Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control

[JRH6856]

now that is cool! if we get enough states to do this, the feds, and the anti gun movement will be forced to back down. like it or not. personally, :

Or they will forced to respond with the degree of force necessary to enforce the law and the Constitution. See 1861-1865.

 

[NickEllis]

It depends on whether the goal is to preserve our nation or destroy it. Which do you want to do?

But of course those two horns present a false dilemma. The nation serves as the handmaiden to liberty, and as such Reformata, Semper Reformanda comes into play. When through corruption, entropy, etc. the laws degrade to a level that requires renovation, the status quo of the legal process may not serve the purpose. That's just the way such things work in history.

Hopefully we can do what needs done through the lawyers.

 

[zxcvbob]

Actually the USSC does not have the final say, the states have a trump card -- they can convene a Constitutional Convention. God help us if they ever play that card, but maybe just its existence serves as a deterrent to an out-of-control court?

 

[316SS]

As a nation, we are in the midst of a conflict of ethics in which each side sees the actions of the other as clearly unethical and thus unacceptable and not subject to compromise.

True, and ongoing demographic and cultural shifts (think urbanization) seem to favor the wrong (IMO) side. We are fighting a cultural war of attrition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Based on the recent actions by several states (Missouri the latest), it appears to me that those who would pass and attempt to enforce laws at the national level which encroach upon constitutional rights are the ones on a path to destroy it.

Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of the federal government were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government. Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of state governments were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government.

That sort of friction will be common to any organized society. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process (a federal system, checks and balances and separation of powers) for managing that friction.

No, I haven't forgotten, which is why I said the states would not have the advantage....

Yes, I noticed that; and of course that makes your reference to Andrew Jackson a red herring.

Actually the USSC does not have the final say, the states have a trump card -- they can convene a Constitutional Convention...

Which is the ultimate game changer. If that ever were to come to pass, I doubt we'd be happy with the result.

...maybe just its existence serves as a deterrent to an out-of-control court?

I somehow doubt that. In general, judges see the function of the judicial process to be deciding the disputes before the court on the basis of the ground rules applicable at the time. The power inherent to the legislative function to change those ground rules is accepted as a given.

In fact, it's not at all uncommon for the legislature to use its power to avoid what is seen as an undesirable result of a judicial decision. A recent example was the case of Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). It was a ruling on a technical point of eminent domain law (specifically sustaining a state action against a challenge under the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment applied to the States through the 14th Amendment and the meaning of "public use"). The result was found to be unsatisfactory by many. As a consequence, the legislatures of 42 States revised those States' eminent domain laws to avoid a Kelo result.

 

[JRH6856]

Yes, I noticed that; and of course that makes your reference to Andrew Jackson a red herring.

Herring makes good chum for the sharks...

 

[316SS]

Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of the federal government were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government. Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of state governments were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government.

That sort of friction will be common to any organized society. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process (a federal system, checks and balances and separation of powers) for managing that friction.

Implying that the government can legitimately claim that they are not tyrannical, by definition, because they say so. So long as the forms are followed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of the federal government were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government. Throughout our history there have been people who have complained that the actions of state governments were inimical to the founding principles of our Nation and inconsistent with the proper scope of government.

That sort of friction will be common to any organized society. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process (a federal system, checks and balances and separation of powers) for managing that friction.

Implying that the government can legitimately claim that they are not tyrannical, by definition, because they say so. So long as the forms are followed.

1. What I described is reality.
   
   
2. Often those who tend to be the most dissatisfied with the way the process is working are forgetting their own role in the process. We select the government. How effective are you at influencing your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., to join you in selecting representatives who will further the goals and values important to you?
   
   
3. If you think the government is tyrannical, your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., must be helping to put tyrants into public office. What are you doing to change that?

 

[316SS]

Often those who tend to be the most dissatisfied with the way the process is working are forgetting their own role in the process. We select the government. How effective are you at influencing your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., to join you in selecting representatives who will further the goals and values important to you?

If you think the government is tyrannical, your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., must be helping to put tyrants into public office. What are you doing to change that?

Hah! When in doubt, attack, eh? Don't try and pin this on me, man, I live in California. I have a decidedly uphill battle winning hearts and minds, as you well know.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Often those who tend to be the most dissatisfied with the way the process is working are forgetting their own role in the process. We select the government. How effective are you at influencing your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., to join you in selecting representatives who will further the goals and values important to you?

If you think the government is tyrannical, your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., must be helping to put tyrants into public office. What are you doing to change that?

Hah! When in doubt, attack, eh? Don't try and pin this on me, man, I live in California. I have a decidedly uphill battle winning hearts and minds, as you well know.

Again, I'm just stating reality.

It might be an uphill battle, but it's the battle we have. Participate or sit it out and complain. Your choice.

 

[CZguy]

As a nation, we are in the midst of a conflict of ethics in which each side sees the actions of the other as clearly unethical and thus unacceptable and not subject to compromise.

We do live in interesting times.

I think that you really nailed it with this post. I don't have any solutions, but agree that the times are getting more interesting daily.

 

[316SS]

Participate or sit it out and complain. Your choice.

Another false choice. I choose to participate and complain.

 

[pseudonymity]

1. If you think the government is tyrannical, your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., must be helping to put tyrants into public office. What are you doing to change that?

Does inciting the passions and strengthening the resolve of those who would stand by you and use extraordinary measures to preserve their liberties count?

All the "from my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers are wonderful, but at some point you have to draw a line and give proof to your beliefs. It may be that the time for an accounting of the commitment of true liberty lovers is closer than some people would hope.

 

[Frank Ettin]

1. If you think the government is tyrannical, your neighbors, the people in your community, your co-workers, etc., must be helping to put tyrants into public office. What are you doing to change that?

Does inciting the passions and strengthening the resolve of those who would stand by you and use extraordinary measures to preserve their liberties count?

All the "from my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers are wonderful, but at some point you have to draw a line and give proof to your beliefs. It may be that the time for an accounting of the commitment of true liberty lovers is closer than some people would hope.

No, actually it doesn't count.

Sam1911 probably said it best in this post in another thread:

Howling for war is the fool's quick impatient solution instead of the day by day slogging against the lies and manipulations of the Antis.

Agreed. We clamor for revolution because we have the fool's belief that it is the easier path to our utopia, and because we lack the dedication and courage to WORK, and the patience to let the work we do accomplish bring about change in an orderly way.

If revolution ever comes again, what follows will be nothing like what we claim to treasure so deeply. It isn't a "reset" button. It's a "DESTRUCT" button.

 

[JRH6856]

I think that you really nailed it with this post. I don't have any solutions, but agree that the times are getting more interesting daily.

Thank you.

The only solution is that one school of ethics or the other achieve dominance.

The difficulty of our present solution is that neither school has a clear majority. This country started out with deontological ethics in clear dominance. Teleological ethics began to take root in the 1830s-1840s and has been growing gradually ever since. It took 150 years or so to reach parity. If it keeps growing, it will eventually achieve dominance, but it will take some time. Unfortunately, it seems to have control of the education system which gives it a big advantage.

 

[45_auto]

That sort of friction will be common to any organized society. Our Founders left us with a particular framework and process (a federal system, checks and balances and separation of powers) for managing that friction.

That's true. Unfortunately, that framework and process sometimes doesn't provide suitable tools for managing the friction. Once one side is pushed far enough, more drastic tools for resolving the friction unfortunately come into play. See US History, 1861-1865.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it." - Edmund Burke

 

[Manco]

Modern Progressivism, for the most part, is based in a teleological system of ethics which denies the existence of natural rights or natural law. The most common form is Consequentialism as expressed by Jeremy Bentham (who penned the English opposition to the Declaration of Independence) and the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill. Under this system, an action is good if it produces "the greatest good for the greatest number" which means rights of individuals or minorities may be sacrificed for the good of the majority. But that is acceptable because the good that is achieved justifies whatever means may be necessary to achieve it.

That's right, and these days it's even more dangerous because it doesn't require any practical, physical benefit in order to be justified. If it makes people feel like they're doing something--any old thing--for a well-intentioned cause, and this makes the majority of people feel good about it, regardless of the actual tangible result, then even the incremental erosion of our rights is considered justified in the view of many. The irony here is that among all of our rights, the RKBA has always been relatively teleological (with the right to self-defense being its deontological basis), but more and more it seems that making people feel a certain way takes precedence over hard reality.

This is not only a danger in and of itself, but in how very susceptible it is to abuse, ultimately to the point where there is a slippery slope of trading rights for the mere perception of improvement in our lives, all managed by an increasingly dominant national government. In such a state, this country would eventually become unrecognizable--fundamentally changed into a completely different type of country, which is expressly what Obama, for example, based his campaign on, and what the electorate voted for. It's hardly all about him, though--this battle is on many fronts, starting with the education of our youth.

 

[JRH6856]

^^^ Yes. This is the slippery slope we are sliding down.

 

[J-Bar]

I read this complete thread with great relish. I am not a lawyer. I have been a judge at debate tournaments, and I really enjoy witnessing well-reasoned arguments on an important issue.

I know that good lawyers are trained to see both sides, and be able to argue both sides of an issue.

Mr. Ettin, if you care to, as this thread's chief critic of Missouri's recently passed law, would you switch sides for a moment and present evidence or argument in its favor? I respect your experience and insight, and would like to make use of it.

I offer the same challenge to those who have been presenting opinions opposing Mr. Ettin's, if you care to. This has been a delightful discussion to read, and I hate to see it come to an end.

 

[PaisteMage]

Sorry to get mushy

America to my ancestors who came here on the boat, Ellis Island, dreamed of these possibilities. Freedom to move, choose, and having the sky be the limit.

Some people are all REVOLUCION! In heart I agree. States HAVE to show the federal government what the Constitution really means.

Not trying to be political so Ill offend both parties(of which I am neither). The last TWO presidents have done treacherous things to dismantle our rights and what OUR country was founded upon.

I don't care if ANY of you are of different political persuasion, different religious views than myself, or even ethnicity. I judge people by whats in their heart and mind. I am good friends with several people even though we steadfastly disagree on "issues." I would still stand next to you if the horrible and hopefully impossible revolution did happen, because we fight under the same cause: Liberty and freedom.

These actions taken by MO and hopefully by many others remind me of being an American, what it really means to be. When I hold my hand on my heart I salute people such as this, my armed service family members and friends, and all who serve currently, and anyone who stands up for what our country MEANS.

America was founded on these types of actions and it is a shame that it is considered "rebellious" ,almost, in these times to stand up for what is given to us by birth.

For the record this is a great move by politicians who actually DO something.

 

[Lunie]

I read this complete thread with great relish. I am not a lawyer. I have been a judge at debate tournaments, and I really enjoy witnessing well-reasoned arguments on an important issue.

I know that good lawyers are trained to see both sides, and be able to argue both sides of an issue.

Mr. Ettin, if you care to, as this thread's chief critic of Missouri's recently passed law, would you switch sides for a moment and present evidence or argument in its favor? I respect your experience and insight, and would like to make use of it.

I offer the same challenge to those who have been presenting opinions opposing Mr. Ettin's, if you care to. This has been a delightful discussion to read, and I hate to see it come to an end.

Thank you, and well said Sir.

 

[316SS]

America was founded on these types of actions and it is a shame that it is considered "rebellious" ,almost, in these times to stand up for what is given to us by birth.

For the record this is a great move by politicians who actually DO something.

It's been put forth that they didn't really DO anything. Frank Ettin claims that this legislation has no legal legitimacy, and who am I to argue that point with him? I believe he is correct. However, what I don't agree is that because it has no legal legitimacy, it is therefore worthless. Civil disobedience and non-compliance with unconstitutional laws have no legal legitimacy, but they have a long and glorious history in our country. Frank may say that we don't each have the luxury of judging the Constitutionality of laws, but that is because he is a lawyer and has a legal perspective. From a ethical and philosophical perspective, we each have to answer to our conscience, knowing that our actions potentially have very real personal, legal consequences.

The Civil Rights movement started when brave individuals flouted laws that they saw, as do the vast majority of us today, as immoral. Working outside the legal framework NEED NOT equate to pressing the "DESTRUCT" button.

 

[JRH6856]

The Civil Rights movement started when brave individuals flouted laws that they saw, as do the vast majority of us today, as immoral. Working outside the legal framework NEED NOT equate to pressing the "DESTRUCT" button.

There is just something about armed non-violent disobedience...

 

[316SS]

There is just something about armed non-violent disobedience...

Here's an example, from north of the border: many Canadians did not comply with Canada's long gun registry, and after about a decade, during which a few individuals felt the consequences, the government admitted defeat.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Mr. Ettin, if you care to, as this thread's chief critic of Missouri's recently passed law, would you switch sides for a moment and present evidence or argument in its favor?...

No thanks. I'll pass.

...Frank Ettin claims that this legislation has no legal legitimacy, and who am I to argue that point with him? I believe he is correct. However, what I don't agree is that because it has no legal legitimacy, it is therefore worthless...

Well, I've never said it was worthless. I've mentioned that it can have symbolic and political value. I've also mentioned that the legislation included some desirable changes to current Missouri state law.

My point through all of this has been that this legislation does not sweep away the application of federal gun laws in Missouri as some seem to believe or wish. Any Missouri resident thinking of cobbling together a machine gun and finding refuge in this law from prosecution under the NFA would be well advised to reconsider that plan.

Instead, consider how to make the best political use of the strong support the law has garnered.

...The Civil Rights movement started when brave individuals flouted laws that they saw, as do the vast majority of us today, as immoral. Working outside the legal framework NEED NOT equate to pressing the "DESTRUCT" button....

Civil disobedience is one thing, but rebellion is another. And if civil disobedience is really on the table, remember that to be truly effective it must be more than just openly violating the law. I discussed that subject in this post in another thread:

I was recently chastised for encouraging illegal activity on this board. My wording was thus (omitting the vulgarity): "They cannot pass legislation infringing the RKBA. If they do, it is illegal and we need to let them know that it will not be tolerated or followed." ....I will admit from a certain point of view that what I said does indeed encourage the violations of laws that individuals deem unconstitutional. ....Historical figures such as Susan B Anthony, Rosa Parks, and Dr Martin Luther king used civil disobedience to non violently overturn unconstitutional laws. We regard them as heroes, yet they were very clearly criminals by definition. ....a later surge of such criminal activity served to sway the decision of the courts in the opposite direction. ....history demonstrates the very effective technique of non violent civil disobedience in large numbers as an arguably superior method of reform. Why then, is such discussion shunned and prohibited by this site as verboten? ...

...this thread was not meant to be about how to go about it, or to organize or advocate for such practice. It is meant as a question: why are these discussions prohibited and what is the reasoning behind disallowing the discussion of such activism?...

1. The short answer is that you were not advocating or opening discussion of civil disobedience. You were simply advocating violating the law.
   
   You had written:

   ...They cannot pass legislation infringing the RKBA. If they do, it is illegal and we need to let them know that it will not be tolerated or followed...

   And that in good English is simply advocating threating to refuse to abide by laws we don't like. And you also wrote:

   Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

   
   And there are free men all over this country that refuse to abide by them. Their numbers are growing.

   So by clear implication you were condoning the widespread and surreptitious flouting of firearms laws.
   
   Simply refusing to abide by firearm laws, and hiding your unregistered, sawed-off shotgun under the floorboards of your house waiting for "the balloon to go up", is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as an instrument of social change must he open and organized, and to hope to be effective it must be well thought out and part of a larger strategy.
   
   So your claim that this site disallows the discussion of civil disobedience because you were taken to task for the posts referred to above is utterly fatuous. Nothing you wrote or were chastised for laid any kind of foundation for a serious discussion of civil disobedience as a tactic in the struggle for the RKBA.
   
   As an:

   ...online discussion board dedicated to the discussion and advancement of responsible firearms ownership...

   the simple advocacy or condoning of violation of the law is unacceptable here.
   
   
2. Since whether and what forms of civil disobedience could materially advance the RKBA, exploration of that subject would need to go far beyond mere reference to refusing to follow the law.
   
   
   • Civil disobedience as laying the foundation for litigation.
     
     One common use of the tactic of civil disobedience has been to get an issue in front of a court. To be effective for that purpose, the violation of the law should be carefully chosen and planned to get the issue before the right court in the right way. This has been shown to be very important in Second Amendment litigation. Much unfortunate Second Amendment case law has come out criminal defense attorneys routinely tossing in a Second Amendment challenge whenever they have a drug dealer or armed robber client facing a weapons enhancement.
     
     There is also the question of whether this would even be useful to us at this time. There are currently over 70 major RKBA cases pending at various stages in various federal courts around the country. Many of these cases are part of an organized litigation strategy designed to begin to add clarity and dimension to the ruling in Heller and McDonald.
     
     
   • Civil disobedience to sway public sentiment
     
     This was a core and very effective part of the overall strategy of the Civil Rights Movement (referring to the struggle during the 1950s and 1960s for racial equality). Let's think about why and how civil disobedience worked so well in that context.
     
     The acts of civil disobedience, violations of law, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.
     
     A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
   
   
3. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement in many ways is a poor model for the struggle for the RKBA.
   
   Different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.
   
   When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions won wide support in editorials in major newspapers, from pulpits in houses of worship across the country and on college campus.
   
   The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.
   
   During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.
   
   How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?
   
   During the Civil Rights Movement a largely sympathetic media was able to build widespread public sympathy for the cause. Today a popular media largely hostile to the RKBA helps build fear and antagonism.
   
   
4. Perhaps there are ways in which some forms of civil disobedience could help further the RKBA.
   
   There may be no reason to a priori completely dismiss civil disobedience as a tool to further the RKBA. But any effective use of that tactic will be more complicated than just violation gun laws we don't like; and any serious discussion of the topic must also acknowledge and address that complexity.

...if the horrible and hopefully impossible revolution did happen, because we fight under the same cause: Liberty and freedom...

Just remember that historically revolution as a mechanism for promoting freedom has a really lousy track record.

To illustrate that we of course have the French Revolution. We also have the Paris Commune of 1870. How about the Russian Revolution? The Chinese Revolution that gave us Mao, perhaps? How about the ouster of Basitsa in Cuba? Pol Pot in Cambodia? Anyone know what's happening in what used to be Burma? And let's not forget Iran. I'm not sure that things are all that swell in Egypt or Libya these days. Then there have been the various revolutions, often protracted, taking place with dismaying regularity in one third world country or another. The vast majority of revolutions wind up simply replacing one despot with another.

See also post 139.