• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mo. gov. vetoes bill that nullified fed gun laws [W:20] (1 Viewer)

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Friday that would have made it a Missouri crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce federal gun laws in the state and could have landed journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners.
The Democratic governor said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally gives preference to federal laws over conflicting state ones. He said it also infringed in the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.


"Under this bill, newspaper editors around the state that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime," the governor said in a written statement announcing the veto.
Other provisions in the bill would have allowed school teachers and administrators with concealed-gun permits and special training to be designated as a "school protection officer" capable of carrying hidden guns into schools.
Missouri's age to obtain a conceal-carry permit would have been lowered to 19 instead of the current 21, and the bill would have allowed people with concealed gun permits to openly carry firearms up to 16 inches long — even in jurisdictions that have ordinances against the open display of guns.


Read more @: Mo. gov. vetoes bill that nullified fed gun laws

Yayy! At least one person in the Midwest has some common sense! Thank you Governor Nixon for vetoing this bill! :applaud
 
Under that same law it would also be illegal to report on gun owners who protect their property with a firearm. If pro-gun crowd showed some intelligence in these matters like not making a law that criminalizes their bragging in the media one might not know so many of them are so stupid.
 
Yes.



I believe i can do what i want.

You just tossed out an insult to everyone besides Jay Nixon that lives in the Midwest IE made a completely unfounded asinine comment based on partisan stereotypical bull****.

Thanks for proving you should be on ignore----by everyone.
 
You just tossed out an insult to everyone besides Jay Nixon that lives in the Midwest IE made a completely unfounded asinine comment based on partisan stereotypical bull****.

Thanks for proving you should be on ignore----by everyone.

Okay! :party

:lamo
 
it's unfortunate that the States would bend to Federal treason. Oh well, at least many other states enacted laws against the federal government's power grabs.


So the fact that it violated Freedom of the Press doesn't bother you?
 
So the fact that it violated Freedom of the Press doesn't bother you?

In this case, the “freedom of the press” involved is to report information which it obtained from the government, and which the government only obtained by blatantly violating both the Second and Fourth Amendments—information which was never anyone's business except those who were the subject of this information.

The government had no authority to posses this information in the first place, nor did it ever have the legitimate authority to pass this information on to uninvolved third parties, such as the press.

The only real outrage here is that it is only the press that would have stood to be punished for misusing this information. Every government official who was in any way willfully involved in collecting and distributing this information is equally guilty. Of course, government isn't going to pass nor enforce a law to punish itself.
 
In this case, the “freedom of the press” involved is to report information which it obtained from the government, and which the government only obtained by blatantly violating both the Second and Fourth Amendments—information which was never anyone's business except those who were the subject of this information.

The government had no authority to posses this information in the first place, nor did it ever have the legitimate authority to pass this information on to uninvolved third parties, such as the press.

The only real outrage here is that it is only the press that would have stood to be punished for misusing this information. Every government official who was in any way willfully involved in collecting and distributing this information is equally guilty. Of course, government isn't going to pass nor enforce a law to punish itself.

Whether or not the information was rightfully obtained, the press is free to report it. Should the press be punished for publishing what Snowden revealed?

Maybe we should crack down on the press reporting things that are politically inconvenient. That sounds like a free society, doesn't it?
 
You just tossed out an insult to everyone besides Jay Nixon that lives in the Midwest IE made a completely unfounded asinine comment based on partisan stereotypical bull****.

Thanks for proving you should be on ignore----by everyone.
So just to interject (hope that word isn't too big for you), since.... Are you too obtuse or daft to understand the simple and straightforward beginning to his statement, "At least", now let me explain to you so you'll understand.... that means more than one person can have common sense. At least one has proven he does. Perhaps more do, but for now at least one is in evidence. Please will you macho conservative men quit being such drama queens.
 
So just to interject (hope that word isn't too big for you), since.... Are you too obtuse or daft to understand the simple and straightforward beginning to his statement, "At least", now let me explain to you so you'll understand.... that means more than one person can have common sense. At least one has proven he does. Perhaps more do, but for now at least one is in evidence. Please will you macho conservative men quit being such drama queens.

Thanks for making my point.

Now if perhaps some liberals could do so WITHOUT the insults that would be great.
 
Thanks for making my point.

Now if perhaps some liberals could do so WITHOUT the insults that would be great.
Aw, are your whittle feelers hurt? Poor baby, thanks for proving your lack of true machismo by further whining and being a drama queen.
 
Aw, are your whittle feelers hurt? Poor baby, thanks for proving your lack of true machismo by further whining and being a drama queen.

This forum has rules. If I abide by them why cant you?
 
Whether or not the information was rightfully obtained, the press is free to report it. Should the press be punished for publishing what Snowden revealed?

Maybe we should crack down on the press reporting things that are politically inconvenient. That sounds like a free society, doesn't it?

We're talking basic privacy rights, here. The information in question is nobody's business, except those who it directly involves. Government acted illegally in demanding that information in exchange for generously allowing the victims to exercise a basic Constitutional right. Government had no legitimate authority to collect that information, to store it, or to allow it to fall into the hands of a third party. The press, being that third party, has no legitimate right to further disclose that information to anyone. It doesn't belong to them. They only have it as a result of illegal activity, and making any use of it only makes them willing accomplices to the original crime involved in collecting it in the first place.

Suppose someone were to illegally plant a microphone in your home, and record personal conversations between you and your wife. If these recordings were then passed on to the press, would the press have the right to publish the information contained in these recordings? I say not. These conversations were between you and your wife, and are nobody else's business. Anyone who obtains the information from them does so in violation of your basic right to privacy, and anyone who passes this information on to others also does so in violation of your right to privacy.
 
The law tried to do too many things and was almost impossible to execute.

Repass what can work, and force Nixon to veto the measures one by one. Some of them are decent ideas. Some of them are way out there. Let each side do its job, multiple measure bills suck anyway--Id rather see government work to make small incremental laws, not sweeping ones.
 
In this case, the “freedom of the press” involved is to report information which it obtained from the government, and which the government only obtained by blatantly violating both the Second and Fourth Amendments—information which was never anyone's business except those who were the subject of this information.

The government had no authority to posses this information in the first place, nor did it ever have the legitimate authority to pass this information on to uninvolved third parties, such as the press.

The only real outrage here is that it is only the press that would have stood to be punished for misusing this information. Every government official who was in any way willfully involved in collecting and distributing this information is equally guilty. Of course, government isn't going to pass nor enforce a law to punish itself.
So MO has gun registration? If not how did the gov't get the information about gun ownership, and who is providing stories thereabout? Makes no sense. Seems to me it would hinder sporting and hunting articles the most, I don't think I've ever read about someone's gun ownership being unfairly or illegally presented to the press or by the press. Please give me an example, an actual one, not a hypothetical one.
 
So MO has gun registration? If not how did the gov't get the information about gun ownership, and who is providing stories thereabout? Makes no sense. Seems to me it would hinder sporting and hunting articles the most, I don't think I've ever read about someone's gun ownership being unfairly or illegally presented to the press or by the press. Please give me an example, an actual one, not a hypothetical one.

The governor signed HB533, which allows state employers to store firearms in their vehicles parked on state property. But Nixon vetoed HB436, dubbed by sponsors as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,’’ which in effect nullified all federal gun laws – going back to the 1934 ban on machine guns.

I have a concealed carry but i don't blame the gov for vetoing this.

https://www.stlbeacon.org/#!/content/31740/nixon_veto_guns_070513?coverpage=3587
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal attacks and off topic posting, people.
 
So MO has gun registration? If not how did the gov't get the information about gun ownership, and who is providing stories thereabout? Makes no sense. Seems to me it would hinder sporting and hunting articles the most, I don't think I've ever read about someone's gun ownership being unfairly or illegally presented to the press or by the press. Please give me an example, an actual one, not a hypothetical one.

Outrage After New York Paper Posts Gun Owners' Names and Addresses | TIME.com

A New York paper filed a FOIA request for gun registration information then promptly posted it publicly.

Edit: I didnt know about this one, apparently Gawker released gun owner information in NYC.
Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City
 
We're talking basic privacy rights, here. The information in question is nobody's business, except those who it directly involves. Government acted illegally in demanding that information in exchange for generously allowing the victims to exercise a basic Constitutional right. Government had no legitimate authority to collect that information, to store it, or to allow it to fall into the hands of a third party. The press, being that third party, has no legitimate right to further disclose that information to anyone. It doesn't belong to them. They only have it as a result of illegal activity, and making any use of it only makes them willing accomplices to the original crime involved in collecting it in the first place.

Suppose someone were to illegally plant a microphone in your home, and record personal conversations between you and your wife. If these recordings were then passed on to the press, would the press have the right to publish the information contained in these recordings? I say not. These conversations were between you and your wife, and are nobody else's business. Anyone who obtains the information from them does so in violation of your basic right to privacy, and anyone who passes this information on to others also does so in violation of your right to privacy.

They'd have the right to publish whatever. The Enquirer does it all the time.

Besides which, let's say you attend an NRA rally carrying your gun. The local paper snaps a picture because they're covering the rally. Now you have no reasonable right to privacy because you were out in public. This law, potentially, could have resulted in the paper being punished. No invasion of privacy, just reporting on the news. If they need to go back and rewrite it a bit to change that, then they should.
 
Outrage After New York Paper Posts Gun Owners' Names and Addresses | TIME.com

A New York paper filed a FOIA request for gun registration information then promptly posted it publicly.

Edit: I didnt know about this one, apparently Gawker released gun owner information in NYC.
Here Is a List of All the Assholes Handsome Law-Abiding Citizens Who Own Guns Some People in New York City
That's a whole different state with gun registration requirements. I was asking about MO since that's the topic. And it appears to be a state issue in that the NY registered gun owner information published, like it or not is publicly available to anyone, if I'm reading the article correctly.

Not at all what you're suggesting might happen if... in MO.
 
That's a whole different state with gun registration requirements. I was asking about MO since that's the topic. And it appears to be a state issue in that the NY registered gun owner information published, like it or not is publicly available to anyone, if I'm reading the article correctly.

Not at all what you're suggesting might happen if... in MO.

Certainly could happen in Missouri. Which would make having a law that blocks that action a good thing. Like I said, pass the laws one by one, what passes does and what doesnt pass doesnt.

A think a law protecting citizens from being outed in a FOIA request is something that needs done. An FOIA is not meant to be transparency about citizens; its about transparency in government.
 
Certainly could happen in Missouri. Which would make having a law that blocks that action a good thing. Like I said, pass the laws one by one, what passes does and what doesnt pass doesnt.

A think a law protecting citizens from being outed in a FOIA request is something that needs done. An FOIA is not meant to be transparency about citizens; its about transparency in government.
Right because we need to really freak out about all the things that couldn't actually happen in MO under current MO gun laws, but could keep your Field&Stream and local newspapers from allowing the pride of those displaying their opening day hunting trophies or similar. It doesn't state it's okay if the person being "outed" is okay with it, it makes it an out n out crime. Ridiculous, all the way around.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom