As you probably know, some of the truly wretched bills vetoed by Governor Nixon from the last legislative session have been resuscitated for consideration during the new session. One of the most mindbendingly stupid is the nullification/gun rights bill that State Senator Brian “Mad Dog” Nieves (R-26) has resubmitted with some (very) minor revisions. (There is also a House version introduced by Rep. Doug Funderbunk (R-103), HB1439; the same critique (i.e., mindbendingly stupid) applies here as well.)

Nieves’ bill, The Second Amendment Preservation Act, SB613, would, in short, not only try to make agents enforcing federal laws subject to arrest, but it would arm “designated personnel” in schools and allow open carry for all holders of a concealed weapon permit, even in jurisdictions that explicitly ban the practice. So the deluded fools dont just want to – unconstitutionally – gut federal law, but they’re determined not to respect local government either. Poor, naive me – here all along, I thought these tenther types were supposed to be doing it all in the name of bringing government back home. Go figure …

Of course, as this sort of idiocy always does, the new gun rights bill has attracted derisive national attention. Today it’s Steve Benen who is pointing the finger of shame. Here’s a sample of the type of prose we can expect to see lots more of in the coming weeks:

Even in an era of Republican radicalism, this is just nuts.

This new proposal isn’t identical to the one Nixon vetoed in July, but it’s no less offensive. It would declare federal laws that “tax firearms and create a chilling effect on gun ownership, require registering or tracking of firearms or forbid the use of guns by law-abiding citizens” to be null and void in the state of Missouri.

It would be up to Missouri to decide whether federal gun laws are acceptable. If federal officials enter Missouri to enforce federal laws that Missouri doesn’t like, they would have to be accompanied by a county sheriff when executing a warrant – or face criminal charges themselves.

To be clear, this is not in a legal gray area. This isn’t a judgment call. It’s not a question that could go either way if tested in the courts. Rather, the question of whether states can reject federal laws they don’t like was decided in the middle of the 19th century – and it was a dispute the nullification crowd lost.

That such a bill even passed the Missouri legislature at all is something of a disgrace. That the same idea is being considered again adds insult to injury.

Couldn’t have said it better – although it’s too bad anyone has to say it all, not to mention saying it every six months.

Yesterday, via Twitter and Facebook, from Senator Brian Nieves (r):

briannieves ‏@briannieves

Why does Tony Messenger live in Wildwood instead of the Near North Side? Why is he enjoying a $10 Breakfast and not working a Soup Kitchen? 9:34 AM – 18 Jan 2014

Brian Nieves

OK – Serious question… Is it monumentally hypocritical for someone like Tony Messenger, who always writes about the plight of the poor, the plundering of the rich, and the glory of STL City, to live in a fairly affluent area – far disconnected from the Urban Core – and be at a mild to moderately high priced breakfast place on a Saturday morning instead of serving the poor at a Soup kitchen?

Now look – I’m a million miles away from perfect and I’m sure there is much to be said about stupid things I’ve done but how about asking the Extremist Leftist Liberals in the press to at least pretend to LIVE what they Preach! Your thoughts?

Yesterday at 7:56am

One of the responses:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

For the record, my daughter enjoyed her “mild to moderately high priced” chocolate chip dinosaur pancakes this morning. Cc: @briannieves 1:28 PM – 18 Jan 2014

Snark:

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

@tonymess What’s for breakfast? 6:42 AM – 19 Jan 2014

Update:

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Someone stole my paper this morning. Neighborhood has really gone down since they let the fully indoctrinated Marxist liberals in. #subtweet 8:22 AM – 19 Jan 2014

I admit it. I like making my own end-of-the-year lists, and I like to see how my opinions line up with other list-makers. It’s silly maybe, but it can help to refine one’s perspective. So here’s my first end-of-the-year list which names the political actors and/or acts that struck me as the most absurd and/or inexcusable during 2013, hence the titular worst of the worst. (In order to balance the negativity, though, I’ll be following it with a list of the best of the best.) It goes without saying that my selections are entirely subjective and reflect my opinion only – nobody else is implicated by my judgement, although I invite anyone so inclined to take issue with my selections or offer their contrary assessments in the comments. And with that, away we go:

1. Rex Sinquefield: Sinquefield is a retired billionaire financier whose hobby is buying up Missouri state government in order to provide a staging ground for his libertarian theology. He plays a long game, lavishing tons of dollars on politicians of every stripe as long as they show even some teeny-tiny signs of sympathy for a small sliver of his goals.  What does he want long-term? Just a Missouri with all the attractions of the brutish Randian paradise for wealthy Übermenschen that excites today’s conservatives.

But hey, perverting the political process for the benefit of the rich and powerful is nothing new and, on its own, wouldn’t merit more than an honorable mention among the worst of Missouri’s recent worst. Mr. Sinquefield has been taking full advantage of the Supreme Court’s destructive endorsement of the idea that money equals speech for a long time. This year, however, plantation master Sinquefield found it necessary to crack the whip; he quickly helped launch a lawsuit to stop a campaign finance reform bill that would have reduced the decibels of his green-backed free speech to a level more in line with that enjoyed by less wealthy citizens of the state. And what does he do with this free-speech? He lies – as in his recent Forbes Magazine op-ed, an overtly counterfactual apotheosis of Kansas Governor Brownback’s tax free policies.

2. The Missouri anti-Obamacare obstructionists: And by obstructionists I mean the Republicans who control the state legislature. Thanks to these jerks, 193,000 Missourians will be out in the healthcare cold. These are the people who don’t make enough money to qualify for subsidies on the Obamacare exchanges since those in their income range were were meant to to get coverage through an extension of Medicaid eligibility, an extension that the state’s GOP, taking advantage of another gift from our conservative Supreme Court, have refused to enact. The same folks have refused to set up Obamacare exchanges, tried to hinder use of the federal exchange and pushed one dishonest story after another about the imagined perils of the law. Talk all you want about the initial failures of the Obamacrare Website or Obama’s rather tame “lie of the year,” the folks who’ve done the real damage are quite simply the politicos who are busy patting themselves on the back because they have saved Missouri’s poor from the moral hazard represented by actual health care.

3. Members of the Missouri GOP congressional delegation: These folks, many of them multi-millionaires, came home to enjoy their cushy Christmas celebrations after refusing to extend benefits for unemployed American workers. As a result, last Saturday 21,329 jobless Missourians lost the meager stipend (averaging $242) that often meant keeping food on the table. If nothing is done, 35,400 more workers will lose this cushion in the first months of 2014. The people’s Republican representatives felt free to cut benefits off even though currently there are, according to some sources, three applicants for most jobs and over 4 million long-term unemployed nationally. Missouri’s current unemployment rate is 6.1%.

4. Rep. Ann Wagner (R-2): Wagner makes it onto this list due to her emergence as one of the aspiring leaders of the GOP House membership, in which role she stood behind the recent government shutdown, welcoming the “fight” on behalf of “the American people,” while simultaneously trying to lay the blame on the Democrats who, for some inexplicable reason, wouldn’t roll over and play dead after winning a major election. This shutdown cost taxpayers $24 billion at a conservative estimate. Thanks alot, Ann. If Wagner represents the new face of the GOP, the concept needs some work.

5. Governor Jay Nixon: Nixon arguably doesn’t belong on a list filled with boneheads and charlatans – but he landed here because I expect more of him when it comes to looking out for the long-term welfare of the state as opposed to selling us out for a short-term, politically attractive “get.” I’m talking about the Boeing giveaway here. There’s plenty of evidence that massive incentives such as those offered to Boeing are bad economic policy, particularly in a state that like Missouri is already starved for revenue. It leaves a particularly bad taste when one takes into account the sort of underhanded back-room deals that seem to have been required to bring it into being. But no matter how you cut it, $3.5 billion in tax breaks is a bit much to pay in order to buy bragging rights for a handful of jobs – especially when we’re talking about jobs that were probably never going to come  here in the first place. When politicians you have no choice but to trust are influenced by corrupt, corporatist thinking about the allocation of cost and benefit, it makes it just that much harder to believe that change will ever be possible. You want to know why Democrats don’t turn out in off-year elections, why there’s an enthusiasm gap? Look no further.

6. The Greater St. Louis Labor Council: This one hurts. It hurts because it’s more evidence of the demise of labor. It’s clear that Boeing’s effort to spike a bidding war for its 777X manufacturing facility, as the Kansas City Star’s Mary Sanchez noted, is “just leverage for Boeing Co. to go after the jugular of a labor union.”  Now, I’ve always believed that what made unions work was a little thing called solidarity – and that its exercise is not defined in regional terms. Yet not only were local unions willing to undercut their brothers and sisters in Washington, but they quickly squelched Gordon King, a representative of the  local Machinists District 837, when he attempted to stand up and do what union members are supposed to do for each other. When it becomes “my workers first” and not “all workers together,” unions have truly lost the war, and the unbecoming eagerness of the local labor council to kiss up to Boeing is just one more step along the way. I understand the desperation that has brought our local labor leaders to this point, but it still hurts.

7. Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4): No list of worsts would be complete with the stench of hypocrisy – of which Hartzler is redolent. And make no mistake, it takes chutzpah to vote to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), part of the safety net for the poor, wile keeping sacrosanct massive agricultural subsidies for rich farmers that Hartzler and her family continue to receive. Hartzler, author of a book titled Running God’s Way that is described as “a must-read for everyone interested in serving God through political involvement,” has shown herself again and again to be unwilling to put into practice Christ’s admonition in Matthew 25:34-36 to minister to those in need, and has, instead, allied herself with the wealthy about whom Christ declared “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 11:25).

8. Brian Nieves: In a state legislature filled with chuckleheads and bozos, if one had to single out one supreme example of the resentment-fueled, raging white doofus, it would have to be state Senator Brian “Mad Dog” Nieves. Sharia law, Agenda 21, drones spying on farmers, gold-buggery, tentherism, you name it, if it’s crazy Nieves is for it. Add to the mix his eagerness to physically and verbally attack opponents, constituents, you name it, and you’ve got a disaster ready to happen. He’s on this year’s list, though, because he’s one of the brains (and I use the term loosely) who responded to the Sandy Hook massacre by pushing a gun bill so irresponsible that even members of his own party ultimately refused to over-ride its veto by the Governor. In his own words:

… If we, as a nation, would collectively take a few short minutes, maybe even an hour, to actually research what our Founding Fathers said, in their own words, about gun ownership and gun control, we would see that what we arbitrarily refer to as “Assault Rifles” would fit squarely with what they wanted us to have! …

Now that constitutional scholar Nieves has devoted an hour or so to researching the issue, I should probably run out and buy my assault weapon today! Then I can wave it around and act tough just like “Mad Dog.” Just in case you’re worried, there’ll be lots more fun and games ahead. And like last year, very little attention to important business.

Slightly edited for clarity.

A bill, prefiled in the Senate on December 9th by Senator Brian Nieves (r), containing the standard right wingnut list of grievances:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY SENATOR NIEVES.

Pre-filed December 9, 2013, and ordered printed.

TERRY L. SPIELER, Secretary.

4386S.01I

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, relating to state sovereignty.

Be it resolved by the Senate, the House of Representatives concurring therein:

That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2014, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:

Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:

Section 35. 1. That the state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.

2. The state of Missouri shall:

(1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;

(2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:

(a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;

(b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;

(c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;

(d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees or Missouri citizens who do not purchase health insurance;

(e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;

(f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;

(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state;

(h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;

(3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government.

3. Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America.

4. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;

(2) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers;

(3) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America.

5. The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subdivision (3) of subsection 2 of this section shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.

Section B. Pursuant to chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the general assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in section A of this resolution shall be as follows:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit the state of Missouri from recognizing, enforcing, or furthering any federal law, executive order, judicial or administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the United States

Constitution?”

[emphasis in original]

This is not a new thing for Senator Nieves (r):

HJR 88: a veritable thesaurus of tenther drivel (April 8, 2013)

…Let’s see. Guns! Check. Abortion and stem cells! Check. Cap and trade! Check. Health care reform! Check. Gay marriage or civil unions! Check. Hate crimes? Check. Religion! Check. Home schooling and parochial schools! Check…

SJR 45: Sen. Brian Nieves (r) – same tune, different concert hall (January 11, 2012)

Just call it a feeling, but this is going to be the most productive legislative session ever. Not.

At about this time last year, 20 six and seven year old children along with 6 adult school staff members were murdered in the town of Sandy Hook elementary school by the mentally disturbed son of a Connecticut gun lover – whose last gift to her overtly troubled son was a check intended for the purchase of a CZ 83 pistol. As you might expect, the media has observed this sad anniversary with numerous stories evaluating the impact of that event from every possible perspective.

We’ve learned in last several days that since Sandy Hook at least 194 more children under twelve have died as a result of gun violence. We’ve learned that gun control advocates are still out there, if somewhat disheartened by the grip that the gun lobby has on the political process. And we’ve certainly learned that there are no limits to the outrageous lengths that the gun lobby will go to to limit reform, including claiming that it’s not guns that kill people, but gun laws.

Our state legislators in Missouri have mostly, with a few notable, predominantly Democratic exceptions, embraced the latter attitude. As Michael Bersin has documented here, here and here, the usual suspects are busy filing bills for the upcoming legislative session that are designed to turn Missouri into a facsimile of a glorified wild west where rugged men hold sway by virtue of their guns. There is, it’s true, HB1172, which attempts to mitigate the effect of a “stand your ground” law – but which hasn’t a prayer of a chance of passing in a legislature where guns are symbols of resistance against a world changing in ways that seems to upset a majority of white, male Missourians.

So what’s going on? How can hunters and sane gun owners object to laws that keep guns out of the hands of the Adam Lanzas of the world? How can sane folks in general want to send their kids to schools where teachers, janitors, and what-have-you, are toting guns in order to “protect” the students? What normal person wants to be confronted by gun-slinging hotheads at Starbucks when we go for Saturday coffee? And what kind of idiots think we have to resort to silly and unconstitutional “tenther” strategies for no reason other than to insure just these types of outcomes?

Last night on PBS I saw a Bill Moyers’ interview (available here in video or transcript) with cultural historian Richard Slotkin that suggests some answers to similar questions about the irrational hold gun mythology has on the psyche of some Americans. Slotkin, who has specialized in exploring the roots of violence in America, makes many excellent points, but I was especially taken with his taxonomy of gun supporters:

Well, I think the extreme gun rights position, so called, some once called it “gun-damentalism” connects on a kind of spectrum to more normative attitudes. You have, as I said, reasonable gun owners. Then you have the American consumer. The American consumer looks at the gun as it’s a piece of property. The American consumer wants to use his property without restraint, wants to throw his plastic water bottle wherever he pleases, wants to drive a gas-guzzler, wants to play his boom box loud.

Which is a crude way to put it, and yet I think there’s a lot to that. Nobody wants to be bothered registering their weapons. Take it a level down from that or level further out from that, there’s an ideological level which really kicks in around the time of the Reagan presidency in which gun rights is a very powerful symbol for the deregulation of everything. If you can deregulate that, you can deregulate anything.

And then the last level is what I’d call the paranoid level, the people who think that they have a Second Amendment right to resist Obamacare– that the constitution protects their right to resist the government, that that’s what the Second Amendment is about.

And that’s dangerous stupidity and nonsense. But it uses the language of liberty and rights that we’re used to thinking of in other contexts. And if you think of all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, haven’t they been extended and expanded over the years? Why not Second Amendment rights as well?

And that’s the level at which it gets pernicious. But their appeal, their ability to control the debate, I think, comes because their position coincides with the interest of the Reaganite ideologue who doesn’t want to regulate anything and the consumer who simply doesn’t want to be bothered.

Sounds about right to me. Picture my favorite paranoid bullyboy, GOP State Senator Brian Neives, for instance, or the currently infamous State Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-2), both of whom have prominently employed massively overblown, faux-heroic freedom and guns rhetoric, when you consider this further comment by Slotkin on the topic of just what kind of person it is who makes up the more deluded and paranoid rump of the anti-gun control agitators:

…  I’ve always felt that it has something to do, in many cases, with a sense of lost privilege, that men and white men in the society feel their position to be imperiled and their status called into question. And one way to deal with an attack on your status in our society is to strike out violently.

The world is changing fast. Thirteen states have legalized gay marriage. We have a black president; we may very well have a woman president soon. After years of right wing and corporate resistance, we have actually done something to bring our country more in line with other industrialized nations as far as healthcare goes. Social precepts that were valid seemingly just yesterday are now in doubt. Do you wonder why those who depend on a vanishing status quo to preserve their sense of order and privilege are responding in what seems to the rest of us to be a disproportionate, even deranged manner? What we can know for sure is that we’d all better be very concerned about how these frightened and rage-filled individuals are fetishising guns in the process of acting out against their fears of social displacement.

Previously:

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

….That would be to keep the United Nations black helicopters from seizing vehicles with Gadsden Flag license plates (Agenda 21), to curtail the epidemic of court cases influenced by Kenyan born office holders (Sharia Law), and to spend millions of dollars re-litigating the constitutionality of the North’s victory over the South in the Civil War (nullification! guns!)….

Here we go again. Prefiled bills for the 2014 session – and it’s the same right wingnut:

SB 613 Relating to firearms

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 4538S.02I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/6/2013 – Prefiled

[….]

Current Bill Summary

SB 613 – This act makes changes to firearms law.

SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT – Section 1.320

This act lists various declarations of the Missouri General Assembly regarding the United States Constitution and the scope of the federal government’s authority. In addition, the act declares that federal supremacy does not apply to federal laws that restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition within the state because such laws exceed the scope of the federal government’s authority. Laws necessary for the regulation of the land and the United States Armed Forces are excluded from the types of federal firearms laws that exceed federal authority. This act also declares that the General Assembly strongly promotes responsible gun ownership and condemns unlawful transfers of firearms and the use of a firearm in criminal or unlawful activity.

This act declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution. Some laws declared invalid under this act include certain taxes, certain registration and tracking laws, certain prohibitions on the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a specific type of firearm, and confiscation orders.

The act declares that it is the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms.

Under this act, no public officer or state employee has the authority to enforce firearms laws declared invalid by the act.

Any person who acts under the color of law to deprive a Missouri citizen of rights or privileges ensured by the federal and state constitutions shall be liable for redress. In such an action attorney’s fees and costs may be awarded, and official or qualified immunity shall not be available to the defendant as a defense.

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.

The provisions of the section shall become effective either by August 28, 2017, or upon the Revisor of Statutes receiving notification that at least four other states have enacted substantially similar language or upon passage of any federal acts or issuance of federal orders which infringe upon or curtail the right to keep and bear arms, whichever event occurs earlier.

OPEN CARRY ORDINANCES – Section 21.750

This act provides that the open carrying of a firearm may not be prohibited by a political subdivision for any person with a valid concealed carry endorsement in his or her possession who presents such endorsement upon the demand of a law enforcement officer. In addition, no person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun may be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest or if there is no reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Any person who violates these provisions may be issued a citation for up to $35. No ordinance of a political subdivision may be construed to preclude the use of a firearm to defend property or persons.

SCHOOL PROTECTION OFFICERS – Sections 160.665, 571.107, 590.010 to 590.207

This act allows a school district to designate one or more school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer. School protection officers are authorized to carry a concealed firearm. The officer must keep the firearm under his or her personal control at all times while on school property. Violation of this provision is a Class B misdemeanor and may result in the immediate removal of the officer from the classroom and the commencement of employment termination proceedings.

School protection officers have the same power to detain and arrest as any other person would have under current law regarding defense of persons and property. Upon detention, the protection officer must immediately notify school administrators and school resource officers. If the person detained is a student, then the parents of the student must also be immediately notified.

Those seeking to be designated as school protection officers must make a request in writing to the superintendent of the school district along with proof of ownership of a valid concealed carry endorsement and a certificate of completion of a school protection officer training program.

The school district must notify the director of the Department of Public Safety of the designation of any school protection officer. The department must make a list of all school protection officers available to all law enforcement agencies.

This act requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission to establish standards and curriculum for training of school protection officers. The director of the Department of Public Safety must develop, and make available to all school districts, a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs.

In order to attend a school protection officer training program, a person must submit to a criminal history background check and prove he or she has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

WARRANTS – 544.085, 544.086, & SECTION C

This act provides that before serving a warrant issued by a United States Court, the federal agent must be accompanied by the sheriff, or his or her designee, of the county where the warrant is to be served. In addition, state law enforcement officers must also be accompanied by a sheriff or designee when serving a warrant.

Federal and state law enforcement officers may file a petition with the associate circuit judge in the county where the warrant is to be served for a waiver of the accompaniment requirement if the officer believes the sheriff has a conflict of interest. The sheriff must protect the rights of anyone directly affected by the warrant and make a report on the incident. It is a Class A misdemeanor to fail serve a warrant without the accompaniment of a sheriff.

The provisions of the section regarding federal warrants shall become effective either by August 28, 2017 or upon the Revisor of Statutes receiving notification that at least four other states have enacted substantially similar language, whichever event occurs earlier.

HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND FIREARMS – Section 571.012

This act specifies that no licensed health care professional may be required by law to ask a patient whether he or she owns a firearm, document firearm ownership 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.

Under this act, licensed health care professionals are prohibited from documenting or disclosing information regarding a person’s status as a firearm owner except under certain specified circumstances.

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS – Sections 571.030, 571.101, & 571.117

Under current law, a person, who is not a member of the United States Armed Forces or honorably discharged from the armed forces, must be at least 21 years of age in order to qualify for a concealed carry endorsement. This act lowers the age to at least 19 years of age.

Any permit fees required for a concealed carry endorsement are waived for applicants who are disabled veterans.

UNLAWFUL POSSESSION – 571.070

Under the act, a person commits the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person is illegally in the United States.

This act is similar to HB 436 (2013)and SB 352 (2013).

[….]

Yep, nullification and guns!

But wait, there’s more:

SB 618 Relating to prohibitions on certain policies that infringe on private property rights

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 4394S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/9/2013 – Prefiled

[….]

No bill summary yet, but we’re waiting for the full text with bated breath stifled yawns.

And:

SB 619 Relating to the laws of other countries

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 4387S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/9/2013 – Prefiled

[…]

Sharia paranoia we presume.

And:

SB 622 Relating to state enforcement of certain federal laws

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 4384S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/9/2013 – Prefiled

[….]

Yep, again.

And:

SJR 38 Relating to state sovereignty

Sponsor: Nieves

LR Number: 4386S.01 Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/9/2013 – Prefiled

[….]

The tenthers shall rise again.

Over the course of the previous legislative session we had quite the internal debate here at Show Me Progress about Senator Brian Nieves’ (r) legislative agenda – we could never come to a consensus to choose, one way or the other, between calling it batshit crazy paranoia or cynical manipulation of wedge issues for political gain. Now, we’ve come up with a third possible explanation – it’s avant garde performance art. Given the theatricality of the principal that probably makes as much sense as anything else.

As per Wikipedia:

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defence mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.

Now for the fun. GOP state Senator Brian Nieves, while commenting about a “drewel” worthy gun,  casually let drop the opinion that  “liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.”

This from the man who thinks that the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to use a gun to restrain and threaten his political foes.

Of course, it’s also coming from the representative of a party that dabbles in opinions to the effect to that African-Americans are the worst racists in America, not to mention that Christians are more persecuted than gays.

The moral: always consider the source.

Randy Turner of The Turner Report says Brian Nieves’ claim that Governor Jay Nixon is a liar shows that Nieves plays fast-and-loose with the English language, coining “a new definition for liar – “Someone who vetoes one of sen. Nieves’ ridiculous bills.”  Turner is referring to Nieves outrage that Governor Nixon vetoed his baby, SB 267, a bill that tries to be clever by banning Muslim sharia law, a total non-threat, under the rubric of banning the influence of “foreign law.”

Nieves said that, based on the reasons Nixon cites for his veto in a statement addressed to the Secretary of State,  the Governor was lying about the bill’s potential for negative blowback and/or (it’s not clear which Nieves means to imply) that Nixon could not have actually read the bill.

Indeed, if you look at the text of the bill, you will find that Nieves and whoever else helped draft the bill tried to the best of their small abilities to answer objections to similar bills in the past. There’s an obligatory nod of the head to religious freedom, and the bill states, that it cannot preempt federal treaties or agreements with foreign powers that take precedence over state law. It also exempts corporations and similar legal entities from the act when they enter into agreements subject to foreign jurisdiction. One can imagine that Nieves’ outraged howls stem precisely from his conviction that he had taken every pain to insure that he could counter all the possible objections to his silly little exercise in pandering and bigotry.

However, the real bone of contention identified by Governor Nixon and, presumably, his legal advisors, seems to lie in the  terms that exempt Missourians from the legal influence of any foreign legal system or code that is deemed “inconsistent” with the Missouri or United States’ constitutions, or, otherwise, “repugnant.” We know that the former concept is often nebulous must frequently be determined by courts, which can be a time-consuming and expensive exercise; it is not clear who is the judge of what constitutes “repugnant” in this instance. And it is precisely the chilling effect of the uncertainty engendered by such language that forms the focus of Nixon’s arguments:

… . Because all foreign legal systems can be deemed inconsistent with our state and federal constitutions, Senate Substitute Bill No. 267 would needlessly cast doubt upon important legal instruments including wills, trusts, marriage and divorce decrees and contracts that involve foreign law … “

As you can see, it is not simply foreign adoptions, the point stressed in media accounts of Nixon’s veto, that could be endangered, but almost all international legal issues. Nixon’s rationale gives greater emphasis to adoption because the process is excessively fraught, what Nixon calls “an already challenging process.”

Further proof of Nixon’s careful and serious reading of the bill lies in his identification of a potential conflict with the Article 1, Section 13 of the Missouri constitution, which says “no … law impairing the obligation of contracts … can be enacted.” Further, SB 267 can also be interpreted as in conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution that “requires that states respect the ‘public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state'” – including contracts based wholly or in part on just those foreign legal systems that are called into question by Nieves’ little exercise in lawmaking.

I would take issue with Randy Turner’s characterization of Nieves’ boneheaded response only to the extent that it fails to note that Nieves is probably totally sincere, and truly believes that Governor Nixon could not possibly have read his masterpiece, or that, indeed, he is lying about its legal implications. After all, Nieves is not to blame because the nuanced reasoning contained in Nixon’s veto is far too complex for somebody who thinks that SB 267 could ultimately pass legal muster without harming the complex network of international legal relations. No, the folks to blame for this veto, along with all the expense and wasted time occasioned by SB 267, are the voters who sent this nimrod to Jefferson City in the first place.

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

The past week Missouri General Assembly did its utmost to hold back the tide of Sharia and international law cases contaminating our state courts. Yes, that’s sarcasm.

All nuts, all the time.

This has been a right wingnut obsession for quite some time.

Previously:

HJR 31: things that keep us awake at night worrying, part 2 (February 25, 2011)

Anti-Sharia bigotry in Missouri hides behind a constitutional pretense (March 28, 2012)

HB 1512: definitely not a jobs bill (March 27, 2012)

One question:

What does God need with a starship?

“…political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize…” (May 8, 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

HB 436: nullification – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 10, 2013)

SB 265: tinfoil hats – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 11, 2013)

SB 267, as truly agreed and finally passed on May 8th:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE BILL NO. 267 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

2013

1409S.02T

AN ACT

To amend chapter 506, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the laws of other countries.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 506, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 506.600, to read as follows:

506.600. 1. This section shall be known as the “Civil Liberties Defense Act”. The Missouri general assembly finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right protected by the constitutions of the state of Missouri and the United States, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy.

2. The Missouri general assembly fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that his right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges protected under the Missouri and United States constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy.

3. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Court”, any court, board, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or enforcement authority of this state;

(2) “Foreign law, legal code, or system”, any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals;

(3) “Religious organization”, any church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation, association, or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals, of any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as a church or religious organization under section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

4. Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions.

5. A contract or contractual provisions, if capable of segregation, which provides for the choice of a law, legal code, or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the foreign law, legal code, or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions.

6. (1) A contract or contractual provisions, if capable of segregation, which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any foreign law, legal code, or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions;

(2) If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency, or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate rights protected under the Missouri and United States constitutions of the nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.

7. Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.

8. No court or arbitrator shall interpret this act to limit the right of any person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States constitution and by the constitution of this state. No court shall interpret this act to require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters, including, but not limited to, the election, appointment, calling, dismissal, removal, or excommunication of a member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam, or member of the clergy, of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the religious organization, where adjudication by a court would violate the constitution of this state or the prohibition of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

9. This section shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.

[emphasis in original]

….4. Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions….

Ah, that would be the blanket immunity from answering for crimes against humanity clause. I wonder who that was for? Just asking.

Think about that “any foreign law, legal code, or system” phrase for a minute. Apparently America popped into existence fully formed. One minute it wasn’t there, then, “poof”, it was. Go figure.

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

…In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court…

Great Britain isn’t in the United States and we don’t have a king, right? Apparently we do have a Kenyan born usurper who’s gonna put us all in U.N. mandated FEMA gay marriage camps. But, I digress.

Damn, with one bill the Missouri General Assembly swept away over two hundred years of American legal precedent. They can do that?

In the Journal of the Missouri House for May, 8, 2013:

[….]

2267 Journal of the House [pdf]

[….]

SS SB 267, relating to the laws of other countries, was taken up by Representative Curtman.

Representative Diehl assumed the Chair.

On motion of Representative Curtman, SS SB 267 was truly agreed to and finally passed by

the following vote:

AYES: 109

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Berry Black Brattin Brown

Burlison Cierpiot Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo

Cox Crawford Cross Curtm an Davis

Diehl Dohrman Dugger Elmer Engler

Entlicher Fitzpatrick Fitzwater Flanigan Fowler

Fraker Frame Franklin Frederick Gannon

Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haahr

Hampton Hansen Harris Hicks Higdon

Hinson Hoskins Hough Houghton Hurst

Johnson Jones 50 Justus Keeney Kelley 127

Koenig Kolkmeyer Korman Lair Lant

Lauer Leara Love Lynch Marshall

McGaugh Messenger Miller Molendorp Moon

Morris Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson

Pfautsch Phillips Pike Pogue Redmon

Rehder Reiboldt Remole Rhoads Richardson

Riddle Roorda Ross Rowden Rowland

Schatz Schieber Schieffer Shull Shumake

Smith 120 Solon Sommer Spencer Stream

Swan Thomson Torpey Walker White

Wieland Wilson Wood Mr Speaker

NOES: 041

Anders Burns Butler Carpenter Colona

Conway 10 Curtis Dunn Ellinger Ellington

English Hodges Hubbard Hummel Kirkton

LaFaver May McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna

McManus McNeil Meredith Mitten Montecillo

Morgan Newman Nichols Norr Otto

Pace Peters Pierson Rizzo Runions

Schupp Smith 85 Swearingen Walton Gray Webb

Wright

PRESENT: 002

Englund Mayfield

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 011

Funderburk Gardner Haefner Kelly 45 Kratky

Lichtenegger McCaherty Mims Scharnhorst Webber

Zerr

Representative Diehl declared the bill passed.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, Representative Dean Dohrman (r) and Representative Denny Hoskins (r) were three for three when it came to right wingnut dogma this past week. Nope, no moderates around there.

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

Yes, this about Agenda 21 paranoid posturing.

If the hat fits, wear it:

The ultimate in head wear, with accessory, for the right wingnut controlled Missouri General Assembly.

From the Southern Poverty Law Center (March 14, 2012):

….In the world of far-right extremists, Agenda 21 is demonized as a sort of Trojan horse, part of a larger scheme to shatter Americans’ liberties and institute a totalitarian, one-world government known typically as the “New World Order…”

…to the John Birch Society (JBS), one of the main groups promoting the conspiracy theory about Agenda 21, it represents the end of America as we know it. This is the same group, of course, that claimed President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a secret communist….

Previously:

HB 42: first, they came for the black helicopters and I did not speak up (December 5, 2012)

SB 265: if you didn’t want the black helicopters to track you down… (February 6, 2013)

“…political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize…” (May 8, 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

HB 436: nullification – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 10, 2013)

On May 8th the Missouri House passed SB 265, an anti Agenda 21 bill, by a veto proof majority. The bill, as truly agreed to and finally passed:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE BILL NO. 265 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

2013

1330S.01T

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to prohibition

on certain policies that infringe on private property rights.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.370, to read as follows:

1.370. 1. As used in this section, “political subdivision” means any state, county, incorporated city, unincorporated city, public local entity, public-private partnership, and any other public entity of the state, a county, or city.

2. Neither the state of Missouri nor any political subdivision shall adopt or implement policy recommendations that deliberately or inadvertently infringe or restrict private property rights without due process, as may be required by policy recommendations originating in, or traceable to Agenda 21, adopted by the United Nations in 1992 at its Conference on Environment and Development or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the Constitution of the United States or the Missouri Constitution.

3. Since the United Nations has accredited and enlisted numerous nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations to assist in the implementation of its policies relative to Agenda 21 around the world, the state of Missouri and all political subdivisions are prohibited from entering into any agreement with, expending any sum of money for, receiving funds from, contracting services from, or giving financial aid to those nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations as defined in Agenda 21.

[emphasis in original]

In the Journal of the Missouri House for May, 8, 2013:

[….]

2237 Journal of the House [pdf]

On motion of Representative Rowland, SB 265 was truly agreed to and finally passed by the

following vote:

AYES: 118

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Berry Black Brattin Burlison

Cierpiot Conway 10 Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo

Cox Crawford Cross Curtm an Davis

Diehl Dohrman Dugger Ellington Elmer

Engler English Entlicher Fitzpatrick Fitzwater

Flanigan Fowler Fraker Frame Franklin

Frederick Gannon Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore

Haahr Haefner Hampton Hansen Harris

Hicks Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins

Hough Houghton Hurst Johnson Jones 50

Justus Keeney Kelley 127 Koenig Kolkmeyer

Korman Lair Lant Lauer Leara

Love Lynch Marshall Mayfield McCaherty

McGaugh Messenger Miller Molendorp Moon

Morris Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson

Pfautsch Phillips Pike Pogue Redmon

Rehder Reiboldt Remole Rhoads Richardson

Riddle Roorda Ross Rowden Rowland

Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Schieffer Shull

Shumake Smith 120 Solon Sommer Spencer

Stream Swan Swearingen Thomson Torpey

Walker White Wieland Wilson Wood

Wright Zerr Mr Speaker

NOES: 037

Anders Burns Butler Carpenter Colona

Curtis Dunn Ellinger Englund Hubbard

Hummel Kirkton Kratky LaFaver May

McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna McManus McNeil

Meredith Mitten Montecillo Morgan Newman

Nichols Norr Otto Pace Peters

Pierson Rizzo Runions Schupp Smith 85

Walton Gray Webb

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 008

Brown Funderburk Gardner Guernsey Kelly 45

Lichtenegger Mims Webber

Speaker Jones declared the bill passed.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Nope, no “moderate” republicans here.