Missouri Bill Would Require Every Adult Aged 18-34 to Own an AR-15

By ngnadmin On Mar 20, 2019 0

Missouri is called the “Show Me” state. But soon it could be called the “show me your AR-15” state. That’s because if House Bill No. 1108, sponsored by state Rep. Andrew McDaniel, becomes law, it will mean every adult between the ages of 18 and 34 will be required to own an AR-15.

This is part of the McDaniel Militia Act and bill 1108 states, “Any person who qualifies as a resident on August 28, 2019, and who does not own an AR-15 shall have one year to purchase an AR-15. Any resident qualifies as a resident after August 28, 2019, and does not own an AR-15 shall purchase an AR-15 no later than one year after qualifying as a resident.”

If the bill is passed, any legal resident of the state of Missouri who is not prohibited from owning a firearm and between the ages of 18 and 34 will have one year as of August 2019 to obtain at least one AR-15.

That’s a pretty big ask since the average price range of an AR-15 is between $1600 and $2000. There will be a tax credit for purchasing the required rifle, and a $200 a year fine for not complying with the law. Hopefully, the tax credit will cover a large portion of the cost- especially with consideration to those of modest means.

This law is similar to a law proposed in the 1990s in Vermont but was never passed due to the heavy Democratic voter base there. Another bill proposed recently would require legal residents 21 years of age and older to own a handgun.

Opposition to the bill revolves around objections to the mandate. Some of the biggest opponents to bill 1108 say it would be enough to offer tax credits for those who purchase an AR-15 or other firearms rather than punishing those who don’t.

This would seem, at first, to be part of a steady push for more legal gun ownership in the state of Missouri. Last year, a bill was proposed that would have expanded concealed carry privileges in the state. Representative Jerry Tailor sponsored a bill that would allow concealed carry in churches, college campuses and other locations where mass shootings have occurred in recent years.

While pro Second Amendment advocates are excited about HB 1108, it must be admitted that it has very little chance of being passed. According to reports, even the bill’s author does not believe in the law and is only proposing it in order to demonstrate the absurdness of mandates.

McDaniels says, “This bill points out the absurdity of the opposite side, of adding more requirements and barriers for law-abiding citizens to legally own firearms. I’ve decided that it’s time to get back at them.”

At present, the bill is not on the House calendar, nor is it scheduled for any hearing.

After reading through the bill and enjoying an initial chuckle at the idea of how gun control advocates would react in horror to this piece of legislation, we have to admit its not a good idea.

While the bill does accomplish the goal of showing anti-gun lawmakers just how bad placing mandates on guns can be when it goes the other way, it most likely will have a negative effect on gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.

We can all but guarantee that anti-gun advocates will not learn anything from McDaniel’s attempt to “get back at them.” They will only see it as a lame attempt to do what they just think of as normal- imposing more restricting rules and regulations on the public.

If this non-serious bill does accomplish anything, it could promote ideas which actually expand protections for law-abiding gun owners. Although, it won’t make patriots feel any better knowing that yet another pro-gun statute has been struck down.

If a law like this were put in place, a law that comes with tax credits for those who abide by it- it would serve as a stern warning to those in government who would like to impose their will on the American people. It would make a strong reinforcing statement that freedom can only be ultimately enforced by an armed population.

When we first learned about this bill, we were hopeful- as Missouri patriots certainly were as well. Many, no doubt, are excited that their representatives are looking to promote true liberty in the only meaningful way. However, it didn’t take us long to figure out that the bill’s author is not even serious.

The wording of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of an armed citizenry is to counterbalance the armed forces which the government must possess.

The “militia” referred to in the 2nd amendment means the military- not an organization of armed citizens. It is the necessity of that government militia which makes the right of the people to bear arms inalienable.