Missouri Bill Would Make It A Felony For Lawmakers To Propose Gun Control Legislation

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
If this bill passes it will be the first time in our nations history outside the posse comitatus act
the ensured protection for the Constitution and the people of one states second amendment right never to be infringed ever again.

I personally feel that it should be a felony for law maker attempts to circumvent the Constitution on any level, and specifically this one.

check it out and give me your input


A Republican state legislator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make it a felony for lawmakers to introduce legislation to restrict Second Amendment rights in the state.

Legislation introduced Monday by state Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) would make state legislators guilty of a Class D felony if they introduce legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms." Leara said that the bill is needed because he sees a growing number of his colleagues looking to take away gun rights from the state's residents.

“We seem to be having a lot of people willing to further restrict our constitutional rights and take our rights," Leara told The Huffington Post. "It is a push-back to the people who don’t believe in our constitutional rights. There have to be consequences to removing our constitutional rights.”

heres the rest of the article
www.huffingtonpost.com...




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SPECULUM
 


Dear SPECULUM,

This is one of dumbest laws we could ever pass and would set a precedent for something nobody would like. What if someone proposed making a crime to legalize or make illegal abortion or taxes or anything. Today's realities are not tomorrows. What if it had been illegal to pass laws allowing blacks to vote freely? What if it had been made illegal to propose legislation that allowed free speech? We should be the most concerned about keeping this country a representative democracy, once we give up on that, the rest really doesn't matter.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
The supremacy clause requires that those federal laws considered supreme are in fact constitutional and within the enumerated powers of the federal government.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


Name one that isn't.

Also realize that Congress has "implied" powers when you are searching for your answer, as established by the Court.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
It already is a felony.

US CODE 242, Title 18



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Implied powers are those which are necessary and proper to execute those powers which are enumerated.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I know you like that US Code but it doesn't trump the Constitution and frankly is not needed. It simply reaffirms what the Constitution already says.

We already know we are bound by the Constitution so a US Code stating that is...well....rather redundant.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE;
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


This is cited as one of the primary issues that lead up to the civil war. The States individual rights vs those of the Federal Government. I'm guessing I don't have to tell you which side won the argument.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 2/24/2013 by defcon5 because: It would help if I could spell, eh?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by lynxpilot
Implied powers are those which are necessary and proper to execute those powers which are enumerated.


While some people sleep, others turn their coat inside out, and many are awakening. May G_D bless the free people of Missouri and The USA.
*4U and SnF
edit on 24-2-2013 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I know you like that US Code but it doesn't trump the Constitution and frankly is not needed. It simply reaffirms what the Constitution already says.

We already know we are bound by the Constitution so a US Code stating that is...well....rather redundant.


Tell that to Mr Obama, Holder, and Ms Napolitino. I'm glad we can agree on the second Amendment.
As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

May G_D bless America.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


I know you like that US Code but it doesn't trump the Constitution and frankly is not needed. It simply reaffirms what the Constitution already says.

We already know we are bound by the Constitution so a US Code stating that is...well....rather redundant.


Not redundant. It sets penalties in place for tyrants. The tyrants are also in the justice department, so we have little hope in the lawless following law. The tyrants will change the spirit of our land. When they do, the spirit will rise. The Bible says it. Not by power, not by might, but by my Spirit says the Lord Almighty.





edit on 24-2-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.


Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE;
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


This is cited as one of the primary issues that lead up to the civil war. The States individual rights vs those of the Federal Government. I'm guessing I don't have to tell you which side won the argument.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
edit on 2/24/2013 by defcon5 because: It would help if I could spell, eh?


That was then and this is now, we have the same equipment the government will use as we take them away or while we are on duty



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.


Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy


There are many times the federal government does not interfere with what states do. However, and there is no doubt about this, if the federal government passes a law, and the states pass one that contradicts it, and the federal government takes it to court, THE STATE WILL LOSE.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.


Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy


There are many times the federal government does not interfere with what states do. However, and there is no doubt about this, if the federal government passes a law, and the states pass one that contradicts it, and the federal government takes it to court, THE STATE WILL LOSE.


I think you put too much faith in the federal gooberment.
can you imagine the feds controlling The state of Texas who hold all the nuclear stockpile on their soil???
all they would need do is tell uncle sammy the games over....no more Washington
and them nukes need no launch codes



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.


Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy


There are many times the federal government does not interfere with what states do. However, and there is no doubt about this, if the federal government passes a law, and the states pass one that contradicts it, and the federal government takes it to court, THE STATE WILL LOSE.


I think you put too much faith in the federal gooberment.
can you imagine the feds controlling The state of Texas who hold all the nuclear stockpile on their soil???
all they would need do is tell uncle sammy the games over....no more Washington
and them nukes need no launch codes


Hi Speculum, Its not faith in the federal government I'm going off of.

Its just tons of precedent from Supreme Court cases and the Constitution. On a side note, Texas doesn't have the majority of Americas nuclear stockplie, I believe its either Nebraska or the Dakotas.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.


The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE


Them are justifiable fighting words


Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.


Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy


There are many times the federal government does not interfere with what states do. However, and there is no doubt about this, if the federal government passes a law, and the states pass one that contradicts it, and the federal government takes it to court, THE STATE WILL LOSE.


I think you put too much faith in the federal gooberment.
can you imagine the feds controlling The state of Texas who hold all the nuclear stockpile on their soil???
all they would need do is tell uncle sammy the games over....no more Washington
and them nukes need no launch codes


Hi Speculum, Its not faith in the federal government I'm going off of.

Its just tons of precedent from Supreme Court cases and the Constitution. On a side note, Texas doesn't have the majority of Americas nuclear stockplie, I believe its either Nebraska or the Dakotas.


Texas its where they keep all the nuclear decommissioned cores and components and the scientists who do the work


The supreme court isn't the governments personal property, its the peoples court, and although it might be said they are worthless, in a real crisis they might come to their senses before its too late and do the right thing?





new topics
top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join