Missouri Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Make AR-15 Ownership Mandatory

chicago assault weapons ban

Bigstock

Rep. Andrew McDaniel seems to be engaged in some master-level legislative trolling. The Missouri house member has introduced a bill that would mandate ownership of an AR-15 rifle by all Show Me State citizens over 21 years of age.

The Riverfront Times, St. Louis’s “alternative” newspaper, isn’t exactly thrilled by the idea.

While Missouri politicians have long tried to outdo each other over pro-gun legislation, the latest bill may be impossible to top — a law mandating that every Missouri resident aged 18 to 35 purchase an AR-15-style rifle.

No, this is not the Onion. And yes, that’s the very weapon targeted by gun reform activists and in an ongoing lawsuit filed by families of victims killed in the Sandy Hook massacre.

Introduced last month by state Representative Andrew McDaniel (R-Deering), the bill, titled the “McDaniel Militia Act,” would create a state tax credit (capped at $1 million annually) to function as an incentive for residents not yet strapped with Big Government’s preferred Big Gun — the AR-15. Purchasers could then claim the tax credit on up to 75 percent of the gun’s cost.

Heh.

The bill’s text states, “Any person who qualifies as a resident on August 28, 2019, and who does not own an AR-15 shall have one year to purchase an AR-15… Every resident of this state shall own at least one AR-15″ [emphasis added].

And that’s not even McDaniel’s only bill aiming to arm the masses: Two days before introducing his Militia Act, the Bootheel-area representative introduced the “McDaniel Second Amendment Act,” which “requires every person 21 years of age or older who can legally possess a firearm to own a handgun.”

That would make for whole a lot of gun sales, no?

Sadly for felons, who would probably would love to get in on this new proposal, the bill does carve out an exception; it only requires compliance from those who are legally permitted to possess firearms. And because of that, it’s hard to quantify how just how many gun purchases would result from the bill’s passage: According to state census data, Missouri holds about 1.5 million residents between the ages of 18 and 35, and about 4.5 million above the age of 21. Yet there’s no precise way to know how many would be legally barred from participating, much less how many Missourians already have an AR-15.

Lots. Missouri, after all, has extremely gun-friendly laws and is a constitutional carry state.

But don’t expect either of his bills to go anywhere. Look for them to be quietly buried by house leadership.

And while we certainly encourage every citizen who can own a firearm to exercise their Second Amendment rights if they choose, mandating that people buy an AR-15 — or any other gun — isn’t much better than passing a law that prohibits it.

comments

  1. avatar binder says:

    What would make far more sense is to provide AR-15s at state run armories. Have people check them out like library books. Perhaps they can get surplus M16 and M4s and swap out the lowers. Run ranges and provide a yearly ammo stipend. 10/22s with peep sights for the kids.

    1. avatar PaulB says:

      Actually, what they are proposing makes complete sense. One who is legally able to own a firearm shouldn’t need permission to check out a gun….

      1. avatar The Huscarl says:

        You need permission to borrow a gun if the gun doesn’t belong to you. I own plenty of books and don’t need the government’s permission to possess them. But if I were to take a book from a library without checking it out first, that’d be stealing.

      2. avatar Bill says:

        That’s Ignorant

        1. Move to California and shut the hell up!!!

    2. avatar rt66paul says:

      What he said. People should have the right not to have a gun, if they really do not want one or are pacifists. Forcing someone to have a gun is almost as bad as taking guns away. A lending library of sorts and gun ranges for the masses is the true spirit of the NRA.

    3. avatar Kenneth says:

      The problem with that plan is: it isn’t a militia. The entire purpose of a Volunteer Militia is to still have them available when the govt is unable(or unwilling) to provide for them. Thus, although having military arms readily available for check out(the way Switzerland does) is a great idea for training purposes, it cannot work to equip a militia. For a militia to fulfill its purpose, everything the individual needs in order to fight must be in his possession, at his home, ready at a minutes notice under any and all circumstances.
      The subsidized ammo(again, like the Swiss) is also a great idea. If one is to rely upon militia for defense, not only must they be ready at all times, no matter what, they must also practice enough to stay a viable force. This is why the Swiss provide shooting ranges and competitions, plus ammo at less than cost. But the subsidized ammo must all be shot up on the day of purchase, and the brass turned in, to make sure that people don’t just buy it up cheap, and then take it home to resell later at a profit.
      This is the origin of the anti’s lie that the Swiss require their people to account for the ammo they shoot. They just choose to leave out the part where it’s not ALL ammo, but only the subsidized stuff, that gets accounted for, to see that that ammo is used for practice as intended, instead of for profit.

      1. avatar Binder says:

        The point was so people would not have to make the initial investment to get the firearm, but still be able to train. One of the objections is going to be that the government is providing the funds for the firearm. Between people selling them and people claiming that they don’t own one, it is going to be a real mess. You would still encourage people to buy an AR, but giving them out for free is not the best idea in the world. Also I would love to see the CMP selling off the old M16s and M4 with “civilian” lowers.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          Well, that also cannot work without a major change in the NFA. A relowered M4 would still be an NFA item(even w/o the autosear hole) due to the 14.5 inch barrel length. OFC, one could silver solder and pin on an oversized flash hider or muzzle brake to bring it up to the 16 inch minimum to comply with the Statute, or rebarrel them. But that’ll just be more expenses. It wouldn’t be long before they’d cost more than a new AR.
          The militia thing could still be done. If this bill passes in MO as written, it Includes a 75% tax credit for buying the gun. The State(up to a one million USD cap) would reimburse you for 75% of the cost of complying with this Statute, should it pass. Also it is highly unlikely that anyone will actually buy a gun they didn’t want just to comply. Most likely it would include many ‘outs’ like “conscientious objector”, disablity, etc. Like Kennesaw GA, and the other local versions of mandatory gun ownership have included.
          Overall, the Swiss system seems the most sensible, so far. One year of mandatory military service, wherein the young man is taught to use, clean, and maintain his issued rifle, and then takes it home with him at years end when he musters out. Along with a sealed battlepack of ammo that he must keep with the gun at all times. That pack is never to be opened until it goes out of date, at which time it is to be turned in and traded for a fresh one. Criminal penalties for shooting up THAT ammo. The cheap, govt. subsidized, ammo is always there, at the range, for practice, but as I stated earlier, that ammo must be shot up on the spot.
          The battle pack is for when the Militia gets called up to protect whatever might be in danger. Minutes could count for a lot here. No time to waste finding a government depot with ammo that you can use, and getting it issued. The militiamen have it already. Thus, opening it to the air or shooting it up is a big no-no. It is for when it’s really NEEDED, not for whims. Emergency use only.
          This is why the Swiss have no need for a standing army. The entire population is the Militia, and is always available at a moment’s notice, no matter what the govt has, or doesn’t have, available to support them. The system that we are supposed to have, according to that musty old document nobody ever reads, the US Constitution.

        2. avatar Leslie says:

          @ Kennith.

          Switzerland DOES have an Army of ~92,000, also an Air Force and Navy.

        3. avatar Binder says:

          Kenneth has it right. The original plan was to have a central “regular” core. All this goes back to the British, where the regulars (knights) were supported by the militia (serf long-bowmen). The cool side effect was lower classes now had military training and weapons that could defeat the nobility. In addition the nobility was truly depended on the serfs not just for their wealth, but their military power.

        4. avatar Binder says:

          Also CMP already re-barrels M1s. I can’t see it costing more than $150-200 per gun in quantity to reconfigure. Also if you were really going to do it right, congress could easily wright in an exception for CMP M4s. You can already get a M1 delivered without an FFL

        5. avatar Kenneth says:

          Binder: But an M1 is a lot more valuable than an AR today, so there is lot more room to put money into one and still get it back at sale. When brand new ARs in a huge variety of configurations are available for as low as 500 bucks, how much room does that leave to put new barrels and lowers on them and still have it pay out?
          The best way would be to open the full auto registry, unfreeze the number of full autos, and then sell those M4s just as they are, auto sears and all. Then they’d be worth thousands instead of a few hundred. But fat chance of that. Many thought that could happen with Trump as President, but hopefully many of them have wised up to that lie now. They were expecting reciprocity and repeal of the NFA, and they got bump stock bans and red flag confiscation instead. Must be quite a letdown.

        6. avatar Karl says:

          Unsure where you guys are getting your info about Switzerland, but it’s outdated by a good 20 years. Conscripted active duty are not allowed to keep their guns when service is over, nor is ammo subsidized for personal use. In fact, being caught carrying ammo on your person off duty is a prison sentence, for active duty.

          Active duty is not allowed to take their weapon off base for any reason. In case of attack, you must report to your base and be issued a weapon and ammo. Private ownership of any firearm is severely frowned upon, like all of Western Europe.

        7. avatar Tom says:

          Binder, your comment about getting an M-1 without a FFL is incorrect, unless you have a “Curio& Relic” License…I purchased one from CMP last week, & they required that it be shipped to a FFL holder.

      2. avatar Matt Bougher says:

        Actually, the citizens are the militia. That is the common use of the term at the time the second amendment was written.

      3. avatar Ronald Morrison says:

        WTF would be the reason for this ridiculous proposal. According to the constitution, you should have a gun IF YOU BELONG TO A WELL REGULATED MILITIA. This country has the National Guard, which is the only well regulated militia recognized by the govt. The idiot who proposed this is in the pocket of the gun lobby. He is without honor; his only motive is personal profit down the line.

        1. avatar mike says:

          32 states curently have standing militias California called California state military Reserve is recognized by the Army and the National Guard as a supporting unit to both of them

        2. avatar John johnson says:

          RONALD MORRISON The man who wrote the Second Amendment,George Mason asked Congress,while explaining his Amendment,,”What is the Militia?” He then answered his own question,,”I TELL YOU ,IT IS EVERY ABLE BODIED MAN”” Kind of destroys your National Guard argument huh?? Get a clue,,Citizens in America have MORE rights to own and carry guns than ANY COP ,SOLDIER OR POLITICIAN. WE HAVE OUR OWN AMENDMENT,,,,SWISH,,GAME OVER

        3. avatar Montie Rumsower III says:

          You are absolutely wrong about the militia and gun ownership. Read the constitution for your self. The idea of only the organised militia having guns is wrong. The constitution calls EVERY man between 18 and 45 “the militia. The second amendment clearly states the right of the “people” mot the militia, to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

        4. avatar Toni says:

          agreed. The Militia IS EVERY ABLE BODIED MAN BETWEEN 18 AND 45. In fact it could be these days extended to women as well as part of the right to vote back then was tied with service to your country, eg being part of the militia and being able to be called upon by the local sheriff when needed. It was also tied to land and/or business ownership. This was for very good reason being part of what we see today not just in the US but around the world. It means that people who dont have a vested interest in the country doing well as a whole cant use the vote to force others who have worked harder than they are willing to to support them and their laziness/bad choices. Things like welfare, medicare/medicaid etc etc were an anathema as to them it meant that those who worked hard and made good choices were not forced to pay for the laziness and bad choices of others. No matter the system we all die eventually, it is the quality of life and the good or bad choices we make in the mean time that determine how long we live. Yes sometimes decent people go all too soon through no fault of their own but that is a fact of life.
          The other major problem with putting healthcare into the hands of the govt is it gives the govt another area of control over our lives. F that!!! My life and health or lack thereof is none of their damn business.
          If you think the vote should not be linked to your willingness to work to make the country better I would love to hear you suggest why. BTW, I am by no means wealthy, not even well off. I am more lower middle class and that is only because both my partner and i both work. I am also trying to build towards starting my own cash business (again screw the govt having anything to do with anything i do). A lot of jobs for others i do are done with barter as the currency. i have skills they need, they have things i need such as scrap steel etc with which i can make more.
          Last election (it is compulsory to vote here) I crossed out all candidates and wrote across the ballot not negotiable style “No Candidates Suitable To Follow My Will”. If enough people were to do so it would force a new election with none of the candidates that stood eligible to stand again. I dont support compulsory voting as it is a way for govt to force those not interested in the running of their country to assist in giving more power to the largest parties (another anathema to a free country as a parties main interest is to amass power to Force others to their vision).
          Yes i could go on for ages but in short if you wish to be called a citizen of a country you should be willing to serve your country and by that i dont mean being able to be sent overseas on some wild goose chase but being able and ready to serve and defend your nation if it is attacked. It also means being ready and able to help in case of house or forest fires, render first aid to others etc etc. Serving your country should never mean being FORCED to give up any part of the fruits of your labour so that those not willing to do their duty can have a slice of the cake

        5. avatar Ryan says:

          You’ve clearly bot bothered to research the accepted meaning of either, “well regulated,” or “militia.” Because the Army National Guard is neither.

        6. avatar Leslie says:

          That’s because in 3 June 1916, the Bureau of Militia was “Federalized” to become the “National Guard”…

        7. avatar Toni Smith says:

          Except that that makes it no longer a Militia but rather a military because now the govt controls it

        8. avatar Toni Smith says:

          Ronald. A Militia is not Govt run in any way shape or form. If it is Govt run it is Military. A Military’s members Must follow Govt orders or they can face severe consequences up to and including firing squad. The founders hated Govt controlled armies and viewed them as a great threat to liberty as they gave Govt too much power. They also viewed the banking systems in much the same way as through history money and banking have also been used to enslave a populace.

        9. avatar hicock says:

          The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . People meaning citizens of the United states of America. The state militia is to protect the state. Everywhere in the Constitution the word People mean citizens of the united states of America. It does not mean militia. The second Amendment names 2 rights not one. The people allow the state to have a militia and it also states that the citizens rights to arms shall not be infringed. Therefore the NFA and every gun law passed is unconstitutional and nullified and void.

    4. avatar John johnson says:

      Dont think its anything but a strong encouragement to act like a citizen,NOT A SUBJECT..Liberals who push gun theft from citizens should be forced under threat of prison to hand out government supplied battle rifles,Hand K mp7s and M16s to citizens FOR FREE.They should be forced to smile all the while or face a whip..SECOND AMENDMENT TREASON IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE

      1. avatar Toni says:

        agreed. Subject=Slave. Citizen=Free Man/Woman. Slaves throughout history and even in modern times (middle eastern and african countries still officially own slaves but the left does not like talking about that) get beaten, raped and forced to work in conditions that a free man or woman would find intolerable. the slaves may find it intolerable however they are given no choice in the matter and their will is not strong enough to rise above it. Those who become slaves who do have the strength and the will usually rise above and win freedom.
        TBH being a Free Man/Woman is in large part a state of mind, being self reliant and able to look after your own person, property, family and not leaving that to some “higher power”. This is why i take issue with the doctrine of many modern christian churches as they encourage the sheep/slave mentality not the strong, independent, self reliant mentality

      2. avatar Blu Anderson says:

        Amen, there are such great comments here about this possible law! I hope and pray it makes it, and passes! It has already been proven in Texas that WE THE PEOPLE carrying guns has stopped several people from killing as many people as they wanted to! I wish the liberals could be forced to hand out the guns too! I totally agree about treason as well! It is our RIGHT to have guns, it was written that way so the government could NEVER take control over we the people again! The ones who want guns banned should face trial, and punishment for even SPEAKING of taking our rights to own guns away! Sadly, it is people like us who have the majority, so why is it this small group of people are able to FORCE thier hideous ideas on us? We ALLLLLLLLLL need to stand strong and FORCE them to abide by our written laws! We need to STAND STRONG for our rights, and our country!

        1. avatar Brett Johnson says:

          So, you want the government to have minimal control over its citizens, and believe in freedom and autonomy from said government… but you also want people to be prosecuted for having views you don’t like…

  2. avatar Adam says:

    Hilarious. I live in MO. I can’t wait to tell some people I know. Heads will explode.

  3. avatar Brodirt says:

    I don’t think he’s a troll at all; he’s looking to make a home for displaced gun owners and businesses in his State. I could be very savvy.

  4. avatar Anchar says:

    I like this in spirit but am against gov forcing people to buy the product from a private company, so I would be against it. Opening a state armory and providing them 1 each for free to citizens would be better

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I like this in spirit but am against gov forcing people to buy the product from a private company, so I would be against it.”

      It will likely be structured like the Georgia town that passed a law mandating each home own a gun. That is, no charges or penalty for non-compliance.

      A great, big ‘Nothing-Burger’, but great political optics for sending a message…

  5. avatar The Real Chris says:

    My only objection is that the AR-15 is popular beyond how good it is as a rifle design. Just make a semi-automatic centerfire rifle mandatory so that people who own FALs, AKs and so on don’t have to buy an obligatory direct impingement design

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Good point.

      Now, how about specifying two or three different standard rifle calibers? The fun part: what would those calibers be?

      (A lot of people could make very strong arguments for 5.56 x 45mm NATO, 7.62 x 39mm ComBloc, and 7.62 x 51mm NATO.)

      1. avatar TommyJay says:

        If one takes the militia idea seriously, there definitely should be a few standardized calibers and a requirement to own one of those. Standardized mags would be nice too, but less important.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          Standardized mags and caliber would actually be easier to define legally than “AR15” (which is legally a trademark of Colt). Literally just have to copy-paste from NATO STANAG 4172 and STANAG 4179 respectively.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          A militia would benefit from standardization, but it isn’t necessary as it is with a standing army, since each member provides his own gear. When one has his own rifle, mags, and ammo, standard equipment is less important, since each member is responsible for his own gear and resupply. That almost makes standardized logistics irrelevant.
          A standard cartridge and magazine would still be nice. That way, if one member runs out in combat for whatever reason, he could just borrow some from another.

      2. avatar Made in America says:

        Jeeeeeezzzzz. You guys can never be satisfied. That won’t work because I need that and he needs that, blah, blah……………………………………..never f****** ends.

      3. avatar Your Worst Nightmare says:

        I’ll take my M-14 over those 5.56 peashooters ANYTIME !

    2. avatar Samuel Stewart says:

      Are you trying to suggest DI isn’t a good design?

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        The AR isn’t a true DI design. What it is, is a gas piston design wherein the gas is piped back to the piston instead of directly coupled. Since this system really has no official name, let’s call it: a Direct Impingement/Gas Piston hybrid.

    3. avatar Waldon says:

      For tactical purposes, I would prefer that all the good guys possess and use the same identifiably uniform weapons and visible outerwear. Also, I believe that the U. S. A. has an established precedent of the government requiring the militia to purchase some of the required equipment.

  6. avatar TweetyRex says:

    How dare he say that you must be responsible for your own safety, and the safety of your household! The nerve of the man to tell people they should be prepared to stand on their own feet, and not have to beg the State to come rescue them if there’s trouble! Off with his head!!

    1. avatar Mad Max says:

      The Gub’ment is for filling out paperwork; they’re not needed until after the DGU. 🙂

  7. avatar VicRattlehead says:

    Lol! I love it!
    Clearly the bill won’t go anywhere but it’s a blatent ‘spit in the face’ to the ENDLESS gun control supporters flooding the legislatures of every state with garbage gun grabbing bills.

  8. avatar CDMCKY says:

    I have SEVERAL “AR” rifles, in various calibers, and if “The Government” wants
    to “make” citizens own one (though it’s ridiculous) “They” should provide them
    to citizens, or make it very easy for those of small means to buy one.

    1. avatar OBOB says:

      its there if you read past 4 paragraphs… I know its hard work

      here ill help ya

      Introduced last month by state Representative Andrew McDaniel (R-Deering), the bill, titled the “McDaniel Militia Act,” would create a state tax credit (capped at $1 million annually) to function as an incentive for residents not yet strapped with Big Government’s preferred Big Gun — the AR-15. Purchasers could then claim the tax credit on up to 75 percent of the gun’s cost.

      1. avatar CDMCKY says:

        First of all – blow me, smart ass.

        Secondly, a “tax credit” doesn’t do much good if you don’t have the money to
        buy an AR-15 in the first place.

        Try to improve your reading comprehension, and you won’t make these
        stupid comments….

  9. avatar Patrick says:

    This whole “isn’t much better than passing a law that prohibits it” is kind of the point, or at least one of them.
    The disarmament supporters seem to think that what they want is “doing something”, even if it means stepping on some people’s rights. This law would be the moral inverse, trying to do something via a somewhat opposite action, even if it means stepping on rights.

    In practice, this law would likely save lives in the short run, not that this fact makes it ethical. If people see that the “pro-gun” side has no less of a utilitarian argument, they will realize (ideally) that the disarmament laws have neither a moral nor a practical advantage.

    Also, see Kennesaw, GA: They were pretty clear(if I recall) that no one would actually get in legal trouble by passively objecting and not purchasing. I don’t know if this law is actually intended to be enforced.

    1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      It was not intended to be enforced. The law was passed to spit in the face of Morton Grove, IL when they passed a ban on guns in the city limits. Here in Kennesaw, anyone who objects is considered a conscientious objector and isn’t required to own a firearm. By the way, violent crime here is way below the state and national average.

  10. avatar Mr. Savage says:

    There are at least counties that have already adopted “required by law to own a firearm” laws, and they are among the safest places in the country, the law is in place, but not enforced so to speak, criminals just don’t take chances in these places. Pass it! I bet the whole state gets just a touch safer, weather everyone owns one or not, the question in that criminals mind will still be present.

  11. avatar Michael says:

    Hell: Where everything not prohibited is mandatory. -30-

  12. avatar GS650G says:

    Not fair, I’ve got a .308.

  13. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Good Idea,,,!!!😃

  14. avatar FlamencoD says:

    This is just as stupid as outlawing them. The gov’t shouldn’t be able to take away our rights, nor should they be able to force us to purchase anything we don’t want to purchase. Ridiculous.

  15. avatar How_Terrible says:

    This bill is discriminatory towards AK owners. 🙁

    1. avatar JAKE D says:

      THAT’S ACTUALLY FUNNY…..

  16. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Force people to buy guns. Force everyone else, by way of the tax code backed by agents of the State with guns, to pay for it.

    Ahhh………the people of the gun. They aren’t so much for rights, for small government or for constitutional parameters. They’re just for, well, what they’re for. In this case, guns. It could just as easily have been health insurance, electric cars, or windmills.

    In principle, there isn’t a lick of difference between you and the statist liberals. The only difference is a mere practical difference between *how* you unconstitutionally and anti-individually wield the power of government to impose your will on others, not whether you do so. Thus, the issue isn’t whether we slide inexorably into Venezuelan-style socialist dystopia, but rather the rate at which we do so.

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      I think in principle most of us agree with you.
      The attractiveness of this bill (regardless of whether we actually want it to be implemented) is the ability to demonstrate the error in the assumptions that disarmament laws have some good utilitarian effect.

      Proponents of civilian disarmament are incorrect on both moral and practical grounds, not just moral.
      For example this one: “Children’s lives are more important than your gun rights.” implies that ignoring rights saves lives. In this case, it doesn’t.

    2. avatar RGP says:

      Correctamundo!

    3. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “In principle, there isn’t a lick of difference between you and the statist liberals.”

      Not so much.

      This law, unlike Leftist mandates, has no penalties for non-compliance.

      *Every* Leftist mandate has draconian penalties for non-compliance…

  17. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Missouri Lawmaker Introduces Bill to Make AR-15 Ownership Mandatory”

    Now this may be going a bit too far…talk about wild swings…

  18. avatar Matty 9 says:

    Government cannot force anyone to engage in commerce….uh…um
    ..wait, didn’t justice Kennedy step around that one with obama care??? Damn! Ok, I’ll comply.

  19. avatar Texican says:

    We’re all members of the militia so govt. promoting the means of natl. defense and providing tax incentives is constitutional. There could be language if you’re a conscientious objector so you wouldn’t have to participate but you’d have to pay a tax for not doing so. And you’d have to provide some other service if the militia were called to active service.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “There could be language if you’re a conscientious objector so you wouldn’t have to participate but you’d have to pay a tax for not doing so.”

      I’d be fine with that. As long as they penalize me for not buying their mandated ‘health insurance’, we can penalize *them* for their non-compliance.

      What’s good for the goose, etc…

    2. avatar Wesley York says:

      During the second world war the only reason that Japan did not continue their attack on to the mainland was the fact that too many Americans had guns and were not afraid to use them. That alone should be a good enough reason for gun ownership . Because no country that does not regulate guns can ever be taken over by an outside force or for that matter by their own government if they so wanted to, The key to freedom is that every person who wants to own a gun should be allowed to. Because if guns are allowed to be made illegal the powers that be will take away those rights guaranteed

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Great…another border state I could move to😋😄😊😏

  21. avatar Jeffrey Newbold says:

    MO citizenship should establish a president and support this bill; push both bills to become law for the State. Many of us would help with the fight. One State at a time, till the all comply.

  22. avatar RGP says:

    I don’t care what somebody else buys or owns but if he’s telling people what to do he’s as bad as any other useless politician and he can go straight to hell.

  23. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    I object to any law that would require me to buy an AR-15. Why not pass a law that requires me to buy a Yugo. About the same thing.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      As I mentioned below, this is actually explicitly constitutional at the Federal level. Congress is to provide for arming the militia and it is completely within the militia’s interest to standardize equipment.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Now here is a man who has actually read that musty old document, the US Constitution. Kudos to Nanishi. Very few have read it, and even fewer that understood it.

      2. avatar Jprotect&serve says:

        Legalese aside, I’m going to say this man is now endowed as Congress or at least being smart enough to give all those eligible for bearing arms the means to do so, in this process, every criminal now knows all these folks are packing and may gain a dab of respect. However, all is null and void when the seed of destruction is planted, fake news, poor educational system, and lack of genuine care, congressional members who oppose this legislation are in direct violation of their oaths to uphold the Constitution and should be prosecuted as applicable by 18 USC 241 by way of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 is a federal statute, numbered 42 U.S.C. It applies when someone acting “under color of” state-level or local law has deprived a person of rights created by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. Lawyers sometimes refer to cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

  24. avatar sound awake says:

    i applaud this
    the overton window aint going to move itself
    we have to move it
    this is how its done
    this aint no different than the government making people buy health insurance
    health insurance aint in the bill of rights
    the ar-15 is

  25. avatar B says:

    The pendulum swings both ways.

  26. avatar Nanashi says:

    Should be done Federally.

    “The Congress shall have Power […]

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      @ Nanashi.

      The “Militia” was disbanded in June of 1916 and reestablished as the National Guard.

      1. avatar Basszon95 says:

        Reference? I see where the national guard was established, but the militia disbanded? It looks more like a more disciplined version of the militia. Either way, my wife says I can’t have an AR because I splurged on a SCAR 17.

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        Militias are not created by governments, no matter what any govt claims. When one’s village is attacked, and the people of that area show up with knives and pitchforks(or ARs and cannon… their equipment is not relevant) to stop the carnage, THAT is a militia. The Statute only meant that the feds became unwilling to continue financing a militia, and chose to fund an army that they controlled instead. Not that militias ceased to exist.
        How is it even possible to “disband” a group of unpaid volunteers who just show up whenever they think they might be needed? The feds didn’t seem to have much luck “disbanding” the militia that showed up spontaneously at the Bundy ranch a few years back, did they?

        1. avatar Leslie says:

          @ Kenneth.

          You might try reading the “Dick-Militia Act” of 1903, to get that understanding of how it was done, and why it was done.

  27. avatar Mark H says:

    John Roberts basically said: the Government can force you to buy a product as long as they say it’s a non-compliance TAX.

    It’s BS, but that’s what the court ruled.

    And of course the bill is simply posturing.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Roberts’ statement on the matter is actually irrelevant here, at least on the federal level. Firstly it’s a tax discount, not a penalty that doesn’t say it’s a tax, which has much bigger fish. Secondly, as mentioned above Congress is to “provide for” arming the militia. Even were tax discounts for certain general actions unconstitutional, it’s significantly less likely using them to provide something Congress is explicitly given the power to provide would be.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Firstly it’s a tax discount, not a penalty that doesn’t say it’s a tax, which has much bigger fish.”

        Simple – We make it a penalizing tax, just like with what they did with health care.

        Instantly constitutional… 😉

  28. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Targeted” — means somebody has an opinion, not that they’re right.

    “Targeted” — means the tactic is to take “those people” out: calumny, extortion, starve them out, not convince them (or anybody else.)

    “Targeted” — here refers to individuals, entities, groups, not ideas, policies, or even technologies. Scapegoating, that is also called.

    “Targeted” — the irony in an anti-people screed is intentional, I hope.

    “Targeted” isn’t an argument. The people “targeted” are selected for elimination, not persuasion. It’s a fine plan when they can’t beat the pro-people’s argument: take them out and there’s nobody to say it. It’s also an admisssion that the anti-people don’t have an argument.

  29. avatar strych9 says:

    How about the government, other than regulating fraud and otherwise illegal activity, stays the fuck out of the private gun market?

    No infringement or incentives. Just leave it alone.

  30. avatar enuf says:

    Mandatory gun ownership is stupid.

    He should look for other ways of encouraging gun ownership.

  31. avatar Leslie says:

    Yeah, Right, not going to pass. IF it did pass, what the next step. Ordering People to pay more Taxes, or give up their property for the Greater Good for the State Missouri.

  32. avatar Some dude says:

    The bill should allow claim of one rifle, at no cost, by every citizen 18 or older legally qualified by background, to remain in the citizen’s possession with state ownership to preclude illegal sale.

    To solve the force issue it should provide an out for those who choose not to comply for reasons of religion or conscience, either moral or political, by their simply not acting to aquire, either for those reasons or out of lack of need due to personal ownership.

    Then, every state should do it.

    Unless it was really something special, I would rather just personally own than deal with the state…

  33. avatar Ralph says:

    This is almost as crazy as some lunatic law requiring Americans to buy something like, say, health insurance.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      *Exactly*.

      That makes it all the sweeter ramming it down their throats.

      We make them a deal – We don’t force you to buy a gun, you don’t force us to buy your shit health insurance.

      Goose, meet Gander…

    2. avatar enuf says:

      No, completely different. Everyone uses healthcare eventually. Everyone who pays for health insurance is subsidizing those who do not. This is one reason why it took Capitalists to invent the very concept of mandatory, market based, not-for-profit health insurance.

      The USA lost out on the “not-for-profit” and mandatory parts of it when we began copying the idea from Germany over a hundred years ago.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Everyone uses, to some degree or another, police protection brought to you by guns. Even if you never call them they stabilize society in a way that means you might not even need a gun of your own.

        Therefore everyone uses guns whether they want to or not. They subsidize the purchase of firearms via tax money creating a massive market to equip the government that helps drive the cost curve down for the private citizens who want the same/similar item.

        So, really, they kinda are the same. It’s only a matter of how much you want to torture the logic. Personally I prefer hot irons, thumbscrews and the rack.

  34. avatar AC says:

    In 1982 an ordinance was passed in Kennesaw, Georgia mandating that all able body adults (head of household) possess a firearm in their home. The ordinance exempted felons, the disabled and certain persons claiming a religious exemption but pretty much everyone else was required to own and keep a firearm in their home together with ammunition for that firearm. Now I’ll give you just one guess as to what happened to the crime rate involving home burglaries in Kennesaw, Georgia. Hint, that ordinance is still in effect today.

    I think we all know that criminals are for the most part cowards and will always seek to prey upon those that they perceive to be an easy target. And so if it is pretty certain in a criminal’s mind that there is a gun in the home that they wish to break into, the criminal knows that even an elderly person or a child is capable of mounting a very effective defense against a forced break-in with a gun in their hand and so the criminal will instead decide to in most cases to choose an easier (and less dangerous) target.

    Remember, the gun is the only weapon that is as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable. Guns in the hands of honest law abiding citizens save lives… Period!!!

  35. avatar possum says:

    I don’t live in Missouri ,and don’t care much for an AR15, but if I did and that law passed I’d be tickled shitless. Now back to that game of chess, funny how some States are filling the country with fine diversity and other States are forming militias? Perhaps there’s something going on that has escaped my vision.

    1. avatar Congreve says:

      @ Possum

      As I recall, in the Unregulated Militia, you don’t get paid for your services.

  36. avatar Pax says:

    I’m against the government requiring th purchase of anything. Rifles, health insurance, whatever. I’ll decide what I want and don’t want to purchase with my hard earned money.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Government should require the purchase of just a very short list of things.

      1. Health Insurance, and from a not for profit company required by law to leave doctoring to doctors. No more insurance company death panels!!!

      2. Pants that fit you, with a belt. Show several inches of undershorts or butt crack and you will be forced to wear suspenders and possibly electronic monitoring for repeat offenders.

      1. avatar Daniel Davis says:

        The Government should not require anything… The Government is supposed to work for the people, not instruct or direct the people…

  37. avatar borg says:

    The Missouri government would need to provide AR15 rifles to those on fixed incomes or are otherwise too poor to afford them.

  38. avatar borg says:

    The right to keep and bear arms implies the right to refuse to keep and bear arms.

  39. avatar Congreve says:

    I’m sort of curious to know how Missouri plans too FORCE people to take the mandatory Shooter Training Courses required for Gun Ownership. Even to those that DON’T what the Firearm.

  40. avatar Leslie says:

    If the state of Missouri makes me purchase an AR-15, I think it’s only fitting that ALL Training Cost, Ammunition Cost and Maintaining Costs are deductible from State Income Taxes.

  41. avatar Toni says:

    personally i am against the idea of the govt forcing you to do anything…. even military service though i do see a genuine need for it and it is beneficial to society in a multitude of ways. what i would suggest instead of taxes for those refusing to serve in the militia would be that they must serve part time in one of the emergency services as a volunteer, eg assisting paramedics/ambulance, fire departments, State emergency services, etc. if they refuse to do any of those then when they have a time of need they are on their own

  42. avatar Roger J says:

    I don’t like AR’s. Will my 4 FN’s suffice?

  43. avatar TheSophist says:

    Some of y’all are completely missing the point of the legislative trolling. It moves the Overton window to establish where the “radical gun nuts” are. Since the grabbers are so into talking about common sense reforms and compromises, this kind of stuff gives our side something to compromise, and gives us room to agree that requiring AR15 ownership is not common sense, but Constitutional Carry is common sense.

    We really need more such trolling bills, not less. Otherwise, suggesting that standard capacity magazines are standard capacity makes one a radical gun nut.

    1. avatar D. Lee says:

      The Sophist.

      Finally, someone else understands the reason for this bill.
      Too many comments/complaint it’s NOT right, NOT constitutional, NOT feisible, too difficult to enforce.
      I guess the Missouri lawmaker forgot to turn his sarcasm button on.
      Back when the constitution was written, able bodied men were expected to supply their own weapons of war. Today “the people” are prohibited from owning weapons of war.
      How far we have fallen.

    2. avatar Mr. Lucky says:

      I quote Laura Marsh of the New Republic: “The more divided we become, the harder it is to locate the Overton Window, let alone move it. There is now a window of policies that are acceptable to the Republican base, and another for Democrats, but on the national level, there is no window. Instead of a consensus edging one way or another, we have a choice between two poles. The Overton Window is ultimately a name for what we have lost, not an indication of where we are headed. Its popularity today represents a powerful nostalgia for the center. It doesn’t help us overcome fragmentation or rebuild a consensus. Its attractiveness lies in its reassurance that a middle ground once existed.”

  44. avatar John Ziemba says:

    We just need more CONTROL of our government mostly Democrats got out of hand Democrats are brainwash the people on guns Every single 2020 Democrats candidate wants to strip Americans of their right to to 2nd Amendment Democrats using gun restrictions to CONTROL AMERICANS Means This is a classic example of history repeating it self same seriario before the Nazis came to power NOW Democrats has the Nazis on there side

  45. avatar David says:

    I want to move to Missouri now. I didn’t know it was Constitutional Carry state.

    On the other hand the right to “keep and bear”– and OWN, for that matter– contains and is inseparable from the right NOT to do so. Any time an action is made mandatory, it ceases forthwith to be a right.

  46. avatar Don says:

    Mandatory ownership/possession of firearms is just as stupid as taking away guns!! It should remain an individual’s choice. And what about the low and middle income families who have a tough enough time making ends meet without the added financial burden of having to buy a gun to comply with the law? Kind of makes you wonder if this congressman owns stock in a few firearms manufacturing companies.

    1. avatar Leslie says:

      It’s not mandatory, but a Tax Credit to those not already possessing firearms…

    2. avatar JAKE D says:

      It’s just the opening salvo to get a conversation moving. They know that there are just to many variables in a blanket mandatory law like this.

  47. avatar Joe Snell says:

    I would instead propose the cap of how ever many millions they want to allow for one AR15 per legal owner at a cap of so many dollars per person. That way noone is forced to buy something they don’t want, and those who do may have the opportunity to do so.

  48. avatar Gunther Schadow says:

    I’m surprised this writer doesn’t see how much sense this would make. Every able bodied man of fighting age should have a rifle (and then some) to be a member of the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state, just as the constitution had intended. And yes, that private ownership of the arms is critical, not some “state armory where you can check out guns like from a library”. It is the self reliant individuals who give legitimacy to the government, not the other way around.

  49. avatar Jimmy Criddle says:

    That should be a federal law along with a large stock pile of AMMO

    1. avatar Toni Smith says:

      maybe a citizenship requirement. service rifle and at least 1000 round of ammo on hand at all times and to be part of an active militia unit… as opposed to military

  50. avatar Daniel Davis says:

    The Government needs to stay out of everybody’s lives and quit trying to mandate that anybody do anything against their will.

  51. avatar borg says:

    The right to own a firearm implies a right to chose not to as well.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email