Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the MAIN difference between this and the way the NY SAFE Act was passed is that the people who elected their reps in Missouri had ample opportunity to hear about and comment on the bill, and thus far, I've yet to hear any hue and cry opposing it.
 
The way the usa was to work is the people come first then the states then the feds. But some were the power was revised. It need to be restored back. The usa is ( We the people for the people NOT we the fed by the fed.
 
But some were the power was revised
Click to expand...
That would probably be the Civil War, which made it clear to all states that the Union (now capitalized) was no longer bound by common-purpose so much as blood. Personally, I don't care for the road this "nullification" stuff takes us down; I'd much rather we have a legit, frank, Constitutional Debate using the proper amendment process rather than provoke a Constitutional Crisis where we start ripping apart at the seams and subverting our processes.

As in the past, that choice will likely not be anyone's to make, however

TCB
 
The federal laws aimed at controlling guns throughout the states are based on the federal jurisdiction to control INTERSTATE commerce, specifically, in firearms. If so-called restricted weapons do not enter into interstate commerce, they may not fall under the purview of federal control. THAT is the basic premise of a state's challenge to federal intervention in attempting to control arms that remain in the state and never leave the borders of that state. Federal law is restricted with certain jurisdictional limits and parameters.
 
I would like to see the assertions of county (sheriffs/deputies) LEOs that they will meet Federal Officers at their county borders, and arrest Federal LEOs if they are to enforce Federal Law as rejected by the state.

This may have disastrous results, depending on which side has the most gear, and I'm betting the Federals may arrive ready to do battle with military equipment provided by King Hussein.

THIS would be a major newsworthy event, and could shape the entire LEO structure as we know it. I'm willing to bet that DHS will be a major player in this standoff, if it occurs.

Nobody wants lives lost in a State/Federal battle ground, and especially citizens deputized to bring guns to bear on the Federals, DHS, National Guard, and other alphabet soup agencies called-in because of the magnitude of the event.

Wouldn't it be ironic, that our Constitution and Bill of rights were to be contested first, with members of our very own law enforcement agencies, who were sworn to uphold the meaning and spirit, were the first to draw first blood?

Interesting times, indeed.
 
Last edited:
Did anyone consult with the citizens of Missouri or was the Democratic process hijacked like it was in New York under the latest hysteria.
Click to expand...

I, for one, did not wait for my elected representatives to consult with me regarding my opinion. I called, and e-mailed, and sent paper, letting them know exactly where I stand.

I am happy that they received my messages.
 
I sent several letters to my state representative and senator.

Here is the last one I sent:

Date: April 16th, 2013

The Honorable Mike Kehoe
201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 220
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

Dear Senator:

I am writing in regards to HB436, and Senator Nieves companion bill SB325. I strongly encourage you to support both efforts. Prior to the 17th amendment to the US Constitution it was the job of our US Senators to represent the states interests in Washington DC. After the 17th amendment however US Senators are elected the same as House Members, by popular vote, which has reduced and almost eliminated the states voice on the national level. I cannot recall a US Senator asking: “Is this Constitutional? Does this violate the 9th or 10th amendment?” before casting his or her vote on a particular issue. Per the 2nd, 9th, and 10th, amendments to the US Constitution, as well as the fact that the states created the federal government in the first place, it now is imperative that we assert our voice and our rights if we intend on keeping them.

To quote historian Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr:

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”

The standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.

Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms. - Thomas Jefferson

For Liberty,

ME

Those interested in Nullification head on over to Tom's website, lots of good resources:

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/written-testimony-on-behalf-of-nullification/
 
The Supremacy clause cannot legitimately be used to abrogate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was passed after the Supremacy clause, and therefore supercedes it.
 
I notice that the bill says "gun control act of 1934" instead of "national firearms act of 1934". Given that they didn't use the actual name of the law, wouldn't that be a problem under the scrutiny of a court?
 
Dean Weingarten said:
The Supremacy clause cannot legitimately be used to abrogate the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was passed after the Supremacy clause, and therefore supercedes it.
Click to expand...
What absolute drivel. When has a federal court ever ruled anything of the sort?

In fact, the Supreme Court ruled in 1833 the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). In 1876 the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States (United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)). The Second Amendment was not applied to the States until 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010)).

Of course you wrote "legitimately", but your opinion of the legitimacy of the the decisions of the federal courts doesn't really count for anything. As I noted above, the Founding Fathers assigned the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts and specifically authorized the federal courts to exercise that judicial power to decide cases arising under the Constitution.
 
This whole idea of states "nullifying" federal law is, in itself, a nullity. All it amounts to is politicians trying to make cheap political points.

The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution provides that the federal constitution, laws, and treaties trump any state laws to the contrary. Even state-level law enforcement officers are sworn to uphold the (federal) constitution, so it would be against their oath to try to enforce purported state laws in conflict with it.

The last time nullification was seriously proposed was by John C. Calhoun in 1832. President Andrew Jackson made short work of that argument. Of course, the South Carolina nullifiers tried again, by seceding, in 1860, but we all know how that one turned out.

Really, this is a blind alley for the gun-rights movement. It would be wise not to go there.
 
While I certainly wouldn't want to be the test case for this legislation... even symbolic "refusal to enforce" is a pretty strong statement (especially if it catches on) in a civil disobedience sort of way.
 
We called em and said this is the way it is going to be or else your job is on the line..............
 
Not being a constitutional lawyer, it will be interesting to see how this goes.
Click to expand...

I am a lawyer who deals with constitutional issues just about every day. No, this won't hold up. There's a thing called the "Supremacy Clause." Essentially, every federal law that is applicable to the states will supersede contradicting state law, assuming the federal law is constitutional. That's a very basic take on it, but I hail Misso, as they sent a VERY strong message to federal legislators.
 
I haven't been keeping up with gun rights news for several years. I thought this had to be an April Fool's joke at first.

I don't see this as political theater.
If the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies won't enforce any federal firearms laws, I see this as significant. Depending on how far this is taken.

If the BATF wants to conduct a raid, they are on their own. No state, or local back up. What happens if a guy is wanted for a firearms violation and is fleeing; does this mean that the locals will refuse to stop him or participate in his apprehension ?

If someone is arrested for another crime and there are also illegal guns involved, appearently the local police won't even notify any federal agency ?

What if a nationwide hunt is on for a guy that is wanted for firearms violations and the MO police know where he is, do they just ignore it ?

When you say, "this won't hold up". What won't hold up ?
Are the local police required to enforce federal laws ?
 
No one's said Missouri has nullified the intent of the laws, they are merely claiming the authority to do so from the Feds. It's still not kosher to saw your shotgun below 18.5", or build your own machine gun ;). This is much more a states' rights issue than a practical, on the ground issue that would directly affect us.

IF they then go on to pass laws usurping or conflicting with federal laws, then we got something. At any rate it doesn't matter; it'll be decades before the Supremes (the court, not the group) rule on the matter.

TCB
 
If the state, county, and local law enforcement agencies won't enforce any federal firearms laws, I see this as significant. Depending on how far this is taken.

If the BATF wants to conduct a raid, they are on their own. No state, or local back up. What happens if a guy is wanted for a firearms violation and is fleeing; does this mean that the locals will refuse to stop him or participate in his apprehension ?

If someone is arrested for another crime and there are also illegal guns involved, appearently the local police won't even notify any federal agency ?

What if a nationwide hunt is on for a guy that is wanted for firearms violations and the MO police know where he is, do they just ignore it ?
Click to expand...

The "Missouri Compromise" ;)
 
This has been discussed in Class III circles for years. Missouri is just doing what many in the NFA neighborhood have wanted to do all along: challenge the US Govt's claim to be able to restrict and govern INTRA-state commerce and regulation of firearms. There is nothing in the constitution that permits the feds to regulate (infringe) firearms totally WITHIN a state. Federal power applies to INTERSTATE regulations. What MO is claiming is that the 1934 law went beyond the powers of the feds, and was never reviewed by the Supreme Court, so the matter was never laid to rest. True, this is a test case for power by the states, but the specific challenge is one that a state just might win, and strengthen states' powers. It just HAPPENS to be on the subject of guns, state's rights to arm their citizen/militias, etc.
 
I also am a Missouri " show Me" citizen. If it works as proposed it will be fantastic and surely other states will follow.
 
Archangel14 said:
I am a lawyer who deals with constitutional issues just about every day. No, this won't hold up. There's a thing called the "Supremacy Clause." Essentially, every federal law that is applicable to the states will supersede contradicting state law, assuming the federal law is constitutional. That's a very basic take on it, but I hail Misso, as they sent a VERY strong message to federal legislators.
Click to expand...

Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
 
MJU1983 said:
Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Click to expand...
And that will be a question for the federal courts. See post 21.
 
Frank Ettin said:
And that will be a question for the federal courts. See post 21.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

Why would the states care what a federal court says in regards to a grievance between them and the federal government? It would be like us settling a dispute by asking my mom to referee. We hope she'd be fair but I think you know who she will side with. ;)

Just because we have a history of bowing to the federal government doesn't mean we should continue doing so. The states preceded the Union. In the American system no government is sovereign, not the federal government and not the states. The peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it. Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.

Cue James Madison:

The resolution of the General Assembly [the Virginia Resolutions of 1798] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential rights of the parties to it. The resolution supposes that dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that the judicial department also may exercise or sanction dangerous powers beyond the grant of the Constitution; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution, to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another; by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature.

However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department, is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial as well as the other departments hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert for ever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
Click to expand...

The “parties to the constitutional compact” being, of course, the peoples of the states.

I'll side with Jefferson on this one. :cool:

1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party; that this government, created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled “An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” as also the act passed by them on the — day of June, 1798, intituled “An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States,” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes House. SENATE HEARING TOMORROW 4/24
2 3
Replies
58
Views
4K
CZguy
C
A
  • Locked
Kansas gun case pits federal law against states’ rights
Replies
19
Views
2K
Tirod
T
hso
  • Locked
State nullification legislation to prevent 2A infringements.
2 3
Replies
72
Views
2K
GEM
G
Trent
  • Locked
Oklahoma, Missouri join anti-federal movement.
Replies
5
Views
389
Kiln
K
wow6599
  • Locked
Missouri Amendment 5 - M855 safe?
Replies
8
Views
878
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top