Missouri Senate Bill 39

[RickN]

So they are basically creating a sanctuary state for Missouri like most of the people on the boards here hate. I mean, it sounds like they are creating a "sanctuary state" for the 2A which is well liked here, but there's a certain amount of duplicity in saying how awesome that is when railing on liberal states for being "sanctuary states" for issues like illegal immigrants.

At best, the bill --- in my reading of that article, and keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer --- says what you stated: that they won't cooperate with the feds. Great --- but again, do you want to be the first person that the feds arrest with an unregistered SBR or machine gun? Because it does NOT say that the state will pay your legal fees. That it will shelter you, and protect you and save you from federal custody. So again, cool idea bro, but that doesn't exactly "Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future" until they're going to have a strike team ready to bail Joe Bob out for his illegal possession of (fill in the blank here).

Here's another hypothetical --- would they stop doing 4473s up there? They could say alllllll they want that the FFL's don't have to, but I'd wager that the FFL's would still do them even if it is an infringement that the state doesn't recognize. Why? Because of the first "F" in FFL. Their license is Federal and they'd be arrested and tried by the Feds for not complying.

Again, it is saying that the state will not corporate with the feds. Yes it is sort of a sanctuary states. Over time Republicans do learn to use the enemies tactics against them. You want to just sit back and cry, go ahead, but this is a practical step that the Democrats can not whine to much about since they are doing it for illegals.

 

[Rez Exelon]

Again, it is saying that the state will not corporate with the feds. Yes it is sort of a sanctuary states. Over time Republicans do learn to use the enemies tactics against them. You want to just sit back and cry, go ahead, but this is a practical step that the Democrats can not whine to much about since they are doing it for illegals.

I don't see anyone crying around here --- this is called a discussion. Should a discussion be called crying I guess I'd have to put you in the snowflake box.

Either way, your argument is informative ---- because it is saying that the Republicans shouldn't be better than their opponents, they should sink to their level. That gives up any claimed moral high ground. It says "we know better but we'll do it the wrong way".

To me this is more of a states right's issue. I mean, the GOP used to be the party of state's rights, it's just that now it's the party of "States Right's only when it supports what I believe in". If CA wants to be a shelter for immigrants, cool. If MO wants to be a shelter for guns, cool. But it's BS to complain about one or the other. All or nothing here. Kind of the same thing as people saying they have personal freedom to do what THEY want with THEIR bodies in not wearing a mask and then turning around and saying other people can't do what THEY want with THEIR bodies if they want an abortion. But I digress.

Good for MO, but again, the action in practical terms is going to be a good idea but symbolic in nature unless there's more to it, and issues that Joe Average Rez can think of get addressed. Or, if you think I'm full of s*** then wait till it passes, and drag yourself up there, and start violating federal gun laws that are infringing upon you. You can be the test case to see how they reallllllly feel about.

 

[RickN]

Oh I know how they feel about it and if given half a chance the feds would toss us in jail and throw away the key. The point is, the state will not help them do it, and like with pot, enough states start saying no and the feds have to look at the problem again.

As far as sinking to the Dimocrats level, for years I believed as you do, that we should not. I think some people here might even remember me saying things like that. My feelings changed after seeing just how low they have sunk the last 4 years. Now they can kiss my hairy old A$$ and I will resist until I no longer can.

 

[OKCHunter]

I don't see anyone crying around here --- this is called a discussion. Should a discussion be called crying I guess I'd have to put you in the snowflake box.

Either way, your argument is informative ---- because it is saying that the Republicans shouldn't be better than their opponents, they should sink to their level. That gives up any claimed moral high ground. It says "we know better but we'll do it the wrong way".

To me this is more of a states right's issue. I mean, the GOP used to be the party of state's rights, it's just that now it's the party of "States Right's only when it supports what I believe in". If CA wants to be a shelter for immigrants, cool. If MO wants to be a shelter for guns, cool. But it's BS to complain about one or the other. All or nothing here. Kind of the same thing as people saying they have personal freedom to do what THEY want with THEIR bodies in not wearing a mask and then turning around and saying other people can't do what THEY want with THEIR bodies if they want an abortion. But I digress.

Good for MO, but again, the action in practical terms is going to be a good idea but symbolic in nature unless there's more to it, and issues that Joe Average Rez can think of get addressed. Or, if you think I'm full of s*** then wait till it passes, and drag yourself up there, and start violating federal gun laws that are infringing upon you. You can be the test case to see how they reallllllly feel about.

If CA wants to be a shelter for illegal immigrants then fine; just keep it in CA and don’t let them move into other states.

As far as Republican’s taking the high ground and not stooping to the tactics of Democrats, it’s time for the gloves to come off.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Does it define infringement? Does it define arms? ....

The definitions of "infringement" and "arms" are self evident, within judicial notice, and have been since the Constitution was ratified.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

So they are basically creating a sanctuary state for Missouri like most of the people on the boards here hate. I mean, it sounds like they are creating a "sanctuary state" for the 2A which is well liked here, but there's a certain amount of duplicity in saying how awesome that is when railing on liberal states for being "sanctuary states" for issues like illegal immigrants.
...

If you are talking about a sanctuary for illegal aliens verses a 2A sanctuary, you are trying to equate apples and toilet paper. The Second Amendment is protected in the Constitution. Illegal aliens are illegal in contravention of constitutional US law.

Woody

 

[chuter]

Republicans weren't whining about the concept of sanctuary states for illegals, they're whining about it being for illegals. Not the sanctuary concept.
If that tactic works for lib causes, why not use it for ours. I think Trump tried to withhold fed funds for those states but wasn't successful, so maybe it's a good thing to try.
And no, I don't want to be the test case.

 

[Dumpstick]

Either way, your argument is informative ---- because it is saying that the Republicans shouldn't be better than their opponents, they should sink to their level. That gives up any claimed moral high ground. It says "we know better but we'll do it the wrong way".

Let me tell you what I learned working for Our Crazy Uncle.

If you aren't willing to use the same tactics as the enemy is using, you have already lost the fight.

The Socialists are using Sanctuary City tactics because they work.

 

[ignerntbend]

All we'll need is a few gun dealers defying the ATF and the FBI in Missouri.
A few test cases. We'll see how it works out.

 

[Rez Exelon]

The definitions of "infringement" and "arms" are self evident, within judicial notice, and have been since the Constitution was ratified.

Really? I've never seen a definition in the Constitution for those. I even pulled it up and didn't see a list of definitions in there. We're in a country where a perhaps majority of people think that "AR" self-evidently stands for "assault rifle", and a good chunk of the populace considers mask mandates an infringement. So yeah, I really think definitions are important. If we were to just make assumptions about what "arms" was at the time of the framing, and considering that at the time, private citizens could own their own cannons, warships, and whatever else they could dream up, I suppose that means I could go get myself a Nimitz class carrier for a party boat --- or at least an A10 to cruise the skies.

If you are talking about a sanctuary for illegal aliens verses a 2A sanctuary, you are trying to equate apples and toilet paper. The Second Amendment is protected in the Constitution. Illegal aliens are illegal in contravention of constitutional US law.

Again, I'd like to know where in the Consitution illegal aliens are mentioned. Could you be so kind as to point it out?