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

[JohnC]

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

Military Arms Channel

I just read the Missouri law that passed their state legislature. Folks, this is nothing short of amazing and it might be the first real shot fired in the conflict brewing between the states and the federal government over the destruction of the 10th Amendment. This is the clause from the new bill that's so amazing:

3. (1) 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.

This new law not only nullifies future federal gun laws in the state of Missouri, it nullifies the Gun Control Act of 1934 (NFA) and the Gun Control Act of 1968.
This just got VERY interesting. If Eric Holder panicked about the Kansas law, he's probably giving birth to a cow right about now.

Read more about it here:
Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

[Guest semiautots]

It will be interesting to see not only where this goes, but what the media will say about it.  So far, it's been pretty quiet.

 

More and more states need to begin to excercise their independence.

[DaveTN]

Be interesting to see what (if anything) happens. Noncompliance with the Federal gun control acts is interesting; but requires participation of manufacturers and dealers to mean anything. I doubt any manufacturers or many dealers will put their FFL’s on the line.

[Ramjo]

Wow. They should have mentioned the act of 1985 :)

[Garufa]

I'm sure letters are going out today from the AG to the governor of MO and all FFL's that this means nothing and the Federal government WILL enforce their "regulations".

[ted]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/arkansas-become-fifth-state-constitutional-carry

[Dolomite_supafly]

Wow, this is stuff that needs to happen across the nation. We, as law abiding citizens, should be allowed to own anything we want for any legal use. Problem is most, if not all, people would not risk loosing everything they own as well as their freedom without the backing of a government entity.

 

Wow. They should have mentioned the act of 1985 :)

What act is that?

 

If you are talking about the 1986 ban on sales of new MG to civillians then voiding the 1934 act also voids the 1986 ban.

[peejman]

I'm sure letters are going out today from the AG to the governor of MO and all FFL's that this means nothing and the Federal government WILL enforce their "regulations".

 

 

Nice in principle, but likely pretty meaningless. Expect lots of taxpayer money to be wasted on the supreme court case of BATFE vs. State of Missouri. 

[Guest drv2fst]

This is refreshing.  We the people have been pretty useless in the fight to keep our rights and liberty.  Maybe the states can do what we could not.  Maybe the only way to beat power hungry politicians is with other power hungry politicians.  I think we need to add as much fuel as we can to the States vs Feds fire.  It the States win any of our rights back, we win.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Nice in principle, but likely pretty meaningless. Expect lots of taxpayer money to be wasted on the supreme court case of BATFE vs. State of Missouri. "

 

 

 

So, words don't have meaning? The meaning will be the resolve of the people in Missouri. We should only

be so bold to pass something like that, also.

Edited May 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Trekbike]

I'm sure letters are going out today from the AG to the governor of MO and all FFL's that this means nothing and the Federal government WILL enforce their "regulations".

 

Yea...all Holder has to do is pull out the one he sent to Kansas and make the appropriate substitutions for MO.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The Constitution is only words. You folks thinking this is meaningless must have the same opinion of it, also?

[Commando68]

Any chance TN will follow suit?

[Chucktshoes]

Any chance TN will follow suit?

:lol:

[BigK]

Any chance TN will follow suit?

 

Considering the spineless governor we have, it'll have to be with a super-majority like Missouri has or Haslam will veto it.

Edited May 10, 2013 by BigK

[peejman]

The Constitution is only words. You folks thinking this is meaningless must have the same opinion of it, also?

 

SCOTUS has already ruled that such legislative actions carry no weight.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_legislative_actions_in_protest_of_federal_actions

 

Several states have introduced various resolutions and legislation in protest to federal actions.^[8] Despite this, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that the states can nullify federal law. In Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the Supreme Court of the United States held that federal law prevails over state law due to the operation of the Supremacy Clause, and that federal law "can neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes . . ." Thus, state laws purporting to nullify federal statutes or to exempt states and their citizens from federal statutes have only symbolic impact.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good for Wikipedia. The Supremacy Clause does not apply to unconstitutional laws, otherwise known as

unjust laws, being passed by a legislative body with no authority to pass such legislation, as stated in the

constitution. I forget which article, but the Congress has no authority to legislate apart from that article,

which means that the Supremacy Clause has no weight. People like Charles Shumer D-NY has made that

argument for the Supremacy Clause for so long it is ridiculous. Unjust laws, or burdens like this is part of the

reason for the Tenth Amendment as enticement for the states to join in the union.

 

Maybe we just allow that anything goes, now.

[Worriedman]

SCOTUS has already ruled that such legislative actions carry no weight.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#State_legislative_actions_in_protest_of_federal_actions

Only if the laws under consideration are couched in the Constitution.  If the Federal law under consideration is unconstitutional, (in the opinion of many States) then the States have the ability to question such instruments, and together to petition the SCOTUS for a ruling.

 

Dred Scott comes to mind as a reading of law that was upheld at one point Federally, but ultimately decided to be unconstitutional.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

 People like Charles Shumer D-NY has made that

argument for the Supremacy Clause for so long it is ridiculous.

Maybe we just allow that anything goes, now.

Don't forget our own dear leaders, Brian Kelsy, John Stephens, Lowe Finney, Jim Coley, and Vance Dennis...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For those of us who can read plain english, your reading enjoyment! Not directed at anyone in particular.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

I still get my information from the original document, even though it has hypertext to help, nowadays. :D

 

That case about segregation has exactly what to do with the 2nd Amendment? I guess I'm going to have to read

up on that, now, but I think it's just another way to describe how we continually accept a new bar to measure by,

which is the way to make the Constitution into a living, breathing document, just what the other side wants. Nope.

 

There comes a point where you accept tyranny and go on until you can't live under it, or you follow the rule of

law, which I think has it's roots in the Constitution, not what those politicians who want to pass a law every minute

of the day think. Some politicians have suggested having a proposed bill be shown it's constitutionality before

it gets voted on. I think that is a wise course, but it would shut a lot of those fools in Congress up before they can

say things like "death is a part of life" and "evil 30 round clip" or "save the helium for our childrens' birthday party"

as testimony in a hearing. Hey, we made our own bed by electing these fools.

[peejman]

Only if the laws under consideration are couched in the Constitution.  If the Federal law under consideration is unconstitutional, (in the opinion of many States) then the States have the ability to question such instruments, and together to petition the SCOTUS for a ruling.

 

Dred Scott comes to mind as a reading of law that was upheld at one point Federally, but ultimately decided to be unconstitutional.

 

 

Agreed. 

 

I think the biggest problem is that the states seem to be doing it more or less ad hoc.  If they'd pool their resources and essentially gang up on the administration, I think they'd get a lot further. 

 

Also, maybe this just my simple mind working against me again, but how does Congress pass a law that's unconstitutional?  It seems to happen with relative (and frightening) regularity.  I don't understand why there isn't a review process in place to prevent such things.

 

 

edit... 6.8AR, that's a nice Constitution link, thanks.

Edited May 10, 2013 by peejman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It's not valid for Congress to present bills outside of Article 1, section 8. That makes me think of so many laws that

are not valid, to begin with. It says nothing about the power being vested to Congress to make laws concerning the

2nd Amendment, does it? Same with many other laws. All those other laws are left up to the individual states to

deal with, if they are allowed under the Constitution which they accepted when they joined, that includes making

laws contrary to the 2nd Amendment.

 

The law Missouri passed confirms the 2nd Amendment. I just don't see how the Supreme Court could disagree

with this, with the exception of it being an activist court, which it isn't supposed to be. Missouri did the right thing

by passing their law. Many others should follow suit.

 

Supremacy Clause does not apply, unless you're a liberal. They will bend anything into a pretzel.

[Worriedman]

It's not valid for Congress to present bills outside of Article 1, section 8.

 

6.8, you are wise beyond your years, and like me, you have a few miles on you already, so that makes you a pretty smart fellow!

[Worriedman]

Not that I always agree with Hamilton, (or even usually), but even he gets it to a major degree, Federalist #33 para. #5:

 

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard [the Constitution] they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” [emphasis mine]

Remember in the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The People, still have a place, and a responsibility in our governance, if they would just get off their arses and exercise it.

 

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

6.8, you are wise beyond your years, and like me, you have a few miles on you already, so that makes you a pretty smart fellow!

Nah! But thanks. We just need to get more folks to read this stuff more often. If they paid attention every time

Congress tried to pass crap, more of them might be sent home without a note.

 

Just think if they taught this stuff in schools, again. :D