Posted on 03/15/2019 8:42:48 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
ST. LOUIS (KMOV.com) – A bill introduced in Missouri would require residents to own AR-15 guns.
Andrew McDaniel (R-Deering) introduced House Bill 1108 late last month. The bill would establish the McDaniel Militia Act, “which requires every person between 18 and 35 years of age who can legally possess a firearm to own an AR-15 and authorizes a tax credit for a purchase of an AR-15.”
According to the proposed bill, any person who qualifies as a resident on Aug. 28, 2019 who does not own an AR-15 would have a year to purchase one. In addition, anyone who becomes a state resident after Aug. 28, 2019 would have no later than a year to purchase an AR-15.
The bill was introduced for the first time and read on Feb. 27.
In addition, McDaniel filed a bill that would require every person 21 years of age and older to own a handgun if they are legally able to. That bill, House Bill 1052, was introduced two days prior to House Bill 1108.
According to the Missouri House of Representatives website, neither bill is currently scheduled for a hearing or on a House calendar.
(Excerpt) Read more at kmov.com ...
My parents bought me my first .22 when I was six, and I remember walking to the store in ‘67 with two quarters to buy 50 rounds. I could barely see over the counter, but there weren’t any questions and sales tax didn’t exist then either. Now, 52 years later, I have to show a government issued ID to purchase ammo at many stores.
Ridiculous. I don’t care for an AR-15 or do I expect to ever buy one. One should have the freedom to substitute a M1-A or a M-1 Carbine instead of a AR-15 platform. Even a trustworthy M-1 Rifle should be acceptable.
Great...I am over 70 so I qualify for two.
It could just be that the respersentive knows where in a damn war with the Leftist knowing that the Conseveritives are the only ones that will abide by the law if ever passed.just mostly hoping we have one person of authority on our side
Well, to be fair, even in the early to mid 1970s when I was in the Rangers, we weren’t allowed to carry weapons on post unless as a unit ‘Under Arms’, or as a detailed Prisoner Guard or Payroll Guard.”. I can’t remember if Gate Guards were armed then, never having had that duty. Only MP’s were allowed to “carry” as a regular thing.
So that isn’t some 0bama Rule or Bush Rule
Fort Hood restrictions on personal weapons were expanded in 2009 and again in 2012.
On a USN nuclear submarine in 1974 our topside watch had a duty belt with a 1911 holstered on the belt and two loaded clips. The pistol wasn’t loaded. If a threat occurred he had to insert the clip and rack in a round. I have a story of something that happened to cause a watch stander to load a pistol over an altercation. It’s a long story involving a drunk shipmate, shore patrol and a repel boarders drill. Point they weren’t carrying a loaded weapon.
When I was in grade school in MO you were allowed to carry your single-shot 22 rifle on the bus! They had gun safety and marksmanship training behind the gym.
What if they only wanted to lease?
When I did prisoner escort or payroll guard, I was issued a 1911 with three rounds in the magazine, and not supposed to chamber until too late.. I always had a few extra of my own that they didn’t need to know about.
And there were a few times in a ‘warm zone’ on sentry duty, we had M-16s with an empty mag. Some of us had a full mag secreted somewhere, just in case.
Militia Act III
Nothing in the bill as presented that prevents everyone required to purchase a gun from purchasing the same gun. It’ll be an AR-15 time share.
Springfield M1A or Garand
My favoritist...Evuh!
Several months before Concord/Lexington the locals made it mandatory that every able male adult be part of the militia. Most of them owned firearms, but those that didn’t would be provided one to use for training and for battle when it came to that.
But yeah - forcing me to buy something. Nope. I mean, you go down that road, and then they could force me to buy high-priced health insurance or something.
(Oh - AR prices would go up.)
I agree.
Look, I like the idea behind this, but it’s not a good idea what he’s suggesting.
There are people out there who are barely capable of showing up in public. You’re going to force those folks to own a weapon?
No thanks. The rest of us have to live next to someone like that.
I had to do a job where the dock wasn’t stable, and they couldn’t unload a nuclear submarine of its missiles. So there it sat on the water (under a roof).
They told me not to cross the yellow line that was a foot or so from the sub. The four guys standing on the sub with their rifles seemed ready all the time.
Two small boats with what looked like .50 caliber guns swept back and forth both fore and aft of the sub.
I figured everybody was ready to go. Not that I was going to test them or anything!
With you on that.
Since 911 maybe sooner I’m sure the rules of engagement changed and rightly so. The 1974 rules are probably a lot different than now. I didn’t carry back then. I damn sure do now, and I don’t have to rack in a round. You ain’t carrying you lose, it ain’t loaded you lose. Losing is not an option.
I think the guy’s point is if everyone is carrying the same weapon then people can share ammo and mags.Personally I don’t have much use for an AR-15 but I still have a couple so I can use 5.56 ammo,which if the SHTF will be laying about.
Amen.Serious weapons for serious shooters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.