State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (courtesy cbsstlouis.com)

Gun control organizations claim they support Americans’ protected right to keep and bear arms. When spreading their lies and disinformation they say “We support the Second Amendment but -” Whatever infringement follows is “common sense.” Must prove a need to anti-gun bureaucrats to bear arms? Common sense! Sixteen hours of mandatory training? Common sense! Prohibited from carrying more than seven rounds in a handgun? Common sense! And now . . . “A proposed state law in Missouri would make it a crime for parents or guardians not to tell school officials if they have guns in their home . . . If passed into law Missouri State Senate Bill 549 (reintroduced from last year) could slap parents with a $100 fine if they didn’t tell their children’s school about their gun.” noarmycanstopstupid.com doesn’t point out that the bill doesn’t stand a chance in the legislature. It doesn’t. Even so, listen to the rhetoric . . .

This is the second time State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-District 14, St. Louis) has introduced the legislation. The same law was introduced last year as Senate Bill 124 but it never got anywhere. She introduced the newest version in December.

“I am not trying to take away the gun rights of any parents or any other citizens. I believe in the Second Amendment,” Chappelle-Nadal told a St. Louis TV station when the bill previously was introduced. The senator said she was trying to stop school violence and crimes like carjacking.

She believes in the Second Amendment but – she doesn’t. It’s as simple as that.

Recommended For You

112 Responses to Missouri Bill Reveals Gun Control Endgame. Again. Still.

  1. Thank you for pointing out that in MO this has a snowflake’s chance in hell of going anywhere. It does show that evil statistic who want to rule with iron manacles are located everywhere though.

  2. Ok, so she wants public schools to be the gun registration…. Right. I have taught my daughter to stfu about any items we may or may not have in the home. It’s bad enough handguns in MI have to be registered with local police within 10 days of purchase.

      • Move north two states. We have to fill out that stupid federal form, then go home with a gun…unless we buy private party, in which case it’s a good idea to show each other IDs and CPLs, to ensure it’s not an interstate sale or a sale involving a prohibited person, before handing over some cash and going home with a gun.

        • There are plenty of private sales in south central LA, Chicago, NYC, etc. The serial numbers and IDs are optional, and cold hard cash is the only requirement. Let us not forget that laws do not prevent transfers, they simply re-direct buyers to the black market.

  3. They try … They try.

    How about a law that says you can’t introduce a substantially identical bill for three or four years?

    Or a constitutional amendment that mandates a sunset provision for all laws other than those set down in the constitution? That way only the worthwhile ones will get renewed, and it provides a natural cap on the number of laws. (Oh, yeah, ban amendments on bills, also, or at least those that have no substantial relevance.)

      • ..how about a law that relates the number of bullets we can carry in our guns…(in Missouri)…to the number of Bills the Missouri Senate can pass in a year…if the “Load limit”…is 7 rounds…they can only pass 7 new bills or laws…take one away for having to pass a budget…and they are down to only 6 bills they can pass…!!

        RJ O’Guillory
        Author-
        Webster Groves – The Life of an Insane Family

    • I also like the sunset for all bills. Congress would be too busy doing their job than trying to pass BS legislation all of the time. Plus it would shrink the giant book of laws over time.

    • I know some of the Founders (Jefferson, I think in particular) supported all laws expiring every so often and then having to be put up to a vote again.

    • The automatic sunset could be bad (but is still probably much better that the current system), because somebody would stick a rider on the bill to renew the ban on child molestation that gives special subsidies to his favorite campaign donors.

      Here’s my plan (JasonM 2016!):
      1) No riders on bills.
      2) Require a super majority (say 80%) in each house (or the one house for any unicameral state), and the signature of the executive to pass a bill into law. I don’t know who came up with the 50% +1 idea, but it’s idiotic.
      Ban on murder, rape, arson, assault, fraud, theft: pass.
      Ban on guns, consensual sex, drugs: fail (unless those things turn out to be as detrimental to society as their detractors claim).
      Federal Reserve, TARP, income tax, subsidies to Monsanto, et al: fail.
      NSA spying, CIA torture, global hegemony, presidentially approved drone murders: fail.
      3) Line item veto at each stage. (E.g. the senate can pass three provisions of a bill, while the house passes all four, only the three that both houses approve go to the president, and the president can sign all, none, or some of those three).
      4) To repeal any law, or part, requires one of two things:
      4.a) A legislator who wishes to repeal the law reintroduces the bill as a renewal act. If it fails to make it through the system, the original is repealed.
      4.b) Some group collects signatures and gets the law placed in the next plebiscite. If it fails to get 80% approval from voters, it is repealed.

      • >> The automatic sunset could be bad (but is still probably much better that the current system), because somebody would stick a rider on the bill to renew the ban on child molestation that gives special subsidies to his favorite campaign donors.

        There is a trivial workaround here – before introducing any amendments etc, the congressmen shall vote for the bill exactly as it is on the books already, with a deferred starting date. If the subsequent discussion, amendments etc results in a consensus and a new version of the bill within a reasonable timeframe, than that subsumes the one they voted on originally. But if not, then the original just goes back into force. This way people can vote down any riders with impunity knowing that they won’t be blamed for supporting the main bill (since they have already voted for that).

    • I prefer this scenario: There is a maximum limit to the number of laws that can be on the books at any one time, say 2,000 (for argument’s sake), and a maximum number of regulations that can be created regarding those laws (say ONE, for argument’s sake). If any legislature max’s out their quota of laws or regulatory agency runs out of room for regulations they must find and discard a previous law/regulation before they can enact the new one.

      • I think most of us can agree that the maximum has been exceeded long ago! Hence my “pass one, repeal two” stipulation.

  4. She’s from a very liberal district in St. Louis, not Jefferson City.

    And you are correct, this has less than zero chance in Missouri. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if the state is more pro-gun after this session.

  5. It is disturbing that she thinks this will stop carjackings. I guess if we register our adult toys with the schoolboard they could stop all kinds of sexual crimes as well.

  6. As long as parents also have to document and serialize any kitchen knives, baseball bats, fireplace utensils, pool cues and frying pans, I’m all for it.

    • Don’t forget they need to let the schools know if they have a swimming pool. Cause more drownings occur in homes with pools than homes without.

      • More kids die from drowning in buckets, bathtubs, pools and drinking chemicals from under the sink.

        Dying from accidental gun related incidents is at the bottom of the list.

        This is according to the CDC web site.

  7. Common sense is being able to read “shall not be infringed” and seeing that it is a period at the end of the sentence, no asterisk involved.

  8. [sarcasm on]
    But… but… it’s for the children!
    [sarcasm off]

    Hello 1984! Yet another example of Orwellian politics.

  9. “If passed into law Missouri State Senate Bill 549 (reintroduced from last year) could slap parents with a $100 fine if they didn’t tell their children’s school about their gun.”

    How about senators being slapped with a fine whenever they waste time by reintroducing a bill already proven to have no support. Maybe a single dollar paid to each voter in their district.

    • Members of Congress tried to overturn Obamacare 42 times, without success. Would you have them fined, all of them, for each instance beyond the first, or is this rule only for people trying to do stuff you disagree with?

      • Most of those bills, if I am not mistaken, originated in the House where they had support and did pass. It was the Senate that refused to consider them. Refusing to consider is a separate issue from outright lack of support within the body, as consideration decisions are made by a tiny sunset of the overall body, namely the majority’s leadership.

        Maybe the no-support standard should be split between those bills whose policies simply have no current support, and those bills whose policies are patently unconstitutional, such as this one. Then again, those determinations and the authority to act on them are already within the power of the electorate. So maybe our focus should start there and not with new rules in the legislature.

      • Obamacare repeal efforts had a reasonable amount of support and were driven by a purpose.
        What was the purpose behind the gun reporting bill again? Oh yeah–preventing car hijackings.
        I’d like to know how informing the school about guns I own would reduce car hijackings.
        Anyway you’re right–I’m being foolish. Responding to foolish suggestions with an equally foolish suggestion. Sarcasm maybe?

        • In other words… if you like a law that is symbolic and has been shown to be unable to pass, it’s fine. But if you don’t agree with it, BADDDDD!

          Quit doing mental gymnastics and figure out a position.

        • “Sarcasm maybe?”

          Perhaps, but I’ve seen suggestions like this before, so I was speaking just as much to them as to you. Often people get upset and propose responses that sound great until they realize that they may someday be turned against them. Kinda like the filibuster rule in the Senate, and its recent modification. When someone you agrees with uses it, it’s a righteous exercise of keeping the majority from running roughshod over the minority, but when you’re in the majority, it’s an egregious affront to the rules of order that one man can stop the entire process that the majority is clearly in favor of. Reid exercised the “nuclear option” of changing the rules of the filibuster for political appointees to this administration’s benefit, but I think it’s going to come back to haunt the Dems when the ‘pub’s gain control again. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent that the majority can change the basic parliamentary rules whenever it likes, which will have implications far beyond the end of the current administration. He broke the détente, in other words.

          I got off on a tangent there, but you get the idea. I’ve heard the “fine them” thing before, but I’ve also heard things like “if a law they passed is later found to be unconstitutional, the politicians who voted for it should be fined/jailed/thrown out of office.” Again, sounds great if you disagree with what they’re doing, but not so much if you agree. And who wants to bet on the vagaries of what the courts will do? What if it takes a decade to work its way to the USSC, and the guy who voted for it back then was a brand new freshman Congressman who didn’t know any better and was operating under the guidance of the party leadership? Do you still throw him out, ten years later?

          Your sole recourse lies in voting them out of office, as long as the rule of law is how we do things.

        • “What was the purpose behind the gun reporting bill again? Oh yeah–preventing car hijackings.”

          Preventing carjackings by parents of schoolchildren, actually.

        • @Matt: The “fine them” remark was a facetious and sarcastic response to Chapelle-Nadal’s eagerness to levy fines willy-nilly by creating whimsical law. Sort of like throwing her own snowball back at her. Sarcastic levity–on my part. I’ll shut up now.

  10. The senator said she was trying to stop school violence and crimes like carjacking.

    LOL! How in the hell would reporting to school officials that you have a gun would prevent carjacking!! OMG! that is funny.

    Here is my theory, just as many PD have to fill a quota on tickets (despite what they say, there is evidence that some do ) — I assume in order to keep your DNC membership card democrats have to try and get a certain number of stupid bills out so as to get media attention.

    • The senator said she was trying to stop school violence and crimes like carjacking.

      LOL! How in the hell would reporting to school officials that you have a gun would prevent carjacking!! OMG! that is funny.

      What was that phrase we all hated in math class? “Show your work!”

      Register your guns with the school –> [unspecified miraculous process]–> school violence and carjackings end

  11. Does she, or does she not, look like a deranged Easter Bunny (without ears, of course)?

    But, I digress.

    Has the Easter Bunny thought this through? I mean, if her bill passed, and the school had the information that there was a legal firearm in your home, then what? Do they expel your child out of an abundance of caution? Do they apply Zero Tolerance and have your child arrested either for talking about the gun in school in the first place, which is terrorism, or for possessing the knowledge that there is a gun in your home but not telling them about it earlier, which is just like terrorism? Do they reroute the school buses, move any nearby bus-stops, and close the sidewalks to all schoolchildren within 1000′ of your house? [And what is it about bullets that makes them go no further than 1000′ if there is a school nearby?] Do they give you a trespass warning, search your child every day before school, or what? Does your child have to undergo mandatory bicyclogical [misspelled intentionally to denote extreme skepticism about such witchcraft] before being allowed to attend public school? Does the school publish on the Interwebs your name, your child’s name, your address and vehicle information as a warning to others of just how dangerous you and yours are? Does this also go in a newsletter given to every child to take home? Do you get regular visits from Child Protective Services and local law enforcement to make sure you aren’t abusing your child by exposing them to naked underage foreign ideologically unsound firearms?

    Imagine all the possibilities!

    Maybe those were to be the next steps after the bill passed.

      • They are poor citizens and a drain on society, because their only job is to produce offspring for the good of the nation, either to take part in the social safety net handout system and thus perpetuate its existence, or to become a producer and thus support those who are in the system.

  12. I think what you have is a basic issue of cognition. The socialist sees the world in a series of feel-good Polaroid moments, produced mainly to announce or reaffirm something about themselves, something which is usually emotionally based. That there are and more importantly will be consequences, or what we might more simply refer to as a trajectory is more than invisible to them. They live in a make believe world where there is no ‘How’ or further implications beyond how special some pin headed initiative makes them look and feel.

  13. oh look, a minority female democrat with hyphenated last name. I’m sure she will be open to other people’s opinions on this issue.

    • I tried to find something wrong with this statement, because it just sounds so impolitic.

      But I just can’t. Friggin’ spot on.

    • Yeah, really. I’m sure she never got her way outside of talking over everyone else or charging the race card. What’s the line of credit on those things? I’m eligible for one, but I declined offers for it so I don’t know.

    • SHe is not married. She didn’t get the hyphen from that, she was born with it. she is also childless. as for her liberal district, there is a crack house across the street from her (she admitted it on a live debate when this bill was up before hand) and for the life of me, I cannot fathom her logic. Anyway, she has a lot of crazy $hit she comes up with every year. Of course, if she spent more time worrying about her diet, she might be married, with kids and recognize the stupidity of her proposal (which will never get out of committee)

  14. Where in the Lords good name do these people come from??
    Alpha Centuri???
    Next thing she will want to know is when you pass gas at home.
    Good grief Charley Brown!!!

  15. Esteemed TTAG readers; this surprises you? This is the face of what our American future portends. Modern liberalism rejects the competence and sovereignty of the common man and subordinates him to the will of governments run by Democrat/Liberal/Socialist elites. America’s twentieth century capitulation to this philosophy is obvious–and the implications for liberty are ominous.

  16. Locate, close with and recall. Send another “message” to the “elected” representatives. Create a “problem”. Bombard her fax machine. Ask her why she’s fiddling with an individual right, instead of restoring school busing. Why no tax reduced zones for business?

    Far more effective than cold dead hand speech.

  17. POLITICIANS are stupid and to think they would not get something passed is to say they might get something right. Every body needs to call and write their reps until they drown in paper, e-mails and or ink and stop the attack on OUR rights. Stupid seems to be the only constant in politics that can only be fixed by holding them accountable.

  18. Hi, I’m Billy’s dad. Just wanted to say I have several items in my house worth stealing to resell or that could prove dangerous in the wrong hands. Also, here is my ATM pin… I assume your secure records database is at least as good as Target. Derp.

  19. For all those saying that this a zero chance, I’d just like to
    point out that 50, 20 even 5 years ago many were regarded
    as tinfoil-hatters when we warned of impending crazy.

    Don’t dismiss this just because it CURRENTLY has little
    chance of passing. Instead take it as a serious threat.
    This state senator needs to be openly and forcefully
    confronted on every single misstep in her logic.

  20. This proposed legislation is beyond retarded. There must be a point in doing that. Is it so there will be totally idiotic things that can be dropped so that perhaps a partial idiotic piece of legislation may have a chance?
    Lets say for the sake of argument that law was in effect and Little Willies parents notified the school they have an AR15, AK47, a .22 rifle, a .40 Glock and a shotgun in the home. Then what? Little Willie will be profiled? The school will keep an extra good eye on Willie to see if he is in a bad mood? Lets face it, most houses have some sort of gun in them, so 90% of they kids would have to be watched??
    The idiots in the schools can’t even prevent bullying and ignore it when they do see it so now they are going to do…..what?

    • The only point of legislation like this is so that she can report to her democratic chairperson at the local, state and national level what a good party soldier she is — 2014 will be a big war with both sides supporting candidates for their agendas and the democratic agenda for the democrats is once again gun control.

      Really, often these things are done on purpose to make news — it is so they can say that they are “tough on gun control” without actually passing a single bill.

      Often it is simply PR or to gauge reaction — sometimes it is simply because those people are truly stupid.

      In some ways in politics, it is a way of doing something without doing anything because you can blame the other side for not bringing a “common sense” bill to the floor. Politics is more about optics and getting re-elected than actually serving the people. This is simply one more reason in a long list of reasons of why people hate politicians.

      • I swear to god this “common sense” shit is about to make me puke. ALL OF THE COMMON SENSE crap is “common nonsense” The term “common sense” is nothing more than the anti-gun idiots trying to spoon feed the uninformed sheep people garbage!

    • “The idiots in the schools can’t even prevent bullying and ignore it when they do see it so now they are going to do…..what?”

      They don’t even want to prevent bullying. They may talk a good game, but it’s a charade and a lie. They want control to prevent bullying, but it’s not to prevent bullying; they just want the control.

  21. Ok, fine, how’s this for the wanna be representatives? — If you want to run for congress or the house or the senate, on the state or federal level, you must provide – for full public view – your entire income statement. We want to know ALL of your sources of income. Then, we want to know WHERE you are spending all of that money.

  22. The bill stands about as much chance of passing here in Missouri as a snowball has of not melting in Hades. It’s just pointless political theater. We all know it. Will make her supporters feel like she is “doing something.” She should spend her time trying to figure out why the University City area of St. Louis she represents has such a high rate of random acts of violence and crime, and no, it is not because little Billy and Susy’s mommy and daddy are not reporting their firearms at homes to their school.

  23. the Supremes have already ruled you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself, so that eliminates all unlawfully owned guns from being reported.

    Now they should make this a key amendment to the educational funding bill this year. when it gets voted down because of this amendment , perhaps the educational establishment would go back to their primary purpose, bankrupting the taxpayers!

  24. I fail to understand how telling the school that you (a parent) own guns is going to prevent anything. Are they going to give those particular children pat downs every time they go to school? Are they going to be treated differently because their parents own guns?

    • Yes, they are. If a threat is ever called in or suspected, those kids will be the ones pulled out of line for searches and questioning, first.

  25. ok, so here are the bills she has $HIT out, I mean sponsored so far:

    http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/bts_web/sponsoredby.aspx?SessionType=R&legislatorid=440

    Notice Senate Bill 563, which and I quote “SB 563 – This act creates a Class B misdemeanor for employers who transmit an employee’s or customer’s name on a public address system or provides an employee’s work schedule or personal information to another. Employers are barred from evicting, harassing, dismissing, or retaliating against employees and patrons that have reported violations of the crime.”

    Now does anyone see the irony between what Sen Krispy Crème is pushing against us, but instead it is ok to punish others for this type of behavior?

    Even better, let’s look at what she sponsored last year in 2013 and ask, what actually passed? http://www.senate.mo.gov/13info/bts_web/sponsoredby.aspx?SessionType=R&legislatorid=440

    What about 2012? http://www.senate.mo.gov/12info/bts_web/sponsoredby.aspx?SessionType=R&legislatorid=440

    Or 2011? http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/bts_web/sponsoredby.aspx?SessionType=R&legislatorid=440

    In the law, everyone has a 6th Amendment Right to counsel, and one of the ways that criminals push for new trials is “ineffective assistance of counsel”. I really hope that someone in the Univ. City area (a local ring suburb if St Louis) wakes up and petitions the state legislature for help given how ineffective this fat piece of dung has been. Oh, BTW – I am Black so she cannot scream racism. 🙂

    Watch the video and enjoy the look of crazy: http://www.senate.mo.gov/media/13info/Chappelle-Nadal/Video.wmv

    $20 says she knows where the best buffets in the state capital are

  26. I feel like there should be a way to punish electoral officials that do stupid crap like this, but I don’t know how. I know, “voting,” but that doesn’t work thanks to the system that has been rigged over the decades to make sure that incumbents can basically do whatever they want and still get elected. I feel that if districts were square boxes uniformly distributed by population we wouldn’t have as many of these idiots as we do.

  27. “yesser mr. principle sir, we got a fair few firearms at home, and Jr. knows how to use em.
    so don’t piss him off till the teenage angst/hormone bit settles down”

  28. University City–liberal bastion and solid demokratic voting bloc

    Since the bill has no chance of passing they will fall back on something else

    In totalitarian societies….
    children are encouraged to report their parents transgressions against the regime–

    just sayin

  29. This is little more than political posturing to score brownie points in her district. She’s a known wing-nut in StL What I don’t get is how reps like her manage to get elected past the first term.

    What is really needed is the STFU Act that prevents assinine “make a statement” bills that not only have zero chance but will never survive a court challenge.

  30. Gun control is death by a thousand cuts. All she needs to do is keep reintroducing it, and pick up one more vote here and there. Then, when something does happen where a homicidal Prozac patient uses a gun, any gun, to kill some kid somewhere she’ll trot out her “legislation” to the hysterical masses and claim that her failed bills would have prevented the tragedy.

    You can polish a turd, and you can turn coal into diamonds. All it takes is time and constant, unrelenting pressure.

    Sheep need a shepherd, and the wolves are lining up to take the job.

  31. There are NO anti gun laws in this country that pass Constitutional muster. The article is correct…..anytime one of these condescending fools begin the argument with, “I believe in the Second Amendment but….” the former is a lie.
    It sounds like this women is wanting to put into effect more anti gun laws to ignore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *