Every word in our US Constitution was put there for a reason. When our founding fathers inserted the First Amendment, it was to protect our ability to discuss every topic. When they inserted the Second Amendment, it was to insure that should the Federal Government become tyrannical, the citizens could protect themselves. History is riddled with examples of oppressive governments that began their régimes with disarming the citizenry. My grandfather was one who was victimized by such an action. Most of his family was executed in the Armenian genocide that began when the Turks disarmed the Armenians.
I have filed three bills this year to strengthen the right of the citizens to protect them selves.
1.) HB 1230 is known as the “Missouri Firearms Freedom Act”---This is very close to what passed in Montana. It is okay to “borrow” legislative ideas from other states, especially ones that are proven to work. This law says that guns and ammunition made in Missouri and used in Missouri are not subject to federal regulation. For too long the national government has used “The Commerce Clause” to regulate industries in our state if any of it crosses into other states. This is just one way we can show them that they are not allowed to regulate that which happens within our state. Link here to see me in speaking at a Rally for Gun Rights last Saturday.
2.) Concealed Weapon permits currently cost $100 and only last for 3 years. It should not cost anything extra to make the permit for 5 years. Indiana’s CCW permit is valid for a lifetime. While I like that idea, other states may not honor our permits if they’re validated for a lifetime. My bill is called HB 1239.
3.) HB 1232 brackets out the words that say firearms are prohibited in churches. This decision needs to be left up to the congregation, not the government. Those who own the property should be able to determine their own standards. You can link here to read an article about this proposal: KBIA-PBS
Additionally, I have put my name on two lawsuits that are going before the US Supreme Court. The NRA is defending these cases, and I am named on the amicus briefs. I will always use the strength of my position to stand up for our rights. My commitment to the constitution is unwavering.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Cynthia Davis: We need our guns to fight off the government
In her latest capitol report, Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, updates her constituents on gun legislation she is offering:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I am a democrat, a pacifist, and an advocate for gun control. However I agree strongly with Cynthia Davis and her motivation for legislation.
The only issue am at odds with is for concealed weapons. Much can happen in a persons life in five years, possibly making them unfit to carry a concealed weapon.
Anonymous 11:05: your argument is equally strong for the current 3 year period, which is why there is a mechanism for revoking a permit which would work as well for the normal 5 year period. 5 years hasn't caused any problems I'm aware of in the rest of the country (38 states now have "shall issue" permitting systems (!!!)).
Right on... I am not aware of the mechanism how does it work (generally)?
What is a "shall issue" permitting system?
Missouri does an endorsement on your driver's or "nondriver's" license, it's a notation on your personal ID card: "CCW Until mm-dd-yyyy".
A variety of things will result in the official revocation of the license. For most of these, it's straightforward for law enforcement to take the ID card, e.g. if found guilty of a sufficiently bad crime, judged mentally incompetent (at the hearing) or are subject to a protection order (ID card is surrendered to the officer serving the order). I'm not sure about someone who's dishonorably discharged from the armed forces (that's rare, but it might get seized at the hearing; otherwise such a person will come to the attention of civilian law enforcement sooner or later), and someone who's a fugitive from justice will pretty obviously get caught if they show an officer their ID card and it's checked against the outstanding warrants database.
Here's Wikipedia on Shall Issue:
A shall-issue jurisdiction, within the context of gun law, is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting certain criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits. Such laws typically state that a granting authority shall issue a permit if the criteria are met, as opposed to laws where the authority may-issue a permit at their discretion.
Basically, if you meet the criteria (e.g. you're old enough, pass the background check, take any required class, etc.) you can't be denied the license because e.g. the sheriff only gives them to campaign contributors or the politically connected, whites, etc. (The history of US gun control is almost totally racist through 1968.)
THanks for the information!
Post a Comment