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

Gotholic

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

Posted by Michael Boldin

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:
trans.gif

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.
trans.gif


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.

Source

:headbang:
 

2minkey

bootlicker
"The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms."

maybe next the city will tell me that i must allow armed individuals in my home.

seems the fed isn't the only one who wants to make rules for everybody.

oh no i'm sorry it is about your freedom.

go team dipshit.

 

Winky

Well-Known Member
It is funny to think that if this really nullifies all that crap in the 1934 law
It means that now them folks in Missouri can all have full auto weapons if they wanna
with open carry to boot! ;)
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
minky minky minky
I know the idea of freedom scares you to death
change your depends and have a nap
 

2minkey

bootlicker
yeah huh? is right dummykins.

you've been doing your best to escape from freedom for years. all your bullshit is a NASCAR grade rationalization to throw up yer arms and give up.
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
I wonder why they just specified Guns.
One reason I want my permit is because I might want to carry my knife peroically.
ATM you can't carry (in your vehicle or on your person) off your own property
any knife longer than 6 inches.
That's been the law in this stated for more than 20 years.
That was updated some years ago to include the handle in lock-blade knives.
When I was in the 9th grade I carried a 3inch blade Schrade knife, but now I can't even have it in my vehicle.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
that my friend is
totally insane
I'd say your rights to keep and bear arms have been more than infringed
wouldn't you?

oh and by the way
do the criminals in your state strictly adhere to these silly measures?
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
"The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms."

This is the state acting with due authority. They tend to override city/county measures quite often.
This is not impinging on the freedom of an individual. If they tell you to carry a weapon, like it or not,
you'll have room to bitch.
 

2minkey

bootlicker
i'm a little surprised that you favor centralized rule over a local community standard and self-determination. i guess authority beats principles when it's on your side.
 
Top