Missouri Senate in a 23-10 Bans ALL Federal gun control

"The bill passed despite heavy opposition by Missouri’s law enforcement community"

Weird.

I guess that Missouri could become a Sanctuary State.....



....for 2A rights!

As a states rights advocate, I applaud. However, this is a wicked double edged sword for NY residents and others. What's to stop states like NY from swinging the pendulum to the opposite side in direct contravention to the Constitution? Oh, we are there already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With mandatory AR15 ownership and non Fed law enforcement MO sounds like a whimsical destination. Unfortunately both those bills will probably get vetoed.

The Left is saying that local, county and State Law Enforcement officials cannot assist in ICE arrests, this is nearly the same. The Libtards want no State interference with these laws, why should the State enforce Federal Gun Laws?

Seems like an even trade.

Figures the NRA would want to sneak in some gun control. They couldn't just let a good thing happen.

Would this also effect the NFA and FOPA?

That’s it !!! I am moving and buying suppressors for everything!!! Even my wife!!

I don't see this as good anything. If for arguments sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

Willjr75 said:

I don't see this as good anything. If for arguments sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

Click to expand...

Very true.

Willjr75 said:

because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law

Click to expand...

Correct. If I recall, there is a federal law on the books and it goes something like this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That law supersedes any law after it. I think this Missouri law, if anything, puts that squarely in perspective and draws attention to the inalienable nature of the right itself. I think this forces the fed's hand when it comes to their "supremacy clause" and how it relates to the applying the Bill of Rights against all laws that come after it.

ArmedCorgi said:

Correct. If I recall, there is a federal law on the books and it goes something like this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That law supersedes any law after it. I think this Missouri law, if anything, puts that squarely in perspective and draws attention to the inalienable nature of the right itself. I think this forces the fed's hand when it comes to their "supremacy clause" and how it relates to the applying the Bill of Rights against all laws that come after it.

Click to expand...

Right but if for argument's sake that Missouri law is allowed to stand by the Courts, then a state like NY for example can say that Heller or McDonald won't apply to it. They can also say that that you don't have the right to say or publish whatever you want no matter what the federal government says. The Bill of Rights would essentially be null and void. The Supreme Court would be null and void.

I understand that the federal government is infringing on our rights and on the surface this looks like something good but the federal government also protects some of our rights. For the greater good, this is bad news if it's allowed to stand.

Willjr75 said:

I don't see this as good anything. If for argument's sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supersede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger, not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

Click to expand...

I don't see this as subverting the federal government. I see this as reaffirming the US Constitution, which the Federal gov has failed to uphold. The state is literally upholding what the founders have laid out. I say good on Missouri.

To provide a counterpoint to Will’s position, would this MO action not bolster the federal law that predates and should be a benchmark for, all following actions? Seems to me MO is applying “shall not be infringed” rigorously, and denying the validity of subsequent federal actions that do, in point of fact, infringe upon the Second. Which in itself is another federal statute though I can’t recall which....

Yeah, it sucks badly for the blue states but I’m of the belief that the federal government was only intended very limited and well enumerated powers, the rest were to be retained by the states. Which isn’t the case at present, and makes this a hell of a mess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SomeSoldier said:

I don't see this as subverting the federal government. I see this as reaffirming the US Constitution, which the Federal gov has failed to uphold. The state is literally upholding what the founders have laid out. I say good on Missouri.

Click to expand...

It's not the actual law itself that'll give you the right you are supposed to have. It's the precedent that the states don't have to follow federal law.

Willjr75 said:

It's not the actual law itself that'll give you the right you are supposed to have. It's the precedent that the states don't have to follow federal law.

Click to expand...

I know the constitution only reaffirms your God-given rights but I love that a state is taking a stand. They are only reaffirming what the constitution affirms.

Willjr75 said:

Right but if for argument's sake that Missouri law is allowed to stand by the Courts, then a state like NY for example can say that Heller or McDonald won't apply to it. They can also say that that you don't have the right to say or publish whatever you want no matter what the federal government says. The Bill of Rights would essentially be null and void. The Supreme Court would be null and void.

I understand that the federal government is infringing on our rights and on the surface this looks like something good but the federal government also protects some of our rights. For the greater good, this is bad news if it's allowed to stand.

Click to expand...

They've already done it with immigration, so where does this leave us? 50 separate nations I guess. Something has to give.

Willjr75 said:

It's not the actual law itself that'll give you the right you are supposed to have. It's the precedent that the states don't have to follow federal law.

Click to expand...

States are already in violation of federal law, you live in one that loves illegals enough to buy them lawyers +++++++++++++

Willjr75 said:

I don't see this as good anything. If for arguments sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

Click to expand...

Then we live with federalism and move to states that allow us to live in accordance with the spirit of the true constitution.

So be it.

Twogunwilly said:

States are already in violation of federal law, you live in one that loves illegals enough to buy them lawyers +++++++++++++

Click to expand...

Those sanctuary cities haven't been challenged yet. And if this flies, that flies. It goes both ways. It'll be the end of the Constitution. The Constitution itself would be worthless. A paper tiger.

Just because it's being done now with immigration and not challenged, it doesn't make it right.

The simple fact is that proglodytes like Cuomo will do as they damn well please until it’s demonstrated to them that they do not have exclusive use of force to get their way. A serious tax revolt by upstate would be one way of sending the message, and I think a Gadsden flag would make an excellent accessory to anyone’s yellow vest collection. Screw going to Albany, demonstrate at Thruway toll booths.

It’s been done before. Look up St. Regis.

Willjr75 said:

Those sanctuary cities haven't been challenged yet. And if this flies, that flies. It goes both ways. It'll be the end of the Constitution. The Constitution itself would be worthless. A paper tiger.

Just because it's being done now with immigration and not challenged, it doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

Sadly, it already is worthless to about half the population, from a ruthless, deliberate, and malicious campaign by the Democrat party. Their goal is to kill it completely.

Willjr75 said:

I don't see this as good anything. If for arguments sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what Cuomo is being allowed to do here in NYS? The constitution is already gone so long as rogue governors are allowed to do as they please, and the supreme court is a sham that doesn't rule in favor of the constitution. No one is stopping Cuomo on the grounds of the first, second, or fourth amendments that he shits on all day long.

Willjr75 said:

then a state like NY for example can say that Heller or McDonald won't apply to it.

Click to expand...

how do you come by this opinion?
The Law specifically states that any Federal Law which is in conflict to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, will not be enforced. New York would not be able to make that claim, since their Laws directly infringe on the Constitution.
it is a caveat that the Law must first be an infringement, before the State can disregard it.
"“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States..."

Willjr75 said:

Those sanctuary cities haven't been challenged yet. And if this flies, that flies. It goes both ways. It'll be the end of the Constitution. The Constitution itself would be worthless. A paper tiger.

Just because it's being done now with immigration and not challenged, it doesn't make it right.

Click to expand...

Sanctuary cities are not protected by the constitution. This is not even close to being the same thing

Grimscale said:

how do you come by this opinion?
The Law specifically states that any Federal Law which is in conflict to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, will not be enforced. New York would not be able to make that claim, since their Laws directly infringe on the Constitution.
it is a caveat that the Law must first be an infringement, before the State can disregard it.
"“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States..."

Click to expand...

This ^^^^^

I was wondering where America went. It went to Missouri.