Missouri Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Control

[jimnyc]

Excellent! But how much weight does this carry? As far as I'm concerned, the states should have their say first, but I'm no legal scholar of course.

-----

A Missouri bill which seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future,” passed the Senate Thursday. SB613 would ban the state from enforcing virtually all federal gun control measures, and includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to violate the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.

The measure passed 23-10.

SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:

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 as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and 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.

Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:

(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) 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;

(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...control-23-10/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Excellent! But how much weight does this carry? As far as I'm concerned, the states should have their say first, but I'm no legal scholar of course.

-----

A Missouri bill which seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future,” passed the Senate Thursday. SB613 would ban the state from enforcing virtually all federal gun control measures, and includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to violate the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.

The measure passed 23-10.

SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:

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 as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and 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.

Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:

(a) 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;

(b) 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;

(c) 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;

(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...control-23-10/

States rights and the 2nd Amendment both say the state wins this one in court but we both know how the treasonous bastard obama ignores unfavorable court rulings don't we!
One of the greatest travesties of justice in this nation's history is the failure to impeach and then dethrone this usurping traitorous ffing bastard!
I truly believe that our Representative Republic is done for myself, in that this bastard got re-elected and can do as he pleases and get praised for it instead of being handcuffed and imprisoned for his obvious and deliberate treason!!!-Tyr

[fj1200]

Excellent! But how much weight does this carry? As far as I'm concerned, the states should have their say first, but I'm no legal scholar of course.

Supremacy Clause.

States rights and the 2nd Amendment both say the state wins this one in court...

Or not. See above.

[red state]

Funny how WE are to abide by ALL homosexual laws (that discriminate against the NATION, the Constitution, State Laws and our FOUNDING) yet THEY are more than willing to NOT abide by a mandate (from the SUPREME court) over the 2nd Amendment. Why should WE (if) THEY do not?!

Mississippi (The GREATEST and one of the most prosperously growing industrial State in the Union) has a bill that will hopefully pass that does NOT require ANY special permits, fingerprinting or other transgressions against our founding, the Constitution or common sense regarding gun laws (specifically on conceal carry / open carry). If passed, both conceal carry and open carry will be regarded as one and the same and will NOT be regulated (or infringe upon our RIGHTS as the Constitution clearly outlines for the 2nd Amendment).

I have said many times that the 2nd (IS) my conceal or open carry permit and I'll be damned if I am finger printed or have to "PAY" to protect my family.....isn't it the MOB that charges for "protection". Hell with any liberal or cop who does not follow the Constitution and I'm gonna have a big laugh at all my friends and family who have "registered" and have been fingerprinted like criminals.....when I will be free to do as AMERICANS were supposed to do.................................without charge or without being regulated unfairly. Even if this good, Mississippi law passes, I'm still going to fight against the homosexual agenda tooth and nail. If this good law fails (either in MO or MS) I'm gonna simply do as the left does....ignore THEIR laws and prejudice against REAL Americans.

[Little-Acorn]

Supremacy Clause.

Only applies to laws Congress has the authority to make.

And it has no authority whatsoever, to restrict or ban guns.

States will win... unless the courts ignore the Constitution. As they frequently do.

[Little-Acorn]

When the states started making marijuana legal in the face of Federal laws banning it, that may have been the first crack on a large dam.

It was one ares where the Fed had been usurping state power for a long time, since the Fed has no power to restrict or ban substances such as Marijuana, either.

You could make an argument that they could regulate marijuana that was in interstate commerce, since Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce. Whether that extends to banning the stuff completely, is a different question.

But they certainly have no power to ban MJ that was grown, processed, and consumed, all within the same state.

I'm pretty sure the reason the Fed didn't fight state laws in Colorado etc. making it legal there, was because they knew they didn't have the power... and didn't want that pointed out and ruled on in court.


Good for Missouri. They are in the same position regarding guns, as Colorado was regarding marijuana. The Fed govt has no authority to regulate either one. The Fed has already backed down on one. With that precedent set, might they eventually back down on guns, too?

Of course, there is no constitutional amendment forbidding any restrictions on marijuana, but there IS one forbidding regulation of guns. By any government, including state and local governments. But here it sounds like Missouri isn't making laws to restrict them, only laws saying they will not enforce Federal restrictions.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Supremacy Clause.



Or not. See above.

Supremacy clause does not and can not void the 2nd amendment.
If it could then both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are on the block to be chopped!
Logic, common sense, justice and the Rule of Law all say that you are wrong.
As do we gun owners.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Only applies to laws Congress has the authority to make.

And it has no authority whatsoever, to restrict or ban guns.

States will win... unless the courts ignore the Constitution. As they frequently do.

I'm pretty sure that there are gun laws on the books at present that have passed Constitutional muster.

Supremacy clause does not and can not void the 2nd amendment.
If it could then both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are on the block to be chopped!
Logic, common sense, justice and the Rule of Law all say that you are wrong.
As do we gun owners.. -Tyr

Of course the Supremacy Clause doesn't void 2A but until such time as Federal gun laws are ruled unconstitutional the SC will reign. The Constitution says I'm right.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm pretty sure that there are gun laws on the books at present that have passed Constitutional muster.



Of course the Supremacy Clause doesn't void 2A but until such time as Federal gun laws are ruled unconstitutional the SC will reign. The Constitution says I'm right.

Our guns say we are right.. --Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

I'm pretty sure that there are gun laws on the books at present that have passed Constitutional muster.

Does that mean you can't name one that doesn't violate the Constitution's flat ban on any gun regulations by government?

I'm not surprised.

[fj1200]

What damn law? Its an obama illegal, Executive Order , not a damn law.
You really should stop confusing the two.-Tyr

Apparently I'm the only one between the two of us not confused.

-----

... It reads, in part:

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 as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and 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.

...

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014...control-23-10/

[Surf Fishing Guru]

Apparently I'm the only one between the two of us not confused.

But for the fact that Obama's latest gun decrees are not Executive Orders . . . They have no force of law; they will not be entered into the Federal Register.

[Gunny]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

Updated at 3:45: Revised to include response to Gov. Abbott’s speech and add reference to the Convention of States.
Updated at 1:54: Revised to include comments from Gov. Abbott’s speech.

<aside class="DMNReferWrapper pull-right panel-flat-medium content-aside sld tf1f1">Related

• Abbott's call for a convention of the states is a recipe for mayhem
• Editorial: Why Abbott's call for a constitutional convention sets a dangerous precedent
• Obama rips into NRA at televised town hall on gun safety
• Texas Republicans take aim at Obama over executive order on guns
• Armed group not ready to end wildlife refuge occupation
• Floyd: No handouts for anti-government militia zealots
• Jesse Walker: No, the Oregon occupiers are not ‘terrorists’

</aside> Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”
“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

More ...

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.c...s-rights.html/

[fj1200]

But for the fact that Obama's latest gun decrees are not Executive Orders . . . They have no force of law; they will not be entered into the Federal Register.

The latest on his attempts:

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2015 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL

But there will be things done according to law no?

[Gunny]

The latest on his attempts:

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2015 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL


But there will be things done according to law no?

No. I can drive 150 miles south and buy a firearm and skip all the red tape. The fact is, the Executive Order is unconstitutional, per usual for Obama, and he's not going to stop guns from coming across the border. He won't even stop illegal PEOPLE from coming across the border.

All he's going to do is disarm the law-abiding citizens, and/or make outlaws out of those of us that refuse to comply.