Forum Thread

State Gun Control Legislation

USAman 13,898 2,008 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

12 13 14 15 16

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jan 2007
America First
13,898 Posts
2,008 Reputation
Original Poster
#196
Gun bill giving sheriff right to inspect homes pulled by Washington lawmakers

Quote :
Washington lawmakers have pulled a contentious provision from a gun-control bill posted on the state's legislative tracking website, after calling a section that gave law enforcement authority to enter homes and check for proper weapons storage a "mistake."
Quote :
Democrat bill sponsors, facing widespread outcry, told The Seattle Times they didn't fully vet the eight-page bill before introducing it last week and that the home-inspection allowance was a simple oversight.

"I made a mistake," Sen. Adam Kline said, according to The Seattle Times. "I frankly should have vetted this more closely."

And main bill sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, said: "I have to admit that shouldn't be in there," according to The Seattle Times.

The original version of the bill containing the disputed language is no longer available on the state's website. The Seattle Times, however, maintains a copy for view on its site.
They don't even read the bills that they shove through..... vomit
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#197
Quote from nobama View Post :
Gun bill giving sheriff right to inspect homes pulled by Washington lawmakers

They don't even read the bills that they shove through..... vomit
The problem is, they hadn't broken it down into the several bills necessary to achieve their goals yet. They got impatient, and cocky... They forgot they need to whittle our freedoms away in piecemeal.
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
Joined Jan 2007
America First
13,898 Posts
2,008 Reputation
Original Poster
#198
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
The problem is, they hadn't broken it down into the several bills necessary to achieve their goals yet. They got impatient, and cocky... They forgot they need to whittle our freedoms away in piecemeal.
That's exactly correct. I've corresponded with one of the sponsors of this bill and that describes him exactly. He is a very cocky jerk. His goal was to poke a stick in the eye of the law-abiding gun owner and NRA members, who he despises. The sponsors thought they had a slam-dunk with the political climate the way it currently is, so much so that he didn't even need to read the bill prior to submitting it. The problem is that their amended version that they will re-submit will be almost as bad, but minus the "inspection" clause. They'll come up with a work-around on that one.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#199
Quote from nobama View Post :
That's exactly correct. I've corresponded with one of the sponsors of this bill and that describes him exactly. He is a very cocky jerk. His goal was to poke a stick in the eye of the law-abiding gun owner and NRA members, who he despises. The sponsors thought they had a slam-dunk with the political climate the way it currently is, so much so that he didn't even need to read the bill prior to submitting it. The problem is that their amended version that they will re-submit will be almost as bad, but minus the "inspection" clause. They'll come up with a work-around on that one.
I'm honestly a bit shocked that this sort of thing even has a shot in passing. Granted it's been about 20 years or so since I've lived in WA, but I recall it as a firearms friendly state... I always believed the crime rate was low due to half the state or so packing.

I'm guessing it's going to get worse before it gets better. I don't envy law enforcement in being placed in the position it is likely to find itself in, being essentially at war with the populace. I guess we'll find out who the oath keepers are soon enough.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jan 2007
America First
13,898 Posts
2,008 Reputation
Original Poster
#200
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
I'm honestly a bit shocked that this sort of thing even has a shot in passing. Granted it's been about 20 years or so since I've lived in WA, but I recall it as a firearms friendly state... I always believed the crime rate was low due to half the state or so packing.

I'm guessing it's going to get worse before it gets better. I don't envy law enforcement in being placed in the position it is likely to find itself in, being essentially at war with the populace. I guess we'll find out who the oath keepers are soon enough.
Almost all of the elected sheriffs here on the east side will have a disagreement with this legislation, but I have doubts about some of the ones on the liberal west side. There has been grumblings about splitting the state between the liberal west side and the more conservative east side for a long time, and if legislation such as this passes, then I can forsee a renewed push for that.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#201
Quote from nobama View Post :
They don't even read the bills that they shove through..... vomit
Oh, trust me...they read it......
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
#202
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?
Actually, not irrational...I live in Oregon, and just north of me [seattletimes.com]:

Quote :
"They always say, we'll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder."

That's no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It's the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.

Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.

But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:

"In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection."

In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
Notice something else we see here - elected officials not reading bills they vote on, or even sponsor as in this case. This is scary shit...we saw it clearly with Obamacare and that "have to pass it to know what's in it" nonsense from the Democrats there.

Edit - seems someone just above linked this same article...
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jan 2007
America First
13,898 Posts
2,008 Reputation
Original Poster
#203
Quote from Elmer View Post :
Oh, trust me...they read it......
Quote :
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
Aww... They wouldn't tell a lie, now would they?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#204
Quote from Elmer View Post :
Oh, trust me...they read it......
Agreed. They were probably pretty surprised to find any objection to the squashing of the 4th amendment. After all, it was for a good cause: the squashing of the 2nd amendment. If people don't have a right to defend themselves, why should they have a right to be secure in their persons? Cheeky buggers. Don't they know these are really just privileges bestowed as the state sees fit? We should all be grateful for the crumbs we get.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2010
L11: My Level Goes to 11
7,764 Posts
21 Reputation
#205
Quote from Elmer View Post :
Oh, trust me...they read it......
Quote from jonsmith74 View Post :
Actually, not irrational...I live in Oregon, and just north of me [seattletimes.com]:



Notice something else we see here - elected officials not reading bills they vote on, or even sponsor as in this case. This is scary shit...we saw it clearly with Obamacare and that "have to pass it to know what's in it" nonsense from the Democrats there.

Edit - seems someone just above linked this same article...
The reason they didn't read it is because they are just throwing the same shit around they threw last time in SB 6396.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/...s/6396.pdf
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
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#206
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Jan 2007
America First
13,898 Posts
2,008 Reputation
Original Poster
#207
Westford [MA] Selectmen Withdraw Proposal To Ban Assault Weapons [cbslocal.com]

Quote :
A thunderous round of applause and a standing ovation greeted the news Wednesday night that a proposed town bylaw to restrict some assault weapons was going to be officially withdrawn.
Quote :
The man who originally proposed it told the crowd the debate had not gone as he had hoped.

Vice Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Robert Jeffries said, "This was meant to be a discussion within the town of Westford, a community discussion that's gotten way, way beyond that. We're not really getting the discussion we want."

After the meeting, Jeffries added that he had hoped he and his town would not be alone in an effort to restrict assault weapons and high-capacity firearms from the town.

"I thought there would be a [negative] reaction," Jeffries said. "But I also thought maybe some other towns in Massachusetts might have also tried something similar and none of them did. So it left us isolated as the only ones."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,185 Posts
1,176 Reputation
#208
Clearly stonings, need to make a comeback.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#209
Quote from Dumpsterdiver View Post :
Clearly stonings, need to make a comeback.
What good is killing them? I prefer to let them live with the humiliation of rotting food, at least initially. There's almost always time for the people to show the government their stones at a later date.

That said, it might be funny to see Dianne Feinstein or Harry Reid get beaned in the head with a rock. I would anxiously await the forthcoming Assault Rock ban. "There is no reason for people to own heavy rocks with sharp edges..."
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Joined Dec 2006
L10: Grand Master
10,185 Posts
1,176 Reputation
#210
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
What good is killing them? I prefer to let them live with the humiliation of rotting food, at least initially. There's almost always time for the people to show the government their stones at a later date.

That said, it might be funny to see Dianne Feinstein or Harry Reid get beaned in the head with a rock. I would anxiously await the forthcoming Assault Rock ban. "There is no reason for people to own heavy rocks with sharp edges..."
Serves as a warning to the others of their ilk.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 14 of 51
12 13 14 15 16
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