Missouri Bill Takes on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

An interesting development! I'm curious to see if this bill goes anywhere!


Missouri Bill Takes on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Feb 28, 2019|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|


JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. (Feb. 28, 2019) – A bill introduced in the Missouri House would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.

Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced House Bill 1039 (HB1039) on Feb. 21. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The bill is a companion to Senate Bill 367 (SB367) sponsored by Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield).

These bills include a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including

• 
  
  
  • taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
  • registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
  • any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
  • any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

This would include the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and more, such as Pres. Trump’s new bump-stock ban.

The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.

“Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such actions.”

The bills also include provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.

Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.

In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.

EFFECTIVE

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”

Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.

LEGAL BASIS

The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.

Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.

“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty”

WHAT’S NEXT

At the time of this report, HB1039 had not received a committee assignment. Once it is referred to a committee, it will have to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.c...6c3xpb_e4C8gAohCiCYcmlxIHvdJ6DFcxflFlIh7jlgXY

 

The Feds have no business regulating gun ownership. Good for Missouri.

 

It will never happen. The tax man always gets his money

 

Considering how many states and cities are opting out of federal prohibitions on marijuana, implementing their own sanctuary policies pertaining to illegal aliens, violating established state law to implement firearm-related restrictions that are outright illegal, and the number of elected officials and unelected bureaucrats who believe it is their moral obligation to oppose Donald Trump in any manner possible, these same individuals are devoid of a legitimate basis to object to their mentality being utilized against them. If a state wishes to follow suit and exempt itself from firearm-related restrictions, there is no recourse to be had.

 

... 6Gunner, what would you like to see happen?

 

What I would like to see happen transcends the gun issue. I want to see the government be roped in and locked down and forced to comply with the dictates of the Constitution; not be allowed to run riot.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment I want the right of the people to be respected and acknowledged, and I'm glad to see so many states and counties standing up and declaring their opposition to unconstitutional gun control.

 

Nothing like an entire state codifying 'come and take em' into its constitution.

My state will never do that. Not while we got Seattle. Idaho, however, is a likely candidate. Maybe we can 'self-annex' or something

Til then, we have ~15 likely candidates for '2A Sanctuary Countys' refusing Seattle's lunacy.

 

Democrats came at this very cleverly. First they told you, nevermind the constitution, we will suck gifts to you from your brethren neighbors and you will love the gifts. Then they embarked on a rampage of making laws. LAws not to free you, but to bind you.

Speech? Hell no not if you dare criticize others. We Democrats will call that hate speech and put you behind bars.

Guns? We Democrats will tax you till you bleed then demand you submit to Government to use your right.
And on they marched. Marched the country over the cliff into what the Democrats allege are nice forms of socialism.

Democrats can take away your liberty and expect their gifts taken by force from your own neighbors will bribe you.

 

Dont pay the tax. Watch what happens. Lol

 

I see the inmates are trying to run the asylum.

 

Other states should not have set the precedent with opting out of federal prohibitions relating to marijuana. Those who oppose such move when it pertains to firearms ultimately have no one to blame but themselves. The pendulum always swings both ways, and one side cannot object when the other side takes their idea and runs with it when a shift in power occurs.

 

So you're for the feds prohibitions on marijuana, but against the National Firearms Act of 1934? How about Roe v Wade? Are you against it and the privacy, and control, it allows a citizen when it comes to reproduction?

 

I think he's trying to point out that those who are in favor of ignoring federal laws like those on immigration and drugs when it suits their purposes shouldn't be surprised with the other side suggests doing the same.

For the record, I don't support marijuana prohibition, I support a woman's right to choose, I support marriage equality and I think that NFA 1934 is a bad law.

 

Yep I am about to be the proud owner of a 60mm machine gun, air cooled...Next a little artillery would be nice..Just to scare the deer away from the veggie garden.

 

Hey, both sides do it, if not then the world would be different, yet, it is not.

 

Then you're consistent, maybe.

For the record, I don't support sides, I support reason.

 

Wow, what color is the sky in your world?

 

Do you support "reason" over "Constitutionality", meaning that some laws should be imposed because of the good you think they could bring regardless of the Constitutionality of such laws?

 

I agree with the legal principles they espouse, but nullification like this isn't going to fly for long and isn't going to end well.

At minimum you'll have the feds pulling highway funds etc like they did to Louisiana on the drinking age, along with likely banning firearms companies doing business anywhere else in the US from doing business in Missouri.
At max you'll have a civil war over it, but I don't think it would go that far if only Missouri is in on it.

 

Am I for reason over politics? Yes.

 

If firearms defined as "assault weapons" were Constitutionally protected due to SCOTUS decisions, would you still want states to ban them?

 

Why do they want to ban them? What's the intent? Is it political, or is there another intention? Who is deciding what an assault weapon is? Is that decision political? Would the ban infringe on the individuals right to protect him/herself, or their ability to resist oppression?

 

Start with answering these questions with regards to your state.

 

Those questions are for you to answer. You asked the question. Start with any state you want.

 

Blackberry