This weekend, via Twitter:

Ellis ‏@cole3llis May 17

@sophieslater my sister got a letter back from our Ed Emery from the pp petition she signed: he said she should move to another state. [….] 9:24 PM – 17 May 2014

Ellis ‏@cole3llis

[….] here it is for your reading pleasure! pic.twitter.com/NTw8pchIjr 9:43 PM – 17 May 2014

The text of Senator Ed Emery’s (r) constituent letter:

[….]

Missouri Senate

[….]

ED EMERY

31ST DISTRICT

May 13, 2014

[….]

I received your form letter about Medicaid expansion. Thank you for contacting my office. Although it is seldom possible to please every constituent, it is valuable to know what my constituents are thinking. I will not support Medicaid expansion in Missouri for several reasons. First, it does not deliver on its promises. The Oregon Medicaid experiment confirms what common sense would conclude – neither access nor health outcomes are improved.

Secondly, it has a significant negative impact on choice. Medicaid expansion represents contraction of choice. The state, not the individual, decides what treatments can be provided and by whom. Individual liberty is important to me and I understand my oath of office as a commitment to defend it.

There are additional reasons why Medicaid expansion is wrong for Missouri that you may discover with further study. They will also become more obvious as those state who have taken that course will begin to experience the consequences. Nevertheless, an invaluable aspect of our federation of states is that each state is like a laboratory for government policies. We live in a nation and an era that facilitates physical moves between states. Individuals and families are free to consider moving to states with differing and even contrasting government policies. That is the beauty of federalism.

Thank you for your input and allowing me to explain my position.

Sincerely,

s/

Ed Emery

“I received your form letter about Medicaid expansion…”

Irony challenged, eh?

“…Secondly, it has a significant negative impact on choice…”

Oh, definitely irony challenged.

“…Medicaid expansion represents contraction of choice. The state, not the individual, decides what treatments can be provided and by whom….”

Uh, people who need Medicaid and don’t have access to health care because they don’t have Medicaid and resources do have two choices. The first, do without and suffer. The second, when their medical condition gets bad enough, go to an emergency room and get medical treatment at its most expensive. Who pays for that?

“…There are additional reasons why Medicaid expansion is wrong for Missouri that you may discover with further study…”

Uh, it’s generally considered a bad idea to tell a constituent in a letter that you think they’re ignorant.

“…We live in a nation and an era that facilitates physical moves between states. Individuals and families are free to consider moving to states with differing and even contrasting government policies. That is the beauty of federalism…”

“Move elsewhere” now appears to be the embodiment of tenther philosophy.

Let’s take a look at the “Oregon Medicaid experiment”:

Here’s what the Oregon Medicaid study really said

By Ezra Klein

May 2, 2013 at 3:11 pm

The Oregon Medicaid experiment is an academic miracle born out of a human tragedy.

A few years back, Oregon found the money to add 10,000 residents to the state’s Medicaid program. The only problem was that there were 90,000 residents who qualified for the program and desperately wanted in. So the state held a lottery. Welcome to the American health-care system. Greatest in the world, folks.

But 80,000 Oregonians’ loss was science’s gain. The lottery gave researchers an opportunity that’s almost never available in policymaking: They could create a randomized controlled study — the absolute gold-standard of experimental design — comparing the health outcomes of the lucky Oregonians who received Medicaid to those who didn’t. It would be the first time that kind of study had even been used to compare the insured and the uninsured.

The initial batch of results was released in August 2012. The data covered the first year of the Medicaid expansion and found that the folks on Medicaid were getting more care, reporting better health (both physical and mental), and seeing fewer financial problems than the people who weren’t on Medicaid.

The second set of results was released Wednesday. The data now covers two years and, importantly, includes clinical measures of health rather than relying on the reports of the study participants. These results are more mixed, but also more telling.

Here’s what we can say with certainty: Medicaid works as health insurance.

That might seem obvious. It’s actually not. A big criticism of Medicaid is that it pays doctors so little that it’s essentially worthless because no doctor will see you. But the Oregon residents who won the Medicaid lottery got much more health care — including preventive health care — than the residents who lost it. They also saw catastrophic health costs basically vanish.

[….]

“…The Oregon Medicaid experiment confirms what common sense would conclude – neither access nor health outcomes are improved…”

“…the Oregon residents who won the Medicaid lottery got much more health care — including preventive health care — than the residents who lost it. They also saw catastrophic health costs basically vanish…”

Uh, getting “much more health care – including preventative health care” qualifies as increased access.

And:

The Oregon Experiment – Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes

[….]

We found no significant effect of Medicaid coverage on the prevalence or diagnosis of hypertension or high cholesterol levels or on the use of medication for these conditions. Medicaid coverage significantly increased the probability of a diagnosis of diabetes and the use of diabetes medication, but we observed no significant effect on average glycated hemoglobin levels or on the percentage of participants with levels of 6.5% or higher. Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

[….]

“…increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures…”

What effect do you think that would have on the quality of one’s life? Just asking.

The usurper in the White House tenther temper tantrums continue in the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly. A bill, introduced today by Representative Tim Remole (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1620

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES REMOLE (Sponsor), CURTMAN, BAHR, MESSENGER, MOON, RICHARDSON, FRAKER, PIKE, MUNTZEL, POGUE, MILLER, HURST, RHOADS, SPENCER, BERRY, KELLEY (127), HICKS, FRANKLIN, LYNCH, LANT, REIBOLDT, FITZWATER, HOSKINS, DOHRMAN, LOVE, SHULL, WALKER, STREAM, SCHIEBER, HOUGHTON AND WILSON (Co-sponsors).

5223H.02I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to regulations resulting from presidential executive orders.



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 1.345, to read as follows:

           1.345. 1. Any federal regulation or rule promulgated as a result of an executive order of the President of the United States repugnant of the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of Missouri shall be declared invalid in the state of Missouri. Such regulations and rules shall be considered null and void and of no effect.

           2. It shall be the duty of the general assembly to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of regulations and rules issued by a presidential executive order.

[emphasis in original]

….Rep. Remole is….a lifetime member of the NRA and a proud supporter of Missouri Farm Bureau, Eagle Forum, and Americans for Prosperity….

That actually explains a lot.

Uh, so were were these people when Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush were president? Just asking.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the United States Supreme Court has the final say on the constitutionality concerning federal issues, not the republican tenther caucus in the Missouri General Assembly.

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.

A tenther anti-Obamacare bill has been prefiled in the Missouri Senate:

“…The power to require or regulate a person’s choice in the mode of securing health care services, or to impose a penalty related thereto, is not found in the Constitution of the United States of America, and is therefore a power reserved to the people pursuant to the Ninth Amendment, and to the several states pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. The state of Missouri hereby exercises its sovereign power to declare the public policy of the state of Missouri regarding the right of all persons residing in this state in choosing the mode of securing health care services…”

Uh, the United States Supreme Court has already weighed in on this.

The bill:

SB 546 Modifies Missouri’ Health Care Freedom Act by prohibiting the state from implementing a health insurance exchange, prohibiting insurers from accepting remuneration that may result in penalties violative of the act, and prescribing duties of the Attorney General for enforceme

Sponsor: Lamping

LR Number: 4499S.01I Fiscal Note not available

Committee:

Last Action: 12/1/2013 – Prefiled

Current Bill Summary

SB 546 – This act modifies what is commonly known as the Health Care Freedom Act which was approved by the Missouri voters in 2010. The act restates Missouri’s public policy of allowing its citizens the freedom to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without facing a penalty and provides that it is against Missouri public policy to implement or operate a health insurance exchange in Missouri. The act also posits several findings of fact of how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing a state-based exchange would subject Missouri citizens and employers to penalties. The act further provides that if a health insurance issuer operating in Missouri accepts any remuneration that may result in the imposition of penalties contrary to Missouri’s public policy, then the Director of Insurance shall suspend the issuer’s license to transact business in Missouri. The suspension will stay in place until the issuer represents that it has returned the remuneration to its source and will decline any such future remuneration. The act further imposes a duty upon the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and other appropriate remedies whenever the public policy set forth in the act is being violated.

This act is identical to SB 473 (2013).

Yes, yes, we can already tell that the 2014 regular session is going to be the most productive in Missouri history.

Previously:

Missouri Boys State – 2013 (June 16, 2013)

Kansas City Mayor Sly James – Missouri Boys State – June 16, 2013 (June 17, 2013)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) in Warrensburg speaking at Missouri Boys State

on the campus of the University of Central Missouri – June 17, 2013.

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) was the keynote speaker this evening at Missouri Boys State on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. After his prepared remarks he took questions from the audience. One question, on nullification of federal laws, prompted a one word response:

[….] Question: Considering your experience in the state legislature, do you believe that states have the constitutional ability to nullify federal laws?

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D): No. [applause][laughter]

By the way, you’re not gonna get a lot of one word answers from politicians, so enjoy it. [laughter][applause]

That’s a significant difference between a statewide office holder and the republican controlled General Assembly.

More tenther twaddle, in a bill introduced today:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 527

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES SOMMER (Sponsor), CURTMAN, LICHTENEGGER, KOENIG, BURLISON, FUNDERBURK, KELLEY (127), BERRY, NEELY, LOVE, HICKS, WILSON, HAAHR, FITZPATRICK, PARKINSON, BAHR AND SCHIEBER (Co-sponsors).

1301L.01I        D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 21, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the joint committee on the tenth amendment.

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

           Section A. Chapter 21, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 21.960, to read as follows:

           21.960. 1. There is hereby established the “Joint Committee on the Tenth Amendment”, which shall:

           (1) Identify proposed federal legislation that infringes on Missouri’s state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

           (2) Advise and make recommendations to the general assembly regarding any state legislation necessary to preserve the integrity and principles of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and

           (3) Refer cases to the attorney general when the federal government takes steps that require the state or a state officer to enact or enforce a provision of federal law that lies outside Congress’s enumerated powers and intrudes on the sovereignty reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The attorney general is authorized to seek appropriate relief to preserve the state’s sovereignty.

           2. The joint committee shall be comprised of six members of the senate and six members of the house of representatives. The senate members shall be appointed by the president pro temore of the senate and the house members shall be appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives. The appointment of members shall continue during their term in office as members of the general assembly or until a successor has been duly appointed to fill their place when their term of office as members of the general assembly has expired.

           3. The joint committee shall hold an annual meeting at which it shall elect from its membership a chairperson and vice chairperson. The joint committee may hold such additional meetings as may be required in the performance of its duties.

           4. The general assembly shall provide administrative support and staff as necessary for the effective operation of the joint committee from existing resources. Any expenditure of the joint committee shall be subject to appropriation.

[emphasis in original]

Jobs bill, anyone?

Previously:

HB 181: even more tenther drivel (January 18, 2013) [introduced by the same Rep. Chrissy Sommer (r)]

That’s an extra special level of right wingnuttery. The Wingularity just might be attainable in Missouri.

A bill, filed today:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 436

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES FUNDERBURK (Sponsor), JONES (110), BURLISON, HICKS, RHOADS, ROSS, MILLER, PARKINSON, REMOLE, ANDERSON, HURST, BAHR, BROWN, SMITH (120), KOENIG, CURTMAN, DUGGER, MORRIS, SOMMER, LEARA, GATSCHENBERGER, BRATTIN, SCHIEFFER AND KORMAN (Co-sponsors).

1204L.01I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Second Amendment preservation act, with a penalty provision.

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 1.320, to read as follows:

           1.320. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”.

           2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

           (1) The general assembly of the state of Missouri is firmly resolved to support and defend the United States Constitution against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and the general assembly is duty-bound to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the basis of the Union of the States, because only a faithful observance of those principles can secure the nation’s existence and the public happiness;

           (2) Acting through the United States Constitution, the people of the several states created the federal government to be their agent in the exercise of a few defined powers, while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters which concern the lives, liberties, and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs;

           (3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution of the United States is reserved to the states respectively, or to the people themselves;

           (4) Whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force;

           (5) The several states of the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their federal government. The government created by the compact among the states is not the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the Constitution, because that would have made the federal government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of those powers. To the contrary, as in all other cases of compacts among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made pursuant to the powers granted in the Constitution, such supremacy does not apply to various federal statutes, orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statues, orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces of the United States or for the organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

           (6) The people of the several states have given Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes”, but “regulating commerce” does not include the power to limit citizens’ right to keep and bear arms in defense of their families, neighbors, persons, or property, or to dictate to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding mentally competent Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

           (7) The people of the several states have also given Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof”. These constitutional provisions merely identify the means by which the federal government may execute its limited powers and ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers because to do so would be to destroy the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments. We deny any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the people’s right to keep and bear arms;

           (8) The people of Missouri have vested the general assembly with the authority to regulate the manufacture, possession, exchange, and use of firearms within this state’s borders, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution.

           3. (1) 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, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

           (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;

           (g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

           4. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the boarder of this state from the infringements in subsection 3 of this section.

           5. No public officer or employee of this state shall have any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section.

           6. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

           7. Any Missouri citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section shall have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting such enforcement.

[emphasis in original]

Tentherism and nullification all wrapped up in guns. What’s not to like?

“…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…”

Apparently any such law or regulation with a salubrious effect would be just fine. Think of the other possibilities.

“…Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor…”

Yeah, you and what Air Force?

“…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, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (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…”

Is that the entire act? Just asking.

There’s this, via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

National Firearms Act (NFA)

….Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machineguns, and firearm mufflers and silencers….

Sawed off shotguns, silencers, and machine guns. Trebuchets appear to be off the radar, though.

In the United States Constitution, Article VI:

….This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding….

HB 170, introduced in the Missouri House yesterday:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 170

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES GUERNSEY (Sponsor), CURTMAN, JOHNSON, HINSON, KOLKMEYER, SMITH (120), NEELY, HIGDON, DAVIS, WILSON, SHULL, LOVE, PHILLIPS, ROWLAND, RHOADS, MILLER, FOWLER, LANT, CRAWFORD, BROWN, REDMON, FRANKLIN, KEENEY, REIBOLDT, FITZPATRICK, PIKE, LAIR, BRATTIN, DUGGER, FITZWATER, BURLISON, PARKINSON, ELMER, MCCAHERTY, CONWAY (104), HOUGHTON, BERNSKOETTER, LICHTENEGGER, ZERR, FLANIGAN, ALLEN, SCHIEBER, KELLEY (127), HICKS, RIDDLE, WALKER, HANSEN, WHITE, NETH, MUNTZEL, REMOLE, GATSCHENBERGER, FREDERICK, SPENCER, MOLENDORP, MCGAUGH, HURST, COOKSON, ROSS, POGUE, LEARA AND THOMSON (Co-sponsors).

0894H.01I   D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to firearms, with a penalty provision and an emergency clause.

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

           Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.048, to read as follows:

           571.048. 1. It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of this state, or any political subdivision, or any federal firearms dealer licensed under 19 U.S.C. Section 923 to enforce or attempt to enforce any act, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the boundaries of the state of Missouri.

           2. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.

           3. Any person in violation of a federal law relating to the manufacture, sale, transfer, or possession of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition owned or manufactured and retained exclusively with the boundaries of the state of Missouri may request the attorney general to defend him or her for such violation.

           4. Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to:

           (1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or

           (2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.

           Section B. Because immediate action is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens of this state the enactment of section 571.048 of section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the enactment of section 571.048 of section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.

“….Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony….”

“….Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to: (1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or (2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner….”

You and what air force?

Just more tenther twaddle. Jobs bill, anyone?

Previously:

HB 162: Tenthers and guns, what could go wrong? (January 15, 2013)

The legislative session started today. The folks in control are up to their usual tenther antics:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 137

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES HINSON (Sponsor), MILLER, ROWLAND, LICHTENEGGER AND BAHR (Co-sponsors).

0656H.01I.          D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 1, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to state implementation of federal programs.

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 1.380, to read as follows:

           1.380. 1. No state agency shall administer, implement, or expand any federal program before obtaining approval from the general assembly.

           2. For the purposes of this section, “state agency” shall mean any department, division, board, commission, office or other agency of the state of Missouri.

•

[emphasis in original]

So, the Missouri General Assembly will get to approve individual student loans? Just asking.