Weekly Ad: See Best Buy's new Digital Weekly Ad here! See Deals
Forum Thread

State Gun Control Legislation

USAman 14,361 2,024 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 Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
37,549 Posts
#31
Quote from mmathis View Post :
Actually, MO's law covers a large number of guns - any semi-auto rifle or shotgun with a collapsible stock, for instance, and any semi-auto rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip. Any magazine that accepts more than 10 rounds would be illegal as well - which is the majority of magazines sold with rifles and non-compact pistols.
I acknowledge, nay I stipulate (since I do not know that myself), that the MO bill covers a large number of guns. Will you agree that the MO bill covers a small percentage of guns in MO?

This is at least my third attempt to get this out of the pro-gun side. Why the resistance to the truth? Why not be upfront?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Feb 2004
L10: Grand Master
6,928 Posts
956 Reputation
#32
Quote from TRNT View Post :
I acknowledge, nay I stipulate (since I do not know that myself), that the MO bill covers a large number of guns. Will you agree that the MO bill covers a small percentage of guns in MO?

This is at least my third attempt to get this out of the pro-gun side. Why the resistance to the truth? Why not be upfront?
So it's OK to ban guns as long as you do it a few percent at a time? And if it covers a large number of guns in MO, it follows that it covers a large percentage of guns in MO, too.

I don't think numbers are available as far as individual types go. I did see that somewhere around 30 million AR-type rifles have been sold in the last ~25 years in teh US (and not exported), which would put those at about 10% of the total in the US. I assume the makeup would be similar in MO. Most AR-type rifles have either a pistol grip, adjustable stock, or both, which would make them illegal under this new MO law. That doesn't consider non AR-type rifles or shotguns, either...

If you have better numbers, by all means post them.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by trancepire February 14, 2013 at 02:54 PM. Reason: Removed attack.
Marshall: Have the rest of you guys figured out by now that mmathis is the smartest guy on SlickDeals?
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#33
Quote from ConservativeNYer View Post :
I don't see a difference between taking existing guns and not letting people buy new ones. Also, the leftists screamed that 10 rounds was not creating a slippery slope, and then these evil people further reduced ti to 7. So much for their "word."

Do you not understand the concept of differences? Because they're totally different.
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 Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,773 Posts
21 Reputation
#34
Quote from TRNT View Post :
I acknowledge, nay I stipulate (since I do not know that myself), that the MO bill covers a large number of guns. Will you agree that the MO bill covers a small percentage of guns in MO?

This is at least my third attempt to get this out of the pro-gun side. Why the resistance to the truth? Why not be upfront?
Define small, I'm not sure I can find any facts, but I would imagine over 10% of guns would be affected.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
If I appear to be ignoring your posts, it's probably because you are on my ignore list.

Xuéxi zhōngwén
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
37,549 Posts
#35
Quote from Xygonn View Post :
Define small, I'm not sure I can find any facts, but I would imagine over 10% of guns would be affected.
Say I define small to be 10%. Smilie

Thanks for your guess. Seriously, that was gonna be my guess, about 10%, perhaps even less.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#36
Quote from thikthird View Post :
i will hail whatever brave missouri state trooper whose blood is shed as a martyr that will further the cause.

also, i can't help but think, that if this kind of legislation can be proposed in missouri, it can be proposed anywhere. from the fountains in the outfield in kauffman park, to the city museum in st louis, i am so proud of mo right now. i feel privileged to say i've flown over and driven through it on a number of occasions. the show me state indeed. show me your guns, so they can be taken away.
Different perspectives on the same situation. I will hail all those that actually stand up and vigorously (perhaps violently) oppose this unconstitutional law (by the very state's constitution; I do support state's rights...but, also expect them to follow their own constitution).

Those that stand up to government abusing its authority and violating its own social contract are patriots. I will applaud that hypothetical state trooper's blood for another reason, it will place it in other people's minds that standing up is possible. I believe that law enforcement will not like it for Missourians to show their arms.

It would quite possibly undermine what respect Law Enforcement currently commands there, and likely inspire anarchy. It isn't California, and I doubt its citizens will give up their arms as quietly, if called to.

There is another aspect here that could come into play, as well. I wonder how the Oath Keepers will respond to this? What if LEOs refuse to enforce this law?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Personally, I'm interested in keeping other people from building Utopia, because the more you believe you can create heaven on earth the more likely you are to set up guillotines in the public square to hasten the process. -- James Lileks
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2007
L10: Grand Master
7,491 Posts
251 Reputation
#37
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
What if LEOs refuse to enforce this law?
In many states, Sheriffs Associations are already voicing their opposition, including Obama's own Illinois, as well as individual counties.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/sur...le/2521564
Quote :
The Illinois Sheriffs Association became the last to join the growing crowd of police opposed to Obama, arguing this week that the president should instead be focused on mental health, not gun hardware.

"Sheriffs from across the state of Illinois believe that it is their responsibility and duty to uphold the Constitution including the Second Amendment. Rational law abiding citizens are not the cause of random acts of horrific violence in our communities. The focus should be primarily on the lack of mental health services in our country," the group just announced.

Similar statements have been issued by the sheriff associations of Utah, Florida, Georgia, New York, Colorado, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wyoming and Indiana.

What's more, some individual sheriffs, police chiefs and local governments around the country have balked at Obama's outreach to warn against gun control that would take semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of people who need them for home and self defense.

The latest to join that group was Kentucky's Boone County
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Whee Argue Soap Box

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The federal government has taken too much tax money from the people, too much authority from the States, and too much liberty with the Constitution" - Ronald Reagan

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#38
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
What if LEOs refuse to enforce this law?
Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,361 Posts
2,024 Reputation
Original Poster
#39
Quote from roughnready View Post :
Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.
You are incorrect.

LE agencies often prioritize the enforcement of certain laws according to many criterion, one example being budgetary another being space available in the jail, number of personnel in the department, etc.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2007
L10: Grand Master
7,491 Posts
251 Reputation
#40
Quote from roughnready View Post :
Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.
wrong...you have to go no further than "sanctuary cities" whose police forces refuse to conduct basic legal immigration checks. Don't forgot Detroit and Chicago police saying they wont be responding to certain 911 calls because they do not have the manpower...those are just a couple of examples.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,773 Posts
21 Reputation
#41
Also, the DOJ refused to defend DOMA.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
37,549 Posts
#42
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
Different perspectives on the same situation. I will hail all those that actually stand up and vigorously (perhaps violently) oppose this unconstitutional law (by the very state's constitution; I do support state's rights...but, also expect them to follow their own constitution).
IMO violence against our government is unwarranted as long as we have free elections.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#43
Quote from roughnready View Post :
Law enforcement does not get to get to decide which laws it wants to enforce or make. That is why we have lawmakers. In the Middle Ages and during feudal times, it was very common for a lord of the manor or local sheriff to be both lawmaker and law enforcer. Thankfully, we've progressed past that as a society. Police who do not uphold the law are usually removed from duty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS3H6Cakwpw
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Jan 2007
America First
14,361 Posts
2,024 Reputation
Original Poster
#44
From NRA ILA:

Senate Bill 5737 [wa.gov], just introduced by state Senators Ed Murray (D-43) and Jeanne Kohl-Welles (D-36), would ban the sale of commonly owned semi-automatic firearms. This bill would ban the manufacture, transfer, possession, purchase and sale of firearms arbitrarily defined as "assault weapons", semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense, based on mainly cosmetic features.

SB 5737 would also ban the possession of any semiautomatic firearm along with a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. A violation of these, and other provisions listed in the bill, is a class C felony. Owners of these firearms could keep them IF they subjected themselves to annual in-home inspections by law enforcement and complied with stringent and impractical storage and transportation requirements.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#45
Quote from thikthird View Post :
i feel privileged to say i've flown over and driven through it on a number of occasions. the show me state indeed. show me your guns, so they can be taken away.
Are you angling for a government job? Guard in a re-education camp maybe?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Quote :
the GOP, which will lose the Presidency, the Senate, and maybe even the House of Representatives. And then, Hillary Clinton will appoint the most liberal, lesbian, man-hating bitch of a Supreme Court Justice that you've ever seen, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. And why? Because the American Voter is smart, and Donald Trump is stupid........

Signed,
Rebound
Page 3 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
Link Copied to Clipboard