Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes House. SENATE HEARING TOMORROW 4/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
ThePenguinKnight: it is used as a public record within the Missouri Senate to show that a Bill not only has House of Representatives support but also the support of the citizens of the state of Missouri. Please know that when you sign one of the Witness forms it will go on public record.
Also a note on where HB 436 is at now. It passed the Senate Public hearing yesterday and the Executive Session with a report of “DO PASS”.
 
That's great, hopefully with enough support it will go through. That's what every state needs.
 
So if I am reading this correctly, this measure would do the following:

1. Essentially nullify many federal laws of interest. Length requirements, SBRs, suppressors, automatic weapons, tax stamps, and more would all be eliminated-- at least on the federal level, but still subject to MO state regulation.
2. Lower the resident CCW age from 21 to 19.
3. Allow for quasi-deputizing of one or more teachers with CCWs to act within their school districts. Includes provisions for a mandatory training program.
4. Impose graduating sentencing to be added for felonies committed while possessing, brandishing/etc., and using firearms.

Very interesting indeed. I can see #4 going through easily, but I am very interested to see how much of the rest makes it. #3 is interesting due to the training required and the legal ability of the 'officer' to detain people for up to four hours. A person can already obtain superintendent permission to carry now, but it is rarely given and doesn't include the weight of law by quasi-deputization.

#1 is either huge or effectively meaningless, and I can't figure out which; on the one hand, awesome that it will all be legal here in MO, but OTOH the feds are still very likely to book you for 10 year vacation for trying to exercise that freedom. Very interested to see if it makes it mostly intact through the Senate, and even more interested to see the Federal reaction if it does.

I hope and pray it makes it. Would be nice to have the freedom to assemble a supressor anytime i want :p
 
Shhhhh. ;-)

So if I am reading this correctly, this measure would do the following:1. Essentially nullify many federal laws of interest. Length requirements, SBRs, suppressors, automatic weapons, tax stamps, and more would all be eliminated-- at least on the federal level, but still subject to MO state regulation
Click to expand...
 
.
.
HB436 is scheduled to have a third reading and debate in the Senate on Monday, April 29.

HB 436 - Funderburk - Establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which rejects all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizens' rights under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution
LR Number: 1204S.04C
Bill Title: SCS HCS HB 436
4/25/2013 - Reported from S General Laws Committee to Floor w/SCS - S914-415
4/29/2013 - S Formal Calendar H Bills for Third Reading--HCS for HB 436, with SCS
 
Last edited:
The State of Missouri has no power to declare any act, rule, or regulation of the Federal government unconstitutional, as only the courts have that power. All of those representatives know that and they are trying to make some kind of political statement so they can trick you out of your vote the next time they run for office.

Ask those Representatives how they are going to enforce those nullification laws. They cannot, they know that, and they know that what they are doing is just "cover" for passing around money between themselves by the bucketful from huge corporate interests inside and outside of Missouri. They want to raise your sales taxes in order to lower corporate taxes. They would defund the schools that you and your kids attend, they want to turn I-70 into a toll road, and lower wages for Missourians so that industry will be able to make more profits here.

Sure they like guns. They just hope that while they are talking about guns that you won't notice them picking your pocket.
 
SuperXOne: I Guest you have never headed of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states “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”. This is what states like Washington and Colorado used to make the sale of Marijuana Legal. It is also what allows states to recall National Guard units from Federal Deployments if the State Government see fit. And as of now there have already been ten other states that have passed Firearms freedom legislation and federal gun laws nullification acts since 2010.
 
A few things:

#1, the text of the bill linked in the first post is how the bill was introduced into the house, not how it passed. There is more to the bill now. This is the "Perfected" version they passed: http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/perf/HB0436P.htm


#2, If you would like to discuss the legal aspects of the bill, may I humbly recommend this thread which is dedicated to just that: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=713490


#3, Lastly, and briefly, Article 6 of the US Constitution reads (in part) thusly: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That is, the US Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of the authority granted and restrictions imposed by it, are the Supreme Law of the land. This is not just a blanket statement of "Anything the Federal Government does is the final say". Instead, it is "Anything the Federal Government does that is granted by a legitimate enumerated power and not specifically restricted, is the final say."

And as the previous poster explained, the 10th Amendment says that "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."
 
Lunie said:
....Article 6 of the US Constitution reads (in part) thusly: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

That is, the US Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance of the authority granted and restrictions imposed by it, are the Supreme Law of the land. This is not just a blanket statement of "Anything the Federal Government does is the final say". Instead, it is "Anything the Federal Government does that is granted by a legitimate enumerated power and not specifically restricted, is the final say."...
Click to expand...
Note also, however, that the State of Missouri will not get to decide the validity or applicability of federal law. That will be up to the U. S. Supreme Court.

That's something else the Founding Fathers provided for in the Constitutions (Article III):
Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
Click to expand...

And thus disagreements concerning the application of the the Constitution to the resolution of particular disputes is the province of the federal courts -- something clearly the Founders intended.

The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.

And, as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803):
....It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.....
Click to expand...

Note also that many of the Founding Fathers (the delegates to the Constitutional Convention who signed the Constitution) were lawyers. They were familiar with English Common Law (the basis of out legal system) and that for a long time it had been customary for the courts, under the Common Law, to consider the validity of such matters as the Acts of Parliament and the actions of the Crown under the rather amorphous collection of statutes, court judgments, treaties, etc., that became understood in the Common Law to be the English Constitution. And thus there was Common Law precedent, as no doubt understood by the Founding Fathers, for the invalidation of a law as unconstitutional being within the scope of the exercise of judicial power. (And English cases continued to be cites by courts of the United States for many years after Independence.)

And while John Marshall may not have been a Founding Father, he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, he should at least be entitled to be considered a founding uncle. He was a delegate to the Virginia Convention that would ratify or reject the Constitution and, together with James Madison and Edmund Randolf, led the fight for ratification.
 
as37692 said:
...I Guest you have never headed of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states “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”. This is what states like Washington and Colorado used to make the sale of Marijuana Legal. It is also what allows states to recall National Guard units from Federal Deployments if the State Government see fit. And as of now there have already been ten other states that have passed Firearms freedom legislation and federal gun laws nullification acts since 2010.
Click to expand...
Nope.

  1. States like Washington and Colorado making marijuana legal has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment, except rather obliquely. It's merely a State exercising it's police power which are preserved by the Tenth Amendment.

    Of course, the fact that some States have made marijuana legal under state law does not change the fact that it remains illegal under federal law. The basic effect is that while now a marijuana user in Colorado, for example, doesn't risk arrest by local authorities for his marijuana use, he can still be arrested by federal agents, tried in federal court and sent to federal prison.

    See Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

  2. And because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and existing case law on the Commerce Clause, those state "firearm freedom" laws might be symbolically important; but they won't have any real legal effect.
 
Last edited:
Recieved via email:

HB 436*has made tremendous*progress*over the last couple of weeks, but it's toughest step is still ahead -- senate passage.Navigating that last step is dependent on majority floor leader,*Sen. Ron Richard, more than anything else.* It's up to him to allow it the time to survive what could be drawn out debate or filibuster, since he controls which bills get to the floor.We want to make sure he knows that there are thousands of us watching this bill and that it is of the utmost importance to us.Please take time RIGHT AWAY to send a short note of encouragement by*regular mail.* Write "HB 436" on the outside of the envelope.Senator Ron Richard201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 321Jefferson City, Missouri 65101Please do not call his office*unless you have a personal relationship with Sen. Richard.* Note that there's no indication that he's opposed to this bill, we just want to remind him how important it is to us.Please do this*today*and get as many neighbors and friends to do the same.NOTE: On Monday HB 436 was debated for about an hour on the Senate floor.* It was an opportunity to "test the waters" and not the only opportunity it will get.Thank you!For liberty,- Ron
Click to expand...
 
The Senate Committee Substitute (SCS) for HB 436 has PASSED the MO Senate! (By a vote of 26-6, I believe.)

It will return to the House for concurrence, and then on to the Governor's desk!

(The Senate changes are apparently minimal. A cursory read didn't show anything the House shouldn't be able to agree to.)

The bill is theoretically more than Veto-Proof in both houses of the Missouri General Assembly.

Way to go Mighty MO!
 
Am I reading this right? Does this essentially say that Missouri will no longer be enforcing restrictions on NFA style weapons?
Click to expand...

Not exactly.

The House Perfected version and the Senate Committee Substitute both leave RsMO 571.020 in place which repeats the federal prohibition:

(6) Any of the following in violation of federal law:

(a) A machine gun;

(b) A short-barreled rifle or shotgun;

(c) A firearm silencer; or

(d) A switchblade knife.
Click to expand...

What this does is make it clear that the authority to do so is Missouri's, not the federal government's and it allows MO to make adjustments if needed going forward without worrying about what DC is doing. In the end, this bill is really more about the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause than the 2nd: it disputes the federal gov't's interpretation of their Commerce Clause powers.

This was actually an important consideration in the drafting of the bill because we did not want to confuse the issue by arguing over machine guns when the object was to clarify the lines of authority and protect Missouri citizens from expansions of gun control (e.g. Feinstein's bill) which were in DC at the time this was introduced. So, when the bill was written, I was one of the ones reading through current statute line-by-line for the legislative assistant to make sure there would be no change to the list of banned weapons and to find any other possible problems. (Ron Calzone used to be my superior in the Missouri Campaign For Liberty and we went back and forth a few times on the introduced text.)

So, the changes on the surface are not dramatic but the overall effect may be substantial.
 
Passed by a vote of 116-38. (As mentioned previously, it passed the Senate by a vote of 26-6.)

The Governor can sign and it becomes law, or he can do nothing and it will become law, or he can attempt to veto...

To override a veto, 2/3 of both chambers must vote to do so. That's 109 in the House, and 23 in the Senate.

I advise cautious optimism. :cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
154
Views
8K
316SS
3
wow6599
  • Locked
Missouri Amendment 5 - M855 safe?
Replies
8
Views
874
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
LiveLife
  • Locked
Second Amendment Explained
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3K
MRH
M
P
  • Locked
HR1096 the Second Amendment Protection Act
Replies
14
Views
1K
MrPeter
M
E
  • Locked
Missouri start writing your reps
Replies
10
Views
816
eisenhower
E
Back
Top