I think "first priority" may have even slipped from a few lips as they were saving their skins.
I will tell you what, a few pockets got lined to make parts of this happened and those pockets are NOT getting relined, RINO's.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Missouri's nullification bill a sham!
- Thread starter AB
- Start date
I think "first priority" may have even slipped from a few lips as they were saving their skins.
I will tell you what, a few pockets got lined to make parts of this happened and those pockets are NOT getting relined, RINO's.
Renegadez
Regular Member
So any news on the bills outcome yesterday?
OK, looks to be a technical correction to sloppy language used by the Senate regarding not letting crazies have guns. I don't expect this to get much discussion.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Renegadez
Regular Member
Thanks for the fast update!
And the Senate has refuses to recede from their position on HB1439, so it's going to a conference committee. I agree with the Senate's position here, so I think that's positive. I suspect it won't take them long to come to an agreement, they just need to talk.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Renegadez
Regular Member
Wednesday was a great day for Missouri gun rights!
SJR 36 was finally agreed to and passed. It will now be on the November ballot for voters to decide whether to add it to the state Constitution.
Please send Senate Sponsor, Kurt Schaefer, and House handler, John Diehl, a short thank you email.
kurt.schaefer@mail.senate.mo.gov
John.Diehl@house.mo.gov
Here's the actual amendment language (bold is new language and the strike through is to be deleted from the existing constitutional clause):
Article I Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.";
This is the Summary Statement voters will see on the ballot:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"
Use the new LibertyTools vote tracking system to see how the votes went.
House Vote: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=21&Bill_Action_id=53
Senate Vote: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=21&Bill_Action_id=54
On another front, HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is struggling. There are efforts to weaken it out of fear that it will be hard to override a veto if the bill has teeth. We are holding the position that the General Assembly should put a strong bill on the Governor's desk and let the People convince their Reps and Senators to vote for a veto override between now and September.
If you agree, please send your Rep and email telling him or her to pass HB 1439 just as it came back from the Senate, with no amendments.
For liberty,
- Ron
SJR 36 was finally agreed to and passed. It will now be on the November ballot for voters to decide whether to add it to the state Constitution.
Please send Senate Sponsor, Kurt Schaefer, and House handler, John Diehl, a short thank you email.
kurt.schaefer@mail.senate.mo.gov
John.Diehl@house.mo.gov
Here's the actual amendment language (bold is new language and the strike through is to be deleted from the existing constitutional clause):
Article I Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.";
This is the Summary Statement voters will see on the ballot:
"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to include a declaration that the right to keep and bear arms is a unalienable right and that the state government is obligated to uphold that right?"
Use the new LibertyTools vote tracking system to see how the votes went.
House Vote: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=21&Bill_Action_id=53
Senate Vote: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=21&Bill_Action_id=54
On another front, HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is struggling. There are efforts to weaken it out of fear that it will be hard to override a veto if the bill has teeth. We are holding the position that the General Assembly should put a strong bill on the Governor's desk and let the People convince their Reps and Senators to vote for a veto override between now and September.
If you agree, please send your Rep and email telling him or her to pass HB 1439 just as it came back from the Senate, with no amendments.
For liberty,
- Ron
OC for ME
Regular Member
I'll contact my elected reps. If it were not for one St. Charles senator they all would have been working on a fix, this go-round, instead of trying to pass a "better bill" from scratch.
The light at the end of the tunnel is receding into the distance.
The light at the end of the tunnel is receding into the distance.
Renegadez
Regular Member
UPDATE: Conference committee trying to strip SAPA of it's enforcement power.
Please Help NOW!
Missouri First Home
SAPA Resource Page
SAPA Detailed
May 10, 2014
Five legislators hold the fate of SAPA, the Second Amendment Preservation Act in their hands.
That's how many members of an 8 person committee are needed to sign a Conference Committee Report that will take most of the teeth out of HB 1439 and send if back to the Senate, where it will probably die.
Right now, it looks like at least 5 of them are probably going to recommend to the House and Senate that they remove the strongest enforcement clause from the bill. If they do, our only hope would be for Senator Nieves, the Senate handler of the bill, to refuse to make a motion to accept the Conference Committee Report, or for the House or Senate to vote the report down and go back to the stronger bill.
I'm hoping you will send an email to help convince the Conference Committee to just let the House pass the stronger bill without amendment. Please see the ACTION ITEM, below.
What's This All About?
The frustrating thing for me is that it's the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Doug Funderburk, who wants to take most of the teeth (the “ineligibility clause”) out of the bill. Doug says he's afraid that unless we weaken the bill, one particular Republican senator will vote “no” if a veto override is needed next September.
While it's true that the senator he's concerned about IS a potential no vote on override, this senator voted FOR the bill WITH the ineligibility clause in it just 10 days ago. This same senator voted FOR the veto override last September.
I think when push comes to shove, he will vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment again.
In my opinion, it would be better to leave the bill strong and take a chance of failing than pass a weak bill that certainly falls short of protecting our rights!
This is the time to stand like men, and demand REAL gun rights and state's rights protection in this bill!
A Matter of Honor
Just this week, six of the legislators on the Conference Committee voted for SJR 36, a great constitutional amendment that includes this statement:
“That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms... shall be unalienable. ...the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.”
Passing HB 1439 (SAPA) with the teeth intact is the first opportunity those six legislators will have to demonstrate that they really DO think they have an obligation to “uphold these rights”!
I will be reporting who signed the weak Conference Committee Report and who stood like men. Go here to see how the votes have been so far: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=18&Bill_Action_id=52
ACTION ITEM The Conference Committee
FName City Email
Sen. Bob Dixon Springfield bob.dixon@senate.mo.gov
Rep. Michael Frame Eureka Michael.Frame@house.mo.gov
Rep. Douglas Funderburk St Peters Doug.Funderburk@house.mo.gov
Rep. Ronald Hicks St Peters Ron.Hicks@house.mo.gov
Sen. Jason Holsman Kansas city Jason.Holsman@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Jolie Justus Kansas city Jolie.Justus@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Brian Munzlinger Williamstown Brian.Munzlinger@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Brian Nieves Washington Brian.Nieves@senate.mo.gov
Please send them each an email, asking them to vote “NO” on the Conference Committee Report and pass HB 1439 with the “ineligibility clause” in it, just as it was passed by the Senate.
Also send your own Rep an email, asking him or her to fight to keep the teeth in SAPA!
What's So Important About The “Ineligibility Clause”
The “ineligibility clause” in HB 1439 is the most important enforcement provision in the bill.
It's designed to prevent federal officials who would infringe on your gun rights from accessing state resources as well as provide personal disincentive to those federal officials.
In addition to the “ineligibility clause”, SAPA includes a “private cause of action” provision that gives legal standing for any victim of 2nd Amendment infringement. Such a civil suit against an agent or agency does not depend on government doing their job, as would be the case with criminal charges.
However, because of something called “Supremacy Clause immunity”, civil suits and criminal charges, are almost impossible to make stick against federal officials. That's where the “ineligibility clause” comes in.
The “ineligibility clause” simply says that any federal official who violates the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act shall be forever ineligible to hold a Missouri law-enforcement job.
Read the actual language here: http://www.mofirst.org/?page=issues/nullification/SAPA/HB1439-Detailed.php?tab=1.470
About Supremacy Clause Immunity
Supremacy Clause immunity is a contrived legal defense afforded federal agents when they break state laws in the performance of their federal duty.
If there were, for instance, a federal ban on rifles with detachable magazines, that ban would violate Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act. If a federal agent came to your house to confiscate such a rifle, and if you sued him for violating the Act, he would claim Supremacy Clause immunity, the case would automatically go to federal court, and you would likely lose.
Federal Agents seldom act without help from state law-enforcement. If a Missouri cop helps to confiscate your rifle, under SAPA you could sue him and his office – and prevail. But if that same Missouri cop allows himself to be deputized by the feds, he can skate around Missouri law and enjoy Supremacy Clause immunity.
The “Ineligibility Clause” In Action
That's where SAPA's “ineligibility clause” comes in.
What do you think? If a federal official breaks Missouri law and hides behind a contrived doctrine called, “Supremacy Clause Immunity”, should he be trusted as a Missouri law-enforcement officer?
In other words, if he didn't respect Missouri law while acting as a federal agent, would we expect him to suddenly respect Missouri law if he takes – or returns to – a job as a Missouri cop?
I don't think so and neither does anyone I've talked to.
The bottom line is that the “ineligibility clause” provides LOTS of incentive for anyone wanting to return to a Missouri law-enforcement job to respect Missourians' gun rights!
And it is totally within Missouri's constitutional power and authority to dictate the terms of employment for public employees.
The basis for using such tactics to starve the federal government of the state resources is the SCOTUS approved anti-commandeering doctrine.
The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
Simply stated, the anti-commandeering doctrine is a state's claim that the federal government can not “commandeer” or otherwise coerce a state into using its resources to enforce federal laws or do federal duties.
The anti-commandeering doctrine has been acknowledged to be a state's right in at least four U.S. Supreme Court opinions – the most recent being NFIB v. Sebilus, the Obamacare case.
Before that was the 1997 case of Sheriffs Mack and Printz v. U.S. in which SCOTUS affirmed those sheriffs' right to refuse to comply with the Brady handgun control act.
At the heart and soul of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is the anti-commandeering doctrine and it is completely and perfectly constitutional. The courts will have to reverse a lot of recent precedence to rule against SAPA.
Again, using the proven principles of the anti-commandeering doctrine, SAPA is intended to starve the federal government of the state resources it would need for any mass enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun grabs.
And the “ineligibility clause” closes what would otherwise be a huge loophole in SAPA, since without it the feds could get around the anti-commandeering doctrine by deputizing willing Missouri officials.
Road Map Back To The Principles Of Federalism
Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act does more than just provide the best protections from federal infringement on your gun rights, it also provides a road map that can be used to restore the proper relationship between the federal and state governments.
The anti-commandeering doctrine similar to SAPA has already been used in Missouri. In 2012 Missouri voters approved Proposition E, which forbade the Governor or other state agencies from setting up a state health insurance exchange in compliance with Obamacare.
And in the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions, the General Assembly refused to expand Medicaid. As mentioned above, the NFIB vs. Sebelius SCOTUS opinion said that the anti-commandeering doctrine affirmed the states' right to refuse.
There are a host of other ways Missouri can “just say no” to federal intrusion and forbid state and local government from selling out to federal usurpers.
Please insist that the Missouri House of Representatives pass HB 1439 just as it was passed by the Senate – with all it's teeth in place, including the “ineligibility clause”.
For Liberty,
Ron Calzone
Please Help NOW!
Missouri First Home
SAPA Resource Page
SAPA Detailed
May 10, 2014
Five legislators hold the fate of SAPA, the Second Amendment Preservation Act in their hands.
That's how many members of an 8 person committee are needed to sign a Conference Committee Report that will take most of the teeth out of HB 1439 and send if back to the Senate, where it will probably die.
Right now, it looks like at least 5 of them are probably going to recommend to the House and Senate that they remove the strongest enforcement clause from the bill. If they do, our only hope would be for Senator Nieves, the Senate handler of the bill, to refuse to make a motion to accept the Conference Committee Report, or for the House or Senate to vote the report down and go back to the stronger bill.
I'm hoping you will send an email to help convince the Conference Committee to just let the House pass the stronger bill without amendment. Please see the ACTION ITEM, below.
What's This All About?
The frustrating thing for me is that it's the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Doug Funderburk, who wants to take most of the teeth (the “ineligibility clause”) out of the bill. Doug says he's afraid that unless we weaken the bill, one particular Republican senator will vote “no” if a veto override is needed next September.
While it's true that the senator he's concerned about IS a potential no vote on override, this senator voted FOR the bill WITH the ineligibility clause in it just 10 days ago. This same senator voted FOR the veto override last September.
I think when push comes to shove, he will vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment again.
In my opinion, it would be better to leave the bill strong and take a chance of failing than pass a weak bill that certainly falls short of protecting our rights!
This is the time to stand like men, and demand REAL gun rights and state's rights protection in this bill!
A Matter of Honor
Just this week, six of the legislators on the Conference Committee voted for SJR 36, a great constitutional amendment that includes this statement:
“That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms... shall be unalienable. ...the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement.”
Passing HB 1439 (SAPA) with the teeth intact is the first opportunity those six legislators will have to demonstrate that they really DO think they have an obligation to “uphold these rights”!
I will be reporting who signed the weak Conference Committee Report and who stood like men. Go here to see how the votes have been so far: http://www.libertytools.org/BillTracking/bills.php?bill_id=18&Bill_Action_id=52
ACTION ITEM The Conference Committee
FName City Email
Sen. Bob Dixon Springfield bob.dixon@senate.mo.gov
Rep. Michael Frame Eureka Michael.Frame@house.mo.gov
Rep. Douglas Funderburk St Peters Doug.Funderburk@house.mo.gov
Rep. Ronald Hicks St Peters Ron.Hicks@house.mo.gov
Sen. Jason Holsman Kansas city Jason.Holsman@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Jolie Justus Kansas city Jolie.Justus@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Brian Munzlinger Williamstown Brian.Munzlinger@senate.mo.gov
Sen. Brian Nieves Washington Brian.Nieves@senate.mo.gov
Please send them each an email, asking them to vote “NO” on the Conference Committee Report and pass HB 1439 with the “ineligibility clause” in it, just as it was passed by the Senate.
Also send your own Rep an email, asking him or her to fight to keep the teeth in SAPA!
What's So Important About The “Ineligibility Clause”
The “ineligibility clause” in HB 1439 is the most important enforcement provision in the bill.
It's designed to prevent federal officials who would infringe on your gun rights from accessing state resources as well as provide personal disincentive to those federal officials.
In addition to the “ineligibility clause”, SAPA includes a “private cause of action” provision that gives legal standing for any victim of 2nd Amendment infringement. Such a civil suit against an agent or agency does not depend on government doing their job, as would be the case with criminal charges.
However, because of something called “Supremacy Clause immunity”, civil suits and criminal charges, are almost impossible to make stick against federal officials. That's where the “ineligibility clause” comes in.
The “ineligibility clause” simply says that any federal official who violates the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act shall be forever ineligible to hold a Missouri law-enforcement job.
Read the actual language here: http://www.mofirst.org/?page=issues/nullification/SAPA/HB1439-Detailed.php?tab=1.470
About Supremacy Clause Immunity
Supremacy Clause immunity is a contrived legal defense afforded federal agents when they break state laws in the performance of their federal duty.
If there were, for instance, a federal ban on rifles with detachable magazines, that ban would violate Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act. If a federal agent came to your house to confiscate such a rifle, and if you sued him for violating the Act, he would claim Supremacy Clause immunity, the case would automatically go to federal court, and you would likely lose.
Federal Agents seldom act without help from state law-enforcement. If a Missouri cop helps to confiscate your rifle, under SAPA you could sue him and his office – and prevail. But if that same Missouri cop allows himself to be deputized by the feds, he can skate around Missouri law and enjoy Supremacy Clause immunity.
The “Ineligibility Clause” In Action
That's where SAPA's “ineligibility clause” comes in.
What do you think? If a federal official breaks Missouri law and hides behind a contrived doctrine called, “Supremacy Clause Immunity”, should he be trusted as a Missouri law-enforcement officer?
In other words, if he didn't respect Missouri law while acting as a federal agent, would we expect him to suddenly respect Missouri law if he takes – or returns to – a job as a Missouri cop?
I don't think so and neither does anyone I've talked to.
The bottom line is that the “ineligibility clause” provides LOTS of incentive for anyone wanting to return to a Missouri law-enforcement job to respect Missourians' gun rights!
And it is totally within Missouri's constitutional power and authority to dictate the terms of employment for public employees.
The basis for using such tactics to starve the federal government of the state resources is the SCOTUS approved anti-commandeering doctrine.
The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
Simply stated, the anti-commandeering doctrine is a state's claim that the federal government can not “commandeer” or otherwise coerce a state into using its resources to enforce federal laws or do federal duties.
The anti-commandeering doctrine has been acknowledged to be a state's right in at least four U.S. Supreme Court opinions – the most recent being NFIB v. Sebilus, the Obamacare case.
Before that was the 1997 case of Sheriffs Mack and Printz v. U.S. in which SCOTUS affirmed those sheriffs' right to refuse to comply with the Brady handgun control act.
At the heart and soul of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is the anti-commandeering doctrine and it is completely and perfectly constitutional. The courts will have to reverse a lot of recent precedence to rule against SAPA.
Again, using the proven principles of the anti-commandeering doctrine, SAPA is intended to starve the federal government of the state resources it would need for any mass enforcement of unconstitutional federal gun grabs.
And the “ineligibility clause” closes what would otherwise be a huge loophole in SAPA, since without it the feds could get around the anti-commandeering doctrine by deputizing willing Missouri officials.
Road Map Back To The Principles Of Federalism
Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act does more than just provide the best protections from federal infringement on your gun rights, it also provides a road map that can be used to restore the proper relationship between the federal and state governments.
The anti-commandeering doctrine similar to SAPA has already been used in Missouri. In 2012 Missouri voters approved Proposition E, which forbade the Governor or other state agencies from setting up a state health insurance exchange in compliance with Obamacare.
And in the 2013 and 2014 legislative sessions, the General Assembly refused to expand Medicaid. As mentioned above, the NFIB vs. Sebelius SCOTUS opinion said that the anti-commandeering doctrine affirmed the states' right to refuse.
There are a host of other ways Missouri can “just say no” to federal intrusion and forbid state and local government from selling out to federal usurpers.
Please insist that the Missouri House of Representatives pass HB 1439 just as it was passed by the Senate – with all it's teeth in place, including the “ineligibility clause”.
For Liberty,
Ron Calzone
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Well, a certain senator from St Charles voted for the last bill, before he voted against it.
Down to the wire and we just now realize their are some "issues" with this bill???
I smell a rat and that rat has company.....
Down to the wire and we just now realize their are some "issues" with this bill???
I smell a rat and that rat has company.....
Renegadez
Regular Member
On Tuesday, the Missouri House of Representatives voted on and passed the House version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act -- a bill that I've been supporting for the last two years.
I should be happy. I WOULD be happy... Except they did two things before passing it: 1) They significantly weakened the bill and, 2) They added new gun control penalty provisions.
The good news is, the Senate handler of the bill, Sen. Brian Nieves, will not let this good bill, that has been profaned with some bad language, come to the floor.
Please read the following open letter to the Missouri House and then email your Representative and tell him or her you want them to amend SB 613 (a backup copy of the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act) to include the "ineligibility clause" and without the new felony gun control language and then pass it.
Please email your rep asap -- time is very short!
Thank you!
- Ron
__________________________
(Open Letter to the Missouri House)
To those who voted "Yes" on HB 1439,
THE HOUSE GOT DUPED
The House just got duped into passing a hard-core anti-gun provision in what was supposed to be the strongest gun rights bill in the Country.
The Conference Committee Substitute for HB 1439 includes new Class C felony provisions for a person possessing a firearm when a protection order was issued on him. Understand that protection orders are usually Ex parte court orders, often given flippantly by a judge with no consideration of the other side of the story. Go deer hunting 100 miles away from the person you're not supposed to be within 100 yards of and you become a Class C felon!
Also included in the CCS is a provision that takes away all gun rights from someone who "(4) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor under the laws of this state, or under the laws of any state or of the United States, when such offense has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, by a family or household member of the victim."
I can't make any sense of the last phrase, but what's clear is that you could attempt to shove someone (a shove is physical force) who is in your face about something, and you get a misdemeanor conviction and lose all your gun rights!
For a highlighted copy of the CCS for HB 1439: www.mofirst.org/issues/docs/CCS-SS-SCS-HCS-HB1439-3rd-Read.pdf
This language is right out of the playbook of one of the largest anti-gun movements in the country, "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America".
See: https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction and http://www.momsdemandaction.org/wp-...TS-HB-436-VETO-BY-MISSOURI-GOVERNOR-NIXON.pdf
Fortunately, you won't have to go down in history as fulfilling the dreams of this huge anti-gun movement, because the Senate handler Sen. Brian Nieves has already vowed to keep HB 1439 off the Senate floor.
THE 1,2,3 FIX
SB 613 is sitting on the House 3rd Read Calendar -- it is the vehicle for fixing the problem.
Take up SB 613
Amend it to read just like HB 1439 came back to the House, with the Senate amendments, except include the Nieves compromise on section 1.470, by changing the ineligibility from lifetime to 10 years.
Conference again -- the Senate will accept the changes this time.
Please promote this plan today.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INELIGIBILITY CLAUSE
The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) is designed to address the gun control threat from the federal government. Virtually all the other gun bills, as good as they may be, only address in-state issues.
Backgound Facts:
Federal officials are protected from prosecution on state criminal charges by a contrived concept called "Supremacy Clause immunity". A federal official who is charged with a state crime or sued based on state laws enjoys the protection of a direct path to friendly federal courts. (If you think this sounds like the Admiralty Courts the Founders railed against, you're right.)
Local law-enforcement personnel sometimes allow themselves to be deputized by federal officials. This is done, among other reasons, to allow the feds to pay their salaries while on a special assignment or task force.
When deputized, the local cops are actually federal officials and enjoy Supremacy Clause immunity.
At the heart of SAPA is the understanding that any wholesale gun control effort by the federal government will require state cooperation and the understanding that the Supreme Court approved Anti-Commandeering Doctrine can be used by a state to refuse that cooperation. (See: http://www.mofirst.org/issues/nullification/Anti-Commandeering-Doctrine.pdf) At least four SCOTUS opinions make it clear that the federal government can't "commandeer" state resources --- including our law-enforcement resources.
By applying the anti-commandeering doctrine, SAPA is intended to codify a state policy of non-cooperation with the federal government where unconstitutional federal gun control laws are concerned.
While we would hope that most Missouri cops wouldn't cooperate with something like a federal gun confiscation program, some might -- especially in the less gun rights friendly parts of the state.
Although SAPA has always included a private cause of action provision, suing federal officials would be a difficult proposition, since they can invoke Supremacy Clause immunity. And if state cops are deputized, the feds get the resources they need and the newly deputized federal officials can skate around Missouri law while enjoying Supremacy Clause immunity.
That means SAPA has a huge loophole without some disincentive for Missouri cops to be deputized by the feds just to circumvent Missouri gun rights laws.
And that's where the "ineligibility clause" comes in.
Simply stated, this clause says that if a federal official (full time or a temporary deputized official) violates SAPA, he can be taken before a judge who will decide whether he's qualified to work as a Missouri cop. As outlined in Section 1.470 of the SS for HB 1439, full due process is afforded the federal (or former) federal official. See: http://www.mofirst.org/?page=issues/nullification/SAPA/HB1439-Detailed.php&tab=1.470
The point is that Missouri cops will think twice about being deputized by the feds and then infringing on your constituents' 2A rights.
NO EFFECT ON JOINT DRUG TASK FORCE WORK
SAPA does not prevent projects like drug joint task force efforts, nor does it preclude Missouri cops from being deputized by the feds. To keep from running afoul of SAPA, all they have to do is charge the accused with state gun law violations instead of federal gun laws. For instance, if they find a guy with a large quantity of opium AND an illegal machine gun, all they need to do is charge the suspect with Missouri anti-machine gun laws instead of federal anti-machine gun laws.
COMPROMISE INELIGIBILITY PERIOD
Although Senator Nieves is adamant about keeping the "ineligibility clause" he has offered to compromise by lowering it from lifetime to a 10 year ineligibility. If SB 613 would then go from criminal penalties for federal officials to a simple ban on their employment in state law-enforcement for 10 years.
Pretty reasonable.
LIVING UP TO SJR 36
You voted for SJR 36, which says about the People's gun rights, "the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement."
This is your first chance to put that promise into action. Stop the bad language adopted in HB 1439 and enact meaningful protections -- with teeth -- in SB 613.
For liberty,
- Ron
--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works. -- Frédéric Bastiat - "The Law"
Ron Calzone, director
Missouri First, Inc.
ron@mofirst.org
http://www.mofirst.org
I should be happy. I WOULD be happy... Except they did two things before passing it: 1) They significantly weakened the bill and, 2) They added new gun control penalty provisions.
The good news is, the Senate handler of the bill, Sen. Brian Nieves, will not let this good bill, that has been profaned with some bad language, come to the floor.
Please read the following open letter to the Missouri House and then email your Representative and tell him or her you want them to amend SB 613 (a backup copy of the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act) to include the "ineligibility clause" and without the new felony gun control language and then pass it.
Please email your rep asap -- time is very short!
Thank you!
- Ron
__________________________
(Open Letter to the Missouri House)
To those who voted "Yes" on HB 1439,
THE HOUSE GOT DUPED
The House just got duped into passing a hard-core anti-gun provision in what was supposed to be the strongest gun rights bill in the Country.
The Conference Committee Substitute for HB 1439 includes new Class C felony provisions for a person possessing a firearm when a protection order was issued on him. Understand that protection orders are usually Ex parte court orders, often given flippantly by a judge with no consideration of the other side of the story. Go deer hunting 100 miles away from the person you're not supposed to be within 100 yards of and you become a Class C felon!
Also included in the CCS is a provision that takes away all gun rights from someone who "(4) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor under the laws of this state, or under the laws of any state or of the United States, when such offense has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, by a family or household member of the victim."
I can't make any sense of the last phrase, but what's clear is that you could attempt to shove someone (a shove is physical force) who is in your face about something, and you get a misdemeanor conviction and lose all your gun rights!
For a highlighted copy of the CCS for HB 1439: www.mofirst.org/issues/docs/CCS-SS-SCS-HCS-HB1439-3rd-Read.pdf
This language is right out of the playbook of one of the largest anti-gun movements in the country, "Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America".
See: https://www.facebook.com/MomsDemandAction and http://www.momsdemandaction.org/wp-...TS-HB-436-VETO-BY-MISSOURI-GOVERNOR-NIXON.pdf
Fortunately, you won't have to go down in history as fulfilling the dreams of this huge anti-gun movement, because the Senate handler Sen. Brian Nieves has already vowed to keep HB 1439 off the Senate floor.
THE 1,2,3 FIX
SB 613 is sitting on the House 3rd Read Calendar -- it is the vehicle for fixing the problem.
Take up SB 613
Amend it to read just like HB 1439 came back to the House, with the Senate amendments, except include the Nieves compromise on section 1.470, by changing the ineligibility from lifetime to 10 years.
Conference again -- the Senate will accept the changes this time.
Please promote this plan today.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INELIGIBILITY CLAUSE
The Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) is designed to address the gun control threat from the federal government. Virtually all the other gun bills, as good as they may be, only address in-state issues.
Backgound Facts:
Federal officials are protected from prosecution on state criminal charges by a contrived concept called "Supremacy Clause immunity". A federal official who is charged with a state crime or sued based on state laws enjoys the protection of a direct path to friendly federal courts. (If you think this sounds like the Admiralty Courts the Founders railed against, you're right.)
Local law-enforcement personnel sometimes allow themselves to be deputized by federal officials. This is done, among other reasons, to allow the feds to pay their salaries while on a special assignment or task force.
When deputized, the local cops are actually federal officials and enjoy Supremacy Clause immunity.
At the heart of SAPA is the understanding that any wholesale gun control effort by the federal government will require state cooperation and the understanding that the Supreme Court approved Anti-Commandeering Doctrine can be used by a state to refuse that cooperation. (See: http://www.mofirst.org/issues/nullification/Anti-Commandeering-Doctrine.pdf) At least four SCOTUS opinions make it clear that the federal government can't "commandeer" state resources --- including our law-enforcement resources.
By applying the anti-commandeering doctrine, SAPA is intended to codify a state policy of non-cooperation with the federal government where unconstitutional federal gun control laws are concerned.
While we would hope that most Missouri cops wouldn't cooperate with something like a federal gun confiscation program, some might -- especially in the less gun rights friendly parts of the state.
Although SAPA has always included a private cause of action provision, suing federal officials would be a difficult proposition, since they can invoke Supremacy Clause immunity. And if state cops are deputized, the feds get the resources they need and the newly deputized federal officials can skate around Missouri law while enjoying Supremacy Clause immunity.
That means SAPA has a huge loophole without some disincentive for Missouri cops to be deputized by the feds just to circumvent Missouri gun rights laws.
And that's where the "ineligibility clause" comes in.
Simply stated, this clause says that if a federal official (full time or a temporary deputized official) violates SAPA, he can be taken before a judge who will decide whether he's qualified to work as a Missouri cop. As outlined in Section 1.470 of the SS for HB 1439, full due process is afforded the federal (or former) federal official. See: http://www.mofirst.org/?page=issues/nullification/SAPA/HB1439-Detailed.php&tab=1.470
The point is that Missouri cops will think twice about being deputized by the feds and then infringing on your constituents' 2A rights.
NO EFFECT ON JOINT DRUG TASK FORCE WORK
SAPA does not prevent projects like drug joint task force efforts, nor does it preclude Missouri cops from being deputized by the feds. To keep from running afoul of SAPA, all they have to do is charge the accused with state gun law violations instead of federal gun laws. For instance, if they find a guy with a large quantity of opium AND an illegal machine gun, all they need to do is charge the suspect with Missouri anti-machine gun laws instead of federal anti-machine gun laws.
COMPROMISE INELIGIBILITY PERIOD
Although Senator Nieves is adamant about keeping the "ineligibility clause" he has offered to compromise by lowering it from lifetime to a 10 year ineligibility. If SB 613 would then go from criminal penalties for federal officials to a simple ban on their employment in state law-enforcement for 10 years.
Pretty reasonable.
LIVING UP TO SJR 36
You voted for SJR 36, which says about the People's gun rights, "the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement."
This is your first chance to put that promise into action. Stop the bad language adopted in HB 1439 and enact meaningful protections -- with teeth -- in SB 613.
For liberty,
- Ron
--
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works. -- Frédéric Bastiat - "The Law"
Ron Calzone, director
Missouri First, Inc.
ron@mofirst.org
http://www.mofirst.org
Last edited:
OC for ME
Regular Member
Yeah, cuz ex-fed LEOs are just lining up at the Missouri border to become a MO cop. 
Typical of the political class. Wait until the calendar runs out, and the voting record remains intact for those who claim to be pro-2A. It seems that it will take a some poor schmuck and a judge to get 21.750.3 stricken from the books. Cuz the politicians sure can't get it done even with "super majorities."
Super majoritys
Typical of the political class. Wait until the calendar runs out, and the voting record remains intact for those who claim to be pro-2A. It seems that it will take a some poor schmuck and a judge to get 21.750.3 stricken from the books. Cuz the politicians sure can't get it done even with "super majorities."
Super majoritys
OC for ME
Regular Member
But but but....."it's a step in the right direction." Unfortunately, the Jeff City vermin can't take the next step.....heck, they can't even finish this step let alone take the next one.
Though, I wonder if "they" got the Art I, Sec 23 wording change on the ballot so as to make it easier for some schmuck to get 21.750.3 tossed on constitutional grounds. This would absolve the Jeff City vermin from actually demonstrating their claim to be pro 2A.
Though, I wonder if "they" got the Art I, Sec 23 wording change on the ballot so as to make it easier for some schmuck to get 21.750.3 tossed on constitutional grounds. This would absolve the Jeff City vermin from actually demonstrating their claim to be pro 2A.
dkangel
Regular Member
Funderburk sunk the entire thing. The original SB613 should have passed. But Funderburk crumbled like a little schoolgirl under the pressure from the police organizations. I blame him. If he is running again I will encourage everyone to not vote for him. I would rather a pro 2A democrat (can't believe I am saying this) have that seat then someone who claims to be pro 2A but caves under pressure.
Renegadez
Regular Member
Everything else aside why not just try to get a billed passed that is only a MO State Preempt for Open Carry anywhere just on its own with nothing else attached to side track it??
DKangek, thanks for info. KC police also joined with mayor in oped against 613.
Too bad the police organizations have turned against citizen rights and the Constitution(s) they swore to uphold. If we really want to succeed (I mean 2A survive long term, as well as OC) maybe we need to get more cops on our side.
And we need to shame the newspapers into being more balanced. Right now they are flaunting their partisanship and bias.
One thing I don't agree - I doubt that dems can defend 2A effectively. Good to have them on board as individuals, but the party line would ultimately constrain them, and it's a top-down organization.
Nationally there's a movement to replace RINOs with true constitutionalists in the rep party. We need that in MO!
Too bad the police organizations have turned against citizen rights and the Constitution(s) they swore to uphold. If we really want to succeed (I mean 2A survive long term, as well as OC) maybe we need to get more cops on our side.
And we need to shame the newspapers into being more balanced. Right now they are flaunting their partisanship and bias.
One thing I don't agree - I doubt that dems can defend 2A effectively. Good to have them on board as individuals, but the party line would ultimately constrain them, and it's a top-down organization.
Nationally there's a movement to replace RINOs with true constitutionalists in the rep party. We need that in MO!