• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Missouri senate votes to "ban" all federal gun control law in Missouri.

Harshaw

Harshaw

Filmmaker ● Lawyer ● Patriot
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
38,750
Reaction score
13,845
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Missouri Senate Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in 23-10 Vote | The Sentinel

“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 I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
Click to expand...

This is straight-up nullification. The question of nullification was settled a very long time ago. Missouri most assuredly can't do this.
 
Okay, so Missouri is specifically doing something to set up a Supreme Court fight on the assumption that at a future date a more liberal leaning Federal Government restricts or bans something related to guns.

(Anyone see this a different way?)
 
So this would mean that the federal SAFE act would not apply in Missouri.
 
I think this makes perfect sense. The Constitution GUARANTEES the right to keep and bear arms. All other federal laws passed in opposition to the Constitution are Null and Void, as are the state laws if they infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms.
 
I don't see why Missouri CAN'T do this. It looks like they're just saying they won't participate in any federal enforcement action that they believe violates the Second Amendment. If, for example, standard-capacity AR mags were to be banned by Congress, Missouri would not arrest anyone for violating the federal law and wouldn't hold anyone in their jails on warrants for violating the law. The federal government cannot compel the states to enforce federal law. This is borne out by the lack of any judicial pushback on the marijuana reforms at the state level, even though marijuana remains illegal throughout the US, and the enactment of sanctuary city policies where immigration law is concerned.

Since the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, why is it you think Missouri cannot do this?
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I don't see why Missouri CAN'T do this. It looks like they're just saying they won't participate in any federal enforcement action that they believe violates the Second Amendment. If, for example, standard-capacity AR mags were to be banned by Congress, Missouri would not arrest anyone for violating the federal law and wouldn't hold anyone in their jails on warrants for violating the law. The federal government cannot compel the states to enforce federal law. This is borne out by the lack of any judicial pushback on the marijuana reforms at the state level, even though marijuana remains illegal throughout the US, and the enactment of sanctuary city policies where immigration law is concerned.

Since the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, why is it you think Missouri cannot do this?
Click to expand...

It's one thing to state that you're not going to help enforce federal law, which, as you say, they are under no obligation to do.

It's quite another to say that federal law is "rejected" and "null and void" within state borders.

And this:

The Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates SB367. As per the new law, state and local (municipal & county) law enforcement officers would be given “discretionary power” to determine if they will press criminal charges against federal agents who break the law by enforcing the now nullified federal gun control measures.
Click to expand...

May be tantamount to rebellion.
 
They are trying to force a tenth amendment matter before the Supreme Court
 
Grizzly Adams said:
I don't see why Missouri CAN'T do this. It looks like they're just saying they won't participate in any federal enforcement action that they believe violates the Second Amendment. If, for example, standard-capacity AR mags were to be banned by Congress, Missouri would not arrest anyone for violating the federal law and wouldn't hold anyone in their jails on warrants for violating the law. The federal government cannot compel the states to enforce federal law. This is borne out by the lack of any judicial pushback on the marijuana reforms at the state level, even though marijuana remains illegal throughout the US, and the enactment of sanctuary city policies where immigration law is concerned.

Since the states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, why is it you think Missouri cannot do this?
Click to expand...
A whole bunch of states tried to not enforce, as a matter of fact tried to allow, slavery after slavery was federally banned, they were the confederacy.
 
trouble13 said:
States are not obligated to enforce federal laws. It's the same thing going on with pot laws and illegal immigration. States are exercising their rights as sovereign entities

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

See post #6.
 
From the story:

But will it hold up in a federal court?

Yes. The bill’s main provision calling on the entire state to cease enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 stipulates that the feds simply cannot require a state to help them violate your Constitutional rights, and allows states the power to refuse to enforce such federal laws it deems unConstitutional. Besides, the feds simply don’t have the manpower to do it at the state level without the assistance and partnership of state and local agencies.

Just in case that isn’t enough, Missouri’s Senate also passed a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB367, solidifying it by codifying the Second Amendment into Missouri’s state constitution. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment to the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate today by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will be entered on the ballot for Missouri voters’ approval this fall. The amendment would elevate the Right to Bear Arms to “unalienable status,” thereby obligating the state, its courts and agencies to defend it as a guaranteed right of Missouri citizens.

Can you imagine if other states follow suit? It would spell the death of gun control in red states, at the very least, if not a step toward political Balkanization. Blue voters would leave red states for those states which prefer heavy-handed federal regulations, and red voters in blue states would have less incentive to continue having their rights treated as privileges. We’ll see if they can get it approved by Missouri’s Governor this time.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
From the story:

But will it hold up in a federal court?

Yes. The bill’s main provision calling on the entire state to cease enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 stipulates that the feds simply cannot require a state to help them violate your Constitutional rights, and allows states the power to refuse to enforce such federal laws it deems unConstitutional. Besides, the feds simply don’t have the manpower to do it at the state level without the assistance and partnership of state and local agencies.

Just in case that isn’t enough, Missouri’s Senate also passed a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB367, solidifying it by codifying the Second Amendment into Missouri’s state constitution. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment to the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate today by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will be entered on the ballot for Missouri voters’ approval this fall. The amendment would elevate the Right to Bear Arms to “unalienable status,” thereby obligating the state, its courts and agencies to defend it as a guaranteed right of Missouri citizens.

Can you imagine if other states follow suit? It would spell the death of gun control in red states, at the very least, if not a step toward political Balkanization. Blue voters would leave red states for those states which prefer heavy-handed federal regulations, and red voters in blue states would have less incentive to continue having their rights treated as privileges. We’ll see if they can get it approved by Missouri’s Governor this time.
Click to expand...

Again . . . see post #6.
 
holbritter said:
It's like a 'Sanctuary City' for gun owners in Missouri. I guess if states can ignore Federal law, so can others.
Click to expand...

:sigh: . . . see post #6.
 
Harshaw said:
:sigh: . . . see post #6.
Click to expand...

I did after I already posted. It was the first thing that popped into my mind.

So they will need to change the language a bit and get rid of this part -
The Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates SB367. As per the new law, state and local (municipal & county) law enforcement officers would be given “discretionary power” to determine if they will press criminal charges against federal agents who break the law by enforcing the now nullified federal gun control measures.
Click to expand...
 
DebateChallenge said:
A whole bunch of states tried to not enforce, as a matter of fact tried to allow, slavery after slavery was federally banned, they were the confederacy.
Click to expand...
But interesting though it wasn't banned in those states not in rebellion. Wonder why? If you go down the whole slavery path.
 
Harshaw said:
And this:

May be tantamount to rebellion.
Click to expand...
Well that is far more significant and is, as the technical folk say, an equine which reflects a significantly distinct segment of the electromagnetic spectrum.
 
Federal law is the supreme law of the land as long as they are made in "Pursuance" to the Constitution, any federal law made outside of the powers delegated in the Constitution are null and void on a State matter. The idea of Sanctuary Cities and States violate the Constitution because one of the enumerated powers of the federal government is to "establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization" therefore States are required to uphold these laws. The States ceded their power of immigration when they became a State.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom