Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws

Gidge

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,118
Likes
3,996
Location
F.E.M.A. Region I
May 09, 2013 4:32 AM EDT


The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Obama's push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate's defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

The Missouri House voted 118-36 Wednesday to send the bill to Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon. The Senate passed the measure earlier this month.

Supporters argue the measure protects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and it includes language condemning the theft and illegal use of firearms. The measure's sponsor, Rep. Doug Funderburk, said his aim is to ensure Missouri is the only regulator when it comes to firearms.

"We have the authority to enforce these laws. We are trying to position us so that we in this state can have safer neighborhoods," said Funderburk, R-St. Peters.

Opposition came mostly from House Democrats who said the measure would increase access to guns and make schools less safe. They argued the measure doesn't address gun violence in urban areas.

"I don't understand why this body continues to turn their back and ignore gun violence in order to increase access to weapons," said Rep. Stacey Newman, D-University City.

In addition to declaring federal gun laws unenforceable, the bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by designated school personnel in school buildings. It would allow appointed "protection officers" to carry concealed weapons as long as they have a valid permit and register with the state Department of Public Safety. The officers would also be required to complete a training course.
The bill would also allow people with a firearms permit to openly carry weapons less than 16 inches in length even in localities that prohibit open-carry of firearms.

Privacy rights of gun owners have been a hot topic this legislative session after lawmakers learned the state Highway Patrol shared the list of concealed weapons permit holders with a federal agent in the Social Security Administration.
The legislation passed Wednesday would prevent people from publishing any identifying information on gun owners. A person who publishes such information would be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. It also would prevent doctors or nurses from being required to ask patients about firearm ownership.

The measure would also lower the minimum age required to obtain a concealed weapons permit from 21 to 19.
Even if Gov. Jay Nixon signs the legislation, it may face legal hurdles that will prevent its implementation. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to Kansas last month saying the federal government would challenge its recent gun law. The Kansas legislation would prohibit federal regulation of guns that are manufactured and remain in the state. It would also criminalize the enforcement of federal gun control laws.

Missouri lawmakers are also considering a constitutional amendment that would declare gun rights "inalienable."

source: FOX News - Politics - Latest Headlines - Missouri lawmakers pass bill to nullify federal gun control laws
 

Ipe

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
269
Likes
238
Location
Peoples Republik of Suckachusetts
Funny thing is after that "big war to settle nullification" some important things like Posse Comitatus come along... [wink]
Barry O says: We don't care 'bout no stinkin Posse Commie Tata A$$. We 'bout ready to get all BATFE'y on them sit-zens a$$es. I'm gonna show them guys Stallin, Mao, and Pot how its done!

/Barry O
 

Gidge

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,118
Likes
3,996
Location
F.E.M.A. Region I
Wasn't Posse Comitatus neutered by the "Patriot Act" ?
The line(s) between police, para-military, and military is very blurry at present, and recent events in Boston made it appear as if Posse Comitatus was not being followed.
 
Last edited:

Rockrivr1

NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
17,134
Likes
11,588
Location
South Central Mass
Overall I believe it was a good thing that the North won the Civil War. When in the Navy I had a good amount of friends who were red neck southern boys who would say the south will rise again and I'd just roll my eyes and laugh at them. I find it funny thought that now, I hope the South rises again and kicks the crap out of the North.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Wasn't Posse Comitatus neutered by the "Patriot Act" ?
The line(s) between police, para-military, and military is very blurry at present, and recent events in Boston made it appear as if Posse Comitatus was not being followed.
1. It was followed so far as I can tell and people were wondering why there were unarmed men in uniform standing around
2. The occupation of Watertown was done via police force, not military troops.
3. The point is that the balance of power between the states and federal government was not and never will be settled by the civil war. The shadow of slavery prevented any rational debate at the time or outcome on the issue and abuses of power were tolerated and sanctioned to stop that evil. After the war, even immediately after the war, some of that conversation began and resulted in things like Posse Comitatus.

This sort of legislation is part of that conversation too. I think we all know what SCOTUS would say about it, but then SCOTUS refused to outlaw slavery or uphold the rights of freedmen after the fact too. So, it is FAR from perfect and from time to time is forced to overrule itself by overwhelming and long term shifts in societal views.

We have gone a long way down this road of centralizing power in the Federal government and it has been costly in terms of liberty and economic prosperity. These assertions of state's rights absent the stain of slavery are part of a conversation and shift in power that needs to happen if this nation is to remain a world leader. Our strength is our diffuse and decentralized power and respect for liberty and diversity of opinion on how we conduct ourselves.
 
F

Finalygotabeltfed

Overall I believe it was a good thing that the North won the Civil War. When in the Navy I had a good amount of friends who were red neck southern boys who would say the south will rise again and I'd just roll my eyes and laugh at them. I find it funny thought that now, I hope the South rises again and kicks the crap out of the North.

Thats because the majority of what you've been taught to believe about the "civil war" was untrue.

Slavery had little if anything to do with it, it was all about money, power of the federal government and control of domestic product, and it continues on an exponential scale today. The same forces at work then are hugely more powerful now and the consequences are worse than ever.
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Thats because the majority of what you've been taught to believe about the "civil war" was untrue.

Slavery had little if anything to do with it, it was all about money, power of the federal government and control of domestic product, and it continues on an exponential scale today. The same forces at work then are hugely more powerful now and the consequences are worse than ever.
I agree and disagree at the same time. Slavery had a lot to do with it, but it didn't make the North 100% right. The South was absolutely in violation of the Constitution in their treatment of slaves. Period. As was the North in their treatment of non-whites, Italian, Irish, Chinese, Catholics, etc...

I also agree that it set the table for harmful expansion of the power of the Federal Government.

The Civil War was indeed much more complicated than it is presented and in many ways, like the Civil Rights Act, it attacked a very real and very evil problem with the wrong tools which has created very bad, long term unintended consequences.
 
Last edited:

Gidge

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,118
Likes
3,996
Location
F.E.M.A. Region I
1. It was followed so far as I can tell and people were wondering why there were unarmed men in uniform standing around
2. The occupation of Watertown was done via police force, not military troops.
3. The point is that the balance of power between the states and federal government was not and never will be settled by the civil war. The shadow of slavery prevented any rational debate at the time or outcome on the issue and abuses of power were tolerated and sanctioned to stop that evil. After the war, even immediately after the war, some of that conversation began and resulted in things like Posse Comitatus.

This sort of legislation is part of that conversation too. I think we all know what SCOTUS would say about it, but then SCOTUS refused to outlaw slavery or uphold the rights of freedmen after the fact too. So, it is FAR from perfect and from time to time is forced to overrule itself by overwhelming and long term shifts in societal views.

We have gone a long way down this road of centralizing power in the Federal government and it has been costly in terms of liberty and economic prosperity. These assertions of state's rights absent the stain of slavery are part of a conversation and shift in power that needs to happen if this nation is to remain a world leader. Our strength is our diffuse and decentralized power and respect for liberty and diversity of opinion on how we conduct ourselves.

I thought National Guardsmen were in the mix at Watertown, along with LEOs and SWAT. If NG troops were not there, I stand corrected.
The prosperity during the so called "gilded age" following the Civil War is eerily similar to the peace and prosperity following WWII, we must be vigilant and not allow ourselves fall asleep again. Each and every state should be drafting legislation whenever Federal over-reach is attempted (n.b. I'm not holding my breath).
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
I thought National Guardsmen were in the mix at Watertown, along with LEOs and SWAT. If NG troops were not there, I stand corrected.
The prosperity during the so called "gilded age" following the Civil War is eerily similar to the peace and prosperity following WWII, we must be vigilant and not allow ourselves fall asleep again. Each and every state should be drafting legislation whenever Federal over-reach is attempted (n.b. I'm not holding my breath).
NG armed wouldn't even be a violation of PC after 1981 anyway IIRC, it was modified to exclude them as NG are under the control of the States (NG types, please correct me if I am wrong).

But, my understanding is that everything you saw in the streets of Watertown was Police and FBI.

The South F'd up with Slavery and their part in institutional racism (I say "their part", because the North has been very institutionally racist as well, yet has escaped this view by comparison to the South's more overt expression of racism) and the states have collectively held their tongue in apology for a long time.

We need to move past that. The design and separation of power between local, state and federal was a critical feature of this nation that we will need to re-establish or we will collapse into civil war again. This is a very diverse nation compared to most. The only way to govern it is "agree to disagree" and that means decentralized power.
 

exo

Rating - 100%
106   0   0
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
7,695
Likes
2,406
Location
Hinterlands
Bang. Head. On. Desk.

The Civil War, and Lincoln's motivations for starting it, had jack-all to do with slavery. Slavery became the excuse with which to keep England out of the war. Money and power, that is Lincoln's and northern business interests, drove the war. And the emancipation proclamation was political fluffery - it freed not one slave.

Let's try to keep things in perspective, shall we? Remember that Lincoln didn't give one hoot about the condition of blacks in this country, and was working on deporting them all before he was assassinated. (And Lincoln-lovers got caught red handed forging documents in the national archives to make it look like he had abandoned this plan!)
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
4,691
Location
Clowns->Here<-Jokers
Let's try to keep things in perspective, shall we? Remember that Lincoln didn't give one hoot about the condition of blacks in this country, and was working on deporting them all before he was assassinated. (And Lincoln-lovers got caught red handed forging documents in the national archives to make it look like he had abandoned this plan!)

Lincoln said it quite plainly:
Lincon (Lincoln Douglass Debates) said:
I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

I have no illusions of the purity of vision, but disagree that Slavery had "jack-all to do with it". It was indeed used as a means of obscuring other motives and issues and preventing rational debate, much like various hot-button issues are used today or religion used in the Crusades. However, it was also a genuine issue of the day that permeated every aspect of the political debate both rhetorically and economically.

By that point, importation of new slaves had long been banned - they were traded as a commodity. Wealth and economics in the South was dependent on them as a labor force and the North was indeed jealous of the power of the Southern economies.
 
Top Bottom