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/2014/02/20/missouri-senate-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-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/2014/02/20/missouri-senate-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-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.. :laugh:--Tyr

[fj1200]

Our guns say we are right.. :laugh:--Tyr

That's one way to go when your Constitutional argument falls apart.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's one way to go when your Constitutional argument falls apart.

No argument fell apart, Supremacy clause does not void 2nd Amendment nor does it supersede it until a court decision, 2nd Amendment is established law "in standing" , new and illegal gun restrictions are not, THEY ARE JUST WORDS SPOKEN BY A LYING BASTARD AND A DAMN TRAITOR!!!
And guns were what King George met when he tried his tyranny, obama is worse than the king was.
As he is sworn by oath--- NOT TO DO WHAT HE IS DOING!
WE THAT ARE NOT STUPID, GULLIBLE, BRAINWASHED, LIBERAL AND OF A STUPID NATURE KNOW THIS-- OBVIOUS THAT YOU HAVENT A DAMN CLUE.-Tyr

[fj1200]

No argument fell apart, Supremacy clause does not void 2nd Amendment nor does it supersede it until a court decision, 2nd Amendment is established law "in standing" , new and illegal gun restrictions are not...

Nobody said it did. Federal laws are supreme until judged unC. Besides, 2A is not really a law, it defines a right.

[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.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nobody said it did. Federal laws are supreme until judged unC. Besides, 2A is not really a law, it defines a right.


Federal laws are supreme until judged unC.

Actually no-- they are not!!! Not when they come into direct and immediate action voiding the
the 2nd Amendment.
There is a reason that it was Amendment number TWO
There is a reason the Feds dont just say turn in your guns now!
Thats because the bastards would get the bullets first and at super sonic speed!
And thats exactly why the 2ND AMENDMENT WAS CREATED.
ALL THIS DAMN TRAITOROUS chipping away shit has to stop or else most likely a civil war will decide the case IMHO.
You should be denouncing the ffing black monkey in charge instead of trying to reason how its not that bad a thing he is doing....
He knows the -"death by a thousand cuts" method of achieving a goal.
The deceptive, cowardly little piece of lying shit. -TYR

[Drummond]

.. FJ. In a case of Obama successfully circumventing the US Constitution (it seems to me that this is what he's striving for, on this issue) .. will we see you, finally, taking a stand against him, in defence of the Constitution ? Will you join with others here who'd want to see him made accountable for those actions ?

YES or NO ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

.. FJ. In a case of Obama successfully circumventing the US Constitution (it seems to me that this is what he's striving for, on this issue) .. will we see you, finally, taking a stand against him, in defence of the Constitution ? Will you join with others here who'd want to see him made accountable for those actions ?

YES or NO ?

Good luck on getting a one word answer being a -- yes! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.

[fj1200]

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.

That's why we have courts.


Actually no-- they are not!!! Not when they come into direct and immediate action voiding the
the 2nd Amendment.
There is a reason that it was Amendment number TWO
There is a reason the Feds dont just say turn in your guns now!
Thats because the bastards would get the bullets first and at super sonic speed!
And thats exactly why the 2ND AMENDMENT WAS CREATED.
...
You should be denouncing the ffing black monkey in charge instead of trying to reason how its not that bad a thing he is doing....

None of that addresses the issue. We have a process in this country.

Your bigoted prattle aside, BO is not really the subject of this thread.


In a case of Obama successfully circumventing the US Constitution...

I stand against him all the time. It doesn't mean you've proven your premise however.


Good luck on getting a one word answer being a -- yes! -Tyr

Yes. BO sucks. And so does the unsound Constitutional logic you employ.


From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.

EOs are generally couched in previous legislation that has passed Congress so are still presumably supreme. If they don't, or are an overreach, they can be challenged in court as with his immigration EO; successful so far IIRC.

[jimnyc]

EOs are generally couched in previous legislation that has passed Congress so are still presumably supreme. If they don't, or are an overreach, they can be challenged in court as with his immigration EO; successful so far IIRC.

Presumably being the key word. It's not often that gun regulation is done via EO's. And not all EO's are "federal laws passed by congress". Can go a lot of different directions. Generally speaking, they're rarely contested. I'm confident that any gun regulations issued via EO will end up in court. Immigration and gun control are very different. Lots of laws based around immigration, not so much with gun regulation. With that said - I don't see what he is doing being reversed.

[fj1200]

Presumably being the key word. It's not often that gun regulation is done via EO's. And not all EO's are "federal laws passed by congress". Can go a lot of different directions. Generally speaking, they're rarely contested. I'm confident that any gun regulations issued via EO will end up in court. Immigration and gun control are very different. Lots of laws based around immigration, not so much with gun regulation. With that said - I don't see what he is doing being reversed.

There isn't any presumably about a duly passed law, it is supreme. Generally was more key IMO if his orders do rely on previous legislation. I do think BO has set a record with his orders being contested, rightly of course, but the good thing is that they can be reversed in one year and 11 days. :)

[jimnyc]

There isn't any presumably about a duly passed law, it is supreme. Generally was more key IMO if his orders do rely on previous legislation. I do think BO has set a record with his orders being contested, rightly of course, but the good thing is that they can be reversed in one year and 11 days. :)

How is an executive order a "passed" law? I think it's just that, an order, but one that carries the full weight of the law - but wasn't a "passed" law via congress as laws are supposed to be made. Either that, or have some sort of prior authorization or similar within prior laws, which I am unaware of for these particular regulations.

[fj1200]

How is an executive order a "passed" law? I think it's just that, an order, but one that carries the full weight of the law - but wasn't a "passed" law via congress as laws are supposed to be made. Either that, or have some sort of prior authorization or similar within prior laws, which I am unaware of for these particular regulations.


Executive orders (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order) have the full force of law when they take authority from a legislative power which grants its power directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made pursuant to Acts of Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Congress) that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegated_legislation)).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order#cite_note-1957print-1)

I don't know the prior authorization either but if it is present then the order stands for 1 year and 11 days or it gets challenged.

[jimnyc]

I don't know the prior authorization either but if it is present then the order stands for 1 year and 11 days or it gets challenged.

That's kinda what I just said, fucker! :poke: Full force of the law, but just not "passed" law like your typical laws via congress. Different, but maybe the same "power"?

But my next thing is - I'm confident that the supremacy clause fits 100% in most cases, federal law superceding state law. But has an EO ever been challenged, where just one state wants to ignore it? I honestly don't know.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

From what I'm reading it DOES appear that the supremacy clause applies to federal laws and such passed by congress. I don't see why the states cannot overrule an executive order, as it completely bypasses congress. Would be a good argument for the courts should a state tell the feds to F off on this issue.
Sanctuary cities are given leeway to tell Feds(Federal law to f-off) , why can't states?
Answer is states can and should. Especially to this treasonous piece of shit prez...-Tyr

obama wins either way it seems as he either gets his way in illegal orders or else he causes disunity, distrust, greater discord and hatred.
He does not think this stuff up--his handlers do-- the globalists(and allies-muslims., etc) and their agenda...

[Little-Acorn]

That's why we have courts.


TRANSLATION: No, I can't name one gun control law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment's flat ban on govt regulation of guns.

[fj1200]

That's kinda what I just said, fucker! :poke: Full force of the law, but just not "passed" law like your typical laws via congress. Different, but maybe the same "power"?

But my next thing is - I'm confident that the supremacy clause fits 100% in most cases, federal law superceding state law. But has an EO ever been challenged, where just one state wants to ignore it? I honestly don't know.

Sorry, wasn't sure. :eek: I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.


Sanctuary cities are given leeway to tell Feds(Federal law to f-off) , why can't states?
Answer is states can and should.

Answer is neither states nor cities can and/or should be able to violate the Constitution. It's a rule of law thing.


TRANSLATION: No, I can't name one gun control law that doesn't violate the 2nd amendment's flat ban on govt regulation of guns.

You'll fall short in translating when you don't speak AWESOME-ese. :slap: The correct question though for you to answer is what Constitutional laws are they going to ignore?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, wasn't sure. :eek: I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.



Answer is neither states nor cities can and/or should be able to violate the Constitution. It's a rule of law thing.



You'll fall short in translating when you don't speak AWESOME-ese. :slap: The correct question though for you to answer is what Constitutional laws are they going to ignore?



Sorry, wasn't sure. I'm not sure the answer either but this law goes beyond EOs and anything passed in the past 7 years.

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

[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/2014/02/20/missouri-senate-votes-to-nullify-federal-gun-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 (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/abbotts-call-for-a-convention-of-the-states-is-a-recipe-for-mayhem.html/)
Editorial: Why Abbott's call for a constitutional convention sets a dangerous precedent (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160108-editorial-why-abbott-s-call-for-a-constitutional-convention-sets-a-dangerous-precedent.ece)
Obama rips into NRA at televised town hall on gun safety (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160107-obama-rips-into-nra-at-televised-town-hall-on-gun-safety.ece)
Texas Republicans take aim at Obama over executive order on guns (http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/texans-republicans-take-aim-at-obama-over-executive-order-on-guns.html/)
Armed group not ready to end wildlife refuge occupation (http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160108-armed-group-not-ready-to-end-wildlife-refuge-occupation.ece)
Floyd: No handouts for anti-government militia zealots (http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2016/01/floyd-no-handouts-for-anti-government-militia-zealots.html/)
Jesse Walker: No, the Oregon occupiers are not ‘terrorists’ (http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/latest-columns/20160107-jesse-walker-no-the-oregon-occupiers-are-not-terrorists.ece)

</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.com/2016/01/gov-greg-abbott-calls-for-constitutional-convention-to-take-back-states-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 (http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx)
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 (http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx)


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.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Apparently I'm the only one between the two of us not confused.
I was speaking of obama's action, Executive order crap, not the law ....
Pay attention junior.

(PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2015 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL)

[fj1200]

I was speaking of obama's action, Executive order crap, not the law ....
Pay attention junior.

(PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 2015 EXECUTIVE ACTIONS ON GUN CONTROL)

That's an interesting way to admit you're wrong. This thread is about Missouri and their legislation against all Federal Anti-2A actions. I wonder how they plan to determine what actually does infringe 2A. :)