View Full Version : Missouri Senate passes bill 26-6 that nullifies all federal anti-gun measures. Ever.
Magic_Salad0892
05-02-13, 18:36
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/bill-nullifying-acts-violating-the-second-amendment-passes-missouri-senate-26-6/
It seems like it should pass.
If it does, I'd consider moving there, as it nullifies the acts of 1934, and 1968, it probably shitcans the Hughs amendment, and I bet it'd enable constitutional carry.
We need to push shit like this in every state we can.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB436&year=2013&code=R
Moose-Knuckle
05-02-13, 18:50
So does that mean if I move to Missouri I can import anything I want provided this thing passes . . . :p
Magic_Salad0892
05-02-13, 18:51
So does that mean if I move to Missouri I can import anything I want provided this thing passes . . . :p
I'm curious about that myself. I'm reading the bill right now, and I can't find any mention of that. But it actually seems so.
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/bill-nullifying-acts-violating-the-second-amendment-passes-missouri-senate-26-6/
It seems like it should pass.
If it does, I'd consider moving there, as it nullifies the acts of 1934, and 1968, it probably shitcans the Hughs amendment, and I bet it'd enable constitutional carry.
We need to push shit like this in every state we can.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB436&year=2013&code=R
Domino Theory :D I agree and approve of your message.
Magic_Salad0892
05-02-13, 19:35
I bet I could probably score a true Swiss SIG for my girlfriend's dad if it passes. Lol.
For some reason I feel like we shouldn't be getting our hopes up. Just seems too good to be true.
Magic_Salad0892
05-02-13, 19:45
For some reason I feel like we shouldn't be getting our hopes up. Just seems too good to be true.
Why? It has to go through the House again, and the House already passed the original one. 115-41.
That's non-vetoable majority.
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
Magic_Salad0892
05-02-13, 19:51
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme.
It sets a legal precedent. And is quite telling of the direction that certain states are heading.
We'll have to see how it turns out, but my hopes are high, considering how large the majority is.
Alpha Sierra
05-02-13, 21:06
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
Supremacy can be undone, if there is sufficient will. Know what I mean?
The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme.
It sets a legal precedent. And is quite telling of the direction that certain states are heading.
We'll have to see how it turns out, but my hopes are high, considering how large the majority is.
You're on the right track. The more states that pass laws like this the better. One day SCOTUS will be brought the right case to rule on and the court will look to what laws are on the books in addition to precedence in making their decision and once they rule our way, it'll never be undone.
Supremacy can be undone, if there is sufficient will. Know what I mean?
The issue is that the passing of this law does not undo federal laws on the books, nor prevent the enforcement of such.
MountainRaven
05-02-13, 21:42
I guess people really like Montana potfarmers a lot, if they're willing to join them in a Federal pen!
Other states have already passed similar laws. It's all well and fine until you decide to roll the dice and be the poster child of prosecution.
What will be interesting is to see how this stuff progresses and if the SCOTUS will then look at the NFA and other stuff.
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/objections/
Well, there is some powerful disagreement with that erroneous conclusion of yours,
“Nullification violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”
This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.
Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)
What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”
At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”
For further evidence, see Brion McClanahan.
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
Isn't marijuana illegal by Federal law?
Well, there is some powerful disagreement with that erroneous conclusion of yours,
Again, this will do NOTHING to affect the enforcement of FEDERAL laws in the State of Missouri. Decriminalization on the state side has no bearing on federal law. What this means is there will be no state statute and associated penalty, however, the full force of Title 18, United States Code, Section 9(insert applicable statute section/paragraph here) still carries its full weight. When the badge says, "U.S." on it, the state law is irrelevant.
Isn't marijuana illegal by Federal law?
Yes and people are charged, convicted, and sentenced for possession and distribution, and conspiracy to possess/distribute even in states where it is legal under state law.
MountainRaven
05-03-13, 00:07
Isn't marijuana illegal by Federal law?
Yup.
And Obama publicly told Federal prosecutors to not arrest anyone growing pot in accordance with state laws, even as it violates Federal law.
And then a couple years later the Feds raided a bunch of pot-growing operations and medical marijuana businesses and arrested owners and employees.
(Of course, those businesses weren't, strictly speaking, operating legally under Montana law and probably would have been fine if they hadn't started 'exporting' their pot from Montana to neighboring states.)
Yup.
And Obama publicly told Federal prosecutors to not arrest anyone growing pot in accordance with state laws, even as it violates Federal law.
And then a couple years later the Feds raided a bunch of pot-growing operations and medical marijuana businesses and arrested owners and employees.
(Of course, those businesses weren't, strictly speaking, operating legally under Montana law and probably would have been fine if they hadn't started 'exporting' their pot from Montana to neighboring states.)
Don't forget all of the money laundering that was going on.
MountainRaven
05-03-13, 00:18
Don't forget all of the money laundering that was going on.
Didn't remember about that part - and I'm only vaguely remembering it, now. I mostly just remember what Bullock (who was then AG for Montana and is today governor) said in interviews in response to criticism that he allowed the Feds to walk all over the state (or why his office assisted the Feds instead of hindering or challenging them). I do remember that it was quite a laundry list and the salient points to me were that it involved transporting federally-controlled substances across state lines.
I also remember being torqued off by it, especially since the Feds were unwilling to say why they had performed the raids for days afterwards.
Alpha Sierra
05-03-13, 04:28
The issue is that the passing of this law does not undo federal laws on the books, nor prevent the enforcement of such.
I think you should take a closer look at the bill. It may not undo them but it does impose criminal (albeit too light IMO) penalties on feds who do try.
The_War_Wagon
05-03-13, 06:54
Kansas just went WAAAY up on my list of places WORTH re-locating too.
Chasing tornadoes down my OWN block every spring is just a bonus! :p
I think you should take a closer look at the bill. It may not undo them but it does impose criminal (albeit too light IMO) penalties on feds who do try.
Which is a token gesture at best since prospective courses of action will ever actually transpire. That said I'm totally behind the spirit of the law and it's probable utilization in a patchwork of legal challenges against federal authority.
Alpha Sierra
05-03-13, 07:17
Which is a token gesture at best since prospective courses of action will ever actually transpire.
That's a shame because a law with no enforcement will behind it is simply mental masturbation.
I would enjoy watching some federal agents, prosecutors, and judges in irons being led into the county jail.
Good on them. This will go to the SCOTUS. Too many states are working to nullify federal law on many levels.
platoonDaddy
05-03-13, 08:23
Kansas just went WAAAY up on my list of places WORTH re-locating too.
Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/eric-holder-threatens-kansas-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law/
Alpha Sierra
05-03-13, 09:32
Brownback should call Holder and tell him to FO.
ETA: these threats usually take the form of lawsuits. Well, here's another opportunity for state executives to show some sack. Do say that a federal court rules for fed.gov (duh, foregone conclusion). Well, who will enforce their writ? Federal Marshals? What happens when the Governor orders his offices to ignore, and if necessary, arrest the federal enforcers?
As I said before, these laws are meaningless unless the Governor who signs them is willing to go ALL. THE. WAY.
Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/eric-holder-threatens-kansas-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law/
Well if anyone knows what it takes to violate the Constitution, it's Eric Himpton Holder! :mad:
Moose-Knuckle
05-03-13, 15:40
Eric Holder Threatens Kansas in Letter on Gun Control Nullification Law
On Thursday, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback received a letter from Federal Attorney General Eric Holder threatening action against the state should it enforce SB102 which Brownback signed into law last month.
The new law states, in part:
Any act, law, treaty, order, rule or regulation of the government of the United States which violates the second amendment to the constitution of the United States is null, void and unenforceable in the state of Kansas
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/eric-holder-threatens-kansas-in-letter-on-gun-control-nullification-law/
Mores states need to jump on this wagon. If Holder steps foot across their state line have him arrested by state police for crimes against the state. :cool:
Magic_Salad0892
05-03-13, 15:42
Mores states need to jump on this wagon. If Holder steps foot across their state line have him arrested by state police for crimes against the state. :cool:
That'd be so badass.
That's a shame because a law with no enforcement will behind it is simply mental masturbation.
I would enjoy watching some federal agents, prosecutors, and judges in irons being led into the county jail.
Let me rephrase what I said, I don't think given the current state of matters such enforcement measures will actually occur. But, depending on how things go in the courts with respect to the limits of supremacy down the road that may change, which imo is a good thing.
Belmont31R
05-03-13, 18:07
SCOTUS already rule that any commerce which effects interstate commerce is under Federal jurisdiction.
Magic_Salad0892
05-03-13, 19:28
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/Holder_zps5d393d5f.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/Holder_zps5d393d5f.jpg.html)
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/thwjgt4_zpsa49ed80b.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/thwjgt4_zpsa49ed80b.jpg.html)
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/BrownbackKansas_zpsba148922.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/BrownbackKansas_zpsba148922.jpg.html)
SCOTUS already rule that any commerce which effects interstate commerce is under Federal jurisdiction.
True, but that doesn't mean the fed still isn't to big for it's britches.
Magic_Salad0892
05-03-13, 19:42
SCOTUS already rule that any commerce which effects interstate commerce is under Federal jurisdiction.
The Interstate Commerce clause is only meant to be applied to taxing a business in another state, IIRC.
This law specifically states that as long as the weapon is manufactured/kept within Kansas (or Missouri in the OP) it is not subject to federal law.
Wickard v. Filburn needs to be overturned anyway.
They're talking about this exact same shit at TOS. (Where I got the .jpgs of those letters.)
I think you should take a closer look at the bill. It may not undo them but it does impose criminal (albeit too light IMO) penalties on feds who do try.
Good luck with that.
eightmillimeter
05-03-13, 20:52
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/Holder_zps5d393d5f.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/Holder_zps5d393d5f.jpg.html)
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/thwjgt4_zpsa49ed80b.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/thwjgt4_zpsa49ed80b.jpg.html)
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/BrownbackKansas_zpsba148922.jpg (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/BrownbackKansas_zpsba148922.jpg.html)
Thank you for posting those. This is a very good example of how states should be conducting "business" with the federal government. The Kansas SOS letter, was, well, epic.
brushy bill
05-03-13, 21:29
The Kansas SOS letter, was, well, epic.
Agree. We need more states on board.
Magic_Salad0892
05-03-13, 22:03
Please keep this thread alive guys, I want people to see this.
Other states need to really push on this.
Good luck with that.
Himpton's assertion that the bill "directly conflicts with federal law and is therefore unconstitutional" is borderline retarded. Federal laws have been struck down as unconstitutional all throughout America's history. The citizenry of the United States suffer under the onerous threat of criminal arrest and prosecution for violation of federal laws that have no business being imposed upon them all the time. It's long overdue for federal agents to feel the same threat for any abuse of power and enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
I personally hope that as many states as possible follow Kansas, Missouri and other states with these bills in their legislatures. I feel that a full on mutiny by the states will have a far greater impact on federal excess than disgruntled voters.
Your comments on this subject have the appearance of smugness resulting from the perception of impunity. I hope I'm incorrect on that impression. It does nothing to heal the obvious rift between federal officers and the people they police. :(
TriviaMonster
05-03-13, 23:53
Damn, I just left MO for OK. Crap.
But let's not forget that not everyone in MO is on our side as we saw with the recent handover of the CCW list to the feds.
But its a step in the right direction and frankly none of it matters until we take our testes to SCOTUS. I think it will hold water in some aspects but I would be happily proven wrong if the whole thing flies in DC.
The Midwest is where it all starts. Come for our corn and assorted "Worlds Largest..." and stay for our legal precedents.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
VooDoo6Actual
05-04-13, 10:41
Interesting recent April 9th interview w/ SCOTUS Justice Thomas pretty telling if you focus.
He succinctly nails it w/ his the Elites comment. Guess he's a tin foiler too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whgcV8DapNM#!
Eurodriver
05-04-13, 11:41
Interesting recent April 9th interview w/ SCOTUS Justice Thomas pretty telling if you focus.
He succinctly nails it w/ his the Elites comment. Guess he's a tin foiler too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whgcV8DapNM#!
Excellent video.
platoonDaddy
05-04-13, 13:27
Interesting recent April 9th interview w/ SCOTUS Justice Thomas pretty telling if you focus.
He succinctly nails it w/ his the Elites comment. Guess he's a tin foiler too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whgcV8DapNM#!
For sure he nails it!
Alpha Sierra
05-04-13, 14:34
Good luck with that.
If I was sitting in the governor's chair I'd push this all the way regardless of the cost.
Magic_Salad0892
05-04-13, 16:42
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/g424/Magic_Salad0892/FFA_zps4c90304c.gif (http://s1101.photobucket.com/user/Magic_Salad0892/media/FFA_zps4c90304c.gif.html)
http://firearmsfreedomact.com/state-by-state/#pa
Regarding the Firearms Freedom Act.
Why? It has to go through the House again, and the House already passed the original one. 115-41.
That's non-vetoable majority.
What are the three amendments the senate added to the bill?
edit: "The Senate amendments don’t substantively change the bill. One removed some superfluous language dealing with felons from the House version. A second amendment requires any firearms purchased in a state or local gun buyback program to be sold to licensed dealers. And the third consists of a declaration acknowledging the need to fight crime and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It has no force and does not alter the substance of the bill."
Moose-Knuckle
05-05-13, 01:44
Interesting recent April 9th interview w/ SCOTUS Justice Thomas pretty telling if you focus.
He succinctly nails it w/ his the Elites comment. Guess he's a tin foiler too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=whgcV8DapNM#!
Good stuff! :cool:
The Interstate Commerce clause is only meant to be applied to taxing a business in another state, IIRC.
This law specifically states that as long as the weapon is manufactured/kept within Kansas (or Missouri in the OP) it is not subject to federal law.
Wickard v. Filburn needs to be overturned anyway.
They're talking about this exact same shit at TOS. (Where I got the .jpgs of those letters.)
A conversation I had with an AUSA regarding prosecution of federal weapons violations, long before the recent drama, was that if any component of the firearm was sourced from another state, the commerce clause applied.
This included raw metal by his example. Think about all the small parts involved...
I'm glad to be living in Missouri right now. At least some people don't have their heads up their ass...
Alpha Sierra
05-05-13, 07:50
The commerce clause is bar none the most abused overreach of federal "authority" in history. Of course some apparatchik is going to interpret it as broadly as possible to up his numbers.
The sooner federalism is done away with and replaced with loose confederations, the better off we will all be.
A conversation I had with an AUSA regarding prosecution of federal weapons violations, long before the recent drama, was that if any component of the firearm was sourced from another state, the commerce clause applied.
This included raw metal by his example. Think about all the small parts involved...
I'm glad to be living in Missouri right now. At least some people don't have their heads up their ass...
The commerce clause is bar none the most abused overreach of federal "authority" in history. Of course some apparatchik is going to interpret it as broadly as possible to up his numbers.
The sooner federalism is done away with and replaced with loose confederations, the better off we will all be.
Yep. Even if they could manufacture a firearm completely and totally within the borders of the state, including raw materials, the Feds would just assert that it still affects interstate commerce because a Kansas gun purchased means another interstate gun wasn't purchased. It's total bullshit.
montanadave
05-05-13, 11:44
Yep. Even if they could manufacture a firearm completely and totally within the borders of the state, including raw materials, the Feds would just assert that it still affects interstate commerce because a Kansas gun purchased means another interstate gun wasn't purchased. It's total bullshit.
The Montana legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act in 2009 and it was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer on April 25 of that year, with an effective date of October 1, 2009.
The BATFE promptly responded, asserting that, "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit and, after initially being dismissed and subsequently appealed, oral arguments were heard before the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the first week of March of this year. Here is a statement related to those arguments from the Cato Institute, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case: http://www.cato.org/blog/guns-commerce-clause-way-supreme-court
The article cited above contains both links to the brief itself and a link to an audio recording of the oral arguments (I was not able to locate a transcript).
From the brief filed by the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute in support of the MSSA, et al vs Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Case No. 10-36094):
This case does not involve a mere clash between state and federal law. It involves the federal government’s effort to quash an exercise of state sovereignty that directly serves the structural purpose of federalism in our compound republic—the protection of individual liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Such federal overreaching must be rejected if the vertical separation of powers established by the letter and spirit of our Constitution means anything.
For those interested in the case law surrounding challenges to both the commerce and necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution, this brief will provide some excellent references.
brushy bill
05-05-13, 15:11
Dave, As far as I know, there has not been a decision in this case. I'm anxious to see how it turns out though. If I missed it, hopefully you or someone will provide an update.
brushy bill
05-05-13, 15:13
snip
Regarding the Firearms Freedom Act.
Nice visual aid and handy way to track progress. I've added to favorites. Thanks.
Magic_Salad0892
05-05-13, 18:38
A conversation I had with an AUSA regarding prosecution of federal weapons violations, long before the recent drama, was that if any component of the firearm was sourced from another state, the commerce clause applied.
This included raw metal by his example. Think about all the small parts involved...
I'm glad to be living in Missouri right now. At least some people don't have their heads up their ass...
Wrong. The Commerce Clause is only supposed to effect taxing a business from another state.
I know that Wickard v. Fillburn contradicts that, but I'm pretty sure it's only a matter of time until that shit gets overturned.
montanadave
05-05-13, 18:44
Dave, As far as I know, there has not been a decision in this case. I'm anxious to see how it turns out though. If I missed it, hopefully you or someone will provide an update.
No decision yet. Probably come in the next couple of months. If you looked at the Cato article, the author outlined the legal strategy argued before the Circuit Court of Appeals by the attorney for the MSSA. In essence, they're looking for a defeat at the Circuit Court level, allowing them to petition the SCOTUS to hear the case.
Alternatively, the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute, in their amicus brief argued the constitutionality of the the Montana law and encouraged the Circuit Court to reverse the decision of the lower federal court to dismiss the MSSA's lawsuit and allow the case to proceed at the lower court level.
Either way, this isn't going to be settled anytime soon.
Again, this will do NOTHING to affect the enforcement of FEDERAL laws in the State of Missouri. Decriminalization on the state side has no bearing on federal law. What this means is there will be no state statute and associated penalty, however, the full force of Title 18, United States Code, Section 9(insert applicable statute section/paragraph here) still carries its full weight. When the badge says, "U.S." on it, the state law is irrelevant.
it will be up to the obama administration to direct the local atf offices to prejudiciallly enforce laws that are "nullified" by the state law. it will also be up to holder to direct the local united states attorney's offices to prejudicially prosecute violators of the laws that are "nullified" by the states law.
The Montana legislature passed the Montana Firearms Freedom Act in 2009 and it was signed into law by Governor Schweitzer on April 25 of that year, with an effective date of October 1, 2009.
The BATFE promptly responded, asserting that, "Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply."
The Montana Shooting Sports Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit and, after initially being dismissed and subsequently appealed, oral arguments were heard before the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals the first week of March of this year. Here is a statement related to those arguments from the Cato Institute, who filed an amicus curiae brief in the case: http://www.cato.org/blog/guns-commerce-clause-way-supreme-court
The article cited above contains both links to the brief itself and a link to an audio recording of the oral arguments (I was not able to locate a transcript).
From the brief filed by the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute in support of the MSSA, et al vs Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Case No. 10-36094):
This case does not involve a mere clash between state and federal law. It involves the federal government’s effort to quash an exercise of state sovereignty that directly serves the structural purpose of federalism in our compound republic—the protection of individual liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Such federal overreaching must be rejected if the vertical separation of powers established by the letter and spirit of our Constitution means anything.
For those interested in the case law surrounding challenges to both the commerce and necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution, this brief will provide some excellent references.
would be interesting to see the conclusion to this
The_War_Wagon
05-08-13, 05:26
Alabama lawmakers vote to ignore new federal gun control laws
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/01/alabama-lawmakers-vote-to-ignore-new-federal-gun-control-laws/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2ShAzdaSc
Could it be, that We The People are starting to discover, that the great & powerful ONE, is really a Captain ZERO - working the levers & buttons behind the curtains? :dance3:
Most people I know from Missouri are independent minded conservatives. This sort of thing shows Missouri is pushing back against Federal meddling.
I knew there was a good reason I considered moving to Missouri in 1985, it's the people.
House Bill 436 passed Legislation yesterday, so now it's on the way to the Governor's desk.
Posted on May 9, 2013 at 9:42 AM
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Legislature has sent Gov. Jay Nixon a bill that would nullify federal gun control laws.... (http://www.kmov.com/home/Mo-bill-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws-206761181.html)
OG
platoonDaddy
05-09-13, 16:46
House Bill 436 passed Legislation yesterday, so now it's on the way to the Governor's desk.
Posted on May 9, 2013 at 9:42 AM
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Legislature has sent Gov. Jay Nixon a bill that would nullify federal gun control laws.... (http://www.kmov.com/home/Mo-bill-would-nullify-federal-gun-control-laws-206761181.html)
OG
One state at a time!
Is this veto proof?
ridgerunner70
05-09-13, 18:49
One state at a time!
Is this veto proof?
Yes it is.
ridgerunner70
05-09-13, 18:50
If these get signed by Nixon will that mean I will not have to pay for a tax stamp for a suppressor?
montanadave
05-09-13, 19:42
One state at a time!
Is this veto proof?
I guess I don't see how this is going to play out any differently in Missouri than it did in Montana. The governor can sign it and the BATFE will jot off a quick note to every FFL holder in Missouri informing them that federal firearm law supersedes state law and failure to comply will result in revocation of their FFL and prosecution under federal law. Feel free to file suit and we'll see ya in court.
Which is right where the Montana Firearms Act sits, awaiting ajudication in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I guess I don't see how this is going to play out any differently in Missouri than it did in Montana. The governor can sign it and the BATFE will jot off a quick note to every FFL holder in Missouri informing them that federal firearm law supersedes state law and failure to comply will result in revocation of their FFL and prosecution under federal law. Feel free to file suit and we'll see ya in court.
Which is right where the Montana Firearms Act sits, awaiting ajudication in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Still, the more states that pass these laws the better. Eventually enough momentum will build for a case to be heard by SCOTUS. Heaven help us if we lose that case.
The feds ruled a while back that even pot grown in your own home, for your own use was regulated under the interstate commerce clause because 'it affected the market' for pot. It doesn't get more 'home grown' than that. The assertion that metals used to make a gun would have to be sourced in state is just another long reach to control guns (says obvious man); the metal used might affect the metal market, would have no affect whatsoever on the gun market.
They're pretty much saying that if you breathed air that's blown across a state line, they have an interstate 'nexus'.
Rattlehead
05-10-13, 02:18
Tagging this thread for updates to this amazing bill.
The feds ruled a while back that even pot grown in your own home, for your own use was regulated under the interstate commerce clause because 'it affected the market' for pot. It doesn't get more 'home grown' than that. The assertion that metals used to make a gun would have to be sourced in state is just another long reach to control guns (says obvious man); the metal used might affect the metal market, would have no affect whatsoever on the gun market.
They're pretty much saying that if you breathed air that's blown across a state line, they have an interstate 'nexus'.
Gonzalez v Raich
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
After the vote to pass a bill to fight puppy mills was passed recently with enough votes Nixon couldn't veto it he proceeded to gut it after the fact. I lost a lot of respect for that dude. Missouri is the puppy mill capital of the nation with an estimated over 3,000 puppy mills and when thoughtful legislation was overwhelmingly passed to require basic living conditions (which most reputable breeders helped draft) he took the side of big money and gutted the bill after the fact making it worthless. Way to blatantly go against your constituents to keep the money flowing. Not cool.
Not really on topic but just a little bit of history on the guy representing the state before you get too much behind him. If Bloomberg shows up with his $$ the way he did in Colorado I'm sure he'll do the same he did this time as he did last time he was faced with a moral decision (not even much of a decision when the vote was even greater than this one).
Alpha Sierra
05-10-13, 09:34
What will happen when state governments start to ignore federal jurisprudence?
Fail if you use the first civil war to justify your answer. Socio-economic conditions are not even close the same today.
What will happen when state governments start to ignore federal jurisprudence?
Fail if you use the first civil war to justify your answer. Socio-economic conditions are not even close the same today.
Eb and flow. I think you'll see the pendulum swing back to giving power back to the states to make laws and return rights to the people. This pendulum will swing until it tuns into states being too powerful and starting to take away rights again in the name of special interests. Then the people will beg for the feds to step back in to return the rights to the people (which is one of the main things the federal government was originally tasked with.. not taking them away) and will grant too much power to the feds once again. The proper way is somewhere in the middle where the states create laws that the citizens want until they start infringing on individual rights and then the federal government needs to step in to make sure rights are violated. When the federal government itself is violating rights and claiming supreme power we have a problem and the pendulum has swung from government of the people, for the people by the people to tyranny in a historic way.
Again, this will do NOTHING to affect the enforcement of FEDERAL laws in the State of Missouri. Decriminalization on the state side has no bearing on federal law. What this means is there will be no state statute and associated penalty, however, the full force of Title 18, United States Code, Section 9(insert applicable statute section/paragraph here) still carries its full weight. When the badge says, "U.S." on it, the state law is irrelevant.
You sir, are correct!
montanadave
08-23-13, 22:25
I guess I don't see how this is going to play out any differently in Missouri than it did in Montana. The governor can sign it and the BATFE will jot off a quick note to every FFL holder in Missouri informing them that federal firearm law supersedes state law and failure to comply will result in revocation of their FFL and prosecution under federal law. Feel free to file suit and we'll see ya in court.
Which is right where the Montana Firearms Act sits, awaiting ajudication in the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just an update. Today the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Montana Firearms Act, upholding the decision by the lower court. This ruling now opens the door for an appeal to the Supreme Court in what would be a major challenge to the current broad (virtually unlimited) interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. Assuming the SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.
BrigandTwoFour
08-23-13, 22:48
With their track record lately, I'm betting they won't take up the case. They've been turning down a lot of 2A cases, and I don't think they want to be the ones who throw a major wrench into the "commerce clause" problem.
montanadave
08-24-13, 06:59
With their track record lately, I'm betting they won't take up the case. They've been turning down a lot of 2A cases, and I don't think they want to be the ones who throw a major wrench into the "commerce clause" problem.
I agree. However, if the dozen or so states that passed similar Firearms Freedom Acts all go the same route and all appeal, the SCOTUS may feel compelled to address the issue.
As a stronger state's rights populist movement gains steam, these cases might provide the vehicle to challenge the virtually unlimited scope of the commerce clause as it has been previously interpreted by the court. It's a long shot and a grindingly slow process, but it has to start somewhere.
MountainRaven
08-24-13, 10:19
With their track record lately, I'm betting they won't take up the case. They've been turning down a lot of 2A cases, and I don't think they want to be the ones who throw a major wrench into the "commerce clause" problem.
I bet if they do, they'll rule against us.
I heard (from someone who was there) that Scalia has said at a recent event that as far as he is concerned, states' rights are dead and have been for nearly 150 years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.