Skip to comments.Nixon vetoes bills that nullifIed federal gun laws (Missouri)
Posted on 07/05/2013 10:15:21 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Gov. Jay Nixon has vetoed legislation that would have made it a crime for federal agents to try to enforce gun control laws.
Nixon announced the veto Friday. He noted that the U.S. Constitution generally gives supremacy to federal laws over conflicting state ones.
The bill would have made it a misdemeanor crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that "infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms." It also sought to invalidate some specific federal laws, including a 1934 law that imposed on tax on transferring machine guns or silencers.
The measure also would have made it a misdemeanor to publish the names of gun owners. Nixon said that would have violated federal free speech rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
When is this idiot up for re-election?
He is termed out, cannot run again.
Is a legislative over-ride possible or likely?
He’s got a senate seat in mind.
Another RAT at work.
What else would one expect when a red state elects a Democrat to statewide office? I guess people really are that dumb...
Thanks to KC, St. Louis, and Columbia, Missouri has been a purple state for many years.
When the rural vote stays home, or gets duped by a Democrat pretending to be conservative, the city vote (including fraud) is enough for the Democrat to win.
There's also the effect of stupid suburbanite independents voting for Obamamugabe to show that they're not racist.
Governor, can you say “Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.”?
Perhaps a little Kindergarten level 10th amendment instruction would help him.
Maybe a coloring book would help.
I suspect Nixon was right - doesn’t seem like the state would have jurisdiction over federal officials, nor that state law could override federal law. He could have let it ride and spent the money on court cases though, to prove it.
It’s likely that there is a ton of legal precedent to enforce Fed regs over states.
Can he be overridden? What exactly are “federal free speech rights?”
The 2nd Amendment, however, being an amendment alters/constrains the delegated powers of the unamended constitution — even the ability to levy tax and regulate commerce.
Illiteracy should be a disqualifier for office.
The problem is that there is nothing in the constitution that allows the feds to enforce them.
Just legal precedence. If we do stupid things, we should continue doing stupid things because there is legal precedence.
It was his administration that illegally turned over the list of Missouri CCW license holders to the feds, then lied about it.
How is not publishing the names of gun owners a violation of free speech? Gun ownership is a right and your choice not to have the information make public is/should also be your right. The public has no need to know that.
When the said federal laws are unconstitutional and thus unlawful the state has every right to protect its citizens.
He is anti gun.
For example, he asked, “what would have happened during World War II if states had exempted their citizens from the Burke-Wadworth Act, which imposed the draft?”
Liberty? An end to the tyrannical Roosevelt regime? Upholding of Constitutional separation of powers?
All of the above seem to fit.
The R's have 2/3 in both chambers, but just barely. Yes, it can be over-ridden, along with every other veto he's signed.
They better be ready to roll when they get back in session.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.