[quote]JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- An effort to nullify federal gun control laws and jail any federal agents trying to enforce them cleared the Missouri Senate on Thursday, but a court challenge and another potential veto by Gov. Jay Nixon could ultimately block the legislation even if the House approves it again.
Although state efforts to nullify federal laws generally have been tossed out by courts, Missouri and other states have decided to try anyway. The bill's supporters say it's important to protect liberties in light of potential federal regulation, such as President Barack Obama's call last year for expanded background checks and a ban on assault weapons -- the bill's impetus.
"I am proud to say that we have passed arguably one of the strongest Second Amendment protections in the country," said sponsoring Sen. Brian Nieves, R-Washington.
The Senate voted 23-10 to send Nieves' legislation, dubbed the "Second Amendment Preservation Act," to the House. It would declare some federal gun laws to be null and void in Missouri.
Federal agents knowingly enforcing those laws could face civil penalties and prosecution under a newly created state crime punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The legislation doesn't state which specific federal laws would be nullified, but refers to fees, registration and tracking policies that "have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership" of guns and ammunition by law-abiding citizens.
A similar gun-rights bill passed the Legislature last year, but was vetoed by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat.
A veto override attempt failed in the Senate after the chamber's two top Republicans voted against the measure because of concerns over several provisions. Those provisions have been removed or changed in this year's version.
Opponents said the bill would be tossed out in court and lamented the legislation's focus on protecting gun owners rather than fighting crime.[/quote]
[url=http://www.semissourian.com/story/2053726.html]South East Missourian[/url]
Arrest federal authorities? That's ridiculous.
Imagine being a normal everyday cop and being thrust into a situation where you were obligated to arrest an FBI agent or a Federal Marshall in one of these situations. Would you even bother?
[QUOTE=G3rman;43992868]Arrest federal authorities? That's ridiculous.
Imagine being a normal everyday cop and being thrust into a situation where you were obligated to arrest an FBI agent or a Federal Marshall in one of these situations. Would you even bother?[/QUOTE]
My state has these laws. Our sheriffs and other >city law authorities have jurisdiction over federal agents and the ability to arrest them. This was passed about the middle of Obama's first term as a knee jerk reactionary bill since this state is Republican out the ass.
[QUOTE=G3rman;43992868]Arrest federal authorities? That's ridiculous.
Imagine being a normal everyday cop and being thrust into a situation where you were obligated to arrest an FBI agent or a Federal Marshall in one of these situations. Would you even bother?[/QUOTE]
The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.
I thought federal laws overruled state laws?
[QUOTE=Kyle902;43992937]I thought federal laws overruled state laws?[/QUOTE]
They usually do, but sometimes the federal government simply allows them to keep them (e.g. legalizing pot while its still illegal on the federal level)
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992917]The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]
Illegal? I'd call it disputed.
State and Federal fight over stuff like this all the time.
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992917]The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]
holy fUCK
WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO DELUSIONAL
it isn't a LEO's purpose to go "well this law is illegal and unconstitutional i shouldn't enforce it"
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992917]The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]
"illegal laws"
[QUOTE=LordCrypto;43992959]holy fUCK
WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO DELUSIONAL
it isn't a LEO's purpose to go "well this law is illegal and unconstitutional i shouldn't enforce it"[/QUOTE]
A police officer is there to preserve the peace, not take away your souped up varmint rifles.
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992987]A police officer is there to enforce the peace, not take away your souped up varmint rifles.[/QUOTE]
by enforcing the penal code as given
not by playing pick and choose
If it didn't have the "arrest federal agents" part, it'd be a not so horrible act. Banning automatics and suppressors is a waste of time, since neither are that handy for crime and both are extremely expensive; a decent 9mm suppressor can cost more than the handgun it's being attached to, before taxes. If anything, a person using an automatic would be a better thing, the vast majority of people spray n pray, so an attacker would eat up all of his ammo right away. If this gets rid of background checks and allows pretty much everyone to buy a gun though, then i say it needs to die.
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992987]A police officer is there to preserve the peace, not take away your souped up varmint rifles.[/QUOTE]
you could apply this logic to literally any possession crime
I read over the bill, and it's really not that bad, it allows for a designated school employee to be allowed and trained to concealed carry a handgun, and it makes it punishable by termination to let anyone else know about the gun. It also prevents those gun buyback programs that fuck the owners in the ass by giving them far less than the value of the gun. It also allows open carry to be legal in all cities and towns as long as the person has a CCW certification and only carries a handgun.
One major problem though, the opening part of the bill is so vague that it basically voids all federal gun laws. Also it's only 4 pages long.
[QUOTE=draugur;43992914]My state has these laws. Our sheriffs and other >city law authorities have jurisdiction over federal agents and the ability to arrest them. This was passed about the middle of Obama's first term as a knee jerk reactionary bill since this state is Republican out the ass.[/QUOTE]
Which state is that?
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;43993120]Which state is that?[/QUOTE]
Wyoming. Don't come here, it sucks. Our internet is shit, conservatives run everything and people dress terribly. Everyone thinks they're either straight swagger-g or the most cowboy texas ranger ever.
Please help.
[quote]It is a Class A misdemeanor under this act for a federal employee to enforce or attempt to enforce firearms laws declared invalid by the act. State law enforcement officers are provided the power to interpose on behalf of law-abiding citizens.[/quote]
Because fuck law enforcement for following the rules. Damned if they do, damned if they dont.
The healthcare portion of this bill doesnt make any sense at all.
[quote]this act specifies that no licensed health care professional or person under the supervision of the professional may not be required by law to ask a patient whether he or she owns or has access to a firearm, document firearm ownership or access in a patient's medical records, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on the patient's status as a firearm owner or the patient's access to a firearm.
Under this act, licensed health care professionals, their supervisees, and anyone who possesses or controls medical records are prohibited from documenting or disclosing information regarding a person's status as a firearm owner except under certain specified circumstances.[/quote]
Why the fuck would they be asking that information to begin with.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;43993562]Because fuck law enforcement for following the rules. Damned if they do, damned if they dont.
The healthcare portion of this bill doesnt make any sense at all.
Why the fuck would they be asking that information to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Maybe someone coming in with a gun related injury.
It seems kind of pointless. That last part
" person's status as a firearm owner except under certain specified circumstances."
Will just allow fo the law to demand the information from them.
This is a tricky matter, because on one hand a new AWB would be a very direct violation of the constitution and should be opposed (also the existing federal firearms laws are kinda in need of revision), but on the other hand a state attempting to place its own authority over the federal government is directly contradictory to the purpose of a federal system. Although as zombini pointed out, this bill does have some other stuff in it that's also pretty good.
Finally [I]someone[/I] is willing to stand up to the tyrants
[QUOTE=draugur;43993128]Wyoming. Don't come here, it sucks. Our internet is shit, conservatives run everything and people dress terribly. Everyone thinks they're either straight swagger-g or the most cowboy texas ranger ever.
Please help.[/QUOTE]
Flee immediately.
[QUOTE=turd dad;43992917]The purpose isn't to put federal agents in jail, it's to deter federal agents from enforcing illegal laws in the first place.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck does this even mean?
what the shit is an illegal law?
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43994519]what the fuck does this even mean?
what the shit is an illegal law?[/QUOTE]
an unconstitutional one. A gunban would infringe on 2nd amendment rights.
I just still don't get why a normal person needs to keep an assault rifle in their home. I understand hand guns for protection and hunting rifles for hunting, but assault weapons are just absurd for anything outside of military.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;43994613]an unconstitutional one. A gunban would infringe on 2nd amendment rights.[/QUOTE]
[quote]The legislation doesn't state which specific federal laws would be nullified, but refers to fees, registration and tracking policies that "have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership" of guns and ammunition by law-abiding citizens.[/quote]
Like?
Honestly this is a shit law, I can see judges snickering at it behind peoples backs.
Also what the fuck do you mean unconstitutional? This law in itself is unconstitutional.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;43994726]I just still don't get why a normal person needs to keep an assault rifle in their home. I understand hand guns for protection and hunting rifles for hunting, but assault weapons are just absurd for anything outside of military.[/QUOTE]
just read this ffs
[url]http://www.assaultweapon.info/[/url]
[editline]21st February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43994764]Like?
Honestly this is a shit law, I can see judges snickering at it behind peoples backs.[/QUOTE]
it's probably closer to something like a deterrent, so if a federal AWB is passed someday it will be null and void in Missouri. But if the State Senate is trying to nullify the BGC law, minimum age restrictions, or laws against felons owning firearms, then thats full retard.
[QUOTE=Chubbles;43994726]I just still don't get why a normal person needs to keep an assault rifle in their home. I understand hand guns for protection and hunting rifles for hunting, but assault weapons are just absurd for anything outside of military.[/QUOTE]
Okay, first of all, an assault rifle is not the same thing as an assault weapon.
An assault rifle (a selective fire rifle chambered in an intermediate caliber that feeds from a detachable magazine) is legally classified as a machine gun and is quite difficult and costly to legally obtain.
An assault weapon is a weapon that looks, and I quote the senator who authored the original assault weapons ban, "spooky".
Now that that's been established, people own "assault weapons" for the same reason they'd own any other weapons, rifles for hunting and target shooting, pistols for defensive carry and also target shooting, and some people just collect. The features that make a weapon an "assault weapon" have very little to do with a weapon's actual lethality, and primarily only alter appearance and ergonomics. And statistically speaking an overwhelming majority of gun crime in the US is not committed with "assault weapons".
[QUOTE=Chubbles;43994726]I just still don't get why a normal person needs to keep an assault rifle in their home. I understand hand guns for protection and hunting rifles for hunting, but assault weapons are just absurd for anything outside of military.[/QUOTE]
As a collector why shouldn't I be able to buy an StG-44? Or a Thompson?
Oh, whatever, this isn't going anywhere. It's just pandering to the dumb, gun-obsessed Missouri hicks that vote for these people. The kind of people that after 6 years still think Obama's federal goons are comin' to take they guns away any day now.
What the hell? Since when is Missouri a State?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
