Survivalist Forum banner
  • Are you passionate about survivalism? Would you like to write about topics that interest you and get paid for it? Read all about it here!
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello all. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but a Missouri Senate bill has been proposed that wants to turn Missouri into a gun rights sanctuary state.
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
This was taken from https://www.senate.mo.gov/19info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=3128198

Here is a blog post summary of it: https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/04/missouri-committee-passes-bill-to-take-on-federal-gun-control-past-present-and-future/

Here is a video on it: https://youtu.be/YLoQaVXWCEA

Please contact your local representative and tell them that YOU WANT THIS BILL!
 

·
Sam Adams was right....
Joined
·
9,381 Posts
I'm on the other side on this...

We already have the 2nd Amendment... AND the Supremacy Clause... so whether their legislatures like it or not, by definition ALL states are Gun Rights Sanctuary States!

IMHO Going down this path legitimizes the argument that the 2A can be contested at the state level, like we are seeing in VA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
446 Posts
I'm on the other side on this...

We already have the 2nd Amendment... AND the Supremacy Clause... so whether their legislatures like it or not, by definition ALL states are Gun Rights Sanctuary States!

IMHO Going down this path legitimizes the argument that the 2A can be contested at the state level, like we are seeing in VA.
This exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I'm on the other side on this...

We already have the 2nd Amendment... AND the Supremacy Clause... so whether their legislatures like it or not, by definition ALL states are Gun Rights Sanctuary States!

IMHO Going down this path legitimizes the argument that the 2A can be contested at the state level, like we are seeing in VA.
In fact, I agree with you 100%, it shouldn’t be needed. But I see no harm at all, in reaffirming our belief in, and our adherence both to the Constitution in general, and the Second Amendment ,in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,784 Posts
All of the Constitution matters

I'm on the other side on this...

We already have the 2nd Amendment... AND the Supremacy Clause... so whether their legislatures like it or not, by definition ALL states are Gun Rights Sanctuary States!

IMHO Going down this path legitimizes the argument that the 2A can be contested at the state level, like we are seeing in VA.
Not to be argumentative, but the 2nd amendment, (actually the whole Constitution) outlines what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do.

As a reminder, the 10th amendment 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 much overlooked and violated portion of the Constitution is exactly how the FedGov, (in the form of SCOTUS) got their paws into state business, (think Roe v. Wade).

From the wording of amendment 10, it becomes obvious that it was the intention of the Founders to leave local matters in local hands.

Federal government come from the root "federation" which Webster defines as; "the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs."

Some would say that the 10th amendment was gutted in 1864 and, it would be difficult to argue, that in practice, this has been so. However, the amendment still is considered as part of the bedrock law of the Constitution.

As an aside, those who would argue that SCOTUS decreed various state laws as unconstitutional seem to overlook that the function, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, of the Supreme Court was to interpret the applicability of what was written therein. There is no mention of Federal Statutes, or Executive orders, or State Statutes or local ordinances.

As the late Associate Justice Anton Scalia had said; "The Constitution says what it says and it does not say what it doesn't say."

It's all there, we just have to read it and enforce it.

A book that might help; "A Republic, if you can keep it".



---tort-- :taped::taped::taped:
 

·
Sam Adams was right....
Joined
·
9,381 Posts
Not to be argumentative, but the 2nd amendment, (actually the whole Constitution) outlines what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do.

As a reminder, the 10th amendment 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 much overlooked and violated portion of the Constitution is exactly how the FedGov, (in the form of SCOTUS) got their paws into state business, (think Roe v. Wade).

From the wording of amendment 10, it becomes obvious that it was the intention of the Founders to leave local matters in local hands.

Federal government come from the root "federation" which Webster defines as; "the formation of a political unity, with a central government, by a number of separate states, each of which retains control of its own internal affairs."

Some would say that the 10th amendment was gutted in 1864 and, it would be difficult to argue, that in practice, this has been so. However, the amendment still is considered as part of the bedrock law of the Constitution.

As an aside, those who would argue that SCOTUS decreed various state laws as unconstitutional seem to overlook that the function, UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, of the Supreme Court was to interpret the applicability of what was written therein. There is no mention of Federal Statutes, or Executive orders, or State Statutes or local ordinances.

As the late Associate Justice Anton Scalia had said; "The Constitution says what it says and it does not say what it doesn't say."

It's all there, we just have to read it and enforce it.

A book that might help; "A Republic, if you can keep it".



---tort-- :taped::taped::taped:


We're on the same side of this.... IMHO the Supremacy Clause trumps and supports the 10th.

Scalia is dead right. That's the whole point of my post. The 2A already exists, there is no need to re-affirm it. Doing so gives those who would weaken it an opening to further chip away at it. They view this as a negotiation tactic... when the Consitution as a whole is non-negotiable... including the means to change it, which they don't want to use because it is too onerous for them...

We simply need to adhere to, and enforce it.
 
Joined
·
16,503 Posts
I'm on the other side on this...

We already have the 2nd Amendment... AND the Supremacy Clause... so whether their legislatures like it or not, by definition ALL states are Gun Rights Sanctuary States!

IMHO Going down this path legitimizes the argument that the 2A can be contested at the state level, like we are seeing in VA.
Except that California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey violate it everyday.

Affirming 2A by codifying such at the state level, helps the 2A cause.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
Except that California, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey violate it everyday.

Affirming 2A by codifying such at the state level, helps the 2A cause.
I went back to the state of MO transportation, infrastructure, and public safety committee page, where the bill was parked. There was a meeting scheduled for 1/30/20, now marked canceled. And a effective date at the bottom of the page marked 8/28/20. So if I’m reading it right, its passed and waiting to be come law.

My phone is out, so I couldn’t call Senator Burlison’s office to confirm it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
I went back to the state of MO transportation, infrastructure, and public safety committee page, where the bill was parked. There was a meeting scheduled for 1/30/20, now marked canceled. And a effective date at the bottom of the page marked 8/28/20. So if I’m reading it right, its passed and waiting to be come law.

My phone is out, so I couldn’t call Senator Burlison’s office to confirm it.
I contacted Sen. Burlison’s office, the bill isn’t passed yet. It’s been through two committees, and it’s scheduled for a meeting next week. According to his office, the bill has a fair amount of support. That is all the info I could get.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top