor sign it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#13
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Seems they are breaking both the 15th and 23rd sections of the Missouri Bill of Rights.

15th - Unreasonable search and seizure prohibited--contents and basis of warrants. [mo.gov]

23rd - Right to keep and bear arms--exception. [mo.gov]
I couldn't find the part that said the legislature couldn't define which arms were acceptable in the state of Missouri. One presumes they could do that otherwise I could keep a nuke, no?

If you could point to that provision in their constitution, I'd appreciate it.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#14
Quote from nobama View Post :
There were probably many NY residents who honestly believed that NY wouldn't have passed legislation such as they did into law and having the governor sign it.

Nothing in the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents. It was just tightening up an existing assault weapons ban, limited magazine capacity, and increasing background checks.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
No matter how helpful the feature, how easy it is to disable, or how good your intentions, someone somewhere will hate it and think you're a monster for implementing it.- Anonymous Developer
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,017 Posts
2,012 Reputation
Original Poster
#15
Quote from bridgeburner View Post :
Nothing in the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents. It was just tightening up an existing assault weapons ban, limited magazine capacity, and increasing background checks.
I didn't say the NY law mandated taking the guns away from residents, my point was that the legislation was enacted in such a way that caught many NY residents by surprise.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 1 of 51
1 2 3 4 5
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Copyright 1999 - 2017. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / Infringement Policy  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)  •  Interest-Based Ads
Slickdeals members have saved over $4,000,000,000 since 2007 Join Now
Link Copied to Clipboard