MO Senate Votes to Nullify Federal Gun Laws

I'm pretty sure they are trying to create a 10th Amendment vs. Supremacy Clause crisis. It's not much different than legalizing marihuana in Colorado and Washington, or the Firearm Freedom bills in Montana (Idaho? Tennessee? I can't remember.)

Drugs and guns are both juicy bait for getting the feds to react. (one works better on Democrats and the other Republicans, but they'll work on both because the real issue is power)
 
I'm sure you are correct, but I didn't read anything in the States Legalizing pot saying they would arrest Federal Agents?
 
I'm pretty sure the "Nullification Crisis" was a while ago.

Isn't this fairly settled, with regards to federal laws (within usual scope)?
 
Just be careful what you wish for, the last civil war began in Kansas and Missouri 10 years before the SHTF. You may think its going to be only a paper and mouth fight. But could well turn into a horrible event.
 
They do realize that "Federal gun laws" include MOST of the gun laws we have to worry about on a day to day basis right? Not just the NFA parts that most people like to complain about. Not that I like having those gun laws around.
But are they going to arrest an ATF agent just for coming into a gun shop to do an inventory audit? That's enforcing federal gun laws. That would turn into a big, and pretty interesting mess fairly quickly.

All in all it's a nice gesture but I don't put much stock in these laws. They can pass all the laws they want. But if you build an illegal M16 and get busted by the Feds. Is Missouri gonna pay for the lawyers to back you up in court and send a SWAT team to break you outta prison if the lawyers fail? I highly doubt it.
 
This came up last year as well. Essentially, it's an attempt at reviving nullification, but the courts have routinely and unanimously rejected the doctrine for over a century.

We saw this a few years back with various states' "firearms freedom laws." Nobody stepped up to risk their skin to stir up a legal challenge. Considering that doing so could entail serious penalties on the federal level, I can't say I blame them.

There are two possibilities here. The first is that they're trying to create a test case on 10th Amendment grounds. If so, they're misguided.

The other is that they're simply pandering for votes from the true believers. If so, they're just being dishonest by selling a sense of false security. No way is a local Sheriff going to try and arrest ATF agents when they show up to do a bust.
 
Being a Missouri citizen, I find the whole thing very embarrassing, and have written to my representatives about it. Threatening to use state and local police to arrest federal agents for the crime of enforcing federal law is the depth of buffoonary, a travesty, a child's tantrum, the product of diminished faculty. What a stupid waste of time. It accomplishes nothing, it proves nothing, it makes gun owners look pathetic, and it makes Missouri look incompetent.
 
Unless there are enough states to pass such laws and then call for a ConCon.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the idea of rewriting the Constitution scares the pants off me. Exactly what would be in the new one, and what would it contain?
 
A constitutional convention in today's highly fragmented United States would be a melee of monumental proportions with a highly unpredictable result. Everything will be on the table.

Remember a lot of people don't think too highly of the First Amendment, and for a variety of different reasons. Plenty of folks are skeptical of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well.

Sure plenty of folks here have their "wish lists", and maybe many of us would share at least large parts. But there are also lots of folks with some very different wish lists that probably none of us would like at all.

The original constitutional convention wasn't a "walk in the park." Fifty-five delegates attended it. Thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left without signing, and three refused to sign.

There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights.
 
Exactly what would be in the new one, and what would it contain
Click to expand...

Well for starters Facebook wouldn't be able to infringe my free speech rights any more. It's long past time we expand the 1st amendment to mean what I, and others, think it means, for me against all you other people - but not FOR you other people, instead of what it really means.

Second those crazy wacko dudes in Progressive Americans for Conservative Patriots won't have free speech at all any more. Sure it did it's part during the civil rights movement, but that was the last time we needed it. It's not like we need another Loving v Virginia in Prop 8 and DOMA. I'm sure we won't find something else to discriminate against, and those people so discriminated against won't need free speech to tell us about it.

Speaking of rights that we need to better define, or redefine - we obviously need an amendment for this right to not get shot I keep hearing about in debates.

And life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a right without an amendment it seems.

I think it's high time you people quit getting in my face and yelling at me when you're mad at me too. Infringing my right to peace and tranquility.

On a serious note, while I hope you all took this with the note of irony and sarcasm with which it was intended. Except maybe Tom, as this may have been his nightmare writ large. If it makes you feel better though Tom, I agree with you. The rights an average every man thinks s/he has are not the rights this same average every man thinks everyone ELSE has when those rights would annoy Everyman. Couple that with the people who think they shouldn't be fired for posting a topless photo of themself in the skirt of their stewardess uniform while still on the plane they were just crewing on because they have first amendment rights both should, and shouldn't be involved in the amendment process anyway.
 
Btmj, I am a Missourian as well and agree with you. While I can appreciate the point they are trying to get across with the bill, it is quite simply a waste of time, the bill would never pass the whole legislature and as such is dead on arrival. I don't think any of MO Law Enforcement community want a whizzing match with the Feds, the state then runs the risk of losing a lot of Federal $ for roads etc. etc. Honestly I am surprised that the Feds haven't played the $ withholding game on states that legalized marijuana, a different administration would probably have played it differently, maybe not better but differently. I actually respect the Feds for honoring some of the States laws with regard to marijuana and even same sex marriages. The Federal Laws should be very minimal and with regard to national threats/interests only, let the states decide how to legislate they own states, each state is different and has their own preferences.
 
Several posts have been deleted for criticism of "leftists" and "liberals." We don't do left/right stuff here, so let's not go there.
 
Well! That certainly woke up some people!! :p

Yes, a ConCon would be an utter disaster. More than likely to result in separate nations than one unified nation.

I only brought this up, because there are many other folks (on other gun boards) that are chaffing at the bit, for just such a thing to occur.
 
I only brought this up, because there are many other folks (on other gun boards) that are chaffing at the bit, for just such a thing to occur.
Click to expand...

When you question some of those guys they claim it would be a "limited" Constitutional Convention to repeal the 17th amendment and add and an amendment requiring a balanced budget. Yeah, right!!!:D
 
nfa stamps?

Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition
Click to expand...

I know I'm gana sound dumb here but does this meen that we can buy and transfer and manufacture full autos and suppressors with waiting for tax stamps and no more waiting for the 6 month backround check?
If not I dont understand the point or what they're talking about, unless they are just trying to say they're not going to enforce any NEW laws that come about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top