Getty Images
This story may appear to be some kind of parody, making the Republican protagonist out to be a foolish caricature who couldn't exist in reality, but as best as I can tell, this is real.
A Missouri state lawmaker wants to make it a crime to propose any gun control legislation. Mike Leara, a Republican who represents suburban St. Louis, introduced a bill making it a class D felony for any member of the Missouri legislator to introduced a bill to that effect.
"Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony," the bills reads.
You read that right. Under Leara's proposal, it would be a crime to introduce a legislative proposal on gun control. Members of Missouri's legislature would run the risk of being arrested and being charged as a felon simply for proposing restrictions on firearms.
Leara added he has "no illusions" about his measure becoming law, but he unveiled his plan anyway "as a statement in defense of the Second Amendment rights of all Missourians."
I see.
Now, this is probably about the time I'm supposed to mention that restrictions on civilians owning weapons are not unconstitutional, and even Supreme Court justices like Antonin Scalia have endorsed "longstanding prohibitions" on firearm ownership from felons and the mentally ill, guns in government buildings, limits on the commercial sale of guns, and bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons," including "M-16 rifles and the like."
But let's put that aside and consider a different question: why would someone like Mike Leara fear a debate?
Missouri's state House has a Republican majority and its state Senate has a Republican majority. The likelihood that the General Assembly is going to approve sweeping new gun-control laws that violate the Second Amendment is, to put it mildly, remote.
But even if the state legislature were dominated by clones of Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Frank Lautenberg, it still wouldn't explain why it should be a crime to introduce a bill on guns. After all, what would happen? Presumably there would be committee hearings; policymakers would study the bill's efficacy and legality; and there would be a spirited debate.
Maybe the gun-control bill would be awful, maybe it'd be great. Perhaps lawmakers would look at the gun-control and think it has merit, perhaps they'd conclude the opposite. But to try to make it a crime to even suggest changes to gun laws makes it seem as if Leara is worried about having a debate in the first place. Having state lawmakers discuss limits on firearms is so alarming, the mere possibility should be prevented -- indeed, in this case, it should be deemed felonious -- as if fealty towards the Second Amendment requires us to ignore the First.
Why would anyone be afraid of a debate?
Leave a Comment:
Only in Missouri...
Sadly, I could see this happening in Tennessee too... *shakes his head in sorrow for the idiocy* Never mind that such a law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL... No, that doesn't matter to the party that claims to live by the Constitution.
Hey this would be good for other stuff too-just pass any law and then pass another that says it is a felony to undo the first one.
We can call it screwing "Representational Democracy"
It reminds me of Religious based governments a lot.
"There is no God but God" turns quickly into "There is no Law but My Law"
That was my thought too. Legislators legislating what future legislators can and cannot legislate.
Authoritarian hubris is awesome to behold.
What is he afraid of? Losing his campaign financing, that's what.
"Only in Missouri"...nice to see that the Missouri Republicans are presenting such landmark measures. Thankfully things like this will protect all of us poor little Missourians from the horrors of watching debates on sensible gun legislation. What other ridiculous ideas can he or his cohorts put forward to be a Class D felony in the people's house???
The stupidity and closed-mindedness of Missouri Republicans is making Missouri a laughingstock in the country.
I agree with Zaftig Goddess. I thought no one from my old hometown could top Todd Akin for making MO the laughing stock of the country. Legislators should have to take a short exam that at minimum shows they understand what can and cannot be legislated.
No, Marty in KC, not only in Missouri. PatP11111 was more on the mark, noting that this is more like religious behavior than political behavior, and Zaftig Goddess provided an important link in this chain of thought: true debate on sensible gun legislation would reveal that sensible limits were not confiscatory, and won't meaningfully interfere with hunters and sport shooters or their Second Amendment rights. Leara's proposal is an exaggerated demonstration of unquestioning faith in, and reverence for, the gun manufacturer's lobby. It's an implicit recognition that rational debate on reasonable gun restrictions would force opponents into grotesque, Wayne La Pierre-like positions, making it obvious that even they don't believe what they say.
Leara's approach is how religious absolutists deal with controversy, not the way citizens in a democracy or democratic republic deal with controversy. When once-sacred tenets are exposed to rational inquiry and objective analysis, their power often evaporates. Enforcing unquestioning acceptance is a holding action, an admission that your policies and ideas are unappealing and unpersuasive. Hmmm ... makes one think of voter suppression and gerrymandered election rigging, doesn't it?
More proof that the problem is not the gun but the paranoid nutcase behind the gun.
Amen Brother
To think that within our lifetimes we have gone from people like this being laughed at and recommended for mental counseling to being elected and having their rants published by a main stream media that has lost all perspective.
From Spot the Loony to this .
Satire is pointless anymore.
Europe used to laugh at Italian politics. Not anymore.
s&eft, I've wondered how the Onion manages to keep going with all the competition it's been getting from reality. No wonder Fox has gotten caught several times taking parody as fact. This is stuff that you just can't make up.
This is honestly so far down the rabbit hole that I don't think Alice ever made it this far...
Lilly Tomlin - No matter how cynical you are, it's not enough.
Authoritarian morons behave like authoritarians. Second Amendment trumps First (Hey! It comes after, it must supercede!). GOP state legislator is dumb as a rock. Take your pick.
I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty certain that nearly all actions that politicians take while performing their official duties make them immune to ANY law suits.
Next from this moron. Felony to show that you have a brain in Missouri.
Yepper! There's even a specific clause in Missouri's constitution about that, like the one in the US constitution and in most other state constitutions.
This is so basic to his (supposed) legislative function, and so much more fundamental than even free speech, that is just takes your breath away. Guy doesn't even have a clue what freedoms representatives and senators are guaranteed, or, apparently, how parliamentary bodies work. He actually seems to have dropped this in the hopper.
His Missouri house speaker should have him stand in the well of the house while he reprimands him good and hard, in front of everyone else, for grossly violating legislative privilege.
Yes, the dear state legislator is carrying a grand political inception where a Taco Bell taco is wrapped in an enchilada, wrapped into another taco, and then wrapped in a burrito - or something like that!
Mike Leara quite being a political FiretrUCKER, and stop wasting the time of your state's dear citizens! Only a fool like you would see any kind of reason for making it against the law to propose a law in the institution of law making!
What a dumb FiretrUCK! -Kevo
"... may appear to be some kind of parody, making the Republican protagonist out to be a foolish caricature..."
In this the 21st century, he being a rethugniCon - he doesn't need anything other than to open his mouth to be seen as a "foolish caricature".....No help from anyone....
Who wants to bet it becomes Law in Missouri
It couldn't. Missouri has a Dem governor.
Our Dem governor is helpless with a veto-proof majority in both house and senate. And I wouldn't call our Dem governor a real Dem anyway. He's more interested in his career than in governing.
It could become law. The R's have a veto proof majority in the state lege.
Ummm...
How about, "It will not become law because..."
A) "... it's unbelievably stupid."
or, 2) "... it's unconstitutional."
(Though I'll grant you that the second seems more likely to be an effective argument than the first, anymore...)
Eye roll
http://beta.photobucket.com/images/Animated+Rolling+Eyes+Smiley/?fromLegacy=true
When your argument is so weak it can't stand up on its own without wobbling, you don't want anyone to push and prod it in debate...
So let me get this straight: we're going to protect the freedoms of Americans...by limiting the freedoms of Americans?
As I've said before: I am sincerely beginning to believe that these people do not ever think before they act.
Mike Leara lacks the courage to promote the common good.
I'm pretty much convinced that in the right-wing mind, tyranny is defined as not always getting your way in everything.
I'm pro- third amendment, stop the redcoats from billeting in my house!
Maybe he's a secret moderate, and he's putting forward this over-the-top (and symbolic)proposal in order to buy himself some cred on the right to propose something enlightened on education or health. Believable? Probably not.
There is a lot of fear and paranoia going around, put there by the men who sell guns. Where is their proof? They must not have any children, hopefully not. Oh, ye men of little faith, oh, ye little men. Don't they know anything about acceptance, trust and that God is in charge.A meteor is a pretty big size bomb.....wake up!!! God is speaking.
God has nothing to do with it!!
It's clearly the work of Satan!!
Satan was defeated a very long time ago, let him rest in peace.
Missouri needs to change its motto to the "Don't Show Me" State
The perfect plan!
Anyone convicted under the law would be a felon, and would therefore not be allowed to own a gun (or vote), totally disarming the pinkos.
Crazy like a fox, I say.
They are afraid they will lose the debate. That is why they are trying to prevent it from happening in the first place. If no debate happens, they have a 0% chance of losing...
For the same reason that these people insist on analyzing evolution for strengths and weaknesses, but never let creationism be analyzed in the same way.
Also reminds me of all the states (including Ohio) that passed constitutional amendments making it impossible for the legislature to pass same-sex marriage or often, anything that resembled marriage for same-sex couples.
At least that was (evil but) clever in that the state constitution trumps any legislative session--this, this is just stupid. All you would have to do is rescind or change the law before going ahead.
Typical Maddow Brotherhood spin. Oh he's crazy, oh he's afraid of debate, etc.
Actually he even said this was not a passable bill, created only as a tool to SPUR debate not evade it.
Just keep on believing the lies your told sheeple, it makes it easier to discredit you.
*you're* told. It's a contraction of you and are. You're told, not your told. OK!
Now we are a 'brotherhood'? I want to the first to enlist in the Maddow Brotherhood! Do we get neato badges and patches and multicolored uniforms, too?
Really, where do these 'people' come up with these notions?
If the lawmaker in question was only tossing ideas out there with no expectation of the law being enacted or even considered, why was that lawmaker ever foisting the idea in the first place? Shouldn't said lawmaker have been, I don't know, attended to business and solving problems instead of creating them?
Lawmakers working against the process should be back charged for their anti-progress activities. They should only be paid while they are solving problems and deducted pay when they work against progress and try to stifle meaningful legislation. My boss wouldn't pay me to work against project performance or enhancement. In fact, I'd be fired on the spot.
It doesn't take a whole lot of grey matter to figure out that this project was never intended to spur debate. It was only crafted to distract from the real debate as to what to do with people whose emotional attachment to weapons capable of killing masses of people, aka, gun nuts, rivals their attachment to real living beings. How do we deal with preventing them from acting out their fantasies?
It looks like this guy falls under the category of gun nut, and doesn't like people making fun of his wet dreams.
It looks like this guy falls under the category of gun nut, and doesn't like people making fun of his wet dreams.
Doesn't like people making fun of his 'little elvis' either. Therein lies the problem.
Even Ted Nugent is confused between guns and johnsons. He's always wanting to shove his gun up in someone and fire it. Perhaps he had his brain shot off at an early age.
There is no IQ test that someone has to pass to be elected to office. Most of the politicians who say this stuff are really that dumb. I know it's terrifying, but I'm afraid it's the literal truth. They are morons sent to their state capitals or to Washington to represent morons.
He's dumb as rocks, wait that's too much credit, a rock. However, both sides of this argument are operating on sheer fear. Take a listen to the freakanomics podcast on this. It actually has one of those people that look at numbers and does research (crazy! I know). It won't make anyone feel better but it might help us get some policies that work.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/
Extremists from Missouri have a history it seems. During the days of Bleeding Kansas in the 1850s pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" from Missouri flooded into Kansas and through rigged elections and intimidation of voters organized an illegitimate legislature at Lecompton, Kansas in 1855. The Legislature proceeded to pass laws that provided the death penalty for anyone expressing an opinion in person or in print that may aid a slave in escaping. Fines and imprisonment were imposed for anyone who refused to aid in apprehending a fugitive slave.
Doubt the Madoow Brotherhood will report about the other end of the gun spectrum like
Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/18/colorado-dem-on-why-women-dont-need-guns-on-campus-you-might-feel-like-youre-gonna-be-raped-but-you-may-actually-not-be/
Ann Richards: "Well I'm not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag, much less a lipstick."
That's right, really5374886, just like the Maddow Brotherhood (I really like the sound of that, btw) isn't going to report on President Obama secretly collecting Nazi memorabilia.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/look-im-just-going-to-say-it-i-collect-antique-naz,31172/
Jeez...
A law that makes it illegal to make a law, or even propose a law.
You can't satirize the wingnuts anymore. Every time you try, they outdo it in reality.
All you can say is 'Sieg Heil' and move on, I suppose.
'Hail Victory' is waiting in the wings. I don't see this condition getting better in the next decade.
I grew up in Appalachia during the 50s & 60s. After returning from Vietnam I thought everything had changed because I had changed so much. These past 2 elections cycles have driven me into complete depression because nothing has changed. All the hate, the fear and isolation here is the same as it was half a century ago. Maybe it was hidden more in the 90s but it seemed like we were past that hateful, nonproductive and ugly period in our history. Today I'm living in 1953.
What's it going to take for all men & women to be free? I'm saying this as an old white veteran. Why are we fighting so many wars here at home instead of building up our industrial capabilities, hiring the hordes of unemployed and competing in the international business world once again? We still have the factories that won the great war. We still have a willing and able workforce. We have some of the best colleges and minds on the planet yet send all the work overseas!
Tonight I went to store to buy a few items, onions (grown in Peru), bell peppers (from Argentina) and tomatoes (dog knows where). What is going to happen if the wingnuts lie us into another, more global war? Are we going to have our fighter planes built in China and our tanks made in South Korea?
You know they want to take out Chavez. More than half of our meat comes from South America. With the majority of our farm production going to ethanol production we can't provide enough corn to satisfy our own needs thus decreasing our export capability while reducing our GNP and bond status.
We consume too much. We're kicking sand into the faces of our suppliers and we don't want to talk nice to potential enemies. This can't go on forever. We're one earthquake away from failing as a global super power.
To top it off half the nation's legislators are actively working to bring down the government that is paying their salaries. They are in effect working for an undefined enemy of the state. And, to add insult to injury those are the guys calling themselves the 'Patriots".
There are other things going on in Missouri that might put this story in perspective.
Missouri Democrats have introduced a bill that would put in similar restrictions on gun ownership as the bill proposed by Senator Feinstein at the national level.
The difference is that the law doesn't grandfather in any weapons bought legally before the ban. Rather, it would require gun owners to turn over their property within 90 days to the authorities or be guilty of a class C felony.
Here is the text of the legislation.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
What this would do is force just about every single gun owner in the state to turn over their property or become a felon. You know that talking point of "gun owners are paranoid crazies. No one is coming to take your guns away." Yeah, looks like gun owners aren't that paranoid after all.
This not only is a wholesale violation of the 2nd amendment, but a violation of the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment.
Furthermore, the Heller decision does not state that the Supreme Court upheld bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons," including "M-16 rifles and the like."
Let's look at what the Heller decision actually says:
End of paragraph. No mention of ""M-16 rifles and the like."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
I would note that m-16 rifles ARE illegal right now. These are entirely different in function from an AR-15, which is not capable of Selective Fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire
And since the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, one could hardly call them "unusual". If you think they're more dangerous than other rifles, then you would have to say that you think it's necessary to ban nearly ALL hunting rifles.
http://www.imagecoast.com/images/alvagoldbook/gundumb.jpg
...weapons classified as assault rifles (including the AR-15) comprise less than 2% of the 300 million weapons in the U.S....how does that qualify them as 'the most popular rifle'?...
Kelly, it all depends on classification. Most current legal definitions of "assault rifles" does not include the civilian AR-15 or AK-47 because those versions do not have Selective Fire capability. It's well known that the civilian AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States. Sam Harris referenced this fact on his website recently.
I have to call BS on this argument, Alva. No one is coming to take away your toys!
Here in Virginia a hunter is limited to 5 rounds in a rifle and only 3 in a shotgun. Of course the hunter can have more ammo in his/her pockets no more that stated above can be loaded into the firearm at any given time.
Why would you/anyone need a 100 magazine? Why would you need a 30 round magazine? If you can't down a deer/elk or a home intruder with 5 to 10 rounds of ammo maybe you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm in the first place.
@gordona
Alva is pointing out some of the issues with what is being defined as an "assault rifle". Not BS and it is a point being raised by many in law enforcement.
For a sampling... google the Saratoga Sheriff's Department PBAs's (NYS) response letter to the SAFE act recently enacted in NYS. Take your time, as it is single spaced, multiple pages, and quite detailed...
Also, review the position taken by the NYS Sheriff's Association on the SAFE act and the particular issues that they see with the assault weapon restrictions.
Also, the Illinois Sheriffs Association came out in opposition of the proposed ban (in Illinois) on assault weapons.
RE: 24.3
gordona,
No one is coming for my guns (at the moment) for the sole reason that I live in the pro-gun state of Virginia. But states like Washington and Missouri right now have pending legislation to come for people's guns. So, you can put that talking point to bed.
I don't hunt, so I could care less. I own a gun for my own protection. I am a far better person to determine how to keep myself safe than you are. What moral reason should you be able to make that decision for me? To tie my hands with how many rounds I can keep in a magazine, who's sole purpose is to keep me safe.
There is a sure way to stop an attacker, and that is with a very precise head shot. But trying to hit a moving target that small when you're under attack and trying not to panic is very difficult. It's for this reason, that self defense gun training teaches that you aim for the bigger target, the chest. The down side is that it will not guarantee that an attacker will be stopped.
For this reason, self-defense gun training teaches to take three shots against an attacker, if your goal is total elimination of the threat. 1st shot, to the chest close to the heart. 2nd shot to the other side of the chest. 3rd shot to the head.
Now, gordona, suppose you're attacked by 4 people. Do the math.
Think that it's unlikely that you'll ever get attacked by 4 people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_rz2wBYin4
Re 24.6: Well, if you do get attacked by four people, I hope you're lucky enough that they wouldn't be packing themselves. If they were, they wouldn't have to be very quick or very good.
Alva, if a state decides to come after your guns, what's the big deal? I thought all y'all were so enamored with states rights, that whatever a state's citizens decides is cool. But, now you act like that is not cool.
Well, which is it young feller? You can't have it both ways.
John, you seem to be confusing me with a conservative. Thomas Jefferson believed strongly in state's rights, and local governance, as the gov't that is closest to the people is better suited to meet their wishes. But the GOP has long ago turned "state's rights" into an euphemism to continue Jim Crow laws in some fashion. Today, that's an attack on the rights of the LGBT community, and an attack against women seeking to exercise her reproductive rights.
However, it is no more legitimate for a state government to violate a person's Constitutional Rights than it is for the federal government to do so. It would be just as much a violation for Missouri to violate the 2nd and 4th amendment rights of their citizens, as it would be for the governor of my home state of Virginia to violate the 4th and 14th amendment rights women seeking an abortion (the Supreme Court cited the 4th and 14th amendments in the Roe v. Wade decision).
Is there an official Wingnut party yet, or are they still split as GOP and Tea Party?
lol.... repooper reagan cut the gov in the 80's and closed all the mental hospitals. thus.... origins of the tea pottiers and other psycho pimped out rwnj repoops.