search
top

Trouble Brewing in Missouri

They are trying to pass a nullification bill in Missouri, the only trouble is that an unfriendly lawmaker is moving to attach a “Lost and Stolen” provision to it. Even worse the sponsor of the nullification bill isn’t filling me with confidence. NRA is trying to kill it:

Nieves told reporters the NRA has not spoken to him and that it does not matter to him what they say about the bill. He said he did not know what Nasheed’s amendment would mean for the bill’s chances. His own opinion about the reporting requirement was ambivalent.

“I can live with it. I wouldn’t raise it on a flag pole and say it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever seen but I can live with it,” Nieves said.

Your nullification bill is nearly useless, yet you’re going to let real control just cruise through along with it? In exchange for a bill that is purely symbolic political posturing, Rep. Nieves is going to impose real gun control onto Missouri gun owners? Really? The GOP really is the stupid party.

h/t SWAT magazine.

13 Responses to “Trouble Brewing in Missouri”

  1. William Bohannon says:

    More bullshit from the St. Louis and the surrounding counties.

  2. Scott E says:

    The NRA is Flat out wrong in their email. The amendment says one thing and one thing only. It essentially says a person should report a gun stolen within 72 hours of them REALIZING it was gone. There is no penalties, no fines, and no gun registration. The Amendment has no teeth. The NRA either is being deceitful or got it mixed up with another Bill that has all that bad legislation. However it is not in this bill. This is a good bill. They need to retract this misinformation since they are wrong and frankly this type of error gives me pause as to the credibility of the NRA.

    • Sebastian says:

      The nullification bill is next to useless. I’m not agreeing that passing a useless bill that provides a template for further gun control is a good idea. What’s the nullification bill going to accomplish? If you think it’s going to prevent cops from calling their buddies in federal enforcement and giving them a tip, you’re dreaming. If you think prosecutors are going to start going after cops, I think that’s likewise very optimistic.

      • Scott E says:

        There are many other parts of this bill that have nothing to do with Nullification that strengthens our gun rights. The bill is severable – that is if any part of it is struck down the rest remains. For example Open Carry for CCW holders in cities that restrict it, Special School Officers to carry in Schools with training, etc.

    • Sebastian says:

      I am not against these bills per se, either. But I don’t think they are strong enough to start trading with the anti-gunners. We either get them clean or kill them.

      • Scott E says:

        The problem with that is you will never get anything if you don’t take small steps at a time. This is a very strong bill and that one little amendment shouldn’t be the death of it. Frankly if it is that big of an issue the Senate should finish passing it (they are at the 99 yard line) and let the house fix it if necessary.

  3. Andy B. says:

    In my opinion this is a charade on everyone’s part.

    These “nullification” bills don’t stand a chance in hell of standing up in court, and the scenarios they demand (e.g., the arrest and punishment of federal agents) smacks a lot of “advocating the violent overthrow” that we were told 50 years ago was something those other boogeymen did. (Having stymied The Reds, I guess it’s left to the Patriots to accomplish it?) But given that it will never come to that, the real purpose is to get people to cheer for a Good American, Patriotic initiative, that the courts will put the kibosh on in short order (and, from a pretty solid foundation) so that a given constituency will feel new and enhanced righteous outrage over another set of “activist judges,” and vote-vote-vote for a new set of loons even bigger than the ones who initiated the original failed idea. And they will have an agenda. (You don’t really believe this is about gun rights, do you? They’re just the decoy issue, to suck you and me on board, if only to loosen up our wallets!)

    The Democrats aren’t being clever by half, by cashing in on the charade. The sponsors of the “nullification” bill are handing the Ds a free pitch to their own constituency, by offering them this little amendment exercise — amending a bill that is doomed in the first place, in terms of the gun rights portions, but for which the “reporting” amendment would be found constitutional, when the time comes. Neatly played, I’d say!

    The NRA remained silent on a similar bill in the past? The hell you say! They aren’t always the sharpest tools in the shed, but smart enough to identify a pointless charade they don’t want to step in! And since they can’t express their real opinions, and piss off so many true-believing members, they are pretty much checkmated.

    • Scott E says:

      I disagree about it not standing up in court assuming they follow the constitution:

      “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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

      A lot of those saying it won’t stand up because of the supremacy clause conveniently dismiss the first part of the clause and the key phrase: “made in pursuance thereof.”

      Federal legislation is only superior when that legislation is made within the confines of power enumerated to the general government in the general government limiting compact known as the Constitution. The federal government is not a party to that compact, but its creature. It cannot be superior to its creators beyond those areas of responsibility and authority ceded to it by its creators.
      The Bill of Rights or first ten amendments to the Constitution have a clearly defined purpose–to restrain the general government. The preamble to the Bill of Rights expresses this clearly:

      “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” The operating words are “restrictive’ and “declaratory.”

      • Andy B. says:

        Well argued, but all that either of us can say is, time will tell; time will tell.

      • Arnie says:

        Love this preamble! Thanks for posting it, Scott. I am copying it in my records. – Arnie

      • Geodkyt says:

        Ah, but for the court to recognize that a state can nullify a federal law because it was not in accordance with the phrase “made in pursuance thereof” would require them (as a Constitutional matter) to also declare the federal law null and void for the whole nation.

        If it’s a valid law, then by definition it was made “made in pursuance thereof” and therefor the Supremacy Clause would apply.

        State level nullification laws are a waste of time, counter to the Constitution, and will get struck down every single time. As you yourself point out, the bill is severable — so the antis already know the nullification portion is DOA once it gets to the federal judiciary (if not the state judiciary!).

        • Scott E says:

          Geodkyt – The federal law should be declared null and void as it is not “made in pursuance thereof”. If it ever gets to the Supreme Court and they rule strictly based on the constitution it will be declared null and void. However I am not holding my breath they will do the right thing.

          • Geodkyt says:

            So, in other words, you agree with me — if it is something that the state could nullify, then it will have to be nullified by a federal court case anyway to “win” the case for the state.

            But the state could challenge the federal law directly and get the same result!

            States cannot, on their own authority, nullify federal actions — the path for them to get a federal action struck down is, always has been, and always will be (short of a new Constitutional amendment specifically allowing states to nullify), via challenging the federal action in a federal court.

            There is no mechanism in teh federal Constitution that allows an individual state to nullify a federal law or regulation.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Missouri: De-facto Gun Owner Registry Legislation Moving In Missouri Senate! - […] Trouble Brewing in MissouriThey are trying to pass a nullification bill in Missouri, the only trouble is that…
  2. Missouri Legislative Problem Solved | Shall Not Be Questioned - […] looks like the problem of having anti-gun language tied on to a nullification bill in Missouri may now be…
top