Mo. Bill Would Make it Illegal to Propose Gun Control
Lawmakers who did so would face prison time
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Feb 19, 2013 1:19 PM CST
Don't even think about trying to restrict this.   (Shutterstock)

(Newser) – A Missouri House Republican yesterday proposed a bill that would make it a crime, punishable by up to four years in prison, for lawmakers to propose gun control measures. Mike Leara's HB633 "specifies that any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms will be guilty of a class D felony," according to the House website. Leara proposed the bill less than a week after a Democrat introduced a bill banning assault weapons, the News-Leader reports.

ThinkProgress points out that the bill seems to violate both the Missouri Constitution and the US Constitution, and Comedy Central describes the bill as "a scenario in which the 2nd Amendment took the 1st Amendment aside and fired round after round of hollow point bullets into its lifeless body." But, the AP notes, Leara himself has said he doesn't expect the bill to pass, and introduced it only as a matter of principle.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Mo. Bill Would Make it Illegal to Propose Gun Control is...
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Showing 3 of 135 comments
Feb 20, 2013 6:45 PM CST
Make it illegal to run for office when you are an idiot
Feb 20, 2013 9:49 AM CST
"Newser– A Missouri House Republican yesterday proposed a bill... HB633 'specifies that any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms will be guilty of a class D felony,'...." DAMNED GOOD IDEA! One man that under-stands that he's a corporate employee that writes laws for his corporation... and not for We the PEOPLE! Oh and all of you registered voters are members of that corporation. And the most important part is that HEADS of this corporation only use for you is to blind-side you with: "We have the support of the people!" All voters' votes combined equal 3 electoral college votes... because when you registered you made yourself a resident of the District of Columbia! Why on Earth would you do that? You live in a sovereign country (i.e. Kansa, Iowa) and expatriate yourselves so you can vote in a corporation registered in Puerto Rico since 1871? Could it be that a government education is not the best of ideas? Too bad spouses think they both have to work to get ahead, occupationally orphaning their children. You'd have a lot more money if you knew that taxes are on profit and gain only, NOT WAGES! >>> "There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955) >>> "The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support... it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services." Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930) >>> "... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation." Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969) >>> "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute." Edwards v. Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916) >>> "... reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered is not profit." Lauderdale Cemetary Assoc. v. Mathews, 345 PA 239; 47 A. 2d 277, 280 (1946) >>> SRC: >>> Pretty easy to see why the government wants to disarm the PEOPLE ... they've been lying to us for so long, they're starting to worry about the consequences!
Feb 20, 2013 8:16 AM CST
Doesn't the constitution make it illegal to infringe upon gun rights?