• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I know where I am moving!!!

acmariner99

acmariner99

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
655
Location
Renton, Wa
Holy Moley! You guys are trying to get all of this awesome stuff passed with one bill?? That is pretty darn awesome. The few antis in STL must be really antsy about now. lol
 
marshaul

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I discovered a typo.

I'm pretty sure nobody's worried about Federal statues. Although, frankly, the only one of much value is Jefferson.

Also, why accept the fedgov's commerce clause overreach? After so correctly declaring,

If the government created by the compact among the states were the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the Constitution, the federal government's discretion, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge itself, as well as infractions of the mode and measure of redress.
Click to expand...

The bill then fails to take this to its logical conclusion: all Federal restrictions on the type of firearm, or the qualifications for owning a firearm, and the FGFSZA, are unconstitutional. Period.
 
Last edited:
Motofixxer

Motofixxer

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
965
Location
Somewhere over the Rainbow
That's a step in the right direction. But there are a lot of vague restrictions in there and irrational restrictions. Open carry requires you to possess a Concealed endorsement, must present it when asked, can't carry in a school, church or hospital or at school activities just for starters.
 
Last edited:
O

Oramac

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2009
Messages
572
Location
St Louis, Mo
Motofixxer said:
That's a step in the right direction. But there are a lot of vague restrictions in there and irrational restrictions. Open carry requires you to possess a Concealed endorsement, must present it when asked, can't carry in a school, church or hospital or at school activities just for starters.
Click to expand...

We know. It's been a hell of a fight to even get where we are. Unfortunately, Constitutional Carry just isn't in the cards for MO right now. It's a sad reality we have to deal with.
 
N

NeoShade

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
39
Location
Rolla, MO
Motofixxer said:
That's a step in the right direction. But there are a lot of vague restrictions in there and irrational restrictions. Open carry requires you to possess a Concealed endorsement, must present it when asked, can't carry in a school, church or hospital or at school activities just for starters.
Click to expand...

Only where it is already banned. You could still OC without permit in 90% of Missouri. This is just for ALREADY banned places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top