by
Michael
Boldin
on September 11, 2013 in Michael
Boldin's Column,
Nullification
UPDATE
8:20pm CST:
The Senate Override vote, of 22-12, failed by 1. 23 votes were needed
to concur with the house and override the veto. CLICK
HERE
for next action steps.
Jefferson
City, Mo (September 11, 2013) – Today, the Missouri State House of
Representatives sent more than just a message, they passed what could
arguably be the strongest state-level protection of the right to keep
and bear arms in modern times. The vote was 109-49
By
overriding Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of House Bill 436 (HB436), the
2nd Amendment Preservation Act, the Missouri state legislature gave a
resounding “No!” to all federal gun laws, rules, regulations and
orders – past, present and future.
In
presenting the bill to the house, bill sponsor Douglas Funderburk
(R-St. Charles) noted, as both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison
did, that it’s not just a good idea to resist such federal acts,
but it’s duty. He cited the Missouri Constitution when he
said, “The principle office of government is to secure the
citizens’ rights.” He continued, “This bill is saying we
want to protect the protections and freedoms not just in the Missouri
Constitution but also in the US Constitution, and that is one of the
roles of this body.”
He
concluded, “It’s time for the State of Missouri to do our duty to
protect the right to keep and bear arms, and to push back the tyranny
of an out-of-control and incompetent and federal government.”
After
some opposition from Representative Jill Schupp in which she
attempted to scare people into believing that passing HB436 would
“protect pedophiles…and rapists,” another State Rep chimed in
to acknowledge that your right to keep and bear arms exists with or
without government, and that the legislature is doing their duty to
protect those rights. He said, “Whether you agree with who they
are, where they live or how they carry, it’s still their right.
We’re not giving people the right to carry, they already have the
right to open carry.”
NEXT
UP, STATE SENATE
Sources
close to the Tenth Amendment Center say that the override vote in the
State Senate is going to be even more difficult, where leading
republicans have taken, as one source said, “The Nancy Pelosi
version of the Constitution where federal law is supreme, and there’s
nothing we can do about it but wait for federal courts to limit
federal power.”
Majority
Leader Ron Richard, (R-Joplin) is one of the leading opponents of the
bill. He explained his flip-flop and reversal of his previous yes
vote to the Columbia Daily Tribune in this way,
“Nullification
is OK to make a statement, but if you are going to put it in law, it
sends a signal that maybe you haven’t read the Constitution,
especially our amateur constitutional scholars”
Introduced
by Funderburk in February, the bill passed the house by a vote of
116-38. It passed the Senate by a vote of 26-6. A two-thirds majority
is required in both houses to override Nixon’s veto and make HB436
law.
ALL
FEDERAL GUN CONTROL MEASURES
As
law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure
on the books – or planned for the future. It reads, in
part:
All
federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past,
present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep
and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri
Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized
by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and
shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.
The
legislation goes on to specify some, but not all, of those federal
acts which would be “rejected” by Missouri, and considered “null
and void and of no effect” there.
(2)
Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but
are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control
Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of
1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services
which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of
those items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or
tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could
have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by
law-abiding citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners
of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a
chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by
law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession,
ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm
accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and
(g) Any act
ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or
ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The
legislation also includes misdemeanor criminal penalties if agents of
the federal government attempt to enact gun control measures that
violate the Constitution of the United States and State Constitution
of Missouri.
The
immediate effect of the law would be as follows:
1.
All state and local law enforcement would be required to stop
enforcing, or even providing any assistance in enforcing, federal gun
control measures – all of them.
This is following the advice of James Madison when he wrote
about “means…powerful and at hand” to oppose federal acts.
When a number of states would take actions such as a “refusal
to cooperate with officers of the Union,” it “would present
obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to
encounter.” Recently Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed when he
said that such state resistance would “make federal enforcement of
federal gun laws nearly impossible.”
In
other words, this would have a huge impact on the ability of the
federal government to enforce it’s unconstitutional gun control
measures.
2.
Grassroots activists should immediately start pressing local
governments
– county, city and town – to pass
an ordinance which
a) states an unwavering dedication to the new law passed, and b)
requires all local law enforcement and all government assets to
immediately cease in the enforcement of federal gun control measures.
Doing so will ensure that the goal of the state law isn’t
circumvented by local law enforcement. Since there has been
serious
opposition from both the Missouri police and sheriffs associations,
local laws will provide another layer to make sure they stand down,
as required.
3.
Eric
Holder will likely send a letter to
threaten the state if it decides to enforce the penalty provisions of
the act. He threatened Kansas recently, too. And he’s
been threatening states that defy him on marijuana, but because they
ignored his threats, he
and his federal apparatus have had to back down.
4.
Other
states will gain the courage to
follow the lead started by Kansas, and now Missouri – and pass
similar laws, circling back to the strong effect this will have as
described in point #1.
5.
The federal government will likely sue,
focusing primarily on the section that includes criminal charges for
federal agents violating the state law. There isn’t a federal
judge in the country that will limit federal power and uphold this
part of the state law resisting the federal government. But
that doesn’t mean it’s not part of an effective strategy. In
the 1850′s, Northern States did the exact same thing to a positive
effect
when nullifying federal slavery laws. And, even if a federal
court strikes this part of HB436 down, and Missouri follows that
court’s opinion, the important noncompliance parts of the bill –
as outlined above – will remain in tact.
LEGAL
INFORMATION ON REFUSING TO ENFORCE
There
is absolutely ZERO serious dispute about the fact that the federal
government cannot “commandeer” the states to carry out its laws.
None. Even the Supreme Court has affirmed this multiple
times.
In
the 1992 case, New
York v. United States,
the Supreme Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to
enact specified waste disposal regulations.
In
the 1997 case, Printz
v. United States,
the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command
state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on
prospective handgun purchasers.
In
the 2012 case, National
Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
the Supreme Court ruled that a significant expansion of Medicaid was
not a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power, as it would
coerce states to either accept the expansion or risk losing existing
Medicaid funding.
In
each of these cases, the Supreme Court made is quite clear that their
opinion is that the federal government cannot require the states to
act, or even coerce them to act through a threat to lose funding.
Their opinion is correct. If the feds pass a law, they
can sure try to enforce it if they want. But the states
absolutely do NOT have to help them in any way.
ACTION
STEPS
Missouri
residents are strongly encouraged to take action right now. Today.
Contact your state Senators to press for a veto override. Get
contact info and more action steps at this
link:
http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter.com/issues-by-state/2nd-amendment-preservation-missouri/
OUTSIDE
OF MISSOURI? ACT NOW:
Work
to get the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act passed in your State, City,
County and town. All the tools you need are available
here:
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2ndamendmentpreservation
No comments:
Post a Comment