Top

blog

Stories

 

New Gun Bill: State Lawmakers Try Again To Nullify Federal Firearms Laws

constitutiongun.JPG
Flickr/KAZ Vorpal
Is Missouri ready for a new "hardcore" gun bill?

The state legislature now has two proposed bills that would criminalize federal gun laws, setting up a potential sequel to last year's legislative blockbuster, House Bill 436, which fell just a handful of votes short of beating the governor's veto and becoming law.

Yesterday, the same lawmaker who proposed HB 436 last year, Republican Representative Doug Funderburk, submitted a new Second Amendment Preservation Act. If passed, the bill would empower the state to arrest and charge federal agents trying to enforce gun regulations.

See also: Jay Nixon Vetoes Bill To Block Federal Firearm Laws, Signs Another Expanding Gun Rights

Republican Senator Brian Nieves proposed a similar gun bill a week ago. Though some controversial provisions from last year's bill -- like the one that broadly prohibited journalists from writing about gun owners -- have been removed, the meat of these bills remains essentially the same.

patriotgun.jpg
Ray Downs
Like the defeated HB 436, Nieves' bill includes language that would nullify federal law.

"[A]ll federal acts... whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment...shall be considered null and void."

A third bill is likely headed to the floor as well; in September, Republican Senator Ron Richard posted a draft of his own Second Amendment Protection Act, vowing to correct the "flawed language" of HB 426 that led to its defeat.

Our attempts to reach Funderburk, Nieves and Richard have so far been unsuccessful.

See also: Speaker Tim Jones' Legislative Assistant Left a Loaded Handgun in Men's Restroom at Capitol

briannieves111.JPG
Progress Missouri
State Senator Brian Nieves
In the same Wednesday session, Democratic Senator Stacey Newman, a vocal proponent of gun regulation, proposed a bill that would extend background checks in the state.

"The notion that there's one amendment that can't be regulated is just completely false," Newman says. "The Second Amendment has been consistently regulated, and laws that allow more weapons on the street do nothing to protect our citizens or protect our kids."

Like last year, the passing of one of these bills could lead to an extended battle with Attorney General Eric Holder. But Newman says she's worried about the items within these bills that have a chance of surviving the eventual scrutiny of a judge.

She points to provisions in both Richard's draft and Nieves' bill that would supersede local ordinances prohibiting the open carry of firearms. Provided you have a concealed-carry permit, the bill would allow you to walk through St. Louis freely and visibly strapped -- despite the city's ban on open carry.

See also: Sen. Brian Nieves Giving Away Assault Rifle to A Supporter, Seeks "Sniper Level" Sponsors

Other states have already passed their own Second Amendment Protection Acts: In Kansas, the presence of enthusiastically gun-friendly governor resulted in a nullification law that makes it a felony for federal officers to enforce federal gun laws.

Follow Danny Wicentowski on Twitter at @D_Towski. E-mail the author at Danny.Wicentowski@RiverfrontTimes.com

My Voice Nation Help
139 comments
Sara Ivie-Trankler
Sara Ivie-Trankler

We need more consequences and background checks. It wouldn't hurt to limit magazine rounds as well as anybody with drug, alcohol or anger problems apparently has proven they just aren't intelligent or responsible enough to own firearms.

Jeff Willett
Jeff Willett

We already have open carry laws in Missouri.

Lindsay M Tenbrink
Lindsay M Tenbrink

Should be out . Should be strapped. Should have background checks .

Neil Aimaro
Neil Aimaro

Responsibly Armed? What a fucking joke. If the majority of gun owners were responsible we would not be having this conversation would we?

Neil Aimaro
Neil Aimaro

Insane? I'm not the one who advocates going back the wild west Renee.

A Robert Jacques
A Robert Jacques

Brian, sounds great! I'd love to see a resurgence in good penmanship. Clyde, thank you. There's clearly not enough hardware there for a flintlock, though I'll concede to not being well-versed in the vernacular of antique firearms.

Responsibly Armed-STL
Responsibly Armed-STL

Check out the 10th Amendment while you're at it, granting states the power to govern themselves. Also, how come no one screams "supremacy clause" regarding marijuana, which is illegal by federal law? People only bring it up when it fits their cause. Lame argument.

Jim Placzkiewicz
Jim Placzkiewicz

Yea...that will work. Somebody needs to read what the supremacy clause means.

Blake Harris
Blake Harris

No pre-emption law in Missouri so you could be open carrying someplace like St Charles and not have a problem but I believe it was banned in Ellsberry a couple years ago

Clyde Rhoads
Clyde Rhoads

That's not a flintlock, it's a percussion cap pistol. There is a big difference between the two.

Anthony Merkel
Anthony Merkel

It's legal, but illegal according too municipality. I open carry in St.Charles all the time.

Jim Phillips
Jim Phillips

Not at all. I am not scared of anything much Josh.

Josh Goodman
Josh Goodman

Jim, I have a shotgun in my truck right now in a public place. Are you scared.

Josh Goodman
Josh Goodman

We don't need more gun laws we need to enforce the laws we have on the books and stop plea agreements. How many times do I have to say this.

Jim Phillips
Jim Phillips

Renee, Rachel, I am not at all afraid of people who have the right to carry. Not at all. You people don't scare me in the least. You have missed my point entirely. When you pass legislation like this, that endanger the public, then there should be a price to pay. We will wait and see what happens.

Josh Goodman
Josh Goodman

Open Carry is legal in Missouri. Why are we even talking about this?

Renee Horeen
Renee Horeen

Oh Jim, you are almost as insane as that other guy. Maybe you should reread that bill yourself. YOU are the one that clearly has not read the bill. Hey guys, Jim thinks we are all going to harm him and his family LOL Get a grip, old man. Can you tell me how many innocent people were harmed by a CCW holder or someone that was legally open carrying? I'll wait......

Jim Phillips
Jim Phillips

You do NOT know what you are talking about. Read the bill teapartier

Rachel Davidson
Rachel Davidson

You do realize these legally carrying citizens are not going to harm you or your family. Where do you get these delusional fears from?

Jim Phillips
Jim Phillips

Damn another rightwinger voter in Missouri I guess!

Renee Horeen
Renee Horeen

Just moved back to St Louis actually. Anything else you want to be wrong about?

Renee Horeen
Renee Horeen

Are you suggesting violence? Just what I expected.

Renee Horeen
Renee Horeen

Responsibly Armed, you can tell from all his comments this guy is insane. Glad to see that you didn't waste too much time on this waste of space.

Anthony Merkel
Anthony Merkel

Every vendor I've seen at gun shows requires people to do a check.

Jim Phillips
Jim Phillips

If ANYONE in my family is hurt because of this bill, Nieves will be seeing me right away and I am not kidding around. I am sick and tired of this ALEC shit.

Anthony Merkel
Anthony Merkel

We already have background checks done by the ATF!

Brian Wittling
Brian Wittling

Freedom of Speech! But only when written on parchment with a feather quill like the one pictured!

Renee Horeen
Renee Horeen

I have read some of your comments Sara and know you are as liberal as they come. There are plenty of facts to back up Rachel's claim but we already know how much you libs hate facts. Jim....wow is all I can say. How mature of you. You are the joke. As most of you can see, the comments from the anti gun people are filled with hate and ignorance. This is common but yet gun lovers are the violent ones LOL

Rachel Davidson
Rachel Davidson

Sara, take a swim in it for me Jim, clever response. Thanks for your input.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

If a majority of gun owners were not responsible, we would be under martial law, and the entire civil system would be shut down. There are approx 30-40% of the US population owning guns. It is because so many own guns that the tiny minority of criminals are held somewhat in check. We are talking about 1-2% of the population that commits felonies, and a smaller subset using guns in those crimes. I majority remain responsible and armed.

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

Yes, the supremacy of the US Constitution and its amendments. Missouri is only saying that Congress cannot make a law that binds Missouri citizens which violates the Second Amendment. The same amendment that those federal official swore to uphold.

jaco1175
jaco1175 topcommenter

Cool story bro!! How does it feel to be a white trash piece of shit? How does your mullet look with your camo fatigues? How does it feel when you hump your sister??

jaco1175
jaco1175 topcommenter

A better question is why the fuck are these gun people such chicken shits that they feel the need to have their little security blankies with them everywhere they go?? Yeah, it is their legal rights, cool story, they are still pathetic wet dripping pussies who can't go through life without being armed. Idiots.

jaco1175
jaco1175 topcommenter

Cool story redneck!

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JamesMadison  


If a majority of COCAINE users were not responsible, we would be under martial law, and the entire civil system would be shut down.  There are approx 1.6 MILLION cocaine users in the U$A.


If a majority of HALLUCINOGENIC drug users were not responsible, we would be under martial law, and the entire civil system would be shut down.  There are approx 1.1 MILLION hallucinogen users in the U$A.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JamesMadison ... the LEGISLATURE of Missouri -- or any other state -- does NOT get to decide what is or isn't "constitutional". 


That power is vested with the Judicial branch of Government.


Try and comprehend the basic separation of powers -- checks and balances -- in that same constitution you claim to worship.



DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JamesMadison 

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Drug_Usage

There are plenty of responsible Recreational Drug Users in America. A vast majority of the recreational drug users are responsible. A minority are not, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. But just because someone misuses drugs, tax-paying Americans should not have their rights to recreational drugs infringed. 

JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay, are you trying to equate legal gun owners with illegal drug users? silly from the start. Not to mention your numbers make no sense. 1.6M cocaine, but only 1.1M hallucinogenic users? Pretending those are mutually exclusive, 2.7M druggies? Less than 1% of the population. Society can get along with 1% being a problem. Prisons hold more than that today. civil systems operate quite nicely, thank-you. 

There are plenty of responsible gun owners in America. A vast majority of the gun owners are responsible. A minority are not, and they should be punished to the full extent of the law. But just because someone misuses a gun, law-abiding Americans should not have their gun rights infringed. 

We lose our freedoms when we accept that idea. 

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@JamesMadison "yes, we all get to decide. The Supremes get final word, but the power to invalid unconstitutional laws happens on a local level as well as through all the lower courts. And it does start with the cop on the beat. "


So you're an Anarchist who asserts that every individual can -- and should -- pick and choose which laws to follow, and which ones to ignore and violate, based upon their own personal opinion of what is or isn't "constitutional".


You're starting to sound like Timothy McVeigh and David Koresh.



JamesMadison
JamesMadison topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay, yes, we all get to decide. The Supremes get final word, but the power to invalid unconstitutional laws happens on a local level as well as through all the lower courts. And it does start with the cop on the beat. 

He decides if the noise you are making is constitutional protected or if it is disturbing the peace. Hence, he is making a constitutional judgement.


We do not have to wait for the Supreme Court to rule a law unconstitutional. the policeman on the beat, the jurors in court, the local judges, and even State judges make constitutional determinations each and every day.


You may cede your sovereignty to the 5-4 decision of the supremes, I do not.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...