Defensive Carry banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,296 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Last Friday, Governor Jay Nixon (D) signed into law House Bill 533, critical self-defense legislation. Sponsored by state Representative Jeanie Riddle (R-49) and state Senator Brian Munzlinger (R-18), this new law will protect the right of a state employee to store a firearm in his or her private vehicle on state property as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. Additionally, it will prohibit any government entity from using tax dollars to participate in a gun “buyback” program unless the firearms are resold or transferred to a federally licensed firearms dealer. This law will take effect on August 28, 2013.

House Bill 533 passed by overwhelming majorities in both legislative chambers, and many thanks go to those elected officials who voted in support of state employees having the right to keep a firearm locked in their vehicle while at work so that they may provide for their self-defense when commuting to and from work. Please contact Republican state Representative Jeannie Riddle, state Republican Senator Brian Munzlinger to express your appreciation for their work and support to strengthen your inherent right to self-defense.

Missouri House of Representatives

Representative Jeanie Riddle

Senator Brian Munzlinger
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,007 Posts
:congrats::congrats::congrats:
 
  • Like
Reactions: blitzburgh

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,444 Posts
That pretty close to home. What comes around goes around. Good job, neighbors!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Wow, Jay Nixon finally did something right...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
May I ask a question about the buy back condition? I've seen this push more than once, and I'm curious as to why it's seen as so important. Firstly, who cares if the gun is destroyed? Why is that important enough to legislate? As well, since buybacks are usually "no questions asked" (right?), who will ensure that the dealer is not receiving a firearm that was previously used in a crime?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
May I ask a question about the buy back condition? I've seen this push more than once, and I'm curious as to why it's seen as so important. Firstly, who cares if the gun is destroyed? Why is that important enough to legislate? As well, since buybacks are usually "no questions asked" (right?), who will ensure that the dealer is not receiving a firearm that was previously used in a crime?
Because it basically stops the government from using our tax dollars to buy something with the sole purpose of destroying it; that's wasting money and there's no legitimate reason that the weapon cannot be brought back into the "legal" market. The authorities check to be sure that the gun isn't stolen, but to the best of my knowledge they are checked for ballistic matches against guns used in crimes as that would be cost prohibitive. It's fairly irrelevant if the firearm was used in a crime before it was resold to the dealer. If it had been used in a crime, it still has a legal paper trail that takes places after that crime, so it's not like the new owners will get accused of an act that took place before they had possession of the firearm.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
If it had been used in a crime, it still has a legal paper trail that takes places after that crime, so it's not like the new owners will get accused of an act that took place before they had possession of the firearm.
Yeah, duh, brainfart on my part. You're obviously correct. As long as there's a papertrail, I guess.
Is the reasoning mostly "buying something to destroy it is just a waste of money"?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Yeah, duh, brainfart on my part. You're obviously correct. As long as there's a papertrail, I guess.
Is the reasoning mostly "buying something to destroy it is just a waste of money"?
Yes, basically. It prevents the state from declaring a war on "firearms" with tax dollars. They can declare a war on illegal firearms, but they cannot turn around and destroy that property simply because they want to keep people from owning firearms. They can reintroduce those items back into the legal realm, but they can't destroy them simply to destroy them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
916 Posts
Jeanne and Brian are two of the most dedicated 2nd Amendment supporters you could ever want. They not only "talk the talk", they "walk the walk". They are fantastic individuals to know. They are also two examples of why term limits really suck!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Mo resident here. Nixon signed this bill to pander to the gun rights crowd after having vetoed the much stronger and better hb 436 that weird have nullified federal law. Don't be fooled, Nixon is an enemy of the second amendment.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top