MO bill with Takings Clause issues?

JimDandy · February 20, 2013, 10:58 AM

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0545I.htm

90 days to break it, move it, or turn it in. I imagine its going nowhere, but it's another place to point, besides Cuomo and Feinstein quotes when people say noone wants to take your guns away.

Edit: I'm not even sure you can legally sell it out of state. "Remove..." it "...from the state of Missouri" is a little ambiguous, but if it's illegal to sell after it's enacted, I would think it would have to specifically mention an exemption to sell out of state in the 90 day waiver...

Technosavant · February 20, 2013, 11:26 AM

It's definitely going nowhere.

The chairman of that committee is round filing it. None of the other Representatives have anything but disdain for it. One of the co-sponsers is disavowing it (my father emailed a few of them, one basically said she has nothing to do with it). My own rep, from the same side of the aisle as the sponsors of the bill, says that it's dead but if by some freak chance it gets any life, he'll oppose it. He thinks the bill is nuts.

A bill laying claim to Mars on behalf of the great state of Missouri would have more chance than HB 545.

MLeake · February 20, 2013, 12:34 PM

My state rep (Delus Johnson) told me it was dead on the floor, and going nowhere.

WW2 · February 20, 2013, 04:52 PM

... with the corrections for oversights like the "Bullet Button" and other hated features.

My hope is that if any of these pass that they get challenged in court and found unconstitutional. Then the California AWB would have to fall by the wayside.

I should have bought my AR15 in 1982 when it was legal in California!

maestro pistolero · February 20, 2013, 05:15 PM

The silver lining here is that claims of paranoia now ring more hollow than ever. In their anticipation of a gun-ban-fest, the giddy hysteria of the anti-gun extremists has driven them to show their collective behinds in the full light of day. Never again can the claim of paranoia about confiscation have the slightest credibility.

Baba Louie · February 20, 2013, 05:25 PM

http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html

Looks like WA State has a similar issue (allow Sheriff to enter house for inspection) only it went a little farther than anticipated... perhaps.

We Know. They Know. It's on the table. Or soon to be.

Technosavant · February 20, 2013, 07:16 PM

Quote:

The silver lining here is that claims of paranoia now ring more hollow than ever. In their anticipation of a gun-ban-fest, the giddy hysteria of the anti-gun extremists has driven them to show their collective behinds in the full light of day. Never again can the claim of paranoia about confiscation have the slightest credibility.

I fully and completely agree. Those asking why we won't compromise now have entire internets full of evidence as to their true intentions. They won't be happy with a ten round limit. They'll push for less and less. They won't be happy with THOSE guns, they'll come for THESE guns too. They won't be happy with just prohibiting new purchases, they want outright confiscation. They won't even be happy with that, they want to then search our homes to be sure they didn't miss anything.

These folks managed to take new gun owners and turn them into "radicalized" RKBA proponents just by pulling off the veil.

February 20, 2013, 10:58 AM	#1
JimDandy Senior Member Join Date: August 8, 2012 Posts: 2,556	MO bill with Takings Clause issues? http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0545I.htm 90 days to break it, move it, or turn it in. I imagine its going nowhere, but it's another place to point, besides Cuomo and Feinstein quotes when people say noone wants to take your guns away. Edit: I'm not even sure you can legally sell it out of state. "Remove..." it "...from the state of Missouri" is a little ambiguous, but if it's illegal to sell after it's enacted, I would think it would have to specifically mention an exemption to sell out of state in the 90 day waiver...

February 20, 2013, 05:25 PM	#6
Baba Louie Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2001 Posts: 1,552	http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html Looks like WA State has a similar issue (allow Sheriff to enter house for inspection) only it went a little farther than anticipated... perhaps. We Know. They Know. It's on the table. Or soon to be. __________________ A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address

February 20, 2013, 11:26 AM	#2
Technosavant Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2007 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 4,040	It's definitely going nowhere. The chairman of that committee is round filing it. None of the other Representatives have anything but disdain for it. One of the co-sponsers is disavowing it (my father emailed a few of them, one basically said she has nothing to do with it). My own rep, from the same side of the aisle as the sponsors of the bill, says that it's dead but if by some freak chance it gets any life, he'll oppose it. He thinks the bill is nuts. A bill laying claim to Mars on behalf of the great state of Missouri would have more chance than HB 545.

February 20, 2013, 12:34 PM	#3
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	My state rep (Delus Johnson) told me it was dead on the floor, and going nowhere.

February 20, 2013, 05:15 PM	#5
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	The silver lining here is that claims of paranoia now ring more hollow than ever. In their anticipation of a gun-ban-fest, the giddy hysteria of the anti-gun extremists has driven them to show their collective behinds in the full light of day. Never again can the claim of paranoia about confiscation have the slightest credibility.