Anything like this in you state?

What are you afraid of?

You act like the Feds actually enforce a lot of gun laws....... I haven't seen that.  Almost all gun control, with respect to individual rights, has taken place on the state level.  In that regard it wouldn't make much of a difference in enforcement.

Also, I doubt that any state law that superceded federal law would pass muster, ask the marijuana growers on the west coast.

It did pass.  The governor veto'd it, but our Congress has enough votes to override the veto, which they plan to do within the month.

My problem is that it's a waste of my money.  This bill specifically nullifies the Federal Gun Control Acts of '34 and '68.  It also declares that it's the duty of the state to protect its citizens from the Feds trying to enforce either of those acts.  So now some guy is going to try to buy a fully automatic weapon without going through the current rigmarole that is in place for it now, the ATF is gonna say 'no way buddy', and my tax dollars are going to be spent in the legal showdown between State and Fed.  I could care less if you want to buy a fully automatic weapon or if the feds say you can't, just quit wasting my money.

There's also the other provision in this law that states "No person or entity shall publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement which allows such individual to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm."  This was done in response to the east coast paper that published the names of all the gun permit owners.  But it's such a horribly worded law.  If I'm mugged at gunpoint, it would be illegal for the papers to report the mugger's name.  If someone breaks in to my house and steals my guns, illegal to report that too.  Supporters of the law say that's a misinterpretation of the intent of the law and would never happen...because apparently no one with a cause to promote has ever used the law to make a point.

Stupid symbolic laws that will get overturned by the courts.  

What can I say, we like shootin' more than readin'.

I doubt that the law, if passed, wouldn't stand up to a legal challenge due to the vague wording.  I would also bet money that the Missouri gun laws are pretty much in lock step with Federal gun laws as far as who can purchase and/or possess a firearm, so even if the law were to pass it would effectively change nothing other than the notification piece, which I agree is worded a little too vague.

Conceptually I agree with what they're "trying" to do on the publication piece.  I don't think newspapers (or anybody else) should be able to publish gun owner information publicly because it does no good whatsoever other than inciting fear and potentially putting those families at risk.

Now, if you want to talk about a scary law that was proposed in MO, I'll see your HB 436 and raise you HB 545.

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.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

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.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

The difference between HB 436 and HB 454 is that one actually passed and its veto is about to be overridden, and the other one never even made it to committee.  

I'll assume that the NRA's database of state laws is fairly accurate.  Here's the link to Missouri's http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/missouri.aspx.  A couple things jump out at me.  Missouri only bans felons from owning a concealable weapon, and that only lasts for five years.  Any further restrictions on convicted felons is done at the federal level, which is now voided.  Missouri's only restriction on machine guns is that the owner must have an appropriate federal license.  But since we've now told the Feds their rules don't apply, seems to me that we have a free pass to buy machine guns.  Also, there's no Missouri law talking about destructive devices.  Oh, if I only had more money in my bank account.  

To understand why this is a horribly stupid law, play out the scenarios.  It's one thing for the Feds to ignore Colorado and Washington marijuana use, but do you really thing the ATF is going to just accept that Missouri is off limits to their enforcement?  Absolutely no chance.  So now my state is going to be sued by the federal government, the law will be thrown out, and both my state and federal tax dollars will have been wasted.  All because the GOP congress wanted to make sure their constituents knew they love guns.

As for the publication part of the law, it's also making it illegal to post a picture of a kid scoring his first buck.  If you've never read a small-town Missouri newspaper, that's half the paper in deer season.  Also illegal to post high school shooting competition results.  Hopefully no Missourian will ever make an Olympic shooting team.  Good intentions do not overcome badly worded laws.  One of our brilliant Representatives admitted that the wording was poor. But he still voted for it.  His solution "if the language is unclear, we can correct it in a future session".  

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.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

I hear you, and I'm probably on the same side of this for the most part as you, but for different reasons.  Every year states (including my own) put in a lot of really stupid and unconstitutional laws, that never make it into law.  In many ways it's just a big political game to appease constituents, as you mentioned.  With this particular law, it could have made it to the governors desk simply for the fact that everyone knew it would get vetoed.  However, if the Governor was trumpeting support, it may have never made it there.  All hypothetical, of course, but it's a goofy game those guys play.

That being said, there are a lot of stupid laws with unintended consequences on the books that do make it through, so the concern expressed here isn't uncalled for.  As an example, in Nebraska it's a Felony offense to give a ride home to one of your kids' friends.  (http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-311)

I'm a big gun rights guy, but I wouldn't support this law because it's way too vague and has a lot of loopholes and unintended consequences.  As I mentioned earlier I do support laws concerning not publishing gun owner information, but the wording in this law was way too vague.

You surprise me on the publishing part of the law when it's such a clear violation of the first amendment.  All those people on the left that want to take away our guns do so because they believe no good whatsoever can come of gun ownership. I guess they believe crime will somehow magically end in a gun-less country.  But they're chit outta luck because we have a constitutional right to own guns.  Doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, the argument should end with the 2nd amendment (I know, it doesn't).  Now the right is doing the same thing with the press.  

Obviously I'm a supporter of the 1st amendment, but there do have to be limits on what information can be publicly shared.  With things like the ACA, Gun registrations, Concealed Carry permits, drivers licenses, tax records, etc... the government has access to pretty much every aspect of our lives, and we can all agree that the most of that data needs to remain private.

So when it comes to FOA request to publish information about gun owners, I think of it more as an individuals right to privacy standpoint than a violation of the freedom of press.

If you put me on a debate team I could probably debate either side of the issue pretty well so I agree that it's not cut and dry from a constitutional standpoint.

There's always been an inherent conflict between the constitutional right to a free press and an individuals legal right to privacy.  This isn't unique to the gun possession debate and there are a lot of gray areas as well.  For example, the press has the legal right to publish names and addresses of sexual abuse victims and juvenile criminals, but they choose not to because it's obviously not going to provide any value to the public and has the potential to harm the named individuals.

With the publishing of gun ownership information I say it's not a cut and dry issue because I could argue that the information is available via an FOIA request so publish away.  However, the Supreme Court has stated that the freedom of the press does not always trump the right to privacy. (Florida Star v. B. J. F.)  So there are legal limits.  Congress has even passed laws restricting the release of drivers license information and medical data.

I could also argue that publishing gun owner names/addresses has no public interest whatsoever and even has the potential to cause harm to the individuals being published.  So why do it?
If it were provable that somebody's home was robbed and an occupant harmed as a result of a criminal looking them up on one of these websites I would bet money the courts would rule against the free press.

I am also of the opinion that the people who are trying to publish this information have an agenda to drive and they're publishing it for the purpose of "publicly shaming" gun owners.  I see it for what it is.  An anti-gun tactic to make people not want to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.  You shouldn't be able to use the 1st Amendment as a weapon to subvert the 2nd Amendment any more than somebody should use the 2nd to subvert the 1st.

Gun Owners Should 'Cower' in Shame Like Smokers - Eric Holder