Introduces Bill That Makes Proposing Gun Control Laws a Felony

[copterdoctor]

Missouri GOP Rep. Turns the Tables on Dems: Introduces Bill That Makes Proposing Gun Control Laws a Felony | TheBlaze.com

 

[CrackPot]

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ion/193876-new-bill-missouri-pro-2a-time.html


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[exo]

I appreciate the sentiment but is that even possible? I guess the point is, make the antis start fighting our bills instead of us always fighting theirs?

 

[Boris]

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

further restricts

- I love this man

 

[MichaelJR]

How many states have done this now?

 

[Boris]

if shitheads can't read constitution they need to GTFO.

 

[namedpipes]

I appreciate the sentiment but is that even possible? I guess the point is, make the antis start fighting our bills instead of us always fighting theirs?

In the article he admits it will never pass. He introduced it to make a point.

OTOH, I *do* think that bills introduced where the sponsor(s) know them to be unconstitutional should result in jail time in addition to being automatically repealed.

That along with an enforced mandate that the entire bill is void unless each and every point in it is proved to be directly related to the mission statement of the bill.

Neither of these will ever find their way into law but it would make for a much more ethical lawmaking process.

 

[Neverknowsbest]

I propose they also add an amendment where politicians cannot write laws that they are exempt from.

 

[xcom]

Maybe they should take a look at Georgia's response to Chisholm: "Georgia's response was more intemperate: Its House of Representatives passed a bill providing that anyone attempting to enforce the Chisholm decision would be " `guilty of felony and shall suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged.' "It appears that they damned them to hell...

 

[Stumpthumper]

Sounds to me like it would violate the first amendment in the most serious of way...limiting political speech. We can't limit what people say/suggest our government do, even if those people are the useless members of congress.

 

[namedpipes]

Sounds to me like it would violate the first amendment in the most serious of way...limiting political speech. We can't limit what people say/suggest our government do, even if those people are the useless members of congress.

What are you talking about?

The Bill of Rights is ALL about setting limits on what the government can do.

 

[TomH]

Pretty stupid... not a great way to support rights IMO by wasting everyone's time with BS.

 

[Stumpthumper]

What are you talking about?

The Bill of Rights is ALL about setting limits on what the government can do.

They are proposing passing a law that makes it illegal to propose a law. Proposing a law is political speech which is the most protected form of speech. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights can make a law invalid, but it also protects that person's right to propose the invalid law. We can't celebrate an unconstitutional law just because it purports to limit idiots.

 

[cekim]

What are you talking about?

The Bill of Rights is ALL about setting limits on what the government can do.

Exactly, it is already "illegal" this is just putting a standard penalty to it.

No consittutional law could be made punishing speach of beliefs, but much like other civil rights laws which define a penalty and specifically strip sovereign immunity from government for violating civil rights, this would be permissible. No different than imposing fines and redress for writing laws that harm any other "suspect class" of people the courts have deemed worthy of more protection than everyone else.

It should not be required, it is our job to remove people from office who cannot read "shall not be infringed" and figure out what it means. We need to do a better job in elections, but there is nothing wrong with using the executive and judicial branch to limit power in this manner as well.

Of course professional courtesy among sharks limits the efficacy of this method, but it is possible and would be healthy for our republic to see a power struggle between the states and federal government to reestablish the intended balance of power.

We have turned our government upside down. For good reason it was intended that government's strength and funding start local and dwindle as distance grew from the people it represented. We now have exactly the opposite. This is very dangerous as it might be tough to look your neighbor in the eye and vote to take his rights away, but 1-3,000 miles away? No problem, people don't mind marching strangers to their death from a distance.

 

[Stumpthumper]

This law is about proposing a law. That is not the same as passing a law. One is speech, one is not. It may seem like a technicality, but it isn't.

We have turned our government upside down. For good reason it was intended that government's strength and funding start local and dwindle as distance grew from the people it represented. We now have exactly the opposite. This is very dangerous as it might be tough to look your neighbor in the eye and vote to take his rights away, but 1-3,000 miles away? No problem, people don't mind marching strangers to their death from a distance.

Absolutely. We are best represented at the local level, where our voices are loudest. Anyone who thinks it is proper to tell people on the other side of the country what they should do and how they should do it is not progressive, they are selfish and arrogant.

 

[cekim]

This law is about proposing a law. That is not the same as passing a law. One is speech, one is not. It may seem like a technicality, but it isn't.



Absolutely. We are best represented at the local level, where our voices are loudest. Anyone who thinks it is proper to tell people on the other side of the country what they should do and how they should do it is not progressive, they are selfish and arrogant.

I agree for the most part, penalties for laws not passed are suspect, though advocating for a policy and attempting to enact it as a government official are not the same "expression," just as speaking about violence against someone and actually taking concrete steps to enact it are treated diffent WRT 1A.

You also have an issue of proving intent, or at least gross negligience/disregard which I think should be a requirement of ANY felony.

Look at it this way, we have licensing for guns, cars and businesses, but no "suitability" test for legislators who are 6000x more likely by my math to murder by its policy than a citizen is to murder with a gun.

I am only asking for "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense regulation" of this very dangerous thing.

As I said, I would rather see us focus our energies on slashing government back to its limited, enumerated powers and remove it from micromanaging our lives, but I am not going to get my panties in a bunch over this. This actually sends the right message and I think we should end the concept of "suspect class" and demand equal treatment under the law for all and equal punishment for mistreatment at the same time.

 

[Stumpthumper]

Term limits would help by abolishing the idea of the political class.