Replies

> 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.

Happily, Missouri is blessed by the fact that its three urban areas, KC, StL, and Springfield, are still outweighed electorally by “outstate”. The three cities only rarely have been able to agree politically on much of anything. The last time I recall was a measure to 1. Build an indoor stadium in StL for an NFL team (and we all know how that worked out), 2 refurbish the stadiums in KC and 3 build an upgraded minor league park for Springfield—all at state taxpayers’ expense.
The urban areas all opposed Concealed Carry and it took years to finally pass, but it did. To be followed shortly by ‘Constitutional Carry’, which they really didn’t want.