Missouri nullifies federal gun control, passing a law that bars the state from enforcing all federal gun control statutes, “past, present or future”:
The legislation specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any acts running counter to the proposed law. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”
That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.” On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.
We have another session of complete minority; we’ll be doing well to stand off more of Michael Paymar and Heather Martens’ bills.
This is one of the things that you get when the adults take over.
Does this mean it’s ready for the Governor’s signature?
Mitch:
I hate to ask, but when the Holder Justice Department took AZ to court on their invasion to immigration law they won the victory of the state can’t contradict federal policy. Doesn’t this mean Holder and the AG department can take Missouri to court and get them not to do it? Or will the second amendment stop them from making that argument.
It only takes one judge and every judge now a days doesn’t care about tossing out laws which the states passed saying marriage is just between a man and a woman.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Or was the AZ decision, that a state couldn’t enforce a federal law, it takes the federales to do that? In which case, Missouri is just taking that decision to it’s natural conclusion.
Eric Holder must be flattered.
Seems that Missouri is not only following his suggestion to ignore distasteful laws, they are even making legislation against them. Point well taken. Obviously they also have pens and know how to use them …
Surely this discriminatory piece at the end was inadvertent:
“Under the act, a person commits the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person is illegally in the United States.”
How can a person possibly be “illegal”?
And in related cartoon world news:
Bullwinkle : Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky the Flying Squirrel: Aw, that trick never works.
Bullwinkle: This time, for sure!
and fade to black as the that trick, once again, fails, with Bullwinkkle bitterly disappointed and looking like a total failure.
The adults lost control ages ago in Missour, now the Teabagger lunatics are running the asylum they call their legislature.
Why do conservatives both fail to know the Constitution, and so hate it? Because clearly they do.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.
Happy 5th birthday tea party – you are showing yourself to be as juvenile as your age, and growing more stupid, small and useless by the day.
Let me know when this works, bwaaaaa ha aha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.
More radical right wing fringe-chewing bad government, a total waste of time and money.
I notice stopping the government hasn’t repealed Obamacare – not that it ever could. But it has certainly harmed the tea party brand. As do stunts like this and propaganda like this.
It doesn’t matter if the governor signs this or blows his nose on it or wipes his rear end for that matter — although that would make this legislation more useful than it is if he did sign it. It is tacky cartoon-level cheap political theater, not nearly as good as the Rocky cartoons.
From noted Constitutional scholar Dog Gone:
“Why do conservatives both fail to know the Constitution, and so hate it? Because clearly they do.”
Oh wait. That’s just more derivative B.S. from Dog Gone that she fails to backup. So repetitive.
DG: ad-homina, strawmen and changes of subject.
I’d say “You don’t even try anymore?”, but I think our definitions of “try” are very different.
Loren, correct. Border security is a federal law and job. Just like national defense (MInnesota can’t invade Canada). Arizona said federal types are not enforcing the law, so they will take over some of those duties.
Unfortunatly, it was ruled that even though the federal gov’t was ingnoring its own laws, states can’t step in to take care of those duties.
You would think gun laws would be different as it is not the central gov’ts job to stifle the 2nd amendment.
No reference from DG that this is “crap legislation”? I think the old girl has indeed stopped trying. At least it means her comments are shorter.
Walter, fed gun law has been trumped by the 10th amendment here in S. Carolina. Our law says no firearm manufactured in S. Carolina is subject to federal law as long as it stays in S. Carolina.
This works out nicely for us because in addition to many home grown arms manufacturers, we’ve attracted a couple of refugees from the Northern gulags.
Missouri may have a court fight on their hands, but remember the second amendment is a mighty powerful tool when it comes to beating gun grabbing, America hating leftists into submission. I don’t know how much of a fight Holder will be allowed to put up, given the damage Obama has already done to the Democrat party with his historic health care failure.
“I don’t know how much of a fight Holder will be allowed to put up”
Please, President Obama. I beg of you. Turn Holder loose on Missouri. And do it early this summer.
Thanks.
” . . . hasn’t repealed Obamacare. . . .”
The President is doing that for us in super-slow-mo: one waiver, one website failure, one canceled policy restored, one Executive Order at a time.
I’d love to see the Federal Court Order: “All Missouri cops are ordered to enforce federal gun laws.”
Missouri cop: “Gun? What gun? Nothing to see here. Move along.”
As has been done for illegal aliens, could the “sanctuary” status be conveyed to the state of Missouri, making it a “sanctuary” state for lawful gun owners?
Sanctuary is just a different form of nullification.
It would be the wrong type of nullification in this case; Missouri should not be seen as an island of Second Amendment observers, as sanctuary cities are for illegal immigrants. Missouri’s statement – that the Fed has no legitimate interest in the issue – is the right one.
Dog Gone’s mindless chatter aside, Missouri does have an interesting history with the federal government. When the Civil War started it was critical for Abe to keep Missouri from seceding. He sent troops to arrest the state legislators. The legislators fled, met in secret, and voted to secede from the Union. Abe declared they didn’t have a quorum, so the secession vote was null and void.
Like a lot of what happened between 1860 and 1877 it was of doubtful constitutionality. I keep telling people Lincoln’s war cry was “save the Union!”, not “save the constitution!”.
I think Penigma hacked DG’s SItD login. There’s even more 5yo prattle in that comment than she usually excretes.
bill c, DG is just letting her “inner child” do her blogging these days except for when she lets her “lady parts” take the lead.
Remember she wasted her father’s money getting an education at St Olaf.
I can’t wait until a state gets pissed enough to declare a finding from some lefty federal judge null and void. Be proud as hell if it was S. Carolina.
So Chuck, by extension, Missouri doesn’t have to take care of the duty to enforce Federal laws, the federal gov’t can do it or ignore it as they see fit.
The AZ decision was a bad one, as it could be extended in many different directions. I.e. bank robbery is a federal crime, so the states could not assist in the investigation thereof and let the FBI handle it alone. Despite the state’s interest in preventing any crime within their state.
Mitch, re DG not trying, I don’t see your point. I think that DG is just as trying as ever.
Doggy;
“And in related cartoon world news:
Bullwinkle : Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat.
Rocky the Flying Squirrel: Aw, that trick never works.
Bullwinkle: This time, for sure!
and fade to black as the that trick, once again, fails, with Bullwinkkle bitterly disappointed and looking like a total failure.”
This explains so much about your complete ignorance. Everything that you know, you learned from cartoons!
B. Hoss, I think you’ve nailed it. No doubt her cartoon curriculum in philosophy and poli sci included heavy doses of “Mr. Peabody and Sherman”. She must have been especially impressed with the episode where Mr. Peabody said:
“You used time-travel improperly… we must rewrite history in order to save the universe! “
Actually, Dog’s more into “Fractured Fairy Tales.”
What Missouri really needs–not to mention here–is a law allowing for the arrest of gun-running BATFE personnel, no?
I hate to ask, but when the Holder Justice Department took AZ to court on their invasion to immigration law they won the victory of the state can’t contradict federal policy. Doesn’t this mean Holder and the AG department can take Missouri to court and get them not to do it?
Missouri will probably lose on this one if it goes to court, not because of the provisions which make it illegal under Missouri law for their own officials to enforce federal gun control statutes (which is consistent with the courts’ Tenth Amendment jurisprudence that the federal government cannot commandeer the machinery of the States to enforce federal laws) but because they apparently added a provision making it a crime for a federal official to do so. They went a bridge too far with that last provision, no doubt by taking the bad advice of people who think that the States can “nullify” a federal statute as opposed to merely refusing to enforce it.
Best thing to do would be to strip out the language criminalizing federal enforcement of federal laws and stick with language that the State of Missouri and its officials won’t enforce these statutes. The only real remedy the feds would have in that case is to condition federal funding on State enforcement of federal statutes which would require the cooperation of House Republicans and even then, those conditions are subject to certain limitations under the Dole test.
Courageous DG has decided to continue to “respond” to this post in the ideological echo chamber of her own blog (http://penigma.blogspot.com/2014/03/adults-should-know-better-about-gun-laws.html) because all of us here are too “close-minded”, or something like that. Or maybe the character limit for comments on SitD is too small?
If there were a character limit for comments on SITD, DG would have found it.
She’s a little more concise than she used to be, but boy, there were some Tolstoyan screeds back in the day.
When Doggone mentioned the Constitution, the second article of the Bill of Rights came to mind for some reason…..her argument is more or less that the 10th Amendment doesn’t matter because Sherman took Atlanta. Hard to argue with illogic like that….