Some Democrats to back bill nullifying gun-control laws - July 26, 2013

There are stories like this all over web based news pages.
WE NEED A CROWD SPET. 11TH IN JEFFERSON CITY, YOU CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE. THE COUNTRY WLL BE WATCHING.........

I don't see these laws as being totally unconstitutional....they make the effect improper enforcement of non-relevant federal law in their state a crime.

While federal law trumps state, the federal law must actually be applicable in the state; these laws protect the citizens of the state from over zealous federal law enforcement activities.

Here here!

davidmcbeth said:

I don't see these laws as being totally unconstitutional....they make the effect improper enforcement of non-relevant federal law in their state a crime.

While federal law trumps state, the federal law must actually be applicable in the state; these laws protect the citizens of the state from over zealous federal law enforcement activities.

Here here!

Click to expand...

If there is a veto over ride the Feds wil most likely seek an immediate injuction on HB436. I have it from a fairly reliable source thet even if that happens the OC part (Which has nothing to do with Federal Laws will eventually become law in Missouri. First order - get the veto over ride Spet. 11th. There is NO reason we should not have a crowd on the front lawn of the Capitol 0900 Sept. 11th. If your rights, liberty and freedom are important too you just be there. Is a days pay worth it too you?

Good read:
http://www.examiner.com/article/mis...g-it-do-it-anyway?CID=examiner_alerts_article

I have to admit that I'm a little confused by this entire unconstitutional argument. From my HS Civics class, I seem to remember that neither the executive not legislative branch is charged with determining the constitutionality of so much as a ham sandwich.

But that's neither here nor there. I'll be there on Sept 11th, will you?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

kcgunfan said:

I have to admit that I'm a little confused by this entire unconstitutional argument. From my HS Civics class, I seem to remember that neither the executive not legislative branch is charged with determining the constitutionality of so much as a ham sandwich.

But that's neither here nor there. I'll be there on Sept 11th, will you?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Art.1 Sec.8 of the Constitution spells out quite well what the Federal Government "CAN" do. Unfortunately, this is ignored!
In the Federalist Papers the rol of the States and that of the Federal Government are well described in great detail. This also has fallen by the way side.
The Federal Government has turned into a dictatorship to the States. This is NOT what the founding fathers envisioned.
The KC side has a lot of OC supporters, that's why I traveled there a few months ago for "lunch".

I hope your masses will venture to Jefferson City Sept. 11th! You guys ROCK". And you have great T-shirts too!

mspgunner said:

Art.1 Sec.8 of the Constitution spells out quite well what the Federal Government "CAN" do. Unfortunately, this is ignored!
In the Federalist Papers the rol of the States and that of the Federal Government are well described in great detail.

Click to expand...

Something about the powers not granted to the federal government remain vested in the states, or some such?

Those are just words. Anyhow, guns are the only objects sold over state lines, so the commerce clause clearly mandates an entire bureau to govern by fiat and memorandum (you know, the memo making a shotgun with a barrel 17 inches long a "destructive device" but one with an 18 inch barrel perfectly safe. I said "memo" because I don't remember the vote by congress about this, so it must be law written by a ATF executive. Just the way the constitution describes laws are passed.)

As for all the anti's arguing the unconstituitionality of this law.....

I was unaware the constitution protected the government from we, the people.

Oh, well. I learn something new every day.

Superlite27 said:

Something about the powers not granted to the federal government remain vested in the states, or some such?

Those are just words. Anyhow, guns are the only objects sold over state lines, so the commerce clause clearly mandates an entire bureau to govern by fiat and memorandum (you know, the memo making a shotgun with a barrel 17 inches long a "destructive device" but one with an 18 inch barrel perfectly safe. I said "memo" because I don't remember the vote by congress about this, so it must be law written by a ATF executive. Just the way the constitution describes laws are passed.)

As for all the anti's arguing the unconstituitionality of this law.....

I was unaware the constitution protected the government from we, the people.

Oh, well. I learn something new every day.

Click to expand...

We the people have the second amendment so the Government should fera the people, not the other way around.

List of enumerated powers:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Note that many amendments explicitly grant Congress additional powers. For example, the Sixteenth Amendment grants the power to "lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived".

Superlite27 said:

Something about the powers not granted to the federal government remain vested in the states, or some such?

Click to expand...

That's the Tenth Amendment. And yes, the Feds have ignored it too.

kcgunfan said:

I have to admit that I'm a little confused by this entire unconstitutional argument. From my HS Civics class, I seem to remember that neither the executive not legislative branch is charged with determining the constitutionality of so much as a ham sandwich.

But that's neither here nor there. I'll be there on Sept 11th, will you?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I would trust the ham sandwich more.

davidmcbeth said:

I don't see these laws as being totally unconstitutional....they make the effect improper enforcement of non-relevant federal law in their state a crime.

While federal law trumps state, the federal law must actually be applicable in the state; these laws protect the citizens of the state from over zealous federal law enforcement activities.

Here here!

Click to expand...

There is nothing unconstitutional about laws bills like HB436 create. The constitution is the law of the land that both states and feds must abide by (Of course nobody does...). Any laws that the feds make where the power to do so was not granted to them by the constitution are unlawful laws. The constitution clearly states "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". The constitution never granted the feds the power to create laws restricting firearm ownership, so any law that does so is unlawful. Federal law only trumps state law when the law is not unlawful. Similarly, the states cannot LEGALLY make laws that restrict firearm ownership because even though the states DO have more rights to make laws within their borders, to create laws restricting firearm ownership would be in violation of the constitution even at the state level. Simply put, laws like those HB436 create UPHOLD the constitution.

I foresee a situation where democrats and some republicans will desire a no[SUP]1[/SUP] vote for HB253 as a payment of tribute to vote yes[SUP]2[/SUP] on HB436.











[SUP]1[/SUP]No vote = do not override veto
[SUP]2[/SUP]Yes vote = override veto.

OC for ME said:

I foresee a situation where democrats and some republicans will desire a no[SUP]1[/SUP] vote for HB253 as a payment of tribute to vote yes[SUP]2[/SUP] on HB436.











[SUP]1[/SUP]No vote = do not override veto
[SUP]2[/SUP]Yes vote = override veto.

Click to expand...

I have had the same concern and unfortunately have heard some repeat your comments. Lots of lobbying on HB253. Same on HB339...trial attorneys are mounting a fight on this one. It'll be interesting!

OC when HB436 veto is overridden

mspgunner said:

If there is a veto over ride the Feds wil most likely seek an immediate injuction on HB436. I have it from a fairly reliable source thet even if that happens the OC part (Which has nothing to do with Federal Laws will eventually become law in Missouri. First order - get the veto over ride Spet. 11th. There is NO reason we should not have a crowd on the front lawn of the Capitol 0900 Sept. 11th. If your rights, liberty and freedom are important too you just be there. Is a days pay worth it too you?

Click to expand...

A little confused. As I had understood, once the veto was overridden, at that moment OC in the state of Missouri would be unfettered with a Concealed Carry Permit. Is this not true if the feds do seek an immediate injunction???

Just DO IT!!!!

logunowner said:

A little confused. As I had understood, once the veto was overridden, at that moment OC in the state of Missouri would be unfettered with a Concealed Carry Permit. Is this not true if the feds do seek an immediate injunction???

Click to expand...

There is a debate over this. Once HB 436 is the law in Missouri theoretically HB436 is history and it is a Statue. No telling exactly what the feds would do. Sine Va. passed nulification a year ago and the Alaska Governor signed nullification this week and feds did nothing it is hard to predict. The Missouri nullification is much more far reaching.

It is my hope that "if" the feds did anything they would seek an injuction against the statutes which are in conflict with federal law, of which OC is NOT.

The question has also been asked what FFL is going to be the first to sell an NFA anything to a citizens without the appropriate (Under federal law) documentation and risk the consequences by ATF?

Personally I believe hypothetical is a waste of time here, we just have to see what happens. There are constitutional lawyers on each side looking at this.

Best to just wait and see what happens.
As mentioned.... Step one, go to the rally, call, write, email, visit your legislators no matter the party or past votes and tell them you want the veto of HB436 to have an over ride.
Few do this, just DO IT! If a little no one(one person) like me can get a bill like the OC bill to the Governor's desk a bunch of you can contcat your legislators and tel lthem you want a veto over ride!

Mine will most certainly do so, but I told them any way, but I called, emailed.. .any way!

mspgunner said:

There is a debate over this. Once HB 436 is the law in Missouri theoretically HB436 is history and it is a Statue. No telling exactly what the feds would do. Sine Va. passed nulification a year ago and the Alaska Governor signed nullification this week and feds did nothing it is hard to predict. The Missouri nullification is much more far reaching.

It is my hope that "if" the feds did anything they would seek an injuction against the statutes which are in conflict with federal law, of which OC is NOT.

The question has also been asked what FFL is going to be the first to sell an NFA anything to a citizens without the appropriate (Under federal law) documentation and risk the consequences by ATF?

Personally I believe hypothetical is a waste of time here, we just have to see what happens. There are constitutional lawyers on each side looking at this.

Best to just wait and see what happens.
As mentioned.... Step one, go to the rally, call, write, email, visit your legislators no matter the party or past votes and tell them you want the veto of HB436 to have an over ride.
Few do this, just DO IT! If a little no one(one person) like me can get a bill like the OC bill to the Governor's desk a bunch of you can contcat your legislators and tel lthem you want a veto over ride!

Mine will most certainly do so, but I told them any way, but I called, emailed.. .any way!

Click to expand...

Thanks for the detailed response. Yes Vivian and I will be sending post cards or letters next week.

mspgunner said:

It is my hope that "if" the feds did anything they would seek an injuction against the statutes which are in conflict with federal law, of which OC is NOT.

Click to expand...

Correction: NONE of it is in conflict.

Oramac said:

Correction: NONE of it is in conflict.

Click to expand...

That would work for me... We'll see. Hey, please call Eric Holder and remind him. He won't take my phone call.
Use yor influence!!!!

Oramac said:

Correction: NONE of it is in conflict.

Click to expand...

Remember, anything the antis don't like is in conflict...whether or not it is legal or not. Don't you know, as long as we conform to their ways, everything will be merry! :banghead: