Missouri Democrats Introduce Legislation to Confiscate Firearms – Gives Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Weapons (Congress, legal)

[All American NYC]

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.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

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.

I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.

[wnewberry22]

An ASSAULT weapon.

Are you hunting white tail deer with an AK47?

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.

Unregulated guns are not.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by wnewberry22

An ASSAULT weapon.

Are you hunting white tail deer with an AK47?

sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?

[wnewberry22]

Originally Posted by Ferd

sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?

What in the hell are natural rights?

[Fiyero]

Originally Posted by Ferd

sigh. what part of stay out of my natural rights do you fail to understand?

Owning an assault rifle isn't a natural right in this country. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to restrict certain firearms.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

I doubt any American will turn in their guns. They are protected under the constitution.

Correct, their state constitution protects them unless a process allows them to amend their constitution, which they have already done in 2004 concerning concealed weapons. It is odd though, because the text of their right to bare arms section says "shall not be questioned", which if you look at the legal meaning suggests it can't even be brought to the table. Though looking at Brooks v. State, it is all manner of stupid on how they got it in.

Section 23. 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.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

(2004) Section does not prohibit the General Assembly from enacting statutes allowing or disallowing the carrying of concealed weapons; the Concealed-Carry Act is therefore constitutional. Brooks v. State, 128 S.W.3d 844 (Mo.banc).

Missouri, your legislature is flipping you the bird.

[wnewberry22]

Should we be able to manufacture our own nukes?

The 2nd Amendment says "arms" which is riddled with ambiguity. So...in keeping with your ironclad logic...my natural rights are to bear arms...technically nuclear weapons are "arms." Do you support the independent manufacture of WMD'S??? Is that constituionally protected?

The 2nd Amendment as passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Fiyero

Owning an assault rifle isn't a natural right in this country. The Supreme Court has upheld the ability to restrict certain firearms.

Where does it state that?

If you look at the state constitution, it has no discrepancy as to such.

So, where is it stated that a certain type of weapon is not a natural right?

[wnewberry22]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Where does it state that?

If you look at the state constitution, it has no discrepancy as to such.

So, where is it stated that a certain type of weapon is not a natural right?

Do you support my right to cook up Nukes in my basement, Nomander?

By your own admission the state constitution makes no discrepancy between types of "Arms."