Jay Nixon May Have Diregarded The Missouri Constitution

[Smalliebigs]

see ya

[Jack Jones]

Seriously....the article that is linked above was a paranoid, quasi-literate rant. It's not exactly what I'd call journalism. People with your type of rhetoric truly scare me. Like a late folk singer once said.........

They said if you don't like to live this way 
Get outta here, go back to the U.S.A.

He was talking about the South.....

[Jerry Rapp]

seriously Jack, more and more of this stuff keeps showing up. It makes me wonder.

[Justin Spencer]

Man are some people uptight, doomsday, sky is falling pessimists. I feel genuinely sorry for these people. Relax and enjoy life, it will go on regardless of what happens in the govt, might as well enjoy the ride.

[Outside Bend]

My take on the article?

- The title is ""Breaking News: Missouri Government working with Fed to subvert YOUR rights through RFID Technology?" But the case they're discussing, the injunction they link to, has absolutely nothing to do with RFID technology. RFID technology is never mentioned in the court documents. The Plaintiff enters no complaint about or against RFID technology.

- According to the court documents provided in the article, the Plaintiff is not the employee of the Defendant. The Plaintiff was never asked by their employer to provide information on their CCW status, at least according to the court documents the article is predicated upon.

The Plaintiff wanted to add his CCW credentials to his driver's license. He went to the license office, and was asked to provide proof of citizenship/residency- birth certificate, Nothing really surprising there- no different than the myriad voter ID laws which have became popular- and if you need to prove eligibility to excercise your 15th Amendment, why shouldn't you have to prove eligibility to excercise your Second? It's all part of the same document, and I'm not sure there's any rationale saying we can chose to interpret one portion of that document strictly while interpreting another liberally.

Anyway, it's not what the Plaintiff took issue with. Missouri apparently contracts verification and issuance of the license to a private third party- some out of state company in Georgia. This is what the Plaintiff objected to- that his private information (CCW status) was sent to another group without his knowledge or consent. In a way I understand that, but then again...you have to show your driver's license to all sorts of folks for all sorts of reasons- applying for jobs, getting a hotel, entering some businesses, buying alcohol/cigarettes/aerosol paint or glue from Wal-Mart...I'm not sure how "private" that information really is. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out in court.

But what really surprised me was the last paragraph- how the alleged violations of this guy's civil rights mean we all need to get behind MO HB 436 and SB 325. I didn't know what they were, so I looked them up- SB 325 is a motion to invalidate all Federal gun laws, including the Gun Control Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. I didn't know what those dealt with, so I checked 'em out, too:

- The Gun Control Act of 1934 restricted the sale and possession of automatic machine guns, sawed-off rifles and shotguns, silencers, bombs, grenades, poison-gas weapons, and weapons (except shotguns) with a bore of > 1/2"- cannons.

- The Gun Control Act of 1968 was a measure designed to restrict ownership and purchasing of guns by convicted felons, fugitives, drug addicts, illegal aliens, the mentally ill, folks who have renounced citizenship, folks who have been dishonorably discharged from the military, rapists, stalkers, and folks who have been convicted of domestic abuse. The legislation also mandated firearms dealers be licensed, and that firearms have serial numbers.

That doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

The gun lobby wants government crows about enforcing the laws already on the books, while simultaneously attempting to take those laws off the books. To me the '34 and '68 measure are reasonable. This new effort To me this goes beyond protecting law-abiding individual's right to use and to enjoy firearms- these guys are saying it doesn't matter if you're a criminal, it doesn't matter if you're deranged, it doesn't matter if you're here illegally. Those shouldn't be obstacles to you owning whatever weapons you see fit, whether hand gun or hand grenade. And if we're willing to grant illegal immigrants Second Amendment rights, doesn't that set a precedent for granting them the other rights enumerated in the Constitution- voting, probable cause, and all the rest?

[hank franklin]

OBAMA IS COMING TO GET OUR GUNS!

This reminds me of a skit in The Onion magazine a while back. Headline: South Postpones Rising Again For Another Year. http://www.theonion.com/articles/south-postpones-rising-again-for-yet-another-year,377/

Fifteen years from now Obama will still be coming to get our guns. The Onion headline will read: Obama REALLY Coming To Get Our Guns This Time! No, REALLY!

I dislike Obama as much as the next guy. Stuffed shirt, all fluff, bad news. But holy lord he aint coming for my guns. In his dreams, maybe. But I live in the real world.

[Smalliebigs]

see ya

[Smalliebigs]

see ya

[fishinwrench]

I do not stand and take it when our Constittutional rights are trampled on.

Well, it may upset you but you will "take it". What could you possibly do to reverse any ruling or action? Not much.

Everyone calls gun ownership "a right", but honestly it is nothing more than a priveledge that can be taken away for simply running out of money or mismanaging your checkbook.

[Gatorjet]

To those who say "He ain't coming after my guns"

It all depends on what your guns are. If they are semi-automatic, with a detachable magazine he is coming after them. Then next will be "sniper rifles" as the liberal gun grabbers will call scope mounted bolt actions. Something most of us call "deer rifles".Then of course there will be the demand to outlaw the dastardly "hand gun" because of it's illegal use in criminal activity. of course shotguns will be protected. At least double barrel shotguns according to Clueless Joe Biden. But don't for a minute think they don't want to outlaw semi-auto shotguns, or pump action shotguns with an extended magazine.

Then of course there is the "universal" background check leading to "universal" registration. Registration then leads to taxation.

​Vehicles aren't registered for your protection, they are registered for taxation. So when the government wants a $10, $20, $30 or more per year tax on each gun you own it may be much more economical to just give up your constitutional rights than pay the tax.

The constitution was put in place for the people to control the government, but every day we loose more of that control as we give the government more control of our lives in exchange for some sort of supposed "security".