Posted on 03/20/2019 2:58:06 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
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.
A stipulation of the newly passed bill states:
“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.”
For added measure, SB367’s authors went into great detail on what federal laws will be “considered null and void and of no effect.”
(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...
(Excerpt) Read more at thesentinel.net ...
For better or for worse our country is being divided by this “sanctuary” phenomenon. I will gladly live in a 2A sanctuary as opposed to third world sh*thole sanctuary.
Sure it's unenforceable but tell that to the cities that are sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. At least the gun sanctuaries have the backing of the US Constitution. Unlike cities that give cover for an invasion of foreign nationals subverting the sovereignty of the United States.
As with everything else; double-standard leftist hypocrisy.
“People I like dont seem to live long.”
“I notice people you don’t like don’t seem to live long either. “
Cool.
5.56mm
“No state can over rule the federal government - there was a war about this and the state lost”
We have to keep trying until we get it right. It wouldn’t turn out the same next time. We are ripe.
> It wouldn’t turn out the same next time. We are ripe.
Exactly. A number of states banding together to nullify and to secede if necessary is the solution, because a number of states are gone, and the fed gov is going, going.
I live in Missouri and I’m happy to hear of this pretty-much symbolic gesture. But what I can’t help thinking is, how can states like Missouri which are trying to expand gun-owners’ rights exist in a union with states that are trying restrict those same rights to the point of eliminating the right to bear arms?
Some states, like next-door neighbor Illinois, want to require background checks for purchasing ammunition. One state, Washington (?) has a bill restricting ammo purchases to 20 rounds per month, California requires a permit to purchase ammo, etc. etc.
GO MO!!!
https://www.senate.mo.gov/19info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=3128198
SB 367
Creates additional protections to the right to bear arms
Sponsor: Burlison
LR Number: 1848S.01I
Committee: Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety
Last Action: 2/28/2019 - Second Read and Referred S Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee
Journal Page: S405
Title:
Calendar Position:
Effective Date: August 28, 2019
Current Bill Summary
SB 367 - This act creates the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”, and lists various declarations of the Missouri General Assembly regarding the United States Constitution and the scope of the federal government’s authority. In addition, the act declares that federal supremacy does not apply to federal laws that restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within the state because such laws exceed the scope of the federal government’s authority. Laws necessary for the regulation of the land and the United States Armed Forces are excluded from the types of federal firearms laws that exceed federal authority.
This act declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. Some laws declared invalid under this act include certain taxes, certain registration and tracking laws, certain prohibitions on the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a specific type of firearm, and confiscation orders.
The act declares that it is the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.
Under this act, no public officer or state or local employee has the authority to enforce firearms laws declared invalid by the act.
Any public officer or state or local employee who tries to enforce the firearms declared invalid by the act or any person who acts under the color of law to deprive a Missouri citizen of rights or privileges ensured by the federal and state constitutions shall be liable for redress. In such an action attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded, and official or qualified immunity shall not be available to the defendant as a defense. Such officer or employee may also be prohibited from serving as a law enforcement officer for the state or political subdivision.
This act contains a severability clause.
This act is similar to HB 786 (2019), HB 1760 (2018), and similar to provisions in HB 1439 (2014).
CHARLEY MERRIWEATHER
lol
> how can states like Missouri which are trying to expand gun-owners’ rights exist in a union
They cannot, unless completely left alone by the fed gov.
The union has to be defined very minimally; e.g. national defense against foreign invasion, and even that is put into doubt by states that will allow invasion via immigration.
So, not much of a union.
Need free states to band together.
As another idea: grant cities ability to override state laws in certain categories e.g. firearms, but deny those same cities any representation on those same laws. So, a city could ban firearms all it wants, but voters in the city could not screw up state law on guns.
Otherwise we could eventually have (in MO for example) STL, KC and couple other places screw up the whole state even more than they have done.
Yeah our legislature isn’t exactly a ball of fire in the brains department. Can’t nullify federal law.
You are aware that Josey Wales was a fictional movie character aren't you?
Get Some!
Otherwise we could eventually have (in MO for example) STL, KC and couple other places screw up the whole state even more than they have done.
Now this I like.
In fact, I think I’m for banning ever federal.
I may be for banning federal lawmakers at this point.
I’ve had enough of federal.
Bravo, States rights!
Their doing that now by nullifying the right for the federal LEO’s to enforce immigration law within their state’s borders with the blessing of the Federal Courts. The strange thing is that when Arizona tried to pass a law that said it would enforce all federal immigration law the Supreme Court struck it down as a sovereign right unto the Federal Government.
How can these two things transpire since they are diametrically opposed to each other?
Wow. Is right! I’m all for that!!!
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.