|Submited on :||Sat, 16th of Mar 2019 - 00:31:00 AM|
|Post ID :||b1gzl6|
|Post Name :||t3_b1gzl6|
|Post Type :||link|
|Subreddit Type :||public|
|Subreddit ID :||t5_2qnts|
While a real bill, I doubt that this guy actually expects it to pass - Lawmakers introduce bills all the time with no chance of passing, just for the sake of publicity and a discussion point.
According to the Missouri House of Representatives website, neither bill is currently scheduled for a hearing or on a House calendar.
At the very least, it doesn't seem like it's being taken too seriously.
From an article: “I merely planned for media to write about it but would ultimately amend it to take out the mandates and requirements (age and type of gun) and turn it into a gun tax credit bill,” [Andrew] McDaniel told Splinter in an email.
Meanwhile, laws requiring citizens to pack heat aren’t an entirely new phenomenon. Kennesaw, GA, requires “every head of household residing in the city limits [...] to maintain a firearm,” while a similar ordinance was passed in the small Utah town of Virgin in 2000
My take: Gun tax credits, given that we are already trillions in debt, and Missouri is $44 billion in the hole? That’s a no. Also, gun tax credits in general? Also no, waste of taxpayer money. Using the media to garner attention to yourself, exactly as was accomplished here by getting to the top of Reddit, and getting the NRAs attention to get yourself some more campaign financing? Sure, that’s fine by me. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
I don't see how this would ever be remotely constitutional, though I suppose the states can override that.
At best, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed would probably extend to their right to NOT keep and bear arms.
Barring that, it's also a free speech issue, since choosing not to own a firearm could be considered a "form of speech" or protest.
According to the proposed bill, any person who qualifies as a resident on Aug. 28, 2019 who does not own an AR-15 would have a year to purchase one.
Or else what??
How does he reconcile requiring people to purchase something and small government.
Makes for a nice subsidy for the manufacturer of firearms as well. Free market much?
That small government narrative seems to be dead. I dont hear much about it at all.
Or else what??
Next years mandatory bump-stock won't work?
And what about the monthly subscription of ammo you have to use?
Why spend thousands of dollars on ammo at a range when Blue Crate™ delivers ammo right to your door so you can shoot in the comfort of your own home?
Perfectly pre-portioned ammo crates include all the ammo you need to maintain firearm mastery.
Never go to the gun range or ammo store again.
Blue Crate™, A Better Way to Shoot®
What do you tip an ammo guy?
A few buckshot
I usually lead with with a offer of brass but if that doesnt get it going I follow up with some blackpowder and a primer to get the ball rolling.
You got your upvote from me at 46. Now either I got here early to the party, or it just started, but that comment should be way higher than this. Thanks for the laugh. I shared with people and the chuckled also.
There's a dongle for that.
We have the same law in kennesaw, GA that requires fire arm ownership. It’s not enforced. It’s just a statement of ‘MERICA
Here's the text for anyone interested
Sec. 34-21. – Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
So basically, you legally have to own a firearm and ammunition.. unless you don't want to. Then you legally don't have to. ¯\(ツ)/¯
Now THAT'S a well written law.
Provide a legal obligation for all, followed by exemptions for all. The perfect loophole!
Or if you're a pauper... That's straight out the of fucking 1800s man
You can if you want to, or you don't have to if you don't want to.
BUT IT'S THE FUCKING LAW, YA HEAR?
I've had enough of your tomfoolery and I'm calling the police.
Devil's advocate: It's probably an already-defined legal term from the State's constitution or something.
If you say "poor person" you have to define how poor is too poor within the bill as well.
See: "Pauper's Affidavit"
Some quick google-fu says the word actually comes from a Latin legal phrase, I wouldn't be surprised if it has a longstanding definition in common law.
Then whats the point of the bill apart from either being a colossal dick about getting their point across or just being a colossal dick to waste legislature time?
That is pretty much what the Missouri State Legislature does. The blue parts of the state are busy bring in the money while the red parts spend their time trying to think about ways to waste it being colossal dicks.
Doesn't Missouri get more money federally than they put in?
Sounds like PA.
I would be extremely tempted to fuck with the local law enforcement if I lived there.
"Sir, I need you to arrest me for my failure to own a gun."
"Goddamn it, asshole. Fine. Let's do this... Do you want to own a gun?"
sigh "Do you have the money to buy a gun?"
"So then, you haven't bought a gun despite having both the desire and the means to do so?"
"Uhhh... Yep. That about covers it."
"Well that's just plain illogical, so I'm going to rule that you're too insane to own a gun. That's right. Catch 22, motherfucker! I can't arrest you even when you want me to! Suck it!"
"Well... yeah. You got me there I guess. Only, see... I said I don't own a gun. Not that I don't have a gun." pulls out a stolen gun
"Well, I'll be damned..."
I can see Dale Gribble doing this, too.
But why introduce the bill to start with... Is this a way to put another crime on homelessness?
Nope. They won’t enforce it. Only to make Democrats angry. Kennesaw enacted our law because a northern county outlawed guns. So it’s politics.
So they fixed all other problems in the country, and can waste time with frivolous laws now? Great!
See, they can pass frivolous bullshit. Actual governance requires compromise, dialog and concession. And that would be queer, y'see.
Only to make Democrats angry
One of the main problems with the Republican party right there.
That's the only real reason they have left to support Trump.
It's fucking lowest common denominator politics, is what it is.
I think it's a way to force a court challenge of other gun laws. If thebl feds passed an ar15 ban it would immediately clash with the conflicting law and escalate.
Democrats there should enforce it to a T. Go into people's homes, ask for receipts, registration, make it really annoying. If anyone complaints, just tell them, well, that's the law.
There's actually a clause in that law stating if you can't afford one or don't have the means to acquire one or don't agree with owning firearms for various reasons (religious, etc.) That you are exempt. It's still on the books, just not enforced.
So it's a law you have to follow unless you don't wanna?
Basically. Hence why it's not enforced. I'm pretty sure sodomy is still technically illegal in Georgia (there's still a law on the books) as well but no one's busting down doors enforcing that, either.
To require firearm ownership is one thing (not my belief but that's beside the point) but to legally require people to buy one very specific gun ?
How much did the manufacturer of the AR-15 paid this guy ?
*EDIT* People are telling me that the AR design is produced by multiple companies. At least this would make the bill somewhat less stupid. I don't agree with forcing people to own gun but to force people to buy only one specific gun would not be very subtle as to who actually wrote the bill. Kind of like the time PanAm wrote a bill saying PanAm should be the only airline on the market.
I freely admit that I know next to nothing about guns. In fact I'm probably a good exemple to demonstrate why it's not a good idea to force a gun in the hands of unexperienced people.
There are hundreds of AR-15 manufacturers. it’s not quite like saying “everyone must own a Ford F-150”. It’s more like saying “everyone must own a mid-sized pickup truck”
Dammit, don't give them any ideas!
They can have my Prius when they pry it out of my dainty, finger-less gloved hands.
There's no longer a patent on that design, so there are dozens? hundreds? of manufacturers of AR-15s.
The original company Armalite was bought by Colt, and nowadays I don't even think there are new Colt AR-15s available? Edit: yes they still sell it.
How much did the manufacturer of the AR-15 paid this guy ?
There are dozens of companies that produce AR-15s.
Looks like it's not an "or else" thing, you qualify for a tax credit if you do own one. Cant tell if it's a problem with how the article is worded or the proposal
According to the Missouri House of Representatives website, neither bill is currently scheduled for a hearing or on a House calendar.
But I doubt the bill gets any traction
But what if they already have an ak?
Assuming they're having a good day, they won't have to use it.
Ooh, sounds like a mandate. We know the GOP loves those.
My prediction: the bill be withdrawn when someone tells this legislator that it means every black person in St. Louis will own an AR-15.
Not just black people, everybody.... that means hispanics and arabs too.
Imagine the clusterfuck when the GOP is being accused of arming ethnic groups that aren't white christians..
Just like the one where a republican senator a few years ago got a lot of heat because the tax credits for regilious schools she implemented also applied to other religions beside christianity so republicans turned on her.
Reminder that Reagan and the NRA pushed gun reform law in California when black folks started open carrying guns.
I take that as a much less serious offense than the fact that they organized actual assassinations on the leaders of those armed black folks.
They should hold an ethnic minorities with guns parade and see if the Republicans feel threatened.
That's basically what the Black Panthers did and why California has such strict gun control laws.
This is why I was super about the whole "arming teachers" idea. Not so they can stop terror attacks or anything, but so the teachers can march armed on the statehouses and replace the anti-intellectual regime in control.
I get that there are lot's of people on here that are opposed to gun ownership and would defy the law based solely on that, but my bigger concern is poor people. An AR-15 is anywhere from about $400 and up depending on the options. Poor people can barely afford to pay their rent on time, and sometimes can't feed their kids, and that's why we have programs in this country that send kids home on Fridays with a backpack of food for the weekend. You think those families can afford to put together the money to buy an AR-15?
They can’t legally require you to own a gun dude. No one is going to be enforcing this law.
Probably pay a fine.
I doubt there are any punitive measures backing up the bill. There are a couple towns I believe out west that have laws requiring people to have guns in their home but the laws stipulate they are not to be enforced. it's kind of a thing just to show criminals that you should mess around somewhere else.
They will give you a gun when they force it into your warm living hands.
So, they're going to make you pay for a hundreds to thousands of dollars gun? Where are all the libertarians and anti-tax people?
Edit: having read the article, and seeing that there is a tax credit involved, and that the legislation specifies AR 15, doesn't that just turn this into a corporate welfare situation? Unless you want to argue that they're calling for a generic AR-15, and not the Armalite model specifically, in which case, woo, tax dollars are going to gun companies so people can be given guns. Also, $400-$600 is a good chunk of money for most people, apparently half the people that commented on my post seem to see it as chump change.
They made me buy health insurance so I'll make them buy an AR!
Ironically, a 19th century law requiring homes to keep a firearm was part of the basis of Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to vote to uphold the health insurance mandate in the Affordable Care Act.
The city my sister lives in has a law requiring every home to have a firearm. It's not enforced but I thought it was crazy that it was a law, rumor has it that they didn't actually want every home to have a gun, they just wanted burglars to think that to dissuade them.
Some places do this to legally keep felons from moving in since most states prohibit felons from owning firearms.
Correction: Federal law prohibits felons from owning firearms.
I saw the same thing in Irvine, Ca. They put up parks every x distance since sex offenders can't live close to a park.
Federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms
I dont want to dox, so im going to assume that this is in a state associated with a juicy stone fruit....
If this is the case, the law.allowed religious objectors to not participate, much like was included in prior laws (mostly due to the Quakers)
Yeah making you buy health insurance is pretty ridiculous, it should be included as part of your citizenship since apparently being American is so fucking cool.
If politicians actually had the balls to push for the restructuring of budget for the subsidized departments that have been proven to mismanage funds, some of that money could actually go to something useful like healthcare for all. But our taxes are just funneled into them for political purposes because at the end of the day the federal government has shown time and time again that they truly don’t care about the common person.
Well taking into account that our infant mortality rate is 70% higher than an average first world nation, our surviving fetuses come bursting out the womb like Rambo. So yeah we are fucking cool 😎.
I had to give my mother a c section to get out
Sounds like an AR-15 would have been handy in that situation. If only...
At that age you are really gonna want the carbine model with the collapsing stock.
Not taking a position, just providing data to the discussion.
I mean, at least I might use the AR.
*knocks on wood*
At least an AR can provide cover fire, unlike my health insurance, which doesn’t cover anything.
I felt that one..
It’s noteworthy that the bill doesn’t seem to allocate money to train users in safety and responsible use of the AR-15, nor require owners to complete such a training on their own. I guess that would be government overreach.
That's funny, because the majority of (reasonable) opposition to mandatory training for firearms ownership is cost. If the mandatory training costs $200 and is only offered on weekdays during normal working hours, it really excludes lower class workers that can't take time off during the week or double the cost of a firearm.
Yeah this is very anti libertarian
The free market demands your cooperation or else.
Yea this won’t even see a vote. MO may vote red in the majority of the state but there are a lot of blue areas too. If by some chance it would pass I will personally challenge it. I do not own a gun because I have a mental illness that causes severe bouts of depression from time to time with suicidal ideation. If I owned a gun I would not be here. Not only that but fuck him for trying to force me to own a gun. That’s unconditional.
Edit: unconstitutional not unconditional damn autocorrect
Shit, not even the majority of conservatives would vote for this. I think this politician knows it won’t reach a vote and is just doing it to pander to his voter base. It’s a waste of taxpayer funds and infringes on your right to ‘not’ bear arms. I’m a libertarian and I see this just as bad as someone threatening to take away the second amendment. If something is forced upon someone it is no longer a Right.
Shit, not even the majority of conservatives would vote for this. I think this politician knows it won’t reach a vote and is just doing it to pander to his voter base.
Yep. Hey Reps - so now you want to make me spend hundreds of dollars on what is essentially a really cool toy for most people who own them? Oh, and that even applies if I already own a semi rifle - so even though I dropped a g last year on this mini-14, I have to buy another gun? Thats very conservative of you.
How many seats does my govt. mandated bass boat have to have? And how many inches does this walleye have to be before I can stop fishing and return to work at the Tyson plant?
Iraq War vet here... With the same wish. Take care of yourself man, you got the right idea.
Not represented in the Missouri state government.
You've got to mind that while you can split the republican and democrat parties into 4 reasonable sized parties each.
All of those factions wouldn't have equal representation in every state.
That said I don't know what faction mandatory gun ownership would fall under but there you go.
As someone noted upthread, it’s the “hahaha u snoflake Democrat party losers will hate this!!!1!” faction.
Which, by some weird coincidence, is also known as “the faction currently running the GOP.”
You can get an AR lower receiver for $35
Legally, that's the only piece you need to own an AR15
I mean, in the article it says they'd offer a tax credit for the cost of the rifle.
I can see libertarians hating this. Maybe some "normal" conservatives, too. But the Trump-lovin' pwn-the-libz sean hannity crowd will undoubtedly at least pretend to love it.
I highly doubt itll be enforced. Too many issues with enforcement, and it would be taken to the supreme court as soon as someone was arrested for violating it.
It's cute though. Essentially the opposite of an Assault Weapon Ban.
We're right here, opposing this bill
"When I hold you, in my arms, and I feel my finger on your trigger, I know, no one can do me no harm, because, happiness is a warm gun."
As much as I want to agree that this is just a publicity stunt, given the current political climate and amount of unqualified corporate shills in office, I feel like it may be more than that unfortunately.
I have to agree with /u/myworkreddit123. A bill like this is a huge publicity stunt to focus us away from other news.
First, they are specifically requiring a gun that is illegal in some states. Plus they aren't requiring a gun per household, but per person.
Second, they're doing it the same week that a judge ruled that the families of Sandy Hook victims can sue an AR-15 manufacturer.
Lastly, it hit the news the same day (or pretty damn close) as the news that the Missouri Senate is backing an effort that would make it harder to impeach and remove top officials. This is being pushed less than a year after the governor resigned while facing impeachment, and would abolish the grounds that the House members were going to impeach him on.
So they're choosing the gun that has the most news presence across the country, to focus people away from the Senate news.
Oooo I didn’t know any of that. Totally makes sense now. If there’s one thing our government doesn’t need right now it’s further corruption and complication
Does the bill require firearms education and training also?
Ding ding, I mean seriously...I want to get a gun at one point, but I want to get proper training before that. Hell, it should be mandatory to take a safety course first.
it should be mandatory to take it training every X amount of years also with driving too. There are some bad drivers put there.
We are firmly opposed to education of any sort here in our state of Missouri.
I'd actually be for a bill that required firearms education for everyone regardless if they had a gun. There are too many people that have guns that have had insufficient training and too many people without guns that are so oblivious to guns that they support or propose nonsensical legislation.
“the McDaniel Militia Act... authorizes a tax credit for a purchase of an AR-15.”
Tax credits for the purchase of a government mandated product! Socialism! /s
75%, so the party of small government is still wanting you to make a mandatory purchase of something out of your own wallet. So in effect it is goverment forced welfare for gun manufactures.
But dont you dare make them pay for obamacare.
Several towns in the US have required firearm ownership laws on their books. Nobody has ever been charged for a violation, though. The second they actually cite someone for not owning a firearm those laws will be struck down.
Exactly. It's a political stunt - nothing more. It's designed to show his stance on the issue and rile up the opposing party. And judging from the comments in this post... It's working.
But I dont want an AR15.
I want a G36C or a SCAR H. Possibly an FAL or a IWI Tavor.
I want an M249 SAW
an FN P90 would be pretty sweet
What world do these people imagine they live in?
An armed society is a polite society, i guess?
As someone who is pro gun... forcing gun ownership is a silly idea.
Anyways ... I'd be willing to bet $5 that the lawmaker was paid by an AR-15 manufacturer to push the bill.
Came here to say just this. I own plenty of firearms, but never in my life would I ask someone who isn't comfortable with firearms to own one. Bushmaster just got clobbered in a court ruling unfortunately, and while I don't think any manufacturer would coerce a politician into proposing a bill like this (this bill is political suicide, gun manufacturers want pro gun politicians to stick around), it certainly does raise some eyebrows.
I think the simplest argument against this is: I recognize that I am not responsible enough to own a motorcycle. I choose not to own one for that reason. If someone feels they aren't responsible enough or healthy enough to own a firearm, forcing them to will cause more problems than it will fix. Suicide rate would almost certainly increase by a lot.
While I still til this day think that more citizens responsibly owning firearms is perhaps the simplest way to help prevent violent crime, the citizens need to be healthy, trained, and prepared. That being said, there are plenty of better ways of tackling gun violence. Start by learning from the simple mantra: hurt people hurt people. We have to help the hurting people.
I, as a lawful gun owner and avid 2nd amendment advocate, would vote against this bill.
Stay safe people!
Your motorcycle argument is exactly why I don't own a gun. I'm extremely clumsy and can be forgetful. It's one thing if I trip and spill a drink. It's another thing if my clumsiness affects a loaded weapon. Also, I have horrible aim. I can't even throw a baseball to a person ten feet away from me. If I were to fire a gun, I'd be willing to bet that the safest place would be right where I was trying to aim.
I don't begrudge people who want to own firearms as long as they're safe with them. (If you leave your loaded gun on the coffee table with a toddler around or play with it like it's a toy, I'll criticize your behavior.) Gun ownership is just not for me and I wouldn't want a politician to try to require me to buy one.
Exactly! I will be the first person at the range to criticize someone for lack of proper gun safety/etiquette. Especially if they are "teaching" a new shooter.
I'd be willing to bet $5 that the lawmaker was paid by an AR-15 manufacturer to push the bill.
And you've just highlighted why many people in the country are extremely critical of the current state of guns in this country.
Here is the bill author's twitter and his pinned tweet is a retweet form Dana Loesch (NRA spokesperson).
Missouri's boot heel is a whole other world where up is down, down is up, and electricity is the work of the devil.
Hes probably trying to make a point that if both guns and health care are rights, and we have to pay for health care, then there shouldn't be any issue with forcing citizens to buy a gun...
Are there logical fallacies... um... yeah... I'd say a few...
But I dont expect this to pass anything...
Eh, it's just political grandstanding meant to send a message. A stupid one at that. This will never pass.
So. Making owning a gun mandatory but getting a vaccine is not?
Vaccines cause autism, duh. /s
Why just an AR-15 though? I smell shill.
This is just political grandstanding. The goal is most likely to get Democrats to say “you can’t force people to buy guns!” To which Republicans will reply “If we can’t force people to buy guns, we can’t force them to buy health insurance. Repeal Obamacare.”
Being pro-gun for the vast majority of people means they want to be able to responsibly own firearms without being lorded over by the government.
Who in the fuck is this lawmaker writing the bill for? I'd love to do a deep dive into his campaign finances.
2A is a right, not a requirement. You should not be requiring firearm ownership the same way you should not be banning it. Is is the choice of the individual person.
Agreed. I'm very pro-2A, but I have no interest in forcing guns into peoples' homes. I'm not a fan of forcing others to live how I want to live, when I can help it.
When guns are in-lawed, the in-laws will have guns. Think about it.
The Second Amendment:
the right to bear arms