Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by NelsErik, May 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. NelsErik

    NelsErik Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    291
    Location:
    Payson, Arizona (Up on the Rim)
    Anyone see this yet? I did a search and didn't find it. If already post please delete!

    Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority

    Jefferson City, Mo (May 8, 2013) – Tonight, the Missouri State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history. The vote was 116-38.

    HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42. Last week, the State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6. The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened just before 10pm local time this evening.

    The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority. Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st. Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!”

    As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future. It reads, in part:

    All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

    (2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
    (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
    (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
    (c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
    (d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
    (e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
    (f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
    (g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

    The legislation also includes misdemeanor criminal penalties if agents of the federal government attempt to enact gun control measures that violate the Constitution of the United States and State Constitution of Missouri.

    The immediate effect of the law would be as follows:

    1. All state and local law enforcement would be required to stop enforcing, or even providing any assistance in enforcing, federal gun control measures – all of them.

    2. Grassroots activists should immediately start pressing local governments – county, city and town – to pass an ordinance which a) states an unwavering dedication to the new law passed, and b) requires all local law enforcement and all government assets to immediately cease in the enforcement of federal gun control measures.

    3. Eric Holder will likely send a letter to threaten the state if it decides to enforce the penalty provisions of the act.

    4. Other states will gain the courage to follow the lead started by Kansas, and now Missouri – and pass similar laws.

    LEGAL INFORMATION ON REFUSING TO ENFORCE

    There is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal government cannot “commandeer” the states to carry out its laws. None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple times.

    In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.

    In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.

    In the 2012 case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing Medicaid funding.

    In each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their opinion is that the federal government cannot require the states to act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding. Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states absolutely do NOT have to help them in any way.
     
  2. Texan Scott

    Texan Scott Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2012
    Messages:
    3,184
    Location:
    The Texas Hill Country
    Missouri: Now known as the "We'll Show Them" State!
     
  3. tekarra

    tekarra Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,277
    Not being a constitutional lawyer, it will be interesting to see how this goes.
     
  4. BobTheTomato

    BobTheTomato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2006
    Messages:
    609
    Location:
    Alabama
    Till they make violations felonies and confiscate the property of federal agents and sell it to make the harmed whole......oh well....
     
  5. murphys_law

    murphys_law Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Midwest
    Love it. Step in the right directional doubt. We will have to see how the enforcement is done, that will be the real litmus test.
     
  6. swalton1943

    swalton1943 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2012
    Messages:
    80
    Location:
    southwest of fort worth
    full-auto, silencers, and sbr oh my!

    Wonder how it will play on sbrs, full-auto, and silencers?
     
  7. murphys_law

    murphys_law Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Midwest
    That's exactly what I'm wondering.
     
  8. toiville2feathers

    toiville2feathers Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2011
    Messages:
    256
    Location:
    Ogema, MN
    I believe they will run into the same problems that Kansas did.
     
  9. jeepnik

    jeepnik Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,482
    Location:
    SoCal
    Won't hold up in Federal Court. While I don't agree with the example I'm using, in California, marijuana is legal for medical purposes. But it's still a federal crime. So, the feds have arrested folks and shut down the clinics and charged them with federal crimes. Some have been tried and convicted.

    The whole idea, as put forth in the Constitution, that the states rights are superior to the federal rights just doesn't apply. Too bad, cuz the reason states rights were supposed to be above federal rights was to prevent the federal government from gaining too much power (sorts the reason we got rid of the king in the first place).
     
  10. JohnM

    JohnM Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,640
    Location:
    Down there by the river
    What problem has Kansas had?
    The US AG had a hissy fit, nothing's happened since that I've heard.
     
  11. 61Woody

    61Woody Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    iowa
    Cant the Feds withhold money like they did back in the late 70s if states didn't adopt the 55MPH speed limit?
     
  12. orionengnr

    orionengnr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,434
    I like their style. If nothing else, they are setting the example for others to follow. If 25 or so states passed this legislation, it would end up with the Supreme Court pretty quickly. And with the Court as it sits, we would have (IMHO) a ~60% chance of prevailing.

    Honestly, it appears that everyone and his dog has a "medical" marijuana card in CA. I lived there for 20 adult years, escaped in 2001 and still know a number of people who live there.
    If the Feds are prosecuting anyone, it is a token effort (pun definitely intended) and a drop in the bucket.
     
  13. Jeff H

    Jeff H Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2009
    Messages:
    1,284
    Location:
    Ohio
    Pot is still legal in Colorado. This might just fly, especially is more states get involved.
     
  14. DSling

    DSling Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Messages:
    98
    Then why should the states pay into the federal tax (I like this game)? Technically federal taxes are illegal and only started to help a war. The federal government liked the money and kept it going.
     
  15. sota

    sota Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    436
    And the state(s) can stop sending money to the federal gov't, as well as stop providing state (county or town, if they're on-board with the state's actions) controlled utilities and services. I don't know how it works in Kansas and Missouri, but in NJ the towns and counties own the sewage and water treatment rights. would be a damn shame if the pipeline from certain complexes was closed off. Nevermind MO and KS are heavy gun rights states... I wouldn't be surprised if a Militia order came through and the good armed citizens of those states came to the aid of the police.

    That all being said, I'm ready to help with the midnight rides in with staples/contraband if things really go bad for those states.

    We live in interesting times.
     
  16. captmoto

    captmoto Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2011
    Messages:
    165
    I think these decisions are like a 2 x 4 between the eyes of a stubborn mule. It's an attention getter. We'll have to see if it works.
     
  17. gfanikf

    gfanikf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    866
    Location:
    PA
    They should have at least used the term National Firearms Act instead of Gun Control Act of 1934...which doesn't actually exist.

    Uh, 16th amendment.
     
  18. fanchisimo

    fanchisimo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    Central Missouri
    One of the reasons this is awesome is whether it's pot or guns, states are deciding what works for them, regardless of federal oversight. I think that's how the Founders wanted it. It gives us options as citizens, if we don't like the state we're in, there are 49 others to choose from to suit your needs. This is a tenth amendment issue, and the Kansas and Missouri non-compliance legislation asserts that amendment. It's an interesting and pivotal time we are living in.
     
  19. sota

    sota Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2012
    Messages:
    436
    Yea... if the feds can ignore the 2nd amendment, I have no qualms with states ignoring the 16th amendment. remember, a law is only a law if it's enforced. otherwise it's just text on a piece of paper. much like other things such as restraining orders.
     
  20. murphys_law

    murphys_law Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2011
    Messages:
    101
    Location:
    Midwest
    I will be meeting you from the inside.
     
  21. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,245
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Interesting symbolically and good political theater, but of little practical effect.

    That is true. But nothing prevents federal agents from enforcing federal law.

    As the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):

    The Founding Fathers also provided in the Constitution that questions regarding the application of laws under the Constitution shall be the province of the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):

    And the marijuana issue is very different.

    The handling of the marijuana issue by the federal government is a matter of "prosecutorial discretion." A prosecuting authority gets to decide when, where and how to enforce criminal laws. So a prosecuting authority, like the United States Justice Department may decide as a matter of policy to go easy on something like recreational or medical marijuana in a State which has legalized such, at least under some circumstances. Such a policy decision might be driven by a conclusion that enough people, particularly among an administration's constituency, find the conduct relatively benign. That might not be the case with other matters.

    In any case, the feds haven't been giving marijuana a complete pass; for example see --

     
  22. SleazyRider

    SleazyRider Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,822
    Location:
    New York
    Perhaps. But with one notable exception: the Bill of Rights. I was once under the impression that its tenets applied to all citizens regardless of the state in which one lives. Then I moved to New York and realized I was wrong.
     
  23. barnbwt

    barnbwt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    6,798
    The block-grant coercion system has done more to damage states' rights than probably anything else. Originally passed in the name of humanitarian concern, it does little more than cause less responsible or resource-laden states to become dependent upon Federal approval of their affairs.

    Speed limits, BAC levels, education requirements, healthcare requirements, and countless other items are all controlled Federally by, essentially, blackmail. Having allowed themselves to become dependent on Federal aid, many states truly no longer have a choice in dictating their affairs in these areas, since their own laws require them to pay for services but maintain balanced budgets simultaneously.

    Not to get off topic too much, but it's highly advantageous for the Democrats to maintain the illusion they are "easy" on marijuana even if the facts would indicate otherwise (this is the party that took down "big tobacco" you naiive hippies :rolleyes: :D). Much like their claims to be friendly to illegal immigrants while bloating the enforcement agency charged with their deportation as much as possible--but always being certain to give loud lip service to the plight of those poor souls whom they are throwing out on their ears :D

    TCB
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  24. 303tom

    303tom member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,059
    Location:
    Missouri
    Never been more PROUD to be a Missourian............
     
  25. GambJoe

    GambJoe Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Richmond TX
    Did anyone consult with the citizens of Missouri or was the Democratic process hijacked like it was in New York under the latest hysteria.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page