Missouri bill would nullify all federal gun control laws

More good news. I was tired of all the gun control bills being passed everywhere. The government just keeps trying to make new laws that would help nothing.

The government wants politicians to be completely safe, with bodyguards protecting them everywhere they go, while the American people have almost no protection at all. Not exactly fair in my book.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Legislature sent the governor a bill Wednesday that would expand gun rights and declare all federal gun regulations unenforceable, in a response to President Barack Obama's push for gun control legislation.

The Republican-led Legislature passed the measure hoping to shield the state from federal proposals that would ban assault weapons and expand background checks. But the U.S. Senate's defeat of a background check expansion three weeks ago did nothing to assuage the fears of Missouri Republicans who pressed forward with their legislation.

www.kansascity.com...

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

Federal law trump state law . you do realize this right ?
Second what guns laws are all being passed .

Yea I love these types of posts.

Its called the Supremecy Clause so it doesn't really matter what a State passes, it can't nullify any federal law but its nice to pretend I suppose.

reply to post by freedomSlave


Constitution trumps federal laws

reply to post by freedomSlave


The 10th amendment says otherwise ....and precedent by the U.S. Supreme Court to support that whole thing shows it's not nearly as clear, by any stretch of the imagination, as either you or I would like it to be.

I'm happy to see Missouri (my home) is doing this. We need more of it and I'm just dying to see how Obama deals with our Constitutional Amendment, properly passed in November, literally outlawing participation in his A.C.A. nightmare. He says he'll steamroll us and enforce it anyway. I think we'll all have a few things to say about THAT whole concept, in the courts ..if nothing else.

It's time the King learn, he is no King and we're a UNION of STATES ...not a homogeneous 'Nation' of provinces. There is a night/day different he doesn't seem to have the ability to comprehend. That's okay though, Missouri is among a number of states that are quite happy to assist with his ongoing education for Constitutional Law and how it applies to State's Rights over Federal Control.

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Constitution trumps federal laws

I 2nd that!

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Constitution trumps federal laws

Good thing the Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution then I guess.

Now what?

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Constitution trumps federal laws

isn't the Constitution part of a federal law for all the people and the states . Constitutions can still be amended... No..?

reply to post by Hopechest

Tell that to the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc......

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Tell that to the states of California, Illinois, Massachusetts, etc......

Don't have to.

Its right there in the Constitution, they can read it for themselves. Either they haven't been challenged yet or they have and the courts have determined that the federal law is encroaching on their 10th amendment right.

Either way, it has no effect on the Supremecy Clause.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Constitution trumps federal laws

Good thing the Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution then I guess.

Now what?

The Supremecy clause lists the constitution first,

“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

the laws of the united states was listed 2nd. This would then show the 10th Amendment trumps the “supremacy clause”

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit is correct. What the feds have been doing is revoking funding if you do not comply with federal law. It's happened over health care and posted speed limits. State law cannot go against the Constitution however.

reply to post by Hopechest


OK , so the law will get to the supreme court then it will get shot down.

Meanwhile, people get guns taken away by the everyday brutal police force. If you are lucky to survive their barbarism , you then get an Ambulance chasing lawyer, ( I like to call them buy here pay here lawyers). They will decide if your story is worthy enough for them to get you and them a paycheck

Does this answer your question of "Now What"?

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by skorpius
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Constitution trumps federal laws

Good thing the Supremecy Clause is in the Constitution then I guess.

Now what?

The Supremecy clause lists the constitution first,

“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

the laws of the united states was listed 2nd. This would then show the 10th Amendment trumps the “supremacy clause”

edit on 9-5-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

The 10th amendment only applies to powers not granted to the federal government. Regulating the second amendment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court to be a power the federal government does have.

Therefore any State passing a law in conflict with the federal government on this issue will lose.

And just to add, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a power that is listed first trumps powers that are after it. That is something you are interpreting.

reply to post by Hopechest


This is how I've always been told it works. Look at the drug laws that have recently been passed. Federal law states it's still illegal, and the feds still have the right to arrest and prosecute people. Remember when Obama said he wouldn't prosecute people in California for medical use? Well the states aren't compelled to act as a smaller version of the federal government, they can only entice the state to do so. When a state doesn't do so they revoke funding to encourage it's adoption. Hope this helps.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by Hopechest

 

This is how I've always been told it works. Look at the drug laws that have recently been passed. Federal law states it's still illegal, and the feds still have the right to arrest and prosecute people. Remember when Obama said he wouldn't prosecute people in California for medical use? Well the states aren't compelled to act as a smaller version of the federal government, they can only entice the state to do so. When a state doesn't do so they revoke funding to encourage it's adoption. Hope this helps.

edit on 9-5-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

Whether or not the federal government chooses to invoke their constitutional right is entirely up to them. There are many cases, especially in regards to commerce, where federal rights are simply given to the states because its easier.

If Obama doesn't want to interfere in a states handling of drug laws that's up to him as the chief enforcer of the nation. However, if he did want to he could. He could nullify any State law in regards to drugs as long as the Supreme Court has said that regulation of drugs is a federal power.

Once a power is determined to be a federal power the states lose absolutely any say in the matter whatsoever.

reply to post by Hopechest


Depends at how you look at recent drug laws. The federal government doesn't have the man power to enforce the law, so if local law enforcement says they aren't enforcing it you are fine. Same thing with this gun legislation, the feds aren't going to conduct traffic stops and arrest those who don't comply with federal law.

Originally posted by Covertblack
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Depends at how you look at recent drug laws. The federal government doesn't have the man power to enforce the law, so if local law enforcement says they aren't enforcing it you are fine. Same thing with this gun legislation, the feds aren't going to conduct traffic stops and arrest those who don't comply with federal law.

Of course you are right but I wasn't discussing the actual implementation of anything. I was simply arguing who the actual right is given to under the Constitution.

The point of the OP was that a State has the power to nullify a Federal Law and it does not.

Per the Constitution.

The feds are still way ahead of Missouri since they are able to limit the ammo.

Everyone needs to wake up, they really don't care about if we have guns. They circumvent it by causing the ammo shortage.

The ammo manufacturers don't care if their cash is from citizens or .gov.

It used to be you get Russian ammo. Even that is in short supply now.

reply to post by Covertblack


yep pulling federal funding is what finally got speed limits in Montana as we didnt have them for a long time

that is one of the main cards they can file in this debate guess we will have to see how it ends up