Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.
Yet another bill, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts, filed today:
HB 1815
Prohibits public schools from using any curriculum implementing critical race theory
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 4178H.01I
Last Action: 12/06/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1815
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
4178H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to curricula used in
public schools.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.353, to read as follows:
170.353. 1. As used in this section, “curriculum implementing critical race theory” includes, but is not limited to, any curriculum that:
(1) Identifies people or groups of people, entities, or institutions in the United States as inherently, immutably, or systemically sexist, racist, biased, privileged, or oppressed; and
(2) Employs immutable, inherited, or objective characteristics such as race, income, appearance, family of origin, or sexual orientation to:
(a) Define a person’s identity;
(b) Classify persons into groups for any purpose including, but not limited to, the targeting of only certain groups for education, formation, indoctrination, viewpoint, or transformation;
(c) Perpetuate stereotypes; or
(d) Assign blame to categories of persons regardless of the actions of particular individuals.
2. For purposes of this section, a curriculum implementing critical race theory includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) The 1619 Project initiative of the New York Times;
(2) The Learning for Justice Curriculum of the Southern Poverty Law Center;
(3) Teaching Tolerance, or any successor curriculum;
(4) We Stories;
(5) Programs of Educational Equity Consultants; or
(6) Any other similar predecessor or successor curriculum.
3. No school district, charter school, or personnel or agent of such school district or charter school shall:
(1) Teach, use, or provide for use by any pupil any curriculum implementing critical race theory as part of any curriculum, course materials, or instruction in any course given in such school district or charter school; or
(2) Teach, affirm, or promote as an accurate account or representation of the founding and history of the United States of America any of the claims, views, or opinions presented in the 1619 Project as part of any curriculum, course materials, or instruction in any course given in such school district or charter school.
Show us on the curriculum or course materials where the actual facts influenced you…
Bill prefiling for the Missouri General Assembly session started on December 1st.
Yet another host of bills, addressing a matter of great urgency for right wingnuts – the perpetuation of a deadly pandemic:
HB 1543Prohibits places of public accommodation from requiring vaccination against COVID-19 in order to access services
Sponsor: McGirl, Mike (118)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3267H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1543
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MCGIRL.
3267H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 191, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to disclosure of
COVID-19 vaccination status.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 191, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 191.720, to read as follows:
191.720. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(2) “Place of public accommodation”, a business offering or holding out to the general public goods, services, privileges, facilities, advantages, or accommodations for the peace, comfort, health, welfare, and safety of the general public or such public places providing food, shelter, recreation, or amusement.
2. A place of public accommodation shall not require a customer, patron, client, or other individual who is an invitee onto the premises of the place of public accommodation to present documentation disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status or make any statement disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status in order to gain access to or receive a service from the place of public accommodation.
3. An individual who is denied access to or receipt of a service from a place of public accommodation in violation of this section may bring a civil action in circuit court against any person who violates the provisions of this section and obtain one or more of the following remedies:
(1) An injunction against any further violations;
(2) Appropriate affirmative relief;
(3) An order directing that the individual be allowed entrance into the place of public accommodation; and
(4) Any other relief necessary to ensure compliance with this section.
4. The court may award reasonable costs, including court costs and attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party in an action brought under this section.
“… A place of public accommodation shall not require a customer, patron, client, or other individual who is an invitee onto the premises of the place of public accommodation to present documentation disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status or make any statement disclosing his or her COVID-19 vaccination status in order to gain access to or receive a service from the place of public accommodation….”
Enabling superspreader events in a pandemic. That’ll work, eh?
HB 1544
Prohibits employers from requiring their employees to receive a vaccination against COVID-19
Sponsor: McGirl, Mike (118)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3266H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1544
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MCGIRL.
3266H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 292, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 292, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 292.645, to read as follows:
292.645. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(2) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or any political subdivision of the state;
(3) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer shall not require an employee or prospective employee to undergo or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition ofemployment or continued employment.
3. An employee or prospective employee may bring a civil action in circuit court against an employer who violates the provisions of this section for such relief, including injunctive relief, as may be appropriate.
HB 1624
Creates provisions relating to COVID-19 tests and vaccinations
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 4220H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1624
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
4220H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapters 191 and 537, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to
COVID-19 vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapters 191 and 537, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 191.635 and 537.1415, to read as follows:
191.635. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Contractor”, any person contracted by an employer to perform work or service of any kind or character for the employer;
(2) “COVID-19 testing”, testing performed to detect infection with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
(3) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(4) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(5) “Employer”, any
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Government entity;
(6) “Government entity”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(7) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer or government entity shall not require weekly COVID-19 testing for employees, contractors, or students who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 if the employer or government entity does not require employees, contractors, or students who are vaccinated against COVID-19 to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing.
3. (1) An employer or government entity may require all employees, contractors, or students to undergo periodic COVID-19 testing at any interval as long as the employer or government entity does not consider COVID-19 vaccination status to determine whether to grant any exemptions to the testing requirement or vary the interval of the testing.
(2) Any employer or government entity that requires COVID-19 testing as described in subdivision (1) of this subsection shall pay all costs for such testing.
537.1415. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Contractor”, any person contracted by an employer to perform work or service of any kind or character for the employer;
(2) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(3) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Government entity;
(4) “Government entity”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(5) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. Any employer or government entity that requires its employees, contractors, or students to undergo or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 as a condition of employment for an employee, as a condition of the contract for a contractor, or as a condition of educational opportunities for a student shall be liable to such employees, contractors, or students for damages or physical, mental, or emotional injury arising from the required vaccination.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an action under this section may be commenced at any time.
HB 1670
Creates provisions relating to the COVID-19 vaccines
Sponsor: Seitz, Brian (156)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3647H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1670
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SEITZ.
3647H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 192, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 192, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 192.026, to read as follows:
192.026. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(2) “Government entity”:
(a) Any agency or instrumentality of the state government; or
(b) Any political subdivision or agency or instrumentality thereof;
(3) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village;
(4) “Vaccine passport”, any standardized documentation of vaccination against COVID-19.
2. No government entity shall issue vaccine passports for the purpose of certifying an individual’s COVID-19 vaccination status to a third party or to otherwise publish or share any individual’s COVID-19 vaccination record or similar health information.
3. No government entity shall do business with any entity that requires any of its employees or any other individuals to undergo vaccination against COVID-19 or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 through the submission of a vaccine passport.
4. If an entity with an existing written or implied contract, including any employment contract, with a government entity implements any new requirement for any of its employees or any other individuals to undergo vaccination against COVID-19 or prove receipt of a vaccination against COVID-19 through the submission of a vaccine passport, the entity shall be barred from doing any further business with any government entity, and any such existing contract with contrary terms shall be null and void as a matter of public policy.
“…vaccine passport…” Seriously? Grow up.
HB 1686
Creates provisions relating to the right to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and medical treatment
Sponsor: Hardwick, Bill (122)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3452H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1686
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE HARDWICK.
3452H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapters 191 and 292, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to
refusal of medical procedures or treatment.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapters 191 and 292, RSMo, are amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 191.230 and 292.648, to read as follows:
191.230. 1. No public body as defined in section 290.210, political subdivision, public school district, public institution of higher education, state department or agency, public official, peace officer, or any person appointed by the governor acting in an official and public capacity under such appointment shall:
(1) Require any person to receive a COVID-19 vaccination; or
(2) Condition any action, benefit, consequence, service, employment, enrollment, or any other thing of value on whether a person has received a COVID-19 vaccination.
2. Any order issued by a body or official described in subsection 1 of this section that violates the provisions of this section shall be void and unenforceable.
292.648. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Employer”, the same meaning given to the term in section 213.010;
(2) “Medical treatment”, any drug, medicine, synthetic substance, or therapy, whether therapeutic or preventive, that is fully approved or granted an emergency use authorization by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or pending approval by the FDA or that would require approval from the FDA to be sold or prescribed to the general public.
2. An employee shall be exempt from an employer’s requirement to receive medical treatment as a condition of employment and shall not be subject to adverse action by the employer, including loss of pay or termination of employment, for declining to receive the medical treatment if:
(1) The employee claims a religious or conscientious objection to the required medical treatment in a written document submitted to the employer;
(2) The employee has received a recommendation from a licensed physician based on the employee’s unique and individual medical situation advising the employee not to receive the required medical treatment on the basis that the medical treatment is medically unnecessary, likely to be harmful to the employee, or is not in the best medical interest of the employee for other specified reasons; or
(3) An alternative to the required medical treatment is available that would be sufficient to ensure the reasonable safety of other employees and any customers with whom the employee interacts.
HB 1768
Prohibits discrimination in employment based on COVID-19 vaccination status
Sponsor: Lewis, Ed (006)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2022
LR Number: 3736H.01I
Last Action: 12/01/2021 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1768
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS (6).
3736H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 292, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to COVID-19
vaccination status.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 292, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 292.649, to read as follows:
292.649. 1. For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “COVID-19”, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus;
(2) “COVID-19 vaccination status”, an indication of whether a person has received a vaccination against COVID-19;
(3) “Employee”, any person performing work or service of any kind or character for an employer;
(4) “Employer”, any:
(a) Individual, sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, or any other entity that is legally doing business in this state; or
(b) Department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or any political subdivision of the state;
(5) “Political subdivision”, any municipality, school district, special district, local governmental body, county, city, town, or village.
2. An employer shall not discriminate against an employee in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment based on the employee’s COVID-19 vaccination status.
If bad legislation was a cure we’d be okay. It isn’t and we aren’t.
Right wingnut members of the Missouri General Assembly held a photo-op outside of their districts, without including the members of the General Assembly who actually represent that area.
The mayors of St. Louis and Kansas City had something to say about it.
St. Louis Mayor Tishaura O. Jones and Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas today released the following joint statement regarding Republican state lawmakers’ calls for a special session related to police funding:
“Today’s grandstanding doesn’t make our communities any safer. As mayors of Missouri’s two largest cities, we are committed to collaborating with anyone willing to offer real solutions and investment to address the underlying conditions that lead to crime—poverty, lack of mental health services, housing instability, and more.
“Republican lawmakers on the outskirts of our communities calling for a special legislative session are offering no real solutions. Instead, they are advocating away the right of St. Louis and Kansas City residents to make decisions for our own communities.
“Both of us have committed to visiting each other’s respective cities to speak with those most affected by disinvestment—primarily in traditionally minority neighborhoods—and to discuss solutions to benefit the people of St. Louis, Kansas City, and all of Missouri. We again extend that same invitation to any elected leader who is serious about having truthful conversations about what actually makes our communities safer.”
Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas [2019 file photo].
Local control is apparently not a right wingnut value in Missouri.
The sponsor of the anti-choice HB 126 took to social media last night, responding to a movie actor:
Nicholas B. Schroer @NickBSchroer
It’s called there’s an actual #CaptainAmerica for the unborn here in MO. Not just some on screen character. Missouri has a crew of #ProLife legislators speaking for our most vulnerable from womb to tomb. Our unborn deserve saving too, not just your on-screen characters #moleg
[….] 10:24 PM – 24 May 2019 from Lake St Louis, MO
Some of the responses:
So, you support expanding Medicaid? After all, babies who are born, as well as their mothers, need healthcare. And how about proper education? Are you going to ensure everyone has access to quality education?
Let’s talk about housing. After all, babies need a roof.
Or are you really only concerned about a political agenda, enforcing your views, as well as reducing women’s rights?
We’re gonna go with the second one.
“speaking for our most vulnerable from womb to tomb”
only when one enters the tomb immediately after birth.
Failure to support adequate policy otherwise. #moleg
The from-womb-to-tomb supporters are @MOLegDems.
We noticed that, too.
If that’s the case, then I expect our legislators to expand Medicaid, food stamps, etc. I also expect them to fund schools and raise the minimum wage. See, you really don’t mean “to tomb”. GTFO of my personal decisions and my body, Nicholas.
Narrator: “It was not the case. It never was.”
Cute, but we are an army of Captain Marvels, Nick. Bet.
We see what you did there.
Again, the term is #ForcedBirth.
a professional joker or “fool” at a medieval court, typically wearing a cap with bells on it and carrying a mock scepter. — @NickBSchroer this is the definition of jester.
Just stop with the “womb to tomb” thing. It’s clear that you don’t and it just sounds douchey. You haven’t stopped abortion; only safe abortions.
This makes no sense.
It never has.
To tomb? Have you seen Missouri statistics on maternal and infant mortality? These so called prolife legislators refuse to expand Medicaid or other services to care for those outside the womb.
He was trolling people with what he thought would be a clever little rhyme.
He has. He doesn’t care. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That, too
I’m here for the ratio
Tomb?
I think you mean womb only there bro. Lets not pretend your policies do much for anyone but rich folks after that.
Bet you are against so-called “entitlement” programs, for the death penalty, support Trump… but yeah… all about this… FOH…
Are you going to increase the budgets for WIC, free/reduced school lunch programs, SNAP, etc. for all these children? I will wait right here…
Don’t hold your breath.
Like the tomb they will be placed in after they die in war bcuz they didnt get healthcare or an education w.o signing up as canon fodder bcuz their family couldnt plan their birth?
Iran.
“Our unborn” #rightwinghyperbole
Every conservative that talks about abortion sounds like a sociopath trying to say things to fit in [….]
Womb, sure. After that, they don’t seem to give a shit about anyone.
Who speaks for the woman?
At this point, not the woman.
Oh, sure. That’s why our infant/maternal mortality rates are so high. That’s why deaths of despair are rising. Sure, #moleg is full of super heroes..that’s why opioid addiction is so high. Yeppers, our reps think they are fabulous while the state craters.
It’s pretty ridiculous, isn’t it? They just care about forced pregnancy but don’t care about maternal or infant mortality.
Jeezus you’re desperate for attention.
Not not too much attention though. They passed the bill to strip women of their rights in the middle of the night. The governor signed the bill in a private ceremony. And he doesn’t even reply to Chris Evans—he quote tweets him.
They proved with their consensual rape and women lie nonsense that if they talk too much it’s bad for them. Now they’ll waste millions of our tax dollars paying lawyers to do their talking for them while the law gets shot down in courts.
Hey Nicholas, how about addressing the increasing maternal mortality rates in Missouri first…unless dead women is your thing?
Oh word? What are you doing for children after birth? Expanding Medicaid? Providing for family leave? Ensuring equality of education? Or…none of that? So maybe shut the hell about “womb to tomb”; you don’t care about children once they take a breath.
God, this is idiotic.
You sir, are a tool.
Womb to tomb? How’s that Medicaid expansion going? Universal pre-k? Paid family leave? Education funding? Are you addressing maternal mortality rates at all? What about the 400,000 foster kids? What exactly are you doing to protect the lives of the living?
Really Nic??? Are you will to start paying child support, insurance, and anything else it needs from the womb?? Yeah didnt think so asshat. Until you grow a uterus, zip it little man
Yesterday evening, appropriated from someone’s social media post:
Michael Bersin @MBersin
Breaking News: Alabama Accuses Missouri of Stealing Its Idea About Becoming a Medieval Theocracy. 7:36 PM – 16 May 2019
Missouri House at the close of the legislative session – May 13, 2016 [file photo].
The right wingnut republican controlled Missouri General Assembly just pushed Alabama out of the news:
House Communications @MOHOUSECOMM
The House has truly agreed to and finally passed HB 126 (To establish the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” that places new limits on abortion) with a vote of 110-44.
[….] 12:02 PM – 17 May 2019
And there’s an emergency clause:
House Communications @MOHOUSECOMM
The emergency clause for HB 126 (To establish the “Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act” that places new limits on abortion) passes with a vote of 109-46.
[….] 12:10 PM – 17 May 2019
“….Section C. Because of the need to protect the health and safety of women and their children, both unborn and born, the repeal and reenactment of section 188.028 of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the repeal and reenactment of section 188.028 of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.”
It would be fitting for the republican caucus to throw wire hangers at the conclusion of the session.
Legislative mischief, because the republican super majority can.
In the (amended) bill summary, in the latest version approved by the House [pdf]:
…Several new exemptions to the open records law commonly known as the Sunshine law are created including personal information and social security numbers, records of constituent files, and communications involving advice, opinions, and recommendations concerning the deliberative decision-making of any public governmental body…
[emphasis added]
Say what?
In House Amendment 3, introduced by Representative Nick Schroer (r) and passed by the House:
610.021. Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close meetings, records and votes, to the extent they relate to the following: [….]
(27) Any document or record, including electronic communications, received or prepared by or on behalf of a member of a public governmental body consisting of advice, opinions and recommendations in connection with the deliberative decision-making process of said body. [….]
[emphasis added]
That pretty much covers everything and anything.
(27) Effectively eviscerates the Missouri Sunshine Law, and is an attempt to let the Missouri General Assembly off the hook for the transparency required by CLEAN Missouri – Amendment 1 – which was overwhelmingly approved by voters in November.
Representative Greg Razer (D) on the bill, via social media:
Greg Razer is at Missouri House of Representatives. Yesterday at 5:52 PM · Jefferson City, MO ·
House Republicans just voted to gut the Sunshine Laws as it relates to the General Assembly. The underlined sections in the amendment below is a change to the law. Section (25) is perfectly fine. Section (26) is not great, but one could argue for it.
However, in particular take a look at (27). Read this closely. ANY document, including emails, that contain a legislator’s opinion would be allowed to be hidden from the Sunshine Law. Folks, virtually every email I send contains my opinion in some form. This section, (27), therefore guts Sunshine as far as the General Assembly is concerned.
(Lastly, you can see the vote below. In this instance, a green vote is AGAINST (27), while a red vote is supportive of (27).)
It’s that time again. Bills are being prefiled for the coming session of the Missouri General Assembly.
HB 126
Requires the use of a fetal heartbeat detection test prior to an abortion and prohibits an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 0461H.01I
Last Action: 12/03/2018 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 126
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
RepStaceyNewman @staceynewman
Pre-filing of anti-women MO abortion bills has begun – complete with unconstitutional heartbeat bill.
#StateMandatedPregnancy #NoMedicalInput
[….] 3:07 PM – 3 Dec 2018
And:
HB 127
Changes the laws regarding the parental notification required for a minor to obtain an abortion
Sponsor: Miller, Rocky (124)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 0510H.01I
Last Action: 12/03/2018 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 127
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
Rep.-elect Nick Schroer (R-107) has filed a bill, HB 96, that would allow “law abiding” gun owners to sue businesses that ban guns. It “would apply when a person who is authorized to carry a firearm, is prohibited from doing so by a business and is then injured by another person or an animal.”
Recently an employee at a Sunset Hills Home Depot was accidentally shot by a gun carrying customer. The store has a hybrid approach to guns:
… our policy is that we do allow customers to carry firearms into our stores as long as it is in accordance with local law. We do not allow associates (employees) to carry firearms.
Since turn and turn about is fair play, under the logic of Schroer’s HB 96, shouldn’t that injured employee be able to sue the Missouri legislature that made it legal for any Tom, Butterfingered Dick and Idiot Harry to carry a gun without a permit, evidence of training or basic common sense?
Shouldn’t he also be able to sue his employer – the one who permitted said Butterfingered Dick or Idiot Harry to bring a lethal weapon into the employee’s place of work?
Would a special law even be necessary to enable such lawsuits? Isn’t criminal negligence grounds enough?
Of course, if Home Depot were to drop that pesky ban on employees carrying guns, the employee in question might have been able to blast our butterfingered gun-owner to Kingdom Come before anyone knew what going on, thus taking care of the whole issue of who litigates whom, when.
A bill filed by a right wingnut republican freshman:
HB 96
Allows persons authorized to carry firearms under chapter 571 to sue for certain injuries sustained on the property of business enterprises that voluntarily prohibit firearms.
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 0523H.03I
Last Action: 12/01/2016 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 96
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
Think about that for a second. He wants to impose open and conceal carry on every business.
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
0523H.03I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to firearms.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.069, to read as follows:
571.069. 1. Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorized under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person who is authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, “business enterprise” means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the requirement to ensure safety and defense under subsection 1 of this section shall include a mandatory and explicit duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 against the intentional or reckless conduct of third parties including, but not limited to, persons who are trespassers, employees, customers, or other invitees of the business enterprise. The requirement to ensure safety and defense shall also include a duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms against vicious animals and wild animals. The duty to defend such persons under this subsection shall apply only to the defense against conduct that could reasonably have been prevented by the use of arms in lawful self defense. If a business enterprise restricts the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571, then such business shall post, together with the notice and sign required under section 571.107, notice stating that persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 are under the custodial responsibility of the business entity.
3. A person authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, or suffers property damage as a result of conduct breaching the duty to defend such person shall have a cause of action against a business entity prohibiting the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571.
4. The standard of proof for tort actions under this section shall require that a plaintiff show by preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) He or she was authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571;
(b) He or she was lawfully prohibited from carrying firearms or other arms by reason of a sign voluntarily posted by a business enterprise under section 571.107;
(c) He or she was prohibited from carrying firearms by a business enterprise that is not required to prohibit firearms or other arms under state or federal law or by a rule or policy enacted by a political subdivision or the state contracting with such business entity; and
(d) The business enterprise’s prohibition on carrying firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
5. If a plaintiff is successful in a lawsuit under this section, then he or she shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and court costs.
6. The statute of limitations for an action under this section shall be two years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.
[emphasis in original]
Here’s what should and will probably happen if this moronic bill becomes law: Business owners who post “no guns” will require anyone with a gun (who is not a commissioned peace officer) who they will not allow to enter with that weapon to sign a legal waiver before they are allowed on their premises without the gun.
Here’s what I plan on doing, even in our present environment. If I’m shopping at a business establishment and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned peace officer) I will abandon the items I intended on purchasing from that establishment where I stand and promptly exit. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my consumer dollars elsewhere. In a world where on-line shopping is easy this does not present a particular hardship for me as a consumer. It does present a hardship for a brick and mortar business establishment which relies on actual customers buying stuff on their premises.
If I am at a restaurant and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned officer) I will promptly leave the establishment, not waiting to order or complete my meal if at a later stage. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my business elsewhere.
