Assault weapons bill deemed DOA - Lebanon Daily Record : Local News

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Assault weapons bill deemed DOA

Laclede County's representatives say the measure has no chance to become law

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Rep. Diane Franklin

Rep. Sandy Crawford

Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 3:28 pm

St. Louis area Democrats have introduced a bill in the state House of Representatives that would make “assault weapons” illegal in Missouri and make it mandatory for those who own them to turn them in.

The measure also would outlaw high-capacity ammunition magazines. Possessing or transferring either the weapons or the magazines would become a class C felony.

House Bill No. 545 was introduced Wednesday by Rep. Rory Ellinger, D-86th District. Cosponsors are Rep. Jill Schupp, D-88th District, Rep. Margo McNeil, D-69th District and Rep. Rochelle Walton Gray, D-75th District.

The bill defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and any of a list of features, including a pistol grip or a folding stock. Semi-automatic pistols would be outlawed too if the bill were to become law.

It faces an uphill battle, however, as Republicans hold super majorities in both the House and Senate this session.

Rep. Diane Franklin, R-123rd District, doesn’t expect the bill to make it to a committee hearing, much less to the House floor. Franklin represents the north and east parts of Lebanon and Laclede County.

“They may grant it a hearing, but it wouldn’t pass out of the House of Representatives,” Franklin said Thursday. “It probably wouldn’t pass out of committee.”

Franklin said she was unsure why the legislators would introduce a bill that doesn’t have a ghost of a chance of ever becoming law. “I think they’re just kind of expressing their opinion in this bill, and they certainly can do that,” she said.

Despite the virtual impossibility of the bill proceeding, it has drawn attention around the country.

“I have been sitting at my computer for the last two and a half hours, answering my flooded inbox of e-mails about this bill,” said 129th District Rep. Sandy Crawford early today.

For the complete article, see today's print edition of The Daily Record, or view the e-Edition online.

© 2015 Lebanon Daily Record . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More about

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • paul84 posted at 12:15 am on Sat, Feb 16, 2013.

    paul84 Posts: 85

    I'm sure that you also found this in your research:

    Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    The Heller case also established a precedent that the government does have the power to deem certain weapons as unfit for possession by the general public.

  • AMS posted at 10:53 pm on Fri, Feb 15, 2013.

    AMS Posts: 1

    While I agree with most of what Rep. Sandy Crawford had to say, I feel that the bill should be brought up so that it can be voted down completely. Perhaps then the liberal democrats will not only read but understand the constitution. Here are a few things I learned while researching this subject.

    "AMENDMENT [II.] reads
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The Verb "infringed" means the following:
    1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
    2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
    3.To encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

    The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.
    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

    Therefore, unless the people explicitly give up the right, the government, Federal, state or local, should not pass laws that removes or "INFRINGES" upon those rights. If they want to limit "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" may I suggest they attempt to pass an ammendment to the state or US constitution. I doubt very seriously that that would pass at any level of government.