another clown legislator, this one pro gun

[horatioo]

Mo. House Bill Makes Proposing Gun Control Illegal.
.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/02/...ntrol-illegal/

Rep. Mike Leara said Tuesday that he considers his bill a statement of principle. It would make lawmakers guilty of a felony punishable by up to four years in prison if they introduce legislation restricting gun rights.

What statement does Mr Leara want to make? That he doesnt care anymore about constitutional rights then those who want to ignore the 2nd amendment. Pro gun people dont need clowns like this.

“I have no illusions about the bill making it through the legislative process, but I want it to be clear that the Missouri House will stand in defense of the people’s constitutional right..." said Mr Leara.

[MLeake]

Or he wants to make the point that the Second Amendment has been horribly watered down.

It's symbolic, but not necessarily pointless.

[David13]

Yes and no. I don't take a particularly negative view against him.
He is trying to make a point, that being to exposed and exemplify the ridiculous extent to which some of them are going.
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
And I suppose it doesn't hurt to build his political career.
We need people on our side of the aisle, don't we?
dc

[sholling]

It's just symbolic but keep in mind that there is a difference between saying "there should be a law" which is protected by the 1st Amendment and introducing legislation that infringes on civil rights. One is speech and the other is an activity. It's like the difference between a bigoted lunch counter owner saying "I don't want to serve black people" and actually refusing to serve black people. One is incredibly stupid and tasteless but constitutionally protected speech and the other is an illegal activity.

It's primarily a recognition that the 100 years of fighting Jim Crow laws and Black Codes that it took to go from the end the Civil War to African-Americans actually enjoying equal civil rights under the law is not an experience that we are willing to repeat over the next 100 years with our 2nd Amendment civil rights. That we will not accept another 100 years of politicians building an ever growing series of legislative fences around our 2nd Amendment civil rights and court rulings in our favor. On the other hand a better solution is inserting a strict liability clause in state constitutions that make politicians personally obligated to reimburse the state for the entire cost of defending any law that they voted for that is later found unconstitutional and for the legal costs of those that successfully challenge the law. That is the only way to make power mad politicians stop and consider the constitutionality of the bills they are voting for instead the current "spaghetti cook" method of throwing anything and everything they can think of at the wall and seeing what the courts allow to stick.

[Spats McGee]

In a moment of supreme irony, a legislator proposes an unconstitutional law intended to prevent other legislators from proposing unconstitutional laws. . .

[Technosavant]

The core of it is not that it was introduced so it would pass, but it's a response to the insanity of HB 545, the infamous confiscation bill.

It's basically a statement that "You want to be crazy? We can be crazy too. Now let's be serious."

[geetarman]

Perhaps it sounds crazy because we have drifted so far from the words written in the Second Amendment that any thing remotely sounding liking making further restrictions illegal is "crazy."

[Hal]

In a moment of supreme irony, a legislator proposes an unconstitutional law intended to prevent other legislators from proposing unconstitutional laws. . .

Another way to look at it is that if it's unconstitutional to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then holding an elected official - that has sworn to uphold those rights - accountable for breaking that public trust is the right thing to do.

I'm ot so sure about this one - but - I'm for damned sure solidly behind any efforts made to hold elected officials accountable for their actions.

As it is now, they all get a free pass...

What sanctions are placed on private citizens when they violate someone's constitutional rights?
We're held accountable for that - why shouldn't a person in an elected office be held just as - if not more so - accountable for their actions?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Hal

Another way to look at it is that if it's unconstitutional to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, then holding an elected official - that has sworn to uphold those rights - accountable for breaking that public trust is the right thing to do.

Well, it may seem that way, but legislators have First Amendment rights, too. What's more is that their actions in legislating are "political speech," which is given the highest possible protection under A1 law. So the legislator's action in proposing this law is protected, but seeks to limit other protected activities.

Originally Posted by Hal

What sanctions are placed on private citizens when they violate someone's constitutional rights?
We're held accountable for that - why shouldn't a person in an elected office be held just as - if not more so - accountable for their actions?

Private citizens, acting in their private capacities & not under color of law, do not violate constitutional rights. Their actions may be illegal on other grounds, but they're not unconstitutional. I put together a primer on federal constitutional law which is stickied at the top of L&CR.

[Hal]

Drat....

Had to go and rain on my parade huh?....

I was having such a pleasant fantasy too - it involved a lot of tar and feathers

[sholling]

This is why legislators need to face strict personal liability for the costs related to both fighting and defending laws that are found to be civil rights violations. Otherwise there is absolutely no zip zero nada disincentive to repeatedly and continuously creating unconstitutional laws. Waaaaaaaay back in ancient history the media might have done their jobs and alerted the public about the amount of public money being wasted or that there was a violation of the constitution but now the media are little more than cheerleaders for tyranny.

In case you missed it the Governor of CT is the latest to raise in the game of crush the constitution poker. This is after one of the Congressional Campaign Committee chairmen just announced that they plan to ride a wave of gun control laws to victory in the 2014 elections. I won't post the link because it identifies those involved and I don't want to make it partisan. I mention it because it illustrates the fact that those running the all out war on the 2nd Amendment have no intention of slowing their attacks on our rights even a little bit for at least 2 more years.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...-His-Own-Hands

Malloy said on Thursday, however, that “we run a risk of letting this critical moment in history pass us by. None of us want that to happen, and none of us should let it happen.”

Referring to his plan as “common sense” proposals, Malloy said that he would change the definition of “assault weapon to any semiautomatic that has at least one military characteristic, and ban the sale of these weapons in our state.”

At the present time, a weapon must have two characteristics of a military firearm to be considered an “assault weapon.”

The governor’s plan calls for prohibition of the sale of the AR-15. Those Connecticut residents who already own this firearm would be required to register it with the State Police to obtain a certificate of possession. Sales of the AR-15 could only be made to a licensed firearms dealer or out of state.

Malloy’s plan to make background checks universal broadens the criminal history that would make an individual ineligible to purchase a gun. His proposal would not only include any violation of the law involving a firearm, or the use or threat of force, but also non-violent crimes, like operating a car under the influence or possession of a controlled substance within the last five years. Gun owners who are convicted of these crimes would have their firearms revoked, according to Malloy’s proposal.

[sholling]

There needs to be a "chilling effect".