Proposed Bills In One State Would Require Gun Ownership


If you’re like me, when you hear the words “gun legislation,” you automatically think of anti-gunners trying to pass another bill to try to take away our Second Amendment rights. They keep trying to do it, so it’s not a surprise to jump to that conclusion.

But a Missouri lawmaker has proposed bills (yes, two) that are a direct slap in the face of anti-gunners. The KMBC 9 News Staff give us the details:

A lawmaker wants to require some Missouri residents to own AR-15 guns.

Andrew McDaniel, (R-Deering), introduced House Bill 1108 on Feb. 28. According to the bill’s description, it 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.”

Documents presented during the bill’s proposal said any person who qualifies as a Missouri resident on Aug. 28, 2019, and who does not own an AR-15, would have a year to purchase one. In addition, anyone who becomes a Missouri resident after Aug. 28, 2019, would have to purchase an AR-15 within a year.

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 is on a House calendar.

Sadly, as you can read above, there doesn’t appear to be an upcoming vote on either of these bills, but it’s refreshing to see legislators in some areas actually taking a proactive and pro-gun stand on firearms.


Now, we just need to get other legislators with the courage and gumption to do the same thing in their states that McDaniel is trying to do in Missouri.



  1. well I guess I’ll never move to Missouri, I have ZERO use for an AR15 or Any 223 of any kind. I’ll stick to my Bolt and lever action that shoot real bullets. 😉

    • What would have been the result of the Revolutionary War had the colonists
      been deprived of bearing arms? Check out the non-existent gun death problem in
      Switzerland because citizens are required to own arms. The small country of
      Switzerland has more guns in the hands of their citizens than all other countries
      in the so called European Union. Hitler never invaded Switzerland because all citizens
      were required by law to own and know how to properly use gins – a tool that good
      people should use to make bad people fear good people. Hitler took advantage of the feckless
      who surrendered their rights of self-defense. Isn’t it amazing how when guns are taken away, gun
      violence increases for the obvious reason the bad people don’t really care about the difference
      between illegal and legal. Moreover, the gutless and gullible cowards who want to disarm citizens of
      their right to self-defense, and who grossly EXAGGERATE gun violence, have no problem with those who
      use the barbarism of abortion utensils; pills; potions; and devices to murder with PREMEDITATION the innocent; defenseless and voiceless who reside in their mother’s womb at rates FAR GREATER than all lives lost in all WARS fought by the USA from 1776-2018. And this demonic fact was accomplished in only 45 years as opposed to the 242 years since 1776.

      • DENIS SAID IT!
        When everyone had a gun in Switzerland, even Aggressor Hitler wouldn’t mess with Switzerland! Why? Because BULLIES AND BRUTES (who practice brutality and/or commit atrocities) HAVE NO GUTS FOR A FAIR FIGHT. And that is ALSO the reason for “gun control”. BULLIES AND BRUTES WANT THEIR VICTIMS TO BE DEFENSELESS!

  2. oh no the leftist full diaper cowards will be losing their minds over this… both brain cells at once.. Hope that all 57 states put legislation up like this and it passes… yea

  3. I don’t have a problem with anyone in any state having gun laws to have guns, it’s just that we still have to protect children and bad people from easily getting their hands on them.

    • Jeff,
      There is a solution for kids taking guns to school. Pass a law that parents must be held accountable for a kid taking a gun to school, especially if rhe kid shoots someone.

      • When I was a kid, most High Schools (outside of the liberal bastions) had shooting clubs. Kids had a rifle in a rack in the back window of their truck. They used to go hunting before and after school, sometimes with some of the teachers.

        We did n’t have problems with shootings at schools or in other public places. It’s really only in the past 30 years that there has been a major uptick in shootings in schools (K-12).

        Hyewon Kim—a Cato Center for Educational Freedom Intern – found 134 school shootings from 2000 to 2018. Only eight of these occurred in private schools while 122 occurred in public schools. Might there be a correlation between Public Schools, where the gov’t is involved, and private schools, where the gov’t is not directly involved in the education process?

    • Most people dont stop to think it’s not the guns themselves that are dangerous they are just tools after all no different than a screwdriver . But the problem lies with the human brain our choices and the ability to use those tools as weapons. If there are more good guys with a gun they would think twice before doing something stupid if they new they would get no more than a few shots off before getting shot themselves. I absolutely believe more states need legislation like that. Just not the specific AR 15 platform.

  4. First let me say I like the idea. However, just like it’s wrong to take guns away, it’s just as wrong to require a person to have a gun when that particular person doesn’t care for them. America has always been a nation of Personal Freedoms as the Constitution advocates. Other nations have Constitutions but ours centers around FREEDOMS. Some other Constitutions are even based on ours because it has worked so well, this is why there is no reason for a change. Surely not SOCIALISM because it has NEVER worked.

  5. How nice,about time someone stands up for gun owners, and the future of gun rights. Let’s get the ball rolling. Long live the 2nd. Amendment. Stand tall, and steadfast. Be a patriotic. The lll percent lives.long live freedom.

  6. Our rites should be number one and it would be great to have government support. As we see the government MAINLY DEMO C RATS are trying to take them away ! IF WE LOSE ONE RITE WE LOST THEM ALL, A TRUE FACT IN HISTORY !!!

  7. All gun rules, regulations, policies and laws are unconstitutional and MUST be removed! Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint” which has now become the mantra of our liberal influenced government.

    Supporters of the bill of rights claim they have a constitutional or Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on the right. Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.

    When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.

    By advancing the myth Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.

    A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?

    When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]

    As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.

    If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.

    Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not contain any exceptions.

    Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”

    Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”

    Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

    Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”

    Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.

    Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”

    Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”

    Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772

    Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”

    Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”

    S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.

  8. I am still of the opinion that these mass shootings are the results of subliminal conditioning by the “shadow government” via social media platforms. Most shooters had posted troubling messages on social media sites for weeks before their acts, and no one seemed to pay any attention until after the fact! Could this be the reason for, as Roof_Rat_CV66 so aptly points out, there has been a major uptick of incidents such as these only in the past 30 years or so? Bears investigating I so think!

  9. Vietnam vet and proud of it. A M16 saved my life more than once. If I could afford the AR 15 I would have one. I’m a proud owner of my guns.

  10. RoofRatCV66: well said. Thanks for serving on the fixed-wing carrier 66. The founding fathers, having just experienced winning a revolution which was won in part by armed citizens, had the foresight to know that the population must never be disarmed. They were very clear that citizens’ right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Our current anti-gun politicians try to cloud the issue with isolated incidents but really fear the population rising up and regaining control of a government by, of, and for the people (If it comes to that). They want to incrementally neuter the power if the people. We need to hold their feet to the fire and remind them who they work for.

  11. rifles in private citizens hands helped keep the Japanese out of our country during WW II. Private firearms
    were major part of stopping British during the American Independence struggle.

Comments are closed.