Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

The heartland moves to expand gun rights

The state houses of Missouri and Kansas have both moved legislation along that will expand the rights of its citizens.

In the Missouri senate, legislation was passed on Tuesday that would nullify federal gun laws that are incongruent with Missourian’s 2nd Amendment rights.  Any agent of the federal government who attempt to infringe upon the rights of a Missourian would face jail time of up to a year as well as a $1000 fine.

Such measures are seemingly more and more appropriate as Obama is talking more and more about acting outside the scope of his power and enacting liberty infringing executive orders to try and pass his draconian ideas of gun control on an unwilling people.

Missouri Sen. Brian Nieves said of the legislation: “This is primarily purposed to protect liberties of Missourians.”

If the federal government is going to ignore the bill of rights, it must fall to the states to keep their people free.

Along with the protection from federal tyranny, the legislation includes a measure that would give school districts the option to designate personnel to carry a concealed weapon in school buildings after undergoing training.

The chicken littles of the gun control movement have been screeching that the sky is falling with that inclusion.

Said Sen. Jamilah Nasheed of St. Louis: “I cannot support this legislation in good conscience, kids are killing kids in school.”

You know what? I’m getting pretty fed up with this disgusting and wilful ignorance on the part of gun controllers.  Nasheed can’t support the legislation to have an armed guard at schools because KIDS ARE KILLING KIDS?!?!?!?!

Isn’t that EXACTLY the reason to support this legislation?  I’m pretty sure that Sen. Nieves did not sneak in an amendment to his bill that somehow would make it easier for kids to kill kids.  Nasheed is either a simpleton or so corrupt in her thinking that she will just utter whatever nonsensical buzzword or phrase that will promote her own agenda even if it is built on the blood of innocent children.

Nieves bill went on to create statewide preemption for licensed open carry and lowering the age to carry concealed to 19.

Across the river in Kansas, legislation is being forwarded that would completely strip communities and towns of their ability to unilaterally pass gun control measures.  Known as pre-emption, the state would be the only elected body that could pass laws that restricted the people of Kansas’ freedom to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

Furthermore, the bill will allow Kansans to carry a firearm in their vehicle without a concealed weapons permit.  Though seemingly less extensive than the moves by Missouri, Kansas would effectively negate the need for its citizens to acquire a CCW in the first place.

In conjunction with the state preemption, open carrying on foot will be universally legal in the state.  By negating the need for a CCW in a motor vehicle Kansans who wish to exercise their rights, without asking the government’s permission to do so, could feasible do so without having to walk everywhere.

But just like in Missouri, there are detractors in Kansas.

Johnson County District Attorney Steve Howe, at the Statehouse for other meetings, said he hasn’t had time to review the new language, but that the concept worries him.

What concept is that Mr. Howe?  Freedom?  Liberty?  Yeah, I can imagine a DA would take umbrage with such notions.

It is good to see the common sense of the heartland being promoted and liberty being restored, regardless of how much the controllers hate it.


Enhanced by Zemanta


    People need to take the time to read Amendment 2. All of these law are unneeded in reality. No gun ban, registration, license or CCW law is constitutional. Amendment 2 is a sentence with two subjects and single predicate which when read as written can be written as:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed.

    The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

    I applaud these States for the starting to move in the direction of the US Constitution.

    • J.W.

      Those state governments care about their citizens and the constitution. I hope they do the same here in Michigan. But, I don’t know if the govenor here is a rhino or not. I’ve been waiting to see.

    • Donald P Lisle

      it’s about time states start doing something and stop what the federal government and the Democrat Party is doing to law abiding citizens .

    • Bob

      If you are going to quote something, please do not rearrange it. The single statement clearly states: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
      state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
      The only clarification needed is that the word “militia” referred to the adult male population.
      In later days (1902) the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654 clarified the original militia (the unorganized militia) makes all gun control laws unconstitutional. The act further states there are two additional militias, the National Guard and the regular armed forces. See
      You will notice that it is a violation of the Constitution for the president to send the National Guard beyond our borders. That’s another reason for impeachment.

      • DRLJR

        My post was valid and on point. Anti-gun people do their best to distort the actual words and English of Amendment 2 to justify violations of Amendment 2 by claiming “the right” is only related to supporting militias. Even the Supreme Court failed to read the English properly in the Heller decisions by claiming a “prefatory” clause exists.

        I simply pointed out that one can, using English, write the text of Amendment 2 as those two sentences. And when written as it can as two sentences the explicit meaning of Amendment 2 becomes even clearer.

        • Bob

          I do not doubt your sincerity, I am just cautious of restating documents. Of course we know that the liberals do not accept the fact that the original meaning of the word “militia” was the adult male population. Of course we know that they say it means the National Guard because it suits their unconstitutional goals. However, whenever we start breaking things up, it makes it easier for our enemies to take things out of context and distort the original meaning. It CANNOT be clearer if a portion of the original amendment is separated, and subject to be left out of a future quote.

          Furthermore, I have never before heard the Second Amendment referred to as “Amendment 2.” That sounds very much like the Spanish language procedure of having adjectives follow nouns, instead of preceding them, as is done in English.

          • DRLJR

            Referring to “Amendment 2” of the US Constitution is valid English as it calling it the “Second Amendment”. It is important to read the English of the Constitution properly and as a result one must be able to analysis the grammar and meaning of the words. Just because Congress created an official militia does not prevent the creation of other militias. All U.S. police departments are in fact militias. The Federal government and States can not interfere with them so long as they are “well regulated” – i.e. properly organized.

            Often to insure that the meaning of a sentence is know one must do a detailed analysis of the grammar. What I did is the result of classic sentence diagramming. Gun ban advocates are always trying to add words, or to pretend words are implied, in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution in order to distort its meaning to justify gun registration, seizures and ban laws. Distortions which the English of Amendment does not support. By using proper English and showing how the 2 subjects and the single predicate of the Amendment 2 can written as separate sentences helps people to realize what the Amendment actually states and helps prevent gun banners from being to distorting the meaning.

            For instance, when the prepositional phrases and adverb phrases are removed from Amendment 2 one gets this basic sentence:

            A militia, the right shall not be infringed.

            Notice how the two subjects of the sentence become obvious and clearly independent. It becomes harder for gun banners to justify their distortions of the meaning of the Amendment. Under English a sentence such as this can be written as these 2 sentences:

            A militia shall not be infringed.
            The right shall not be infringed.

            As a result it clearly shows that the right can not be interfered with. The phrase “shall not be infringed” is an absolute prohibition. If you want to see the full document it is at


            Even the US Supreme Court in the Heller decision failed to read Amendment 2 of the US Constitution correctly. They claimed a prefatory clause existed in the Amendment. From the summary and opinion ( ) :

            (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a
            purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the
            operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate
            that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

            (b) The prefatory clause comports with the
            Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised
            all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common
            defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would
            disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a
            politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response
            was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals
            to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be
            preserved. Pp. 22–28.

            The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

            The English of the Amendment does not support the claim the Supreme Court made. When one takes the time to actually read the sentence as it is written and to examine the grammar it becomes clear that the Supreme Court ignored the actual English grammar. The Court did what gun banners do all the time – distort the explicit English of the Amendment in order to allow some gun ban and registration laws – all of which are prohibited by the US Constitution.

          • Bob

            I agree that the Supreme Court often follows the liberal agenda, rather than their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. That is not much different than Obama’s constantly “changing” laws that have already been passed, such as the Unafordable Don’t Care Act.

            I do wish your would read the link I referenced above:

            And then read:

            And then take notice that they are saying the SAME THING! The original “militia” as referred to in the Second Amendment was reaffirmed in 1902, and it was clarified that the two additional militias were separate from the people’s militia and did NOT replace it.

          • DRLJR

            I am aware of the Dick Act of 1902. So far no one has actually produced the text of the law itself. But it has no relevance to the meaning of “militia” in Amendment 2. It is the same as people who try to redefine “natural born Citizen” to advance an agenda – it has a specific meaning and always has. Congress can repeal any law they pass. Such a repeal only applies from that time forward – that is the point of Article 1 Section 9 Paragraph 3. When someone actually produces a copy of the Dick’s act I will read it. But so far I have not been able to find an actual copy.

            Also, at the time of the the writing of Amendment 2 any one could form a militia and any can form a militia even today. The word has a specific meaning which is basically “a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers”. States, towns, cities and even citizens could and did form militias. When discussing the US Constitution one must be aware of the definitions of the words at that time.

            But even the people who wrote the text of the articles you posted are doing the same thing as the gun-banners. They are trying to limit the what Amendment 2 is referencing. The Dick act is authorized by Article 1 Section 8 Paragraphs 15 and 16. It is important to note that in Amendment 2 it uses the word “militia” which is a general noun – think of the phrase “cats are furry”, which is describing all cats, The consider Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 15 and 16 use of the word “Militia” which is a proper noun – think the “The Cat is furry” which references a specific cat. English grammar is important – especially when referencing and using proper and general nouns.

            You can go out and form a militia and neither the Federal Government, State government or local governments can interfere with your militia according to Amendment 2 so long as your militia is properly organized. This is why it is important to insure people understand the English grammar of the US Constitution. Amendment 2 is explicit and always has been explicit when read as written. And it is important to remember that the “Progressives” (i.e. “Left”) has been distorting the meaning of words for close to 100 years.

          • Bob

            Have you seen ?
            It is taken directly from the Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917
            As before, it describes the unorganized militia as the male population between the ages of 18 and 45, which confirms the Second Amendment. It then defines the organized militia as the National Guard, and the third militia as the regular Army.

            The term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment is NOT synonymous with “organized.” “Well regulated” simply meant trained for military purposes, and the two should not be confufsed.

            The Dick Act of 1902 IS REAL and every godless baby-killing democrat needs to be made aware that their agenda is NOT superior to our Constitution.

          • DRLJR

            The page you reference does NOT list the Act itself. It is about someone writing about the Act. If you can find the actual text of the bill/law I am interested in reading it.

            The phrase “well regulated” in Amendment 2 does mean organized. From a dictionary of the time:

            REG’ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

            It has nothing to do with being trained for military purposes. Context and meaning of the words as used when written is a fundamental foundation of the law. That is why most laws include definitions.

            Amendment 2 of the US Constitution prohibits all gun registration, licensing and related laws. It also prohibits interference with well organized and run militias – regardless of who and where they were formed.

    • pman5k

      Federal law defines the militia as able bodied free men ages 17-35 and military retirees through age 65 … due to court precedent would mean men and women 18-35

      • DRLJR

        Amendment 2 protects all militias and individuals’ right to keep and bear Arms. A militia.

        And don’t confuse a Federal law creating a militia with the meaning of the word militia itself:

        1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

        2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

        3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

        4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

        Amendment 2 protects both all forms of militias and individual rights to keep and carry (bear) weapons (Arms).

  • monacall

    Ok Iowa and Nebraska and the other bordering states. Get your legislatures to do the same.

  • Harold

    Nasheed makes sense for those with no known common sense!

  • lilbear68

    rep nieves should be the gov not that nitwit Nixon
    but I don’t understand changing the age of CCW to age 19 when its illegal to own a hand gun/buy a hand gun till age 21

    • Sunshine Kid

      So, men and women, 18 years of age in the military should not be handling guns, right?

      Seriously, your objections are ridiculous.

      • chamuiel

        Why 18? a person can go in the Military at age 17. At 17, they are good enough to protect you and me from our countries enemies by killing them, and dying for us.. think about it.

        • Sunshine Kid

          Now they can. Not legally back when I joined the USAF. I’m an old guy, so I think old, not senile like most Dimrats and RINOs, who don’t have to be old to think stupidly.

        • Bigolfascist

          I was taught to shoot at 5 years old in yhe early 1950s. By the time I was 9 years old I went out target shooting without supervision. Every kid I knew had a .22 rifle or .410 shotgun. By the time I was 15, I was shooting large calibre rifles, and began collecting them at 16.

          I never considered going rogue in school with a firearm when a kid. But then we were disciplined at home, in school, and neighborhood. What a novel concept.

          • Sunshine Kid

            Whatever happened to those days? I had a Savage .22/.410 over/under I used to hunt with and learned to use the different barrels for different circumstances.

            I honestly believe the violence today is BECAUSE there is no punishment or discipline in the home or the schools. Catch a kid with a weapon in school and he gets suspended is not much of a punishment, especially if the parents take the child’s side without checking out all the facts. Discipline would be to have the kid show the whole class the weapon, explain the safety aspects and be graded on his presentation, and be fully supervised by the teacher while this was being done. Peer pressure goes a long way in discipline of children. I remember having the class laugh at me when I got caught using a slingshot in class in 1958. The teacher made me come to the front of the class and explain why a slingshot was dangerous in an inclosed room, how it was made, and what safety is all about. I couldn’t explain well enough and got a “D” right then and there for the day. Worse, one of the girls in the class explained it better than I. That was embarrassing, and I took a lot of teasing from the other guys in the class.

            The problem today is that teachers are afraid of weapons. No, wrong; they are TERRIFIED of weapons, even toy or ‘pretend’ weapons. They cannot teach nor control children with their fears being evident first and foremost – kids pick up on that right away and will use it to gain an advantage over the teacher. And there goes your discipline.

          • Bob

            The difference between kids today and kids back when we were young is that we didn’t have violent video games or violent movies or TV programs. What we had was REAL GUNS, that we learned how to be responsible with.
            The other day a special on ABC announced that a child is killed every three days with a gun. That’s about 120 per year. Compare that with the hundreds of thousands of innocent, defenseless babies that are MURDERED while still within their mother’s bodies. They don’t talk about that, they just want us to believe that we are safer when we are defenseless.

      • lilbear68

        wake up dim that’s even too stupid for you I don’t recall where the military was ever mentioned
        explain to everyone what the law IS, not should be or wannabe or any other fairy tale, regarding the purchase of hand guns? hmmmmm come on once again open your mouth and make your head disappear
        I don’t necessarily agree with the law and it could be changed but then again this is planet earth and not ‘keyboard commando land’ where you live

        • Sunshine Kid

          You mentioned age. My point was that the age in the military (and they use guns) is less than the 21 OR 19. THAT was my point, or did you miss AGE that YOU brought into the conversation. And just because I point out facts that you can’t put into context doesn’t make ME stupid; you are the one who dropped that connection. You need to be less thin skinned.

          I find it funny that you refer to me as “keyboard commando” when obviously you have NO idea what my credentials are. If you cannot enter into an adult conversation without being insulting, then obviously, you really DO need help.

          • lilbear68

            military is a totally different discussion, if you want to bring up that then why are you not sobbing about how the military can carry arms and die in service to the country but not drink whisky?
            but now I find myself following the advice of mark twain, ‘never argue with the stupid, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience’

          • Sunshine Kid

            Boy, you’re stuck on “military”, aren’t you? I mentioned military because you mentioned the legality of ages being 21 and CCW being 19, and you STILL don’t get it that people UNDER those ages carry guns LEGALLY in the military. I never thought you’d be quite this dense, but I guess I was wrong.

            I’ve been retired from the military for a very long time. When I retired, there were no prohibitions about drinking anything; they even served hard liquor in the clubs. They even had beer in tech school right out of basic when I enlisted into the USAF in order to avoid being drafted into the Army (yeah, I’m THAT OLD). I guess the military has gone soft, but I’m not about to sob over something so insignificant as who drinks and who doesn’t.

            Don’t worry about experience – you don’t have any.

          • lilbear68

            last one
            your age demonstrates that some of us are more subject to alzheimers than others. retired from the military? if it was true then youre part of the group when I was in the USAF (66-70) that we laughed at and called the ‘boozers and losers’ too scared of real life to get out and live without anyone telling you what to do lol
            but nice dodge, I said before ‘what is the legal age to buy and own a handgun? come on now pull your head out and take a deep breath and tell the world what the legal age is to buy a hand gun?
            I don’t care what you want it to be or what you think it should be or any other peripheral. what is the law today to buy a hand gun? just a straight answer

          • Bob

            Bear, I have to side with the Kid on this one. When I was in the Army, legal drinking age on government property was 18. As I recall, girls from all over New York would go to the NCO Club at Ft. Hamilton (Brooklyn) looking to pick up guys and drink. Many of them looked like they were not even 18 yet.
            As for the legal age for owning and carrying a firearm, “shall not be infringed” is not age specific. I owned AND PURCHASED guns before I was old enough to drive; I just predated my first purchase with some responsible training. That training began at an extremely young age, in Church, where I learned to be respectful of other people and their property.

          • lilbear68

            but the drinking age was for beer only in the enlisted club until you were 21. on some bases there were jr nco clubs or 21 clubs and as I recall it was 3.2 beer in most cases
            also I didn’t say I agreed with the law I maintained that that IS the law. not what I want it to to be not what I wish it to be not ‘shall not be infringed’ or any of the other quotes. maybe its different in your state but im pretty sure its 21 everywhere.
            initially it was my not understanding why this polititian wanted to drop the CCW age to 19 when its illegal to own or posses a handgun, common sense would dictate that if you cant own or posses a hand gun whats the point of having a CCW permit. now sure maybe there are concealble long guns but the general understanding is concealed carry is referred to hand guns.

          • Sunshine Kid

            Your point is valid, but your insistence on certain facts (which vary from state to state) is why your argument about legal age limits is pointless. For example, the legal age limit to own a gun at all doesn’t matter because it is almost impossible to buy a gun at any age in some cities (e.g. New York).

          • lilbear68

            no my insistence on the original post which was why should that guy want to lower the age for a CCW permit to 19 when its illegal for anyone under 21 to own, posses or attempt to purchase a hand gun. I challenge you to name 1 state that the age limit to purchase a handgun is not 21. your drifting in and out of this in a feeble attempt to salvage or maintain any validity. you keep dodging around this issue why lower the CCW age to 19 when you cant have a handgun to carry either concealed or open. there was no mention of lowering the age to purchase a handgun. now I would agree to that also but again the law is what it is I didn’t make it and I don’t like it but until they ask me to vote yea or nay on any of these issues it remains THE LAW as it is now not how you may wish it to be

          • Sunshine Kid

            You have been ‘demanding’ and ‘challenging’ all along, just like a liberal does, but I am not yours to command. Simple as that. If you don’t like my statements, then shut up. I put myself under no obligation to you to respond to demands to ‘quote the law’, which I have stated several times already vary from state to state. Obviously, you’re not happy with that simple fact, but I REFUSE to kowtow to you.

          • lilbear68

            far from a liberal, very far. but and you’ve said enough you have retreated at every point and refused to address anything. you tried to call me with BS details and then wandered off into insignificant details for distraction.
            actually im surprised that as wrong as you have been that you actually had the guts to keep coming back for more spankings. I tried to shut you up and told you ‘last one’ but like an abused child you keep coming back for more abuse lol.
            come on you don’t have to kowtow you don’t have to do anything except stop but then like history has said ‘smart people speak when they have something to say, dumb people speak because they have to say something’
            have a nice life and don’t let me be your excuse for kicking the dog or beating the wife

          • Sunshine Kid

            Why is it that you profess not to be a liberal, but you insult like one? Your last sentence was uncalled for, abusive and crude. You don’t like my statements, obviously, but feel you have to go one better than me by trying to belittle me every time, which is why I slam you back. I’ll let you have the last word, as long as it is not hateful; and so far, you have shown no restraint on being hateful, as your last sentence, which brings pain to innocents not involved in our conversation, proves. I don’t advocate that you go kicking your pets and family, do I?

          • lilbear68

            back for more hmmm
            I don’t have to go kicking dogs and family because im not nearly as wrong as you have been and I haven’t had anyone point out my failings like you have.

          • Sunshine Kid

            You are the one to suggest kicking dogs and the wife, not I. Live with your failings you refuse to admit.

          • lilbear68

            as I recall and suggest you review, my statement was ‘don’t let me be your excuse for kicking the dog or beating the wife’
            I see the whole problem here, if what I say doesn’t suit you you re set it to try to make it say what you want, 1 of the many problems that victims of alzheimers suffer from. but im old and im tired and im tired of your drivel and add to it that now your boring me. I almost feel sorry for you just hanging on

          • Sunshine Kid

            Just like a liberal, you admit your statement, but still try to blame me for it. No wonder you are bored.

  • Sunshine Kid

    There should be no permit of any kind for CCW. That only means that if you have a gun, you may conceal it. Really. The only restriction to owning a gun should be if you are a criminal, immature, or being treated for psychological problems. Other than that, disarming any citizen violates the second amendment of the Constitution, and THAT’S the bottom line.

    • Bob

      You hit the nail right on the head, Kid. “No permit of any kind” is exactly what is meant by “shall not be infringed.”

  • dodger4754

    BREAKING NEWS: In California, the most liberal Federal Appellate Court in the country, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, has ruled that San Diego County, which has required applicants for CCW permits to show a “valid reason” other than self-defense for the need to carry concealed, MUST issue upon application because citizens have a 2nd Amendment right to carry concealed. Shocking, but gratifying!

    • Bob

      I heard that on the “news” last night. However they failed to mention that it only applied to one county. I thought CA had a law that states firearms related legislations were preempted by the state, so that local jurisdictions could not make firearms “laws” inconsistent throughout the state. So could it be that the Ninth Circuit Court of predominately Clinton appointees doesn’t know that, or are they once again proving why they have earned the title of “The most overturned Court in the land.”

      • dodger4754

        You are, of course, correct that this decision technically applies only to San Diego County. However, it establishes a precedent that lower courts statewide usually take into consideration when ruling on similar cases. As to this decision being overturned should it go to SCOTUS, who knows? In light of recent SCOTUS gun rights decisions though, it would seem unlikely.

        • Bob

          In CA the local CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) of any particular jurisdiction (city or county) has the final say as if a permit is issued or not. Most of them just say “NO!” As a resident of Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for authorization to carry. I guess I should feel fortunate that they allowed me to obtain (and renew) my Curio & Relic Collectors License.

  • bull57

    As a neighbor from Oklahoma I salute both states in helping to stop the nut jobs everywhere that want our rights to be taken away. Good job!!!

  • jondarmes

    Now if they can just get it passed our nitwit governor.

  • Bigolfascist

    It seems to me to be a violation of the Second Amendment for government of any level to fabricate laws that restrict my right to own andor carry.



  • pman5k

    I love living in Missouri…. now if only we could get rid of the dumb ass DD NFA ban… everything else NFA is G2G here except DD… and I want my damn M320…. lol

Send this to friend