Slickdeals Checkout User Survey 2017 Take the survey for a chance to win a $5 Amazon gift card See More
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

2 3 4 5 6

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#46
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.
Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.

I realize you don't think any gun laws are unconstitutional. KKK politicians like Robert Byrd didn't think forced segregation and other racist laws were unconstitutional either.
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
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
#47
Quote from TRNT View Post :
IMO violence against our government is unwarranted as long as we have free elections.
That only makes sense if you believe in the absolute power of the majority to do anything.

Quote from Elmer View Post :
Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.

I realize you don't think any gun laws are unconstitutional. KKK politicians like Robert Byrd didn't think forced segregation and other racist laws were unconstitutional either.
And every military officer too. And I suspect that many officers through enlisted (not the political flag officers, of course) will refuse as well.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by ConservativeNYer February 15, 2013 at 03:56 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Apr 2009
MakeAmericaGrr..HateAgain
37,563 Posts
#48
Quote from ConservativeNYer View Post :
That only makes sense if you believe in the absolute power of the majority to do anything.
this is not about "anything." this is about the majority decide that while certain guns are legal, certain other guns are not. and some want to commit violence against the gov.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#49
Quote from Elmer View Post :
Actually, it is the duty of any law enforcement officer to refuse to enforce any law that is unconstitutional.
In the United States, there is something called a separation of powers, which includes a lawmaking branch of government that makes the laws and a judiciary to review the constitutionality of laws. Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately. And as mentioned, there were periods in history, especially during fuedal times, when the local sheriffs were judge, jury, and executioner. A gun and a set of handcuffs is not nearly the same as legal training, popular election, or appointment to a judgeship.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#50
Sweet lord. Government where everyone makes the rules has a name. It's called anarchy.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by BobDeal February 15, 2013 at 05:53 AM.
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Aug 2006
Deep Thoughts
13,199 Posts
269 Reputation
#51
Quote from roughnready View Post :
Sweet lord. Government where everyone makes the rules has a name. It's called anarchy.
Government that breaks its social contract with the people and engages in denying fundamental rights has a name, it's called tyranny.

Now, by all means demonstrate where anyone suggested going without any government or any rules of law? That is after all the definition of anarchy. Those that would oppose such law simply oppose a government that neither reflects the will of the people, nor does it stay within the constitution that defines the scope of influence said government may have. Some forget that the government serves at the will and convenience of the people, not the other way around.

The inherent problem with enacting such a law, is if the people end up essentially at war with those in law enforcement, anarchy could very well result, pending government handling things in a way the people find acceptable and law enforcement not encroaching on the rights of the people.

I tend to think in general that local law enforcement will not want to touch this with a ten foot pole, and state troopers will have to be the ones to enforce it. Right up until those subjected to this law create a database of where state troopers live, Then even they will not want to enforce it.
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 2005
L7: Weenie
21,133 Posts
466 Reputation
#52
Quote from nobama View Post :
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.
Hooray States' rights.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGEN...ution.aspx
Quote :
SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
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
#53
Quote from roughnready View Post :
Local police officers and sheriffs were never given a veto power over our civilian government per the U.S. Constiution, fortunately.
Actually they were, and it was quite explicit [wikipedia.org]:
Quote :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Considering the Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal government, the inclusion of the 10th would give that veto power to the respective States.

Now where in the Constitution does it give the Feds power to force the States into enforcing Federal law?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#54
Quote from JackHandey View Post :
Government that breaks its social contract with the people and engages in denying fundamental rights has a name, it's called tyranny.
What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion. Before tossing around concepts about "breaking the social contract" and "tyrrany," you should really consider the significance of these terms. The threshold for a breakdown of the social contract does not mean having to comply with a law you don't like or not liking the result of an election. There is much more at stake here than to be so arbitrary about invoking these words.

Quote :
Now, by all means demonstrate where anyone suggested going without any government or any rules of law? That is after all the definition of anarchy.
One definition of anarchy is "mob rule." By letting police officers, fire fighters, and whomever else has taken an oath supplant judge, jury, and democratically-elected officials is de facto mob rule, in my opinion. Heck, I've taken several oaths. (I'm not a law enforcement officer either.) Does that mean I get to decide what's constitutional? We can all actually take a SlickDeal oath to uphold the Constitution right now.

Quote :
Some forget that the government serves at the will and convenience of the people, not the other way around.
Exactly. That's why we vote. We are not a police state. We do not let sheriffs and police officers govern us.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Last edited by BobDeal February 15, 2013 at 07:10 AM. Reason: grammers
This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined May 2009
L5: Journeyman
836 Posts
54 Reputation
#55
Quote from paperboy05 View Post :
Actually they were, and it was quite explicit [wikipedia.org]:


Considering the Constitution was meant to limit the powers of the Federal government, the inclusion of the 10th would give that veto power to the respective States.
This empowers state government. It does not refer to state and local police.
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
#56
Quote from roughnready View Post :
This empowers state government. It does not refer to state and local police.
Who do you think they work for if not the state government?
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
#57
Quote from roughnready View Post :
What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion. Before tossing around concepts about "breaking the social contract" and "tyrrany," you should really consider the significance of these terms. The threshold for a breakdown of the social contract does not mean having to comply with a law you don't like or not liking the result of an election. There is much more at stake here than to be so arbitrary about invoking these words.
The fourth is a codified limit to their authority, not a law for them to enforce. Yes, they could engage in killing the populace, without internal consequences... but, I assure you the social consequences for that would not bode well for them.

You are correct that there is much at stake here, though. The relationship between the government and the people is reaching a point of significant change in one direction or another. It will either mean that the constitution will become even more meaningless than it is currently, or it will become stronger than it has been in decades.

Quote :
One definition of anarchy is "mob rule." By letting police officers, fire fighters, and whomever else has taken an oath supplant judge, jury, and democratically-elected officials is de facto mob rule, in my opinion. Heck, I've taken several oaths. (I'm not a law enforcement officer either.) Does that mean I get to decide what's constitutional? We can all actually take a SlickDeal oath to uphold the Constitution right now.
The difference is, I believe the problem would occur after an attempt to enforce such a law, and you believe it comes with refusal to enforce it. You have to come to your own conclusions as to what you believe is constitutional, and your reactions to it (and deal with whatever the consequences are).

Quote :
Exactly. That's why we vote. We are not a police state. We do not let sheriffs and police officers govern us.
Police officers are more than governmental thugs (or at least should be). They are tasked with ensuring that peace/order are maintained, and that they follow constitutional laws and orders from those above them. Just following orders does not excuse actions, when one should know the orders themselves were never legal to begin with.
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
#58
Quote from roughnready View Post :
What if police decided that they no longer wanted to enforce the Fourth Amendment? (Some argue that this is already partially the case.) They could enter your home at will. They could seize your property. What if the police did not want to enforce laws against the unlawful killing of another person? They could shoot you on the site without threat of repercussion.
Lack of enforcement is not equivalent to explicit engagement.

If the Feds pass a law in which slavery is again legal, do you put fault in local/State forces that refuse to enforce the law?
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
#59
Quote from nobama View Post :
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.
If it does pass, it won't pass referendum.
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

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

This comment has been rated as unhelpful by Slickdeals users
Joined Oct 2009
$trange but true
5,575 Posts
174 Reputation
#60
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).

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?
so you're on record as a supporter of murder of government officials and violent anarchy.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Rumble, young man, rumble. These are interesting times we live in. Punctuation is key. Fruit is nature's candy.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZI0kUOu...ding_scene
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y24E-W4...1-cast.jpg
Page 4 of 51
2 3 4 5 6
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