Missouri Senate votes to nullify federal gun laws and regulations, 23-8

mrsat_98

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
4,652
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/missouri-senate-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-laws-and-regulations-23-8/#.U2GU6_ldVeQ

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., April 30, 2014 – By a vote of 23-8 today, the Missouri state Senate passed an “emergency” bill that seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future.”

House Bill 1439 (HB1439), introduced by Rep. Doug Funderburk (R-St. Charles), previously passed the House by a vote of 110-36. The bill will now go back to the house for concurrence on some technical amendments made on the senate side. If passed, the bill will move on to the Governor’s desk.

With language inspired by Thomas Jefferson, HB1439 declares that the state rejects the idea of “unlimited submission” to federal power. It also declares that “whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Jefferson wrote the following in the Kentucky Resolutions, which passed Nov. 10, 1798:

the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government [emphasis added]

and

whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force
[emphasis added]

The state capitol city’s namesake would have been proud, said Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey. “This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson himself said that states had a duty to do,” he said. “States aren’t supposed to stand by and do nothing while the federal government violates the Constitution. And they’re not supposed to be willing partners in the act either.”

Maharrey said that while the declarations have great impact, the strong practical effect of its passage come in other parts of the bill.

HB1439 would make it state law that all federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future” which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms “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.”

Those federal acts which are considered infringing are spelled out in HB1439, including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(5) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

Missouri courts and law enforcement agencies would be required to actively protect the right to keep and bear arms from such infringements.

The legislation also specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any federal acts running counter to the proposed law. These provisions banning state participation in the enforcement of federal gun control measures are based on the virtually-undisputed long-standing legal doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.” Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 holds the feds simply cannot require state to help them carry out their acts. In short, the state can simply stand down, leaving enforcement to a seriously undermanned federal government.

Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”

In practice, this means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down on enforcement would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic as well. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.

An emergency clause was added to the bill before final passage. This would make the bill effective sooner than the required 90 days after the session in which it is passed. It requires a two-thirds vote of each chamber.

ACTION ITEMS
 
Didn't this already pass but the governor stopped it? If so, it looks like they have the votes to overrule the governor, nice! Once this passes, they can work on the more important issue of fixing the MO gun laws.
 
It's taking too long but it would be nice to have a few states with enticing laws championing freedom in case you happen to live in a miserable state and need to get out.
 
Didn't this already pass but the governor stopped it? If so, it looks like they have the votes to overrule the governor, nice! Once this passes, they can work on the more important issue of fixing the MO gun laws.

That's what I thought. Well, if they can override a veto, great. To hell with the louse.

I hope they pass it - it will be a model for the rest of a nation in dire need of something that at least hints of planet earth, instead of planet BizarroMaoStalin.

This would make MO a good place for guns... full auto, suppressed... Question is what will the enforcers do? Will they enforce fedlaw? Will they step aside as feds enforce fedlaw?

A really big question in my mind is what, exactly, do they mean by "which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms"? How do they define it, or have they left that part out? I suspect that in any event the definition is going to be sorted out in the courts at great expense to innocent people. I hope like hell to be proven dead wrong on this point, but the scent is most definitely on the air.

This bit is very good:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

It definitely lifts the defacto ban on full-auto, suppression, and so forth. The next question is whether the state will enact its own bans on these items. It would make no sense to do so in the wake of this enactment, but since when does government action necessarily make sense?

Missouri courts and law enforcement agencies would be required to actively protect the right to keep and bear arms from such infringements.

This sounds good, but how is it spelled out and what are the penalties for failing to do so? SCOTUS has ruled that police are not required to provide any specific service such as protection to an individual. As things stand, a cop can cruise right on by a gang as they rape and murder a woman, for example. Granted, this bill is at least superficially a massive middle finger to the fedgov, but I cannot help but wonder how deeply into the eye socket said finger is to be thrust.

The legislation also specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any federal acts running counter to the proposed law. These provisions banning state participation in the enforcement of federal gun control measures are based on the virtually-undisputed long-standing legal doctrine known as “anti-commandeering.” Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 holds the feds simply cannot require state to help them carry out their acts. In short, the state can simply stand down, leaving enforcement to a seriously undermanned federal government.

I see at least two problems here. Firstly, the entire paragraph collides headlong with the previous bit about being obiged to actively protect the people from infringements. This is an unequivocal requirement to take positive action against federal enforcers. There is no other way to read it. So in my mind either the paragraph as written is wrong and the legislation is as previously described, or the paragraph is right and the proposed legislation has some serious structural flaws.

Secondly, how "can" the state stand down? Hopefully the structure of that sentence is nothing more than an artifact of poor writing. Of course they CAN stand down. I CAN wlk down the street and shoot the life out of everyone I come across, but I MAY not.

So, are these guys at 10A Center having some issues with writing style, or are my hopes about to be dashed yet again?


“refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.

I agree it may impede action, but more is needed to bring the feds to a halt on a matter. Merely refusing to cooperate will not buy enough, IMO, and not even that much because if the feds decide to go whole hog, they will bring in agents from across the nation to get the job done. What is needed it very active and unequivocal action not just from state agents, but from the citizens. There must be in place codified penalties for feds who violate state law. There must be penalties for anyone in the state who aids or abets such agents. There must be penalties for all state agents who knowingly fail to actively protect residents of the state from fed predations. When federal agents end up in irons, facing felony charges and decades in general population, they may begin to stand down. But every resident of a state must have assured them the right to protect themselves and others against such predations, up to and including shooting the life out of such agents with all advantage and protections of law behind them. When feds start returning to their offices in ziplock bags, they will be then faced with a simple choice: back down or escalate. Given what sissie-fags these tough guys appear to be, I suspect they will be standing well down. This should be implemented in as many states as possible. Of course, dumps like NY will likely not adopt such measures any time soon. But that is OK because the "market" will put it to them as people begin leaving such states in droves. Then those states, too, shall be faced with a choice of how to respond. It sounds silly, but I cannot help but wonder if a state such as NY might prohibit people from moving away if their populations and revenue fall precipitously. Probably not, but with people like Cuomo at the helm, I am not sure one is safe in making the assumption that it cannot happen there.

Final question: since they are attempting to put the boots to the feds, I cannot help but wonder whether they will do anything about their own frothingly insane cops and deputies.
 
My feeling is that citizens and state agents best stay out of the way if the U.S. govt sends federal agents to enforce federal gun laws. The South will not be rising again in Missouri or anywhere else. If it tries to, it will be put down. Then again, the federal govt may be cowardly enough to back down like it did at the Bundy Ranch. I wonder just how weak the federal govt may be under Pres. Barack Obama. This is going to be interesting to watch. Oh, and I am a Missourian.
 
The South will not be rising again in Missouri or anywhere else.

Missouri was a border state. A swing state .

But welcome to the Forum.. I lived in Missouri once upon a time,, I was known by some as "Jesse James".
 
Back
Top