No One is Coming to Take Your Guns in Missouri or Minnesota
They want to compel you to surrender them.
Yesterday I wrote about Washington Senate Bill 5737, the latest knee jerk reaction to the school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.
I had talked about how that bill not only violates the Second Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment as well. Then I started thinking about it, and I began to think I was incomplete.
NOTICE: Washington’s bill has since been amended and the provision for the Sheriff’s searches has been removed.
Then I discovered that Missouri proposed a new bill (HB 545), and if you scroll all the way to the bottom, you find this gem:
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
So, if you own an assault weapon in Missouri, you either have to remove it from the State of Missouri, destroy it, or turn it in for destruction within 90 days of the enactment of the legislation..
This bill reached its second read on February 13, 2013. It has been sponsored by Rory Ellinger (D), Jill Schupp (D), Margo McNeil (D) and Rochelle Walton-Gray (D). All Democrats. What a surprise.
Then Minnesota mimics the move by introducing HF 241, a bill that is very similar to Missouri’s bill, except that you get until September 1, 2013 to get rid of or destroy your “assault” rifle, no matter when the bill goes into effect:
Sec. 7. PERSONS POSSESSING ASSAULT WEAPONS ON EFFECTIVE DATE
10.21OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
10.22Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault
10.23weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to
10.24prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
10.25(1) remove the weapon from the state;
10.26(2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction;
10.27(3) render the weapon permanently inoperable; or
10.28(4) if eligible, register the weapon as provided in Minnesota Statutes, section
10.29624.7133, subdivision 5.
10.30EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
The bill has had its first reading as of 1/31/2013. The authors are: Alice Hausman (DFL [Democratic Farm Labor]), Frank Hornstein (DFL), Erik Simonson (DFL), Jim Davnie (DFL), Linda Slocum (DFL), Rena Moran (DFL), Raymond Dehn (DFL), JoAnn Ward (DFL), and Phyllis Khan (DFL)
Democrats, every last one of them.
So, we have two states with legislation that requires owners of “assault” weapons to remove them from the State or destroy them.
The first implication is of course, the violation of the Second Amendment; The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Potential violation of the Third Amendment as it establishes the right of privacy (believe it or not); No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice William O. Douglas ruled: The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers “in any house” in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy.
Violation of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
As you can see, it goes far beyond just the Second Amendment. It extends to the Third and Fifth as well. On further contemplation, if these bills pass, the Supreme Court is going to be busy, but until then, are these states going to go house to house to make sure all “assault” weapons have been removed, further violating rights by violating the Fourth?