The Politics Of Fear Mongering By Anti-Gun Groups
by Dave Dalton on April 16, 2015
Anyone that pays attention to just about anything the anti-gun groups do has to see a recurring theme, fear mongering by hysterical emotions. That's their game. They can't 'win' basd on logic, facts or rational thought so they 'attack' using fear and lies to get people emotionally charged up without ever even thinking about what is going on.
Case in point, Moms Demand Action (our favorite wailing banshees) just released an article entitled 'This is who the NRA thinks should have guns in Missouri.' It goes on to say 'What do rapists, arsonists, and child sex traffickers have in common? The NRA thinks they should all be able to legally own firearms under Missouri law.'
Now anyone who looks at this has to think 'What the hell is going on here?' but it takes some digging to see where and how these lunatics came up with this one.
The bill in question is Missouri HB1220 and honestly folks the bill is so mundane we didn't even rate it when it first came in. Why you say? Because all the bill does is add the definition of a 'violent felony' to the list of definitions regarding state law. That's right, you read that correctly. Someone in Missouri didn't like the fact that the states legal definitions were in multiple places and decided to get them all together and then add a new definition of what a violent felony is. I assume this is due to previous issues when trying to prosecute criminals and honestly the new definitions make a lot of sense.
"Violent felony" means the felonies of arson in the first degree, assault in the first degree, attempted rape in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible rape if physical injury results, attempted sodomy in the first degree if physical injury results, attempted forcible sodomy if physical injury results, rape in the first degree, forcible rape, sodomy in the first degree, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, murder in the second degree, assault of a law enforcement officer in the first degree, domestic assault in the first degree, elder abuse in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, statutory rape in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the act giving rise to the offense, statutory sodomy in the first degree when the victim is a child less than twelve years of age at the time ofthe commission of the act giving rise to the offense, and, abuse of a child if the child dies as a result of injuries sustained from conduct chargeable under section 568.060, child kidnapping, and parental kidnapping committed by detaining or concealing the whereabouts of the child for not less than one hundred twenty days under section 565.153;
Where MDA got their panties in a twist is when they made a very minor modification to 571.070. This section of Missouri law regards a person in possession of a firearm when they have been convicted of a violent crime. The change is so mundane it's almost unnoticable:
1. A person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if such person knowingly has any firearm in his or her possession and:
(1) Such person has been convicted of a violent felony as defined by section 556.061 [under the laws of this state], or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a violent felony ;
Notice the brackets  around 'under the laws of this state? That part is being removed, leaving as defined by section 556.061. There's no change to any law, anywhere else in regards to who can possess a firearm, not a single one. The only change is to the state definitions and to the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm. Moreso it says 'or of a crime under the laws of any state or of the United States which, if committed within this state, would be a violent felony'
So how did they twist this into this overcharged rant? Easy, one of the first things they mention is 'Attempted Rape in the First Degree (when no injury results)'. Where did they get that? If you look at the new definition of 'violent felony' above you will notice 'attempted rape in the first degree if physical injury results'.
So they twist that around to say lawmakers are going to allow someone who was convicted of attempting a rape and caused no physical injury will be allowed to own guns. It's pandering to fears, nothing more, nothing less.
And after quite a bit of research I can find no evidence the NRA is even aware of the bill much less backing it, for the same reason we never rated it.
So keep that in mind the next time you see some emotionally charged rant by an anti-gun group because 99% of the time you can look 'behind the curtain' and find nothing more than smoke and mirrors. The only scarey part is there are people out there that believe this nonsense!