TexasCHLforum.com

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KRCG) - A Missouri state representative's proposed bill could have people up in arms.

House Bill No. 1108, sponsored by Rep. Andrew McDaniel, R-Deering, stated that "[e]very resident of this state shall own at least one AR-15."

https://katv.com/news/nation-world/miss ... -own-ar-15

Yes!

Sounds like a militia to me... Also, sounds a lot like Kennesaw, Georgia which hasn't faced a legal challenge to their law.

No reason that it shouldn't be legal to mandate.

Can't say I like the law. Sounds good, until I remember my position on the government forcing folks to purchase another product that they did not want... Obama Care anyone?

IIRC, although that city in GA does have that law, they also have not charged or prosecuted anyone that does not own a gun as the law/ordinance says. I suspect that would also be the case in MO if their bill does become a law.

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:53 pm IIRC, although that city in GA does have that law, they also have not charged or prosecuted anyone that does not own a gun as the law/ordinance says. I suspect that would also be the case in MO if their bill does become a law.

So what is the point of having the law if not enforced? Sounds like political grandstanding to me, a waste of time.

This will never pass, of course. However, a modified version providing tax breaks for purchase, etc might be doable.

cyphertext wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:25 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:53 pm IIRC, although that city in GA does have that law, they also have not charged or prosecuted anyone that does not own a gun as the law/ordinance says. I suspect that would also be the case in MO if their bill does become a law.

So what is the point of having the law if not enforced? Sounds like political grandstanding to me, a waste of time.

Playing Devi's advocate, I could say the same thing about many of our speed limits. More seriously, we've lost sight of the fact that laws are supposed to encourage behavior and that the punitive side of them is designed for those who don't want to comply voluntarily. One of the biggest examples I can think of is housing code enforcement. For example, our city has a 14 foot tree trimming height above roads. Yet I can drive around the city and see block after block of roads where the trees droop down to eight feet or less. Code enforcement could come along and issue citations to all of the errant homeowners - but they don't. The city leaders are satisfied the the ordnance encourages the majority of people to comply and they are not wiling to irritate those who deliberately or through laziness don't want to respect that ordnance.

For this particular law, it would set a tone. Those who really don't like that tone could find somewhere else to live. Extreme you say? No more so than gun free cities which are the same thing in reverse. While no city that I know of has gotten to the completely gun free position yet, Baltimore is well on its way.

AP article on the fact it was not meant to pass, but bring attention against 'mandates'.

“The other side of the aisle loves mandates, so I’m trying to get them to make an argument against mandates,” Republican state Rep. Andrew McDaniel, of the rural Bootheel community of Deering, said in a telephone interview.

https://montrealgazette.com/pmn/news-pm ... 366d8fd461

Requiring militia age adults to own suitable for military use firearms and related weapons and accessories is as American as apple pie and pre-dates the founding of the United States. It was often a requirement to bring them to church where they could be inspected, with fines for non-compliance.