I live in Missouri and I’m happy to hear of this pretty-much symbolic gesture. But what I can’t help thinking is, how can states like Missouri which are trying to expand gun-owners’ rights exist in a union with states that are trying restrict those same rights to the point of eliminating the right to bear arms?
Some states, like next-door neighbor Illinois, want to require background checks for purchasing ammunition. One state, Washington (?) has a bill restricting ammo purchases to 20 rounds per month, California requires a permit to purchase ammo, etc. etc.
> how can states like Missouri which are trying to expand gun-owners’ rights exist in a union
They cannot, unless completely left alone by the fed gov.
The union has to be defined very minimally; e.g. national defense against foreign invasion, and even that is put into doubt by states that will allow invasion via immigration.
So, not much of a union.
Need free states to band together.
As another idea: grant cities ability to override state laws in certain categories e.g. firearms, but deny those same cities any representation on those same laws. So, a city could ban firearms all it wants, but voters in the city could not screw up state law on guns.
Otherwise we could eventually have (in MO for example) STL, KC and couple other places screw up the whole state even more than they have done.