Tags
What hath the Missouri House wrought this week? My favorite right wingnut state representative is keeping busy:
HB 632 Creates the “Missouri Right to Protection Act”
Sponsor: Guest, Jim (5) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009
CoSponsor: Day, David (148) ……….etal. LR Number: 1648L.01I
Last Action: 02/09/2009 – Read Second Time (H)
HB632
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar
If this bill passes my long held dream to build a working trebuchet for the defense of my castle will remain intact:
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUEST (Sponsor), DAY, DAVIS, JONES (89), FISHER (125), FUNDERBURK, WRIGHT, KEENEY, DIECKHAUS, McGHEE, NIEVES, WILSON (119), BIVINS, DETHROW, WOOD, ALLEN AND COOPER (Co-sponsors).
1648L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 563, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri right to protection act.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 563, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 563.023, to read as follows:
563.023. 1. The provisions of this section shall be called and may be cited as the “Missouri Right to Protection Act”. It is an extension of the “Castle Doctrine”.
2. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the right under the United States Constitution to protect themselves, including but not limited to, the following:
(1) By the use of guns and ammunition;
(2) By the use of mace or other repellants; and
(3) By any other means necessary to stop an assailant.
3. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the right to defend himself or herself, unless he or she is in the act of committing a crime, without interference from federal or state agencies.
4. Law abiding citizens of Missouri shall not have their gun or ammunition rights waived by any governmental agency nor shall their guns or ammunition be tracked, with but not limited to, markings or radio frequency identification (RFID) dust, paint, or by any other direct identifiers.
5. Any lawful citizen of Missouri has the constitutional right to privacy in such citizen’s home, including but not limited to such person’s home, farm, vehicle, trailer, or any other place of domicile, and to be anonymous as long as such citizen is not in the act of committing a crime. America was founded on the principles of freedom from persecution by the government. It was meant to be that the federal and state governments were not intended to have the power that they have surmised in the last eighty years. Missouri citizens have the right to the protections listed in this section as was set out in the United States Constitution. No governmental entity has the authority to supersede these constitutional guarantees.
[emphasis added]
Cool, I wouldn’t have to put my name on my home defense trebuchet.
I wonder what Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has to say about “the right to privacy”, you know, he being an “originalist” and a peripatetic darling of the wingnut right:
[Do you believe that there is a right to privacy under the United States Constitution?]
Oh, there certainly is and it us, uh, contained in the Fourth Amendment. And it says “that the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Period. There is not a generalized right of privacy, whatever that means. What is a generalized right of privacy [garbled]? One of our, one of our, one of our opinions says it means “the right to be left alone”. [laughter] Right. This is anarchy…
…[wire tapping] So, there is no, what should I say, exclusion from democratic debate of – conversations. It’s something for the people to decide whether you should have wiretapping or not….[as practice now]…This generalized right of privacy which comes from, what is it, penumbras and emanations from the Fourth and a lot of other ridiculous stuff. Uh, you know the consequences of that? Surely one of the major policy issues around these days is whether, uh, the Federal government can listen in on these international phone calls to find what the bad guys are doing. It used to be up to the Congress to decide whether the danger was high enough and the risk of invading people’s privacy high enough to permit that. No longer. It’s a question for me now. It’s a question for me. That’s what happens when you, when you read more and more stuff into the Constitution – you reduce democracy.
[emphasis added]
I’m not agreeing with Scalia here, it’s just that I’d expect all the right wingnuts to be on the same page.
Why, I do believe that State Representative Jim Guest (R-5) was at the UAW “Save Our Jobs Rally” in Kansas City on Sunday. Does this mean he supports the federal economic stimulus package?
There’s more. Uh oh. There is another:
HB 645 Removes the prohibition on persons with concealed carry endorsements carrying concealed firearms into an institution of higher education
Sponsor: Munzlinger, Brian (1) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009
CoSponsor: Ruzicka, Don (132) ……….etal. LR Number: 1265L.02I
Last Action: 02/10/2009 – Read Second Time (H)
HB645
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
House Calendar HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES MUNZLINGER (Sponsor), RUZICKA AND JONES (117) (Co-sponsors).
1265L.02I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To repeal section 571.107, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to authorization to carry concealed firearms, with a penalty provision.
Be it enacted by the General Assembl
y of the state of Missouri, as follows:Section A. Section 571.107, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 571.107, to read as follows:
571.107. 1. A concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize the person in whose name the permit or endorsement is issued to carry concealed firearms on or about his or her person or vehicle throughout the state. No driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a concealed carry endorsement or permit issued by another state or political subdivision of another state shall authorize any person to carry concealed firearms into:
…(10) Any [higher education institution or] elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of [the governing body of the higher education institution or] a school official or the district school board. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any [higher education institution or] elementary or secondary school facility shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;…
2. Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense. If a second citation for a similar violation occurs within a six-month period, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed two hundred dollars and his or her endorsement to carry concealed firearms shall be suspended for a period of one year. If a third citation for a similar violation is issued within one year of the first citation, such person shall be fined an amount not to exceed five hundred dollars and shall have his or her concealed carry endorsement revoked and such person shall not be eligible for a concealed carry endorsement for a period of three years. Upon conviction of charges arising from a citation issued pursuant to this subsection, the court shall notify the sheriff of the county which issued the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue. The sheriff shall suspend or revoke the certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement and the department of revenue shall issue a notice of such suspension or revocation of the concealed carry endorsement and take action to remove the concealed carry endorsement from the individual’s driving record. The director of revenue shall notify the licensee that he or she must apply for a new license pursuant to chapter 302, RSMo, which does not contain such endorsement. A concealed carry endorsement suspension pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall be reinstated at the time of the renewal of his or her driver’s license. The notice issued by the department of revenue shall be mailed to the last known address shown on the individual’s driving record. The notice is deemed received three days after mailing.
[emphasis added]
And another. This one bears watching (the text is not available online yet):
HB 656 Protects teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding biological and chemical evolution
Sponsor: Cooper, Robert Wayne (155) Proposed Effective Date: 08/28/2009
CoSponsor: Sutherland, Mike (99) ……….etal. LR Number: 0779L.01I
Last Action: 02/10/2009 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
HB656
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar
We are fast becoming the National Labratory for Bad Government.
rabid wolverines, claymore mines, and maybe some gamecocks. Ya’ll better knock if you come a callin’.
yeah, his appearance at that rally was surprising. And nothing in his old bio (the new one is one paragraph, the old one actually had background info on how he’s an alum of UMR) indicated something that obviously said “this guy would be a buddy to auto workers”.
Hey, I welcome all the Republicans that want to come over and support the idea of having a healthy American auto industry. The more the merrier.