Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-17-2023, 05:06 PM
 
3,833 posts, read 3,335,667 times
Reputation: 2646

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
Well, I am not in MO, so it isn't high on my priorities list (but the forum needs some traffic ).

The first step for this "initiative" (referendum) is to gain a few thousand (I think it will need more than 40,000) signatures. That can put it on the ballot. Not sure how this "three versions" thing goes. I suspect they will have to focus on one of the three.

The process (according to the MO constitution) takes a few months.

(Who is "MFC" ? )
MFC is Missouri Firearms Coalition, a pro gun group.

I believe based on last census it would need around 179k sigs from 6 of 8 district total. Meaning those 6 of 8 districts there is a certain amount required from each district from registered voters.

That Clean Missouri BS backed by Soros got something like over 300k sigs so good chance they get them easily.

 
Old 08-18-2023, 07:42 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,924 posts, read 4,632,086 times
Reputation: 9226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
MFC is Missouri Firearms Coalition, a pro gun group.

I believe based on last census it would need around 179k sigs from 6 of 8 district total. Meaning those 6 of 8 districts there is a certain amount required from each district from registered voters.

That Clean Missouri BS backed by Soros got something like over 300k sigs so good chance they get them easily.
OK, that isn't the numbers I got, but I will accept your numbers, because I wasn't trying very hard
I am supposed to be retiring from the intel work I used to do

Here are a couple sites you may find very useful:
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_measure
https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri (middle column has a link to "ballot measures" )

https://www.discoverthenetworks.org/ (basically, a wikipedia of leftist people and organizations )
 
Old 08-18-2023, 08:46 PM
 
3,833 posts, read 3,335,667 times
Reputation: 2646
The ballot summary just posted!

IF voters are dumb enough to vote for this then they're anti American. Period.

Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on August 16, 2023.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY
SECRETARY OF STATE

Do you want to amend the Missouri Constitution to:

authorize for the regulation by ordinance of the possession, carrying or transfer of firearms, to apply to all individuals while within Jackson and St. Louis counties and the cities of Kansas City and St. Louis with exemptions;
authorize St. Louis and Kansas City areas to pass ordinances which could supersede the Second Amendment Preservation Act;
authorize ordinances which allow for the seizure of firearms by law enforcement under certain circumstances; and
allow for a fee to cover the cost for the issuance of permits or certificates?

The Attorney General estimates increased litigation costs of up to $7.5 million. Other state and local governmental entities estimate no costs or savings.
 
Old 08-19-2023, 09:00 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,924 posts, read 4,632,086 times
Reputation: 9226
As you said, before, there are three different versions of this initiative. (114, 115 and 117)
Your post shows the title, not the actual language to be altered, in the MO Constitution, if passed.

The status of the petition can be found here, as well as the full text of the petition.
https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024
I looked at all three, and they look the same to me, but I didn't go through, word by word.

They now have to get all of those signatures. As I read it, they need all of those (you said) 179k signatures on Any One Of The Three versions. Not a total of 179k on all three. (Seems to me, they are shooting themselves in the foot, on this.)

Petition Process Handbook can be found on this page:
https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions
 
Old 08-19-2023, 02:53 PM
 
3,833 posts, read 3,335,667 times
Reputation: 2646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
As you said, before, there are three different versions of this initiative. (114, 115 and 117)
Your post shows the title, not the actual language to be altered, in the MO Constitution, if passed.

The status of the petition can be found here, as well as the full text of the petition.
https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024
I looked at all three, and they look the same to me, but I didn't go through, word by word.

They now have to get all of those signatures. As I read it, they need all of those (you said) 179k signatures on Any One Of The Three versions. Not a total of 179k on all three. (Seems to me, they are shooting themselves in the foot, on this.)

Petition Process Handbook can be found on this page:
https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions
The reason why they have 3 versions is they're supposed to do "polling" and see which one is the most popular and will then go and collect sigs for it. It's approved to circulate but doesn't mean they have to collect sigs yet. I imagine that starts late fall. Then, whichever one they favor they will pull the other two. They have to power to pull it.
 
Old 08-19-2023, 03:31 PM
 
19,717 posts, read 10,109,755 times
Reputation: 13074
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
The reason why they have 3 versions is they're supposed to do "polling" and see which one is the most popular and will then go and collect sigs for it. It's approved to circulate but doesn't mean they have to collect sigs yet. I imagine that starts late fall. Then, whichever one they favor they will pull the other two. They have to power to pull it.
Don't you think that any version will be found unconstitutional?
 
Old 08-19-2023, 06:08 PM
 
3,833 posts, read 3,335,667 times
Reputation: 2646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
Don't you think that any version will be found unconstitutional?
Of course it "should be" if taken to court.

Here is the thing. UNsensibleMO's 3 versions LEAVES the current section 1, article 23 intact! A number of parts of it protects against UNsensibleMO's proposals. So even if it DID somehow small chance passed it would be violating the state of MO constitution and also possibly US constitution. Of course if tiny chance US Supreme Court heard the case and rules against the anti gunners it would be a HUGE victory in the United States, bigger than abortion Roe vs Wade. Would make most anti gun laws unconstitutional.

UNSensibleMO's three proposals violates the MO constitution. In order for it NOT to they would have to also rewrite section 23 altogether which they didn't in their three proposals. Also means AG Bailey, and SOS Ash croft are not doing their jobs according to the MO constitution by allowing this to go forward. Their proposal clearly infringes on the rights of Missourians.

This would likely be nixed in Cole County court if there is a suit and probably would be heard by the MO Supreme Court. Hopefully the AG would fail to defend the law if passed.

From what I understand someone already has a lawsuit in the works against UNsensibleMO.

I Section 23. Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories — exception — rights to be unalienable. — That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.
 
Old 08-19-2023, 06:16 PM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,924 posts, read 4,632,086 times
Reputation: 9226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
...

This would likely be nixed in Cole County court if there is a suit and probably would be heard by the MO Supreme Court. Hopefully the AG would fail to defend the law if passed.
I don't think Cole County would hear the case, since the change only effects the greater StL area and greater KC MO area. In fact, it only has effect in about four jurisdictions inside those.

The "not as bad" news is that this amendment is extremely limited in scope.
The bad news is, that may tempt the courts to overlook the unconstitutionality of it.

Quote:
From what I understand someone already has a lawsuit in the works against UNsensibleMO.
...
Well, we can hope for the best.
You nicknamed them correctly.
Nothing on their web page makes any sense.
 
Old 08-19-2023, 06:37 PM
 
3,833 posts, read 3,335,667 times
Reputation: 2646
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
I don't think Cole County would hear the case, since the change only effects the greater StL area and greater KC MO area. In fact, it only has effect in about four jurisdictions inside those.

The "not as bad" news is that this amendment is extremely limited in scope.
The bad news is, that may tempt the courts to overlook the unconstitutionality of it.

Well, we can hope for the best.
You nicknamed them correctly.
Nothing on their web page makes any sense.
it all depends. The proposed referendum though is filed in Jefferson City and the secretary of state. If you're suing questioning it being put on the ballots or questioning it as constitutional after it passes falls within Cole County courts then. That's how lawsuits work regarding ballot initiative issues such as the recent abortion one they're trying to get on the ballot, or 2014 when the challenged the current right to bear arms amendment. Those suits are Cole County.

Now, lets say it passes and someone is arrested or given a citation for an ordinance violation after it becomes statue then they would file the suit within their county.

It doesn't matter if it only affects Stl. It's still a ballot initiative and depending on which stage it's in it falls within Cole County.

The one UNSensibleMO is pushing for is the one where state wide any county or city can make up their own gun laws.

It's pretty stupid because if it passed and The Loo went hog wild passing all sorts of crazy gun laws it could really cost the city multi millions. It would be going to Federal Court and opens up a mega Pandora's Box for the US Supreme COurt. It would actually be nice if the ACLU did the rigth thing and you ended up with hundreds of suits from people getting busted in St. Louis, especially if they're african american and can use racial biased too. You'd see them repealing their dumb ordinances.

The liberals wouldn't want this in US Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority and basically would void most local gun laws.

It doesn't take a lawyer to look at the MO Constitution and to see this violates it in a number of areas.

If you go the federal route you can look at Chicago, DC and New York as recent examples on why they'd lose.
 
Old 08-20-2023, 04:21 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,924 posts, read 4,632,086 times
Reputation: 9226
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOforthewin View Post
it all depends. The proposed referendum though is filed in Jefferson City and the secretary of state. If you're suing questioning it being put on the ballots or questioning it as constitutional after it passes falls within Cole County courts then. That's how lawsuits work regarding ballot initiative issues such as the recent abortion one they're trying to get on the ballot, or 2014 when the challenged the current right to bear arms amendment. Those suits are Cole County.

Now, lets say it passes and someone is arrested or given a citation for an ordinance violation after it becomes statue then they would file the suit within their county.

It doesn't matter if it only affects Stl. It's still a ballot initiative and depending on which stage it's in it falls within Cole County.
OK, I see.


Quote:
The one UNSensibleMO is pushing for is the one where state wide any county or city can make up their own gun laws.
I took a closer look, and you are right.
version 114 only affects two counties and two cities
version 115 affects any county
version 117 removes "transfer" of firearms from the language.


Quote:
...

It doesn't take a lawyer to look at the MO Constitution and to see this violates it in a number of areas.

If you go the federal route you can look at Chicago, DC and New York as recent examples on why they'd lose.
You are right, it doesn't take a lawyer to see that the language is fouled up, and it would make section 23 "self contradicting."

Crazy thing is, it would have been easy for them to avoid that pitfall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top