Missouri may have just made the most monumental step towards freedom and individual liberty since the signing of the Bill of Rights. In an upcoming vote by Missouri’s state senate, the state is expected to pass a bill that would nullify ALL Federal gun laws and regulations, and make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense. Republicans control both U.S. Senate seats and more than two-thirds of the seats in both the Missouri House and Senate.
Like it’s predecessor, SB613, Bill SB367 and it’s companion, House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans. Originally authored in 2014, a former version of the bill was also passed, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.
Well, since "sanctuary" cities and states are apparently a good thing, I don't suppose that this will be too much of a problem. But what would such a law involve?
“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.”
Meaning what? Pretty much everything, by the sound of it.
(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
If you're an ATF or FBI agent assigned to go to Missouri and arrest some gun law violator or other, let your significant other or others know that you might not be home right away.
Here’s where things get interesting. The Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates SB367. As per the new law, state and local (municipal & county) law enforcement officers would be given “discretionary power” to determine if they will press criminal charges against federal agents who break the law by enforcing the now nullified federal gun control measures.
Will this hold up in court? Maybe.
The bill’s main provision calling on the entire state to cease enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 stipulates that the feds simply cannot require a state to help them violate your Constitutional rights, and allows states the power to refuse to enforce such federal laws it deems unconstitutional. Besides, the feds simply don’t have the manpower to do it at the state level without the assistance and partnership of state and local agencies.
And if you think that Missouri's bluffing...
Just in case that isn’t enough, Missouri’s Senate also passed a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB367, solidifying it by codifying the Second Amendment into Missouri’s state constitution. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment to the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate today by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will be entered on the ballot for Missouri voters’ approval this fall. The amendment would elevate the Right to Bear Arms to “unalienable status,” thereby obligating the state, its courts and agencies to defend it as a guaranteed right of Missouri citizens.
You're a Puke, Johnson. What the hell's going on? Got me. Except for the first several months of my existence, when my mom and dad forced me to live in Billings, Montana, I've lived here all of my life and I've followed local politics long enough to remember when Democrats ran this state.
Maybe we're reacting to the recent ultra-hard-left turn of the
Either way, I've got a volume of Calhoun that I really need to get to one of these days. And if a
Deo Vindice.
8 comments:
A sanctuary state!
Based on comments I've seen on various Twitter feeds, it's kind of looking that way.
Cool. Unlike the late Confederacy, this declaration of state sovereignty is in support of a just moral cause through and through. The rights to self-defense and to bear arms are an integral part of the American experiment.
With apologies to the Rebel who is often a visitor here, the states' rights position of the Confederacy, while admirable in many ways, had always behind it the insistence on maintaining slavery and exporting it to the West, with Calhoun leading the way to define slavery not as a regrettable institution which would probably die of its own accord, but as a positive good.
No such reservations apply to this attempt by Missouri to guarantee the Bill of Rights to all law-abiding Missouri citizens of all origins. I particularly like the part about putting the right to bear arms specifically in the Missouri constitution, not merely having it extended there by court rulings. Show us the way, Missouri!
Way to go, Missouri!
The "Show Me" state! Maybe we in Texas will follow suit.
And to those with romantic and ancestral connections to the Confederate cause, I want to say I understand clearly that the vast majority of the men who fought on both sides did not do so with the idea of abolishing or continuing slavery as their motivation. What my comment means is that there was an underlying condition which was the "root" cause of the economic and political disagreements among the states.
In the present case, the underlying condition is the failure of the federal government, in many cases, to respect the rights of individuals as guaranteed in the Constitution, and the rights and duties of the several states.
(I was fasting from the Internet yesterday as a part of my Lenten discipline & missed this row as it was unfolding.)
No apology needed, Katherine. I am not the least bit interested in trying to reestablish forced labor when a reliable combine that does a more dependable & better job is readily available. My issue is with the progressive position that we white trash are incapable of ordering our own lives without their guiding hand. They want to trade liberty for equality of outcome without understanding what that does to the soul. Hence, I will remain "unreconstructed" until my dying breath. Yes, my ancestors did fight for the Cause. The love of Liberty is something you get from your mother's teat.
Peace, ur.
I am in total agreement with you, ur, about what progressives today are trying to do to us.
Post a Comment