Notice to Missouri Gun Owners - HB545

[WayneB]

I wouldn稚 be too quick to discount this. Just look at what has happened in New York State. Sure they have NYC, Albany and a few other larger cities, but the people that will be hurt the most by the new gun law passed by the state are the folks that will miles away from any city.
Gun Reforms - 2013 Initiatives | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo

 

[sdkubota]

They are in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the United States. Should this bill pass it will be immediately challenged and defeated by the Supreme Court. Make sure every traitor that supports this bill is never elected again. I would not and will not turn in any gun or magazine I own.

 

[MoKelly]

All 4 of the sponsors are Democrats and all 4 live in St. Louis. I am afraid the people who voted them into office would approve the measure. I just contacted my Mo. representative and senator.

MoKelly

 

[TripleR]

Missouri's Constitutional guarantee is stronger and less ambiguous than that of the US Constitution: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Article 1, Section 23.

 

[nybirdman]

Welcome to the fight,in NY we are up against similar B>S.

 

[sdkubota]

Missouri's Constitutional guarantee is stronger and less ambiguous than that of the US Constitution: “That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Article 1, Section 23.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous in any way and it's meaning has already been ruled on by the US Supreme Court (Heller vs DC).

 

[ovrszd]

All 4 of the sponsors are Democrats and all 4 live in St. Louis. I am afraid the people who voted them into office would approve the measure. I just contacted my Mo. representative and senator.

MoKelly

Imagine that.......

 

[TripleR]

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous in any way and it's meaning has already been ruled on by the US Supreme Court (Heller vs DC).

I have to disagree, both decisions leave open "reasonable regulations" and state it is not an absolute right. You might want to read both opinions in full, there is plenty of room for "infringement" look at what is going on in New York, Chicago, Washington DC and California. How anyone can look at how difficult it is to own and use firearms in those places as not being an "infringement" is not something I can understand.

 

[sdkubota]

I have to disagree, both decisions leave open "reasonable regulations" and state it is not an absolute right. You might want to read both opinions in full, there is plenty of room for "infringement" look at what is going on in New York, Chicago, Washington DC and California. How anyone can look at how difficult it is to own and use firearms in those places as not being an "infringement" is not something I can understand.

You are incorrect and Illinois was also ruled unconstitutional in there gun laws also by the Supremes. "Shall Not Infringe" has been ruled to mean what it says in a persons home and with normally legal weapons. Concealed carry laws can be interpreted by State statues but that also is generally a right not to be restricted. Felons can not have guns and those are the types of "reasonable regulations" the higher court was talking about. The Second Amendment does not grant Rights given by the government but restricts them from infringing on "Natural Rights" that all men have. "Shall Not Infringe" is telling the government to stay the heck out.

 

[TripleR]

You are incorrect and Illinois was also ruled unconstitutional in there gun laws also by the Supremes. "Shall Not Infringe" has been ruled to mean what it says in a persons home and with normally legal weapons. Concealed carry laws can be interpreted by State statues but that also is generally a right not to be restricted. Felons can not have guns and those are the types of "reasonable regulations" the higher court was talking about. The Second Amendment does not grant Rights given by the government but restricts them from infringing on "Natural Rights" that all men have. "Shall Not Infringe" is telling the government to stay the heck out.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion on "infringe" and the Heller and McDonald decisions, I see plenty of infringement being allowed in Chicago, New York with its limit to seven rounds and the enormous difficulty one in DC must go through to get a firearm. Emily Miller wrote a series of articles on the time and money it took her to obtain a firearm in DC. In my opinion, when it is this difficult to exercise the rights recognized in the 2nd Amendment, infringement has already happened.

I am familiar with the foundation of the 2nd Amendment, recognition of preexisting rights and all of that, I just believe the government has not protected those rights to the extent the founding fathers intended, like I said, difference of opinion.