A bill, introduced yesterday:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1903

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE NEWMAN.

5337L.01I  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 571.070, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to firearms, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Section 571.070, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 571.070 and 571.071, to read as follows:

           571.070. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful purchase, ownership, possession, or control of a firearm if such person knowingly purchases or owns a firearm or has any firearm in his or her possession or under his or her control and:

           (1) Such person has been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a felony; or

           (2) Such person is a fugitive from justice, is habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition, or is currently adjudged mentally incompetent; or

           (3) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been committed for a mental disorder to any hospital, or mental institution, unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from possessing a firearm under the provisions of section 571.071 or 571.092; or

           (4) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been found not guilty by reason of insanity of a crime of violence, including any juvenile who has not been adjudicated delinquent by reason of insanity of a crime of violence; or

           (5) Such person has, on or after August 28, 2014, been found mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence, including any juvenile who has been found mentally incompetent to be adjudicated for a crime of violence; or

           (6) Such person has been the subject of an order of relinquishment issued by the circuit court under section 571.071, unless such person can demonstrate that he or she is no longer prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm under the provisions of section 571.071 or 571.092.

           2. As used in this section “crime of violence” means any crime which involves the threat or use of physical force.

           [2.] 3. Unlawful possession of a firearm is a class C felony.

           [3.] 4. The provisions of subdivision (1) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to the possession of an antique firearm.

          5. On or after August 28, 2014, any judge who:

           (1) Orders a person committed for a mental disorder;

           (2) Finds a person not guilty by reason of insanity for a crime of violence or finds a juvenile not delinquent by reason of insanity for a crime of violence; or

           (3) Finds a person mentally incompetent to stand trial for a crime of violence or finds a juvenile mentally incompetent to be adjudicated for a crime of violence;

Shall notify the appropriate law enforcement agency of the order or finding, order that law enforcement agency to investigate the person who is the subject of that order to determine if such person’s firearms should be relinquished, and order that law enforcement agency to enter that person’s name into the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) as a person who is prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm.

           571.071. 1. Any person who on or after August 28, 2014, is prohibited from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling a firearm under subsection 1 of section 571.070 shall be investigated by the appropriate law enforcement agency to determine if such person’s firearms should be relinquished. If such agency determines that firearms should be relinquished, the law enforcement agency shall refer the matter to the attorney general’s office. The attorney general may, upon review of the matter, request an order from a circuit court prohibiting the purchase, ownership, possession, or control of a firearm and the relinquishment of any firearms.

           2. The attorney general shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent’s firearms should be relinquished because the respondent is dangerous to self or others. The respondent shall have the right to present evidence and be heard in any such proceedings. In the event the court makes such a finding, the court shall issue an order to the respondent to relinquish his or her firearms and such order shall be reported to the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System (MULES) for purposes of establishing that such person is a person prohibited from the purchase, ownership, possession or control of firearms.

           3. The court may include in any order that such person shall relinquish to a law enforcement officer any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person. Alternatively, the court may, in its discretion, allow such person to voluntarily relinquish to a law enforcement officer any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person. The court may also, in its discretion, direct any law enforcement agency to immediately search for and seize any firearms purchased, owned, possessed, or controlled by such person, upon a showing by the petitioner that such person purchased or has ownership, possession, or control of such firearms.

           4. Any person subject to an order of relinquishment under the provisions of this section may petition the court for an order to return the firearms ordered relinquished under the procedures established under section 571.092.

           5. If the basis for relinquishment is removed by the court, any firearms taken from the person shall be restored in a timely fashion.

           6. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the court under the provisions of this section may appeal such decision to the supreme court of Missouri.

           7. The attorney general shall work with local law enforcement agencies and the department of mental health to develop appropriate internal policies and regulations to ensure that personnel who process such procedures under the provisions of this section are trained on appropriate mental health risk- assessment procedures and also are trained to look for histories of violence.

[[emphasis in original]

That would be reasonable. The NRA won’t allow the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly to even consider it.

Previously:

Trouble in right wingnut paradise? (February 15, 2014)

Or was this just a political ploy? If you picked the second you’d be correct.

On Monday Representative Denny Hoskins (r-noun, verb, CPA) was on KOKO radio, a local Warrensburg station, speaking about his problem with the Show Me Justice International Film Festival.

Before we go to the radio transcript let’s take a look at an interesting document from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM

Information Memorandum

….Opportunity for a Hearing

A key statutory requirement for funding termination or reductions, as outlined in Section 678C(a)(5) of the CSBG Act is that States must provide adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing prior to terminating organizational eligibility for CSBG funding or otherwise reducing the proportional share of funding to an entity for cause.  The CSBG Act does not include any State or Federal authority to waive the requirement of an opportunity for a hearing. Hearing procedures should be consistent with any applicable State policies, rules or statutory requirements.

Pursuant to Section 678C(b) of the CSBG Act, OCS shall, upon request, review any final State determination to terminate or reduce funding of an eligible entity.  In order to conduct such review, the requestor and State should submit to OCS all necessary documentation  relating to the determination, including, for example, transcripts of the hearing and any documentation used in reaching the State’s decision.  For the purposes of any Federal review, it is suggested that States provide the following information to OCS:

   * A copy of the notice provided in advance of the hearing that includes the date of the notice and the date of the hearing;

   * The name of the presiding hearing official;

   * The name(s) of official(s) or individual(s) responsible for determination of hearing findings or decisions (e.g. the CSBG State Official);

   * The names of the individuals participating in the hearing; and

   * Documentation of evidence presented at the hearing….

Do you suppose that requirement for a hearing is to minimize political interference in a program at the last minute?

So, did the Missouri Valley Community Action Agency get a hearing? Just asking.

Was the timing of this all political?

You bet.

“…Well, uh, that kind of leads into a next segment. We’ve got veto session this week….”

Would the bill the Governor vetoed have had any impact on the film festival? It depends on when you ask Representative Hoskins (r) – before or during a veto session.

“…Yes, pretty much like we’re talking about, very similar to what we’re talking about. …”

And that veto session in Jefferson City on Wednesday? Our good friends at Fired Up via Twitter:

Hoskins trying to make hay with film festival during veto override debate, but then admitted fund in HB1903 wouldn’t have made a difference     about 8 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone

[emphasis added]

That’s called foreshadowing.

On to the radio transcript:

….Question: How can you recall funding after it’s spent?

Representative Denny Hoskins (r):  Well, that, that’s a, that’s, that’s an interesting question, Woody.

Question: [laughter]

Denny Hoskins:  Uh.

Question: It’s spent already.

Denny Hoskins: Yes, a lot of the money had, had already been spent. Uh, some of it had not. And so I’m, I’m not for sure exactly how the Department of Health and Social Services is going to recall that. But, you know, regardless, you know, I’m, I’m for tourism. I like to see people come in, you know, here in to Warrensburg. But I just don’t think the intent of the federal stimulus dollars was to put on a red carpet film festival, uh, that, from the Department of Health and Social Services. I didn’t know that they, they were in the business of, of putting on film festivals [crosstalk], so…

Update: Below the fold.

…Question: I had never even heard of it going on until the gentleman came to Rotary and spoke to us on Tuesday. I’d never heard of it.

Denny Hoskins:  Right, right.

Question: So, uh, whether they weren’t doing much publicity on it or what.

Denny Hoskins:  Yes, Yeah, I,  I’d heard just a few things about it but nothing until, you know, the Rotary and, and, um, a couple things in, in the local media, uh, this last week. And so, um, that’s, that was my in, involvement in it. You know, I,  I think if we could get private dollars in order to do this [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins:  …if, if the Department of Tourism wanted to spend some of their money in order [inaudible crosstalk] to bring a film festival here, you know, to Missouri, you know, that, that might be more, more appropriate of the agency. But, like I said, I, you know, they were, the, some of the meals that they were having looked to be, you know, pretty, pretty nice and we got some wonderful restaurants around here. I know the, you know, they were gonna have pan seared salmon and, and steak and wine and things at, at the, uh, gala red carpet VIP event [inaudible crosstalk] on Friday evening, but, you know I start to think, you know, those families, you know, the community action agency that they’re there to help the needy, low income, handicapped and, and disabled  and I, I wonder how many of those people received a, a pan seared salmon and, and steak and, and wine [inaudible crosstalk] Friday evening. Probably not very many.

Question: I don’t know, though. Do, do you ever figure out what the purpose of it was? How that was gonna help, uh, the poor and the ingindent [sic]? Indigent.

Denny Hoskins:  No.

Question: I can’t say the word. Indigent.

Denny Hoskins:  Yeah. Indigent. No, uh. [laughter]

Question: [inaudible] say that.

Denny Hoskins:  No, and, uh, that was one of my biggest concerns, is, you know, how, how is this going to help, help those people when, and a, a red carpet, like I said, film festival. I, I don’t, I don’t see [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins: …how, how that helps those people.

Question: Publicity, maybe? I don’t know. Bringing, bringing attention to the fact might, might be one of the things. But I, you know, I’m not smart enough to know that.

Denny Hoskins: Right, well, I mean, if you’re wanting to bring, you know, attention to the, those things I, I would think a hundred thousand dollars you could do some [laughter] , do some other things or, I mean, that mon, that’s money [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins: …could go to at home meals for senior citizens.

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins:  It, you know, it coulda gone to whole variety, you know, helping, you know, or low income students get back packs for schools and things like that, not, uh, not a film festival.

Question: Well, weren’t, weren’t they keeping the place they got the money from informed of what was going on? They were supposed to be report, were they not reporting regularly, telling them what was going on? And why, why did they wait to the last minute [crosstalk]…

Denny Hoskins: Right.

Question: …last, the day before the thing starts to say they want their money back?

Denny Hoskins:  Well, I, I think a lot of that, uh, it depends on who you talk to, that, you know, the community action agency, um, they’re saying they followed all the proper procedures. They submitted their application to Department of Health and Social Services [crosstalk]…

Question: Um, hmm.

Denny Hoskins: It was approved. They have certain benchmarks they had to report back. Um, usually these things are typically like four benchmarks that they have to report there and then they get the funding after they [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins: …complete that benchmark, uh, from the Department of Health and Social Services. Um, department of, so, uh, Missouri Valley Community Action Agency which, which is a good agency, does a lot of, of things for a lot of people here in, uh, [crosstalk]…

Question: They sure do.

Denny Hoskins: …in Johnson County as well as in, uh, I believe an eight county area. They have an office down there on Holden Street [crosstalk]…

Question: Um, hmm.

Denny Hoskins: …pretty close to my CPA office. [crosstalk]

Question: Sure do, yeah.

Denny Hoskins: And, um, so they’re saying they followed proper procedures, submitted the application, submitted these benchmarks when they had been completed, getting reimbursed. Now the Department of Health and, and Social Services is saying that, um, the application that, uh, Missouri Valley Community Action Agency submitted to them to, for this grant that, this hundred thousand dollars of stimulus funds was different than the actual event that was going on this weekend.

Question: Okay.

Denny Hoskins: So.

Question: They just didn’t explain it correctly, apparently, huh?

Denny Hoskins: Yes, yes. That’s what the Department of Health and Social Services is saying [crosstalk].

Question: So, where’s this gonna go from here?

Denny Hoskins:  Well, uh, that kind of leads into a next segment. We’ve got veto session this week.

Question: Uh, huh!

Denny Hoskins:  And one of the bills that, or maybe the only bill that we’re going to try, the Governor, uh, vetoed a bill that would allow more transparency and accountability for stimulus funds.

Question: What we’re talking about.

Denny Hoskins: Yes, pretty much like we’re talking about, very similar to what we’re talking about. And he says that there’s already rules and regulations on the books that, uh, [crosstalk]…

Question: In place.

Denny Hoskins: …in place for these stimulus dollars so there’d be transparency and accountability. And he said that it, uh, um, what the bill basically did, that we, we passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate. I voted for it. I believe Senator Pearce voted for it as well, I’m sure that he did. And, it would, it would basically create a separate fund to receive these stimulus dollars and so we can better track how they are being spent. And give more legislative oversight on these stimulus and, and ARRA, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars [crosstalk]

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins:  And, so, we’re going to try and override, uh, the Governor’s veto this Wednesday [crosstalk], my understanding.

Question: The odds of that are what? Slim?

Denny Hoskins:  Well, you know, this is, this is a good example, the Show Me Social Justice Film Festival is a good example of, of stimulus dollars coming in that were not, [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins: …are not being spent for the purpose that which they are intended. Um, you know the festival did not create any jobs here in Johnson County. It’s not helping the, the needy, low income, handicapped, elderly, you know. Yes, did they buy some food from our local restaurants? Yes [crosstalk]…

Question: It did, it did bring some money in to Warrensburg, though.

Denny Hoskins:  Right, right, yeah, I mean it, you know, yes.

Question: What, ninety-four thousand dollars or something like that’s supposed to be what was coming in here in from it I [inaudible][crosstalk].

Denny Hoskins:  Um, hmm. Right. But, um, it’s, like I said, it’s, it just wasn’t being spent for the purpose it was intended and not [crosstalk] creating jobs.

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins:  So, what we hope to do is, I think this is a prime example why we do need that law in the books and why we need to override the Governor’s veto  [crosstalk] on that.

Question: Will you speak to this on the floor?

Denny Hoskins: I will. I plan on speaking to this on the floor.

Question: Which probably would, would help get the job done then [crosstalk][inaudible].

Denny Hoskins:  Right, well, I think this is, like I said, it’s a good example of, of how this, there needs to be more legislative oversight over those stimulus dollars coming in to make sure that they’re being spent wisely, I mean these are, I mean, the listeners out there, this is your taxpayer dollars that, that are being spent and [crosstalk]…

Question: Yeah.

Denny Hoskins:  Um, you know, if you think that they need to spend stimulus dollars and, and Department of Health and Social Services need to be in the film festival business [questioner laugh] then, and then we probably disagree.

Question: Yeah….

Here’s a question or two for Representative Hoskins (r): Did you contact anyone at the Missouri Valley Community Action Agency with your questions or allow them to explain what they were doing before you started your political posturing? Have you contacted anyone at MVCAA since? They’re on the web. They have a phone number and e-mail.

Update: We received word that Representative Hoskins (r) did not contact MVCAA before or during the film festival, but he did contact them on Monday afternoon (September 13th).

“…Um, hmm. Right. But, um, it’s, like I said, it’s, it just wasn’t being spent for the purpose it was intended and not [crosstalk] creating jobs….”

You see, we did ask:

….Melanie Corporon: ….In trying to think of creative ideas on how to engage community people in, our concern is poverty, overall, I bounced the idea off a state person and she suggested social justice as a theme. And she said, you know, a lot of communities do this, it brings a lot of people in, and it’s a good way to get the message, you know, of things about racism today, ageism,sexism, homophobia, lot of those things are relevant social issues that we have to tackle. So we did take that approach.

The other thing that we wanted to look at, what, with doing an event like this, how could we promote our area, draw people in, and have a lasting impact in tourism, business development, those kinds of things, you know. And we wanted to support local business, so we pledged to spend money in our seven counties, any money received. So, we did that.

We also wanted to take low income individuals, train them in hospitality customer service type training and then put them to work in paid positions at the festival….

“…But, like I said, I, you know, they were, the, some of the meals that they were having looked to be, you know, pretty, pretty nice and we got some wonderful restaurants around here. I know the, you know, they were gonna have pan seared salmon and, and steak and wine and things…”

Do you suppose there were business sponsors and possibly in-kind donations and maybe people attending the festival who paid admission?

Fancy that, you know, actually asking people for information before you cater to teabaggers.

Previously:

Suppose you held a film festival and right wingnuts didn’t want anyone to attend (September 10, 2010)

The show must go on (September 10, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): The review is in – two thumbs down (September 14, 2010)

Veto Session Reviews for Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): great potental for a Razzie (September 15, 2010)

The Show Me Social Justice International Film Festival catches a break during the General Assembly’s veto session – because, from the reviews, Representative Denny Hoskins (r-noun, verb, CPA) gave a performance worthy of a Golden Rasberry:

Representative John Burnett via Twitter:

Shocker! Repubs open with red herring argument re movie festival funding. Oddly fm Warrensburg where R incumbt is in trouble. Coincidence?     about 8 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  

Ouch, that left a mark.

Fired Up! via Twitter:

Hoskins trying to make hay with film festival during veto override debate, but then admitted fund in HB1903 wouldn’t have made a difference     about 8 hours ago  via Twitter for iPhone  

So, why bring it up, unless it was all about political posturing? Because it was all about political posturing.

Tony Messenger via Twitter:

Missouri house begins process of trying to overturn nixon veto of hb1903. unlikely to get the two-thirds majority necessary.     about 8 hours ago  via Panoramic moTweets

Sorry, forgot to tweet the end of the veto session debate. veto override fell way short. back to your previously scheduled fundraisers …     about 6 hours ago  via Panoramic moTweets  

Oh, and fundraising.

Previously:

Suppose you held a film festival and right wingnuts didn’t want anyone to attend (September 10, 2010)

The show must go on (September 10, 2010)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder (r): The review is in – two thumbs down (September 14, 2010)