What it lacks in rate of fire and accuracy it makes up for in ammo flexibility.

Yet another right wingnut federal nullification gun bill, this one introduced last Thursday by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1341 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE POGUE.

2527L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 1.320, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof eight new sections relating to theSecond Amendment preservation act.

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

Section A. Section 1.320, RSMo, is repealed and eight new sections enacted in lieu

2 thereof, to be known as sections 1.410, 1.420, 1.430, 1.440, 1.450, 1.460, 1.470, and 1.480, to read as follows:

[1.320.] 1.410. 1. Sections 1.410 to 1.480 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 is duty bound to 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 respect the proper role of the federal government, but reject the proposition that such respect requires unlimited submission. If the government, created by compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, would necessarily become 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 for itself as to when infractions of the compact have occurred, as well as to determine 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 extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court 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 statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for 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”, 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 as to what sort of arms and accessories law-abiding Missourians may buy, sell, exchange, or otherwise possess within the borders of this state;

(7) The people of the several states have also granted 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 office 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 grant unlimited powers because to do so would be to destroy the carefully constructed equilibrium between the federal and state governments. Consequently, the general assembly rejects any claim that the taxing and spending powers of Congress can be used to diminish in any way the right of the people 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 the borders of this state, subject only to the limits imposed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution; and

(9) The general assembly of the state of Missouri strongly promotes responsible gun ownership, including parental supervision of minors in the proper use, storage, and ownership of all firearms, the prompt reporting of stolen firearms, and the proper enforcement of all state gun laws. The general assembly of the state of Missouri hereby condemns any unlawful transfer of firearms and the use of any firearm in any criminal or unlawful activity.

1.420. The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, within the borders of this state, including, but not limited to:

(1) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(2) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(3) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(4) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

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

1.430. All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

1.440. 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 borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined in section 1.420.

1.450. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

1.460. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined in section 1.420.

1.470. 1. Any entity or person who knowingly, as defined in section 562.016, violates section 1.450 or 1.460 or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, while acting under the color of any state or federal law, shall be liable to the injured party in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

2. In such actions, the court may award the prevailing party, other than the state of Missouri or any political subdivision of the state, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

3. Sovereign, official, or qualified immunity shall not be an affirmative defense in such cases.

1.480. For the purposes of sections 1.410 to 1.480, the term “law-abiding citizen” shall mean a person who is not otherwise precluded under state law from possessing a firearm and shall not be construed to include anyone who is not legally present in the United States or the state of Missouri.

[emphasis in original, bold text is new material]

Uh, that nullification thing was taken care of one hundred fifty years ago. Yeah, you and what air force?

Extra right wingnut bonus points for including tenther drivel!

“…All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state…”

Who decides? Why, that’s already been decided, a long time ago. Through over two hundred years of American history:

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[….]

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty….

[….]

In the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[emphasis added]

It’s also called “the supremacy clause”.

If you’re batshit crazy is that considered “not legally present” for the purposes of this legislation? Just asking.

Through over two hundred years of American history:

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

[….]

….It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178]   So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty….

[….]

A bill, pre-filed today by Representative Tim Remole (r):

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 255 [pdf]

98TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE REMOLE.

0867H.01I 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]

The Missouri General Assembly isn’t the final arbiter on the question of what’s constitutional or not.

“….repugnant of….the Constitution of Missouri shall be declared invalid in the state of Missouri….”

In the United States Constitution:

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

[emphasis added]

It’s also called “the supremacy clause”.

Sigh. This was settled one hundred fifty years ago.

Previously:

You and what army? (December 3, 2014)

HB 2256: It’s April, fools… (April 1, 2014)

SB 119: a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds (January 9, 2013)

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) met for coffee early this morning in downtown Warrensburg with Johnson County Democrats (and anyone else who showed up). She spoke at length about the 2014 election, the Missouri General Assembly, Medicaid expansion, the Affordable Care Act, and also took questions.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) in Warrensburg – October 8, 2014.

[….]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): ….I have watched, from afar, Jefferson City. And, you know, um, I’ve spent some time in Jefferson City. And it isn’t as if I don’t understand what this state is. I think you all know I get Missouri….I get that there are a lot of conservative people in this state. But if you step back from it and you look and you see that I have been elected and reelected statewide four times. [Governor] Jay Nixon has been elected and reelected state, in statewide office one, two, three, four, five, six times. [Secretary of State] Jason Kander was elected, [State Treasurer] Clint Zweifel was elected, [Attorney General] Chris Koster was elected. All of these are Democrats that are winning statewide. Now how do you reconcile that with the Missouri legislature, because the Missouri legislature is way, way, way to the right? It’s so far to the right you can hardly see it on the horizon. And the reason that’s happened is because of two things. One, they controlled redistricting, but, more importantly is because they have recruited candidates, funded candidates, and helped candidates run and win and….we behaved, well, you know, that Jeff City, it just is hopeless. You know, they’re in charge and there’s nothing we can do. Well, they cast votes that are completely out of step with most Missourians. I guarantee you they’re out of step with the people that would be in Gary [Grigsby]’s district [51st Legislative District]. Um, I could go through a list. I mean, how many Missourians want them to be spending time on Sharia law? Um, how many Missourians really think Agenda 21 is a problem? How many Missourians think it’s a good idea to tell the local sheriff and the local police department that if they’re gonna work on an interdisciplinary task force with Federal officers they could go to jail if they arrest somebody in that effort that has a gun that’s prohibited by the Federal government. They wanted to put local law enforcement in jail for cooperating in a Federal investigation that could involve guns. I mean, this is crazy time….

[….]

…You know what people of this state want from their state legislature? They want good roads and bridges, they want good public education, and they want to make sure that their money is being spent wisely. They don’t want rape victims to have to wait three days to terminate a pregnancy that their rapist caused. They don’t want that. Vast majority of Missourians do not want that….

[….]

Question: …You must fight, the Democrats must fight no matter what happens in November, it [the Affordable Care Act – “Obamacare”] must not be repealed.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Well, it won’t be repealed as long as, uh, Barrack Obama is President of the United States. Um, and I do, I will tell you that I think our, I’m traveling next week on behalf of my colleagues, I do think that, um, we are in pretty good shape. It’s gonna be close across the country. Um, but I will be surprised if we don’t hold on….

[….]

….The election that will determine the future of health care reform in this country, as to whether or not we continue down the path, will be, um, electing Hillary Clinton in, in twenty-sixteen. I will be back here and this place will be full, wall to wall, with people, I hope, working, um, on behalf of Hillary Clinton in twenty-sixteen.

Question: I think the one, the one issue that the state Republicans are the most opposite of their constituents is on Medicaid expansion. Because, a lot of my Republican friends, that is the one thing that they are really the most distressed about, is that we haven’t expanded Medicaid in the state and we didn’t accept the Federal money, because they have family members who should be Medicaid eligible and are not. And I see that’s just the most vulnerable issue for these, for, you know, at least our state representatives is that they didn’t support that.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): There are, we have three hundred thousand Missourians, so you can speak to this when people that you, you talk to them, we have three hundred thousand Missourians who are working. You know, when people hear Medicaid I think they think of people that aren’t working. These are people that are working. They are working two and three jobs. They are making too little money to get on the [ACA] exchanges, but they make more money than they can do to get Medicaid. So, the, the weird thing is that, um, you know, we’ve got this gap. And that is all because they have turned down the Federal money that would, that would expand. [voice: “Our Federal money.”]  Our Federal money is going to other states for their health care. And it is really hurting rural Missouri, uh, because in many rural communities the number one employer is the hospital. And these hospitals are dying on the vine. I mean, they are desperate. And that’s the irony, is the reddest parts of the state are gonna suffer the most  ’cause that’s where a lot of the working poor are, people that are working two or three minimum wage jobs and don’t have insurance at work. And they can’t, they can’t get on the exchanges and they don’t qualify for Medicaid. Um, so it is really crazy. I mean, it would be, imagine if the Republicans said, you know, we’re not gonna take Federal Highway funding. They might cut it off some day so we better not take it. [laughter[ Let’s just not take Federal highway funding. We don’t want our money that we’ve paid, come back for our highways, because it’s the Federal government. And they might cut it off some day and then we’d be left holding the bag. And I’m like, well, I think you’re holding the bag now because, guess where all those people are going for health care? They’re going to hospitals who are treating them and then they’re passing on the bills to Missourians. It’s like a huge hidden tax increase. It’s craziness. And the only reason they won’t expand it is because they think it’s connected to Obamacare. So, it’s about the political messaging of Obamacare, it’s not about Missourians. It’s really unbelievable….

[….]

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) [center] with Gary Grigsby (D) [left], the Democratic Party candidate in the 51st Legislative District,

at an early morning coffee in downtown Warrensburg – October 8, 2014.

Previously:

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly – again (December 9, 2013)

Thanks to Brian Nieves and his pal Doug Funderbunk Missouri is still a laughingstock (January 21, 2014)

Here we go again… (January 22, 2014)

SB 613: The NRA was for it before they were against it? (February 12, 2014)

Kansas City Mayor Sly James spoke in Warrensburg on Sunday evening for the 75th session of Missouri Boys State on the campus of the University of Central Missouri.

Kansas City Mayor Sly James speaking at Missouri Boys State in Warrensburg – June 15, 2014.

Mayor James spoke on being a mayor and public policy and then took questions from the audience. Toward the end of the question and answer session he received a question about guns:

[….]

Kansas City Mayor Sly James: [in response to a question about gun violence]  …Well, one way of keeping hands out of the, guns out of the hands of criminals is to stop people from selling them to them, uh, should abide by the law. And when you go to gun shows in Missouri or a back car, or a back trunk of a car you don’t have to comply with any background checks unless you’re a federally licensed gun dealer. So, when it’s easier for a kid, a sixteen year old kid to get a gun than it is for him to get driver’s license I got a problem with that. So, yes, we do need to do that.

How about some sensible things like everybody who buys a gun needs to be registered? It’s interesting to me that everybody who drives a car, which can be considered an instrumentality of death when you think about it, because by driving a car drunk, by driving a car when you’re incompetent, by driving a car out of road rage you can kill somebody. Every single person who drives a car is supposed to have a license. But everybody who owns a gun does not have to. I’m sorry, that does not make logic to me. It’s great for ideology, it’s bad public policy. [applause, cheers]  We do not need [inaudible].

There’s some very basic common sense rules and things that can be done that will not interfere with Second Amendment rights but will help keep the guns out of the hands of people who are mentally incompetent, past felons, or what, you know, stupid people. Okay? One is, if you as an owner of a gun have your gun stolen from your house you should be required to report it to the police, but you’re not. So, guns get stolen, we never know that they’re on the street, but the first job, one of the main jobs after a murder using a gun is trace it back to its origin. But when you have those gaps and we need to know something, maybe we know something about what’s going on in the neighborhood that we can connect somebody to. All sorts of things like that.

But, the other thing, too, is there was a bill in the Missouri legislature that Mayor Slay in St. Louis, of St. Louis and I fought hard. It was a bill that basically said that federal gun laws could not be enforced by federal agents in the State of Missouri. And, in the original version of the bill local police really had the authority and the obligation to arrest a member of the ATF or the FBI or DEA, uh, who was enforcing a federal gun law against a criminal and that this, the federal agents could be jailed and fined and could no longer work as a law enforcement agent in the State of Missouri. One of the single dumbest rules and pieces of legislation I’ve ever heard in my life. Because every agent, every city that has police and every city that’s trying to do something about crime works with the federal government. They have resources that we need, they have, uh, things that we simply can’t do, and it’s a partnership. It would have destroyed KC NoVA. All of our partnerships would have been wiped out.

The other thing that I thought was interesting about the bill was it lowered the age for being able to have a conceal carry license from twenty-one to nineteen. I don’t know why nineteen. There’s never been anything that’s been nineteen. It’s eighteen, twenty-one. Nineteen. But [laughter], I, it was great, it was great, you know. Um, but, you know, this is in, this is coming out of the legislature, mind you, where, um, a loaded gun was left by a legislative aide in a public bathroom. Okay? Guns were taken off of legislators as they went to the Missouri Supreme Court for a meeting. Okay? But you’re gonna say, look kid, if we catch you drinking a beer at the age of nineteen you’re in serious trouble. And, by the way, put your gun away, man, I see it hanging outside, it’s supposed to be concealed. [applause, cheers]

We need to recognize, we need to recognize that there is in fact a correlation between the number of people who die by gunfire and gunshots in this country versus the entire world and the number of guns that are out there. It just makes sense. The more people who have guns, the more people are gonna get shot. There should be some limitations. There is nobody in this room who would say everybody should be able to have a gun. Because if that’s the case then five year olds should have a gun, people with one eye should have gun, people who are blind should have a gun, their seeing eye dog should have a gun. [laughter, applause]

[….]

Kansas City Mayor Sly James took a selfie with the Boys State audience after speaking.

Yesterday Missouri’s GOP engineered the passage of a draconian tax cut for wealthy Missourians. The justification? To promote growth.

Today the Los Angeles Times cites new research from the University of Wisconsin that radical taxcutting and similar “pro-business policies don’t really contribute to economic growth. They just make the rich richer, which is not the same thing at all.” Read the details here and weep. Of course, if you’re ready for the unabridged version, you can always purchase a copy of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century and get the same message with massively more data to support the conclusions.

Two voter ID bills introduced in the Missouri House, HB1073 and HJR47, designed by Republicans to limit voting access by Democratic leaning citizens, have advanced to the Senate where Republicans, who are all hot and bothered by non-existent voter fraud, are very likely to send them on to the Governor for what is just as likely to be another veto.

However, as Henry Waters III notes in the Columbia Tribune, judges in Arkansas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have found similar voter ID laws unconstitutional on the grounds that “Photo ID laws are an interference with voters’ rights not warranted as protection against voter fraud.” Doesn’t deter our lawmakers from pressing on though. Missouri may be the show-me state, but it’s awful hard to show folks something if they aren’t capable of drawing the right conclusions from the display.

Both the Missouri House and Senate have okayed similar legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun laws (but only, as Brian Nieves insists, the unconstitutional laws), punish federal agents that attempt to enforce those laws, and permit open carry – even in jurisdictions that want to prohibit the open display of guns by armed yahoos.

Guess what? Sane folks know that state lawmakers don’t get to decide which federal laws are unconstitutional and if the final bill survives a guaranteed veto by the Governor, it’ll head straight for the courts – and cost Missouri a bundle in the process. In the District Of Columbia v. Heller decision of 2008, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the 2nd amendment permits the regulation of firearms – a point articulated by even the über conservative activist judge, Antonin Scalia . On a more immediate level, the mayors of St. Louis and Kansas City are concerned about the potential of this law to endanger cooperative federal and state task forces working to combat gang and gun violence. As for open carry, apart from the disrespect the law shows for local self-determination, the oft-stated rationale, that more guns means less crime, has been shown to be essentially false.

Have you noticed a pattern here?  The Republicans who mostly run our state spend lots of time legislating from perspectives that can’t stand the the test of fact-based reality. The result? Counter-productive, costly, and even unconstitutional laws that have the potential to seriously harm Missourians, destabilize our civic and social life, and debase our democratic institutions. The folks who stand to gain? Members of the state’s oligarchy with money to burn and the politicians who want to help them burn it. Each of the examples above either constitutes a direct giveaway to Republican political patrons, or are useful in either directly (voter ID) or indirectly (pandering to gun-related paranoia) securing Republican power. We’re governed by power-mad, corrupt (what happened to those ethics bills?) fantasists. As a result we’re left to cope with what promises to be a consistently deteriorating reality.  

And no one is safe because the Missouri General Assembly is in session. Today, in the Missouri House:

HB 2256

Prohibits enforcement of any federal regulation by any state department or agency without approval of the regulation by the General Assembly

Sponsor: Moon, Mike (157)

Co-Sponsor: Rowland, Lyle (155) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 6505L.01I

Last Action: 04/01/2014 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Bill String: HB 2256

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

Another right wingnut republican nullification bill. You were expecting anything different?

Previously:

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly – again (December 9, 2013)

Thanks to Brian Nieves and his pal Doug Funderbunk Missouri is still a laughingstock (January 21, 2014)

Here we go again… (January 22, 2014)

From the National Rifle Association:

Missouri: De-facto Gun Owner Registry Legislation Moving In Missouri Senate! Call Your Senators NOW!

Posted on February 12, 2014

Last night, during debate on Senate Bill 613, anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed (D-5) was able to attach an anti-gun provision to SB 613.  As previously reported, this anti-gun language was introduced as legislation in January that was originally contained in Senate Bill 556 and Senate Bill 565, both sponsored by Senator Nasheed.  This modified anti-gun language would require every person to report the theft of a firearm they possess to a local law enforcement agency.  Any missing firearm must be reported within 72 hours of the time he or she knew or “reasonably should have known” that the firearm had been stolen.

[….]

Your NRA-ILA has opposed this anti-gun legislation nationally for years.  It seeks to create a de-facto gun owner registry as well as place unknown civil liabilities on the gun owner.  Law-abiding gun owners should not be made a victim twice.

Action on this legislation is expected IMMEDIATELY in the Missouri Senate.

Please call your state Senator NOW and urge them to vote “NO” on SB 613.  Contact information for your state Senator can be found here or below.

[….]

No, that’s not an article from the Onion.

From the February 11, 2014 Journal of the Senate:

Journal of the Senate [pdf] 254

Senator Nasheed offered SA 5, which was read:

SENATE AMENDMENT NO. 5

Amend Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 613, Page 32, Section 1, Line 6, by inserting immediately after said line the following:

“Section 2. Upon becoming aware that a firearm has been stolen, a person shall have seventy-two hours to report such theft.

Section B. If any provision of section A of this act or the application thereof to anyone or to any circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of those sections and the application of such provisions to others or other circumstances shall not be affected thereby.”; and

Further amend said bill and page, section B, line 1, by striking “B.” and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “C.”; and

Further amend the title and enacting clause accordingly.

Senator Nasheed moved that the above amendment be adopted.

[….]

[emphasis in original]

The Twitterverse is all abuzz with requests to pass the popcorn:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah NRA now OPPOSES pro-gun bill in MO after anti-gun Democrat outwits pro-gun lawmakers. (Got it?) [….] 3:40 PM – 12 Feb 2014

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Proving again that the #moleg is broken, the NRA is now opposing @briannieves unconstitutional nullification bill. [….] 3:39 PM – 12 Feb 2014

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah

@tonymess @briannieves So pro-gun bill could be sunk by pro-gun NRA angered by anti-gun @SenatorNasheed? Or, will GOP “stand up” to NRA? 3:46 PM – 12 Feb 2014

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

Note to #moleg: When passing a fake bill that is never intended to become law, it helps to not attach actual amendments that do things. 3:46 PM – 12 Feb 2014

Sean Nicholson ‏@ssnich

@tonymess @briannieves But not because it’s unconstitutional or seeks to jail federal law enforcement folks 3:47 PM – 12 Feb 2014

Really, pass the popcorn.

By @BGinKC

You know how I say it’s hard to be from here sometimes?

Yeah, about that…it ain’t going to get easier any time soon, apparently, because the first thing the jackasses and miscreants in the GOP did was pre-file the same unconstitutional nonsense bills this year that failed last year. Hey, we all know the definition of insanity, right?

About thirty years ago, mental hospitals started shutting down. Well, all those crazy people had to go somewhere, and in Missouri, apparently, we’ve decided to put them in the state legislature. I guess the idea behind that notion was that since the lege is only in session 5 ½ months a year, and their most egregious and blatant nonsense won’t ever see the light of day because the courts will strike it down, what was the harm? They were localized and monitored and it seemed a workable solution for a while.

But lately, I’ve been getting a queasy feeling about the miscreants in the Missouri legislature…like maybe they really are representative of the people who elect them, and if that’s the case, what the hell happened to my state while we were bouncing from billet-to-billet assuring y’all could sleep soundly in your beds at night?

But Brian Nieves – you may remember him from some of his past hits, like brandishing a gun at the legislative aid of an opponent or dreweling upon a constituents assembled arsenal…He manages to stand out in the crowd.

Now look – I realize we live in an era of crazier-than-thou republicanism, but even by today’s in-panoramic-technicolor, tea-party idiots in made-in-China-from-synthetic-fibers period costumes, Missouri’s state lege stands out. There is only one constraint on them – term limits – and under the circumstances, they don’t mean much. It just means that they are really motivated to get in the good graces of the money folks in the short time they have there. That way they can move from their gig as a legislator to a sinecure at a partisan, special-interest law or public relations firm, maybe even become a lobbyist. They sure as hell don’t want to go back to Sikeston or Llamar or Bethany or any of those other god-forsaken hellholes they got elected to get the hell out of.

And I have to hand it to Nieves. He’s really made a name for himself. In the wingnut sweepstakes, he’s really set himself apart. The state was spared the expense of defending an unconstitutional firearms nullification law last year when the House failed to override the Governor’s veto of last year’s model. Well, the gun lobby is back. This year they have already filed the Second Amendment Reinterpretation Act –  what’s that? I got the name wrong? It’s actually The Second Amendment Preservation Act? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “That word, they keep using that word but I do not think it means what they think it means.” In other words, I think my name for this nonsense is more accurate.

This law is not identical in wording to last year’s run at this particular windmill, but the spirit’s the same. Nieves and company aren’t conservatives and they are an insult to true Republicans.  They are neoconfederate revanchists. This fact needs to be pointed out, frequently and loudly, and they need to be brought to heel.

They call themselves “Constitutional Conservatives.” Fine. Let’s start there. Hell, I’ll even go ’em one better and start with the Holy Second Amendment:

 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “well regulated” lets them ignore federal laws? Since they all carry their pocket Constitutions with them everywhere they go (so do I – the ACLU gives them away for free; the difference is, I have read mine…all of it…I’ve not just read it, but I understand it, too). Since they claim they’re strict “Constitutional Conservatives” I would ask them to turn to Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That first bit just means the founders were men of honor who intended to pay the country’s debts, no matter what the operator’s manual was called. But the rest of it…that means that not only does the federal law reign supreme and therefore it ain’t a gray area that’s open for debate; it means that state laws are subsequent to the US Constitution and the US CODE.

But more than that, Nieves and all legislators are bound by Article VI of the US Constitution not to willfully and blatantly make unconstitutional law, and by filing that bill, he and all the cosponsors who signed on to it are in violation of an article, not a mere amendment, because the oath they take as legislators binds them to uphold the US Constitution.

Besides, we already settled that whole question of nullification back in the 1860s – and it didn’t go particularly well for the nullifiers.  

What this bill is, is a thumb in the eye of the city-folk in KC and St. Louis – and to a certain extent that black fella in the White House – but mostly they like spiting us. You remember us, the folks who pay the god-damned bills for the state.

I don’t begrudge rural roads, water, bridges, schools or healthcare. But god-damn, would it be too much to ask for y’all to elect sane representation who don’t want to destroy those things for you just to spite us – when we’re big enough to take care of ourselves and just shake our heads at your idiocy and go ahead and have nice things without you?

I do have an idea for an amendment to our “kitchen sink” state constitution, though, and I bet the voters would approve it with 85% of the vote. The bill for defending in court such blatantly unconstitutional, grandstanding laws that are destined to be struck down should be collected from the grandstanding legislators who filed and voted for the unconstitutional bill, not the taxpayers of the state.