Missouri Republicans voting to legalize owning machine guns, and it will likely pass

A new bill confronting Missouri lawmakers and set for a vote on Wednesday would give broad rights to gun owners in the state, allowing them to own machine guns and  jo a nationwide movement among states to nullify or ignore federal laws with which local officials disagree.

And why not. Doesn’t everyone need a machine gun to go hunting?











A recent Associated Press analysis found that about four-fifths of the states have enacted laws that directly reject or conflict with federal laws on marijuana use, gun control, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses.

The AP reports, “The latest Missouri measure would declare invalid any federal policies that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.” Federal authorities who attempt to enforce those laws could face state misdemeanor charges punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. Similar penalties would apply to anyone who publishes identifying information about gun owners.”

The National Rifle Association has maintained public silence over the bill, declining to answer repeated questions from the media about whether the group supports or opposes this potentially dangerous measure.

Well, I guess Republicans in Missouri are giving a big ol’ Neener to the feds. Take that you evil gubbermint you!

The bill was already passed  by the Republican controlled House and Senate, but Gov. Jay Nixon, who is a Democrat, vetoed it. So lawmakers are trying to override the veto in order to pass the measure into law.

And it looks like it will pass because we must have machine guns.

I’m just going to add that state to my list of states to drive around, instead of through when I’m on my next road trip.

Image: Uncylopedia.

  • mea_mark

    I really don’t understand why republicans waste so much time and money on trying to make and pass unconstitutional laws. Aren’t they supposed to be for the constitution and fiscally conservative. This really makes no sense what-so-ever.

    • tiredoftea

      Well, it’s the current state of republican politics.

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

    Living in Missouri, we used to comfort ourselves with a single thought – it’s not as bad as living in Kansas. Now what we console ourselves with? Nah, it’s still not as bad as Kansas. Still, may be time to move.

    • tiredoftea

      How can you tell?

      • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

        It’s close to a toss up – but KS still has Brownback and no professional sport teams. Oh and the “life begins at conception” law. Machine guns don’t seem so bad comparatively.

        • tiredoftea

          Yeah, MO wins! And, this current sideshow provides lots of comedy and articles for you to publish as it is clearly an unconstitutional law that will not make it out of the MO Supreme Court. Not even SCOTUS will touch this.

  • Ellen Sandbeck

    If the law passes, does that mean that any Missourian who wants and can afford a nuclear missile can buy one?

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

      oh dear god, don’t give them any ideas.

    • rjcarter

      I’ve already got an underground silo prepped and ready.

  • heychief

    Can see it now

    • http://FreakoutNation.com/ Anomaly 100
  • o0Nighthawk0o

    First, they can pass these laws all they want, they are not enforceable and would be overturned by the courts. Second, it is already legal, even under federal law, to own an automatic weapon. There are restrictions and special licensing requirements that need to be met though. These requirements are expensive and the weapons themselves are very expensive to purchase. In the 10’s of thousands of dollars range.

    Why any lawmaker tries to enact these types of laws is beyond me. They are always stopped and overturned. A waste of time and money.

    And, the law didn’t pass. They failed to override the veto.

    • http://FreakoutNation.com/ Anomaly 100

      Thanks for the update. I’m curious though. From what I’ve read, in the bill, it would also keep Feds from enforcing any laws against the measure. Do I have that wrong?

      • Cosmic_Surfer

        The lawmakers claimed that the Feds would not be able to enforce federal law but that is not the case….The Feds could enforce federal law if they wanted to. It would mean, however, bringing in troops or large groups of agents (a la Waco, Selma, etc)

        • http://FreakoutNation.com/ Anomaly 100

          Heh. They’d love to compare themselves with Selma.

          • Cosmic_Surfer

            Well, parts of Mizzurruh make Selma 1960 look like a well integrated paradise..(cue banjo). The Ozarks are alive with some interesting cretins…I mean creatures…er, people.

        • rjcarter

          Ah, Waco. Where we crossed that “red line” of chemical weapons usage, and nobody cared.

          • Cosmic_Surfer

            Some cared; others made up bullshit to make it a call to arms merging Waco with Ruby Ridge. ATF & FBI went way too far, too fast, when they could have tried other options.

            Koresh was too much Jim Jones-like to ever give a shit about anyone and the Feds, too Bush-like

          • rjcarter

            Koresh needed removal; no question on that. The methods used by the Feds, though, were the very methods we decry when used elsewhere in the world.

      • o0Nighthawk0o

        After reading some more I’m going to correct a mistake in what I posted.

        Apparently, these types of laws have been passed before and have been enforceable and have resulted in a lot of good.

        The Fugitive Slave Act was a federal law. Northern states disagreed with it and passed their own personal liberty laws that contradicted the federal law. These states enforced their own laws, ignoring the federal laws. Wisconsin even declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court struck down that ruling and issued a writ of error to Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to certify this writ. Eventually the Feds caved and these state’s actions effectively nullified federal law.
        In light of this, I would say, yes, the state could prevent the feds from taking any action against the law.

        • http://FreakoutNation.com/ Anomaly 100

          Thanks for the info.

        • Acebass1

          and then we had the civil war. Is that next on the agenda? Because there are some of us who don’t think the general public should own these kinds of weapons.

  • dujaa74

    They’re going to need those machine guns to fight #NDAA Missiles 4 #Drones? Good thinking…. 😉 Go Missouri! #OATH not #NDAA

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

    *A Missouri measure attempting to nullify some federal gun control laws fell a single vote short of enactment Wednesday as the leaders of the state’s Republican-led Senate joined with Democrats to prevent a veto override.

    • rjcarter

      Between that defeat and the defeat of the tax override, it’s going to be an interesting election season. 15 Republicans who pride themselves as being conservative among the Tea Party organizations voted for the bill the first time, then voted against the veto override. Wouldn’t want to be them next election.

      • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

        The gun veto override missed by a single vote. The tax override had a wider margin and more and more were stepping away each day. A big factor will be how many jobs move to Kansas and the any education funding fallout with their new Brownback tax plan – that’s what it was trying to emulate.

        • rjcarter

          Right. I read that the gun veto was a single vote (in your post above) and didn’t mean to conflate the tax override margin with that vote.

          Those Republicans who voted for the lower tax bill then voted against the veto include the Affton school board members and these MO house reps:

          1) Sue Entlicher (R)
          2) Paul Fitzwater (R)
          3) Dennis Fowler (R)
          4) Lyndall Fraker (R)
          5) Elaine Gannon (R)
          6) Kent Hampton (R)
          7) Jeffrey Messenger (R)
          8) Lynn Morris (R)
          9) Donna Pfautsch (R)
          10) Don Phillips (R)
          11) Craig Redmon (R)
          12) Jeff Roorda (D)
          13) Lyle Rowland (R)
          14) Ed Schieffer (D)
          15) Mike Thomson (R)
          16) Nate Walker (R)
          17) David Wood (R)

          That’s a lot of Rs against a tax decrease, something that’s supposed to be part-and-parcel of the party platform. (And if I get any more alliterative, I’m going to start sounding like Porky Pig!)

          • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

            I love the alliterative part. You’re right about the R’s but it was not a good tax deal. The poor and education section took the largest hit with essentially no benefit.

  • jokr8790

    I am beginning to agree with republicans on this one issue. As a radical, left wing progressive, particularly in the light of public threats from the likes of Glen Beck, I want the right to possess, own and carry any and all firearms without restriction.

    • Norm Hull

      I agree, liberals need to arm themselves since I honestly think these people will eventually resort to violent action against those they deem as a threat

    • Art Bagnall

      It’s a good question for those of us on the left. I don’t think gun control laws work and they only help Republicans win elections.

      It’s time to cut this one issue loose.

      The Democrats should move towards real libertarianism – left libertarianism. We on the Left had all the anti-government issues on OUR side in the 1960’s.

      People know the Government is not run as well as it should be. The idea of giving the taxpayers their money’s worth and NOT nanny-ing citizens over abortion, guns, drugs, sexual preference, and freethought in general will go over well with most folks. And it could be a key to cutting to pieces the Republican bullshit “Libertarianism” like leaving oil companies and the rich alone and giving states the “freedom” to restrict abortion rights and voting rights, to let the states discriminate in the name of “freedom”.

      Most Americans think of themselves as AMERICANS, not Alabamans or Rhode Islanders. That crap plays well in the South with stupid conservative “low information voters” – most of them think of their state as a (winning) football team, since they are last in everything else that counts..

      Good. Most Americans do NOT love the South or SEC football like Southern Conservatives do. Let’s alienate and define the South to the point it was in the ’60s…a well known bastion of radical racists and stupidity led by opportunistic conservative politicians. Bull Connor and George Wallace could NOT get elected today and the conservatives know it. Almost all Americans have moved on past the Civil War…95% of Americans want controls on guns. But the 5% gets their way because they are plugged into the conservative system that allows a small minority (think South Africa in the 1980’s) to have inordinate influence over political decisions. Rich and white and conservative is an automatic “in” in the conservative world.

      And yes I do remember the left having the “armed love” meme in the ’60s. I do not think we are going to launch an armed revolution but I do think people on the left need to let their conservative acquaintances know that we can and WILL fight back against them and their corrupt ideas and their corrupt power…by any means possible.

  • Acebass1

    They wont be happy until we are mired in the same civil strife that is destroying the Middle East.

  • tedthornton

    Oh GREAT. There are NO federal regulations on machine guns, so if Missouri legalizes them, then ANYONE can buy one. This is stupid. Missouri has NO age restriction on buying guns except 18 years old. Do you really want to see 18 year olds running around with machine guns?! This is DUMB folks. The gun nuts have gone WAY too far. If you can’t hit a deer with your semiauto Glock when what help will a machine gun Glock be?