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.  

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.

*just another paranoid right wingnut tenther nullification gun bill

Previously: HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 15, 2013)

They’re nothing, if not predictable. A bill, filed on January 15, 2013:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1439

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES FUNDERBURK (Sponsor), JONES (110), SPENCER, WALKER, COX, BROWN, MCCAHERTY, FRANKLIN, SOMMER, LOVE, BAHR, PARKINSON, GATSCHENBERGER, SCHARNHORST, ROWLAND, GOSEN, HINSON, WILSON, MESSENGER, KELLEY (127), BRATTIN, KOLKMEYER, HIGDON, POGUE, DAVIS, FLANIGAN, PIKE, DUGGER, CURTMAN, KORMAN, HANSEN, HOUGHTON, WIELAND AND BLACK (Co-sponsors).

5129L.01I          D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal sections 1.320, 21.750, 571.030, 571.070, 571.101, 571.107, 571.117, and 590.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof fifteen new sections relating to firearms, with penalty provisions and a contingent effective date for certain sections.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, 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 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 of land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining of 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, 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 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

[….]

3. (1) 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.

           (2) Such federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:

           (a) 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;

           (b) 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;

           (c) 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;

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

           (e) 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 borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined in subsection 3 of this section.

           5. No public officer or employee of this state shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any law, statute, ordinance, or order of any court infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined in subsection 3 of this section.

           6. (1) Any entity or person who knowingly, as defined in section 562.061, attempts to enforce any of the infringements of the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section or otherwise knowingly deprives a citizen of Missouri of the rights or privileges ensured by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution or Section 23 of Article I 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 action, 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) Neither sovereign nor official or qualified immunity shall be an affirmative defense in such cases.

           7. 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. Missouri law enforcement officers shall have the discretionary power to appropriately interpose on behalf of law-abiding citizens, including the power to levy charges or arrest such officials, agents, or employees of the United States government.

           8. For the purposes of this section, 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]

Meh, just what everyone needs right now, more tenther drivel.

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.

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.

Dancing would definitely be involved.

A letter to the editor, as submitted, in today’s edition of the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal:

To the editors:

One of the worst bills passed in the Missouri General Assembly this year was one that made it a crime for any federal agent to enforce federal gun laws. Representatives Dohrman, Hoskins, and Senator Pearce all voted for this gun nullification bill. Fortunately, Governor Nixon’s veto was sustained.

The headline story in the Star-Journal on Monday, November 18th, that reported the arrest of  eight people in Johnson County on federal charges of illegal drug and illegal firearm possession raises an interesting question with respect to the gun nullification bill. The story quotes both Sheriff Heiss and Warrensburg’s Police Chief Hovey highlighting the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies with federal agents in these arrests.

The bill that Dohrman, Hoskins, and Pearce voted for would have prevented such cooperation with respect to arresting people for violation of federal gun laws. In fact, the bill they supported required local law enforcement agencies to arrest federal agents who attempted to enforce federal gun laws.  

I look forward to reading the explanation that Dohrman, Hoskin, and Pearce have for why they supported legislation that would have made such cooperation next to impossible and whether they will continue to support gun nullification legislation in the future.

Bob Yates

[….]

Warrensburg, Missouri

[with permission of the author]

“…I look forward to reading the explanation that Dohrman, Hoskin, and Pearce have for why they supported legislation that would have made such cooperation next to impossible and whether they will continue to support gun nullification legislation in the future…”

Don’t hold your breath.

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 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)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

HB 436: we told you so (July 5, 2013)

HB 436: null and void (September 11, 2013)

On unconstitutional gun bills (September 11, 2013)

The Senate failed to override Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 436, the right wingnut gun nullification bill. Earlier in the day the House did vote successfully to override the veto. Still, the bill fails.

Jason Hancock ‏@J_Hancock

Senate Prez Tom Dempsey and Majority Leader Ron Richard vote against override of #HB436. Override fails on a 22-12 vote. #moleg 8:18 PM – 11 Sep 13

Tony Messenger ‏@tonymess

And the Missouri Senate restores sanity, defeating unconstitutional gun bill. Barely. #HB436 8:19 PM – 11 Sep 13

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 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)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

HB 436: we told you so (July 5, 2013)

Have you been thinking that the GOP-dominated Missouri lege’s unconstitutional efforts to “nullify” federal laws prove that that body is populated by idiots? The following tidbits – both of which are, by the way, pure hearsay – indicate that you might be right. You can take these gems for what they’re worth – I can’t confirm either, but they’re too funny to ignore.

According to an unnamed Democratic legislator, one of the not-so-bright GOP lights in Jefferson City – whose name he could not remember – prominently proclaimed the right to nullify federal laws because, get this, Missouri was a state before there was a federal government. Yep. I’ve often suspected that lots of the state-level GOPers were dead ignorant, but this takes the cake.

And that crazy gun bill that our GOPers are pushing? According to another source, even the NRA lobbyists have informally, when approached on the topic in the halls of the statehouse, refused to endorse it. The word is that they act like it’s poison.

Actually, there is some evidence that the hearsay about the NRA’s disquiet with Missouri’s extreme law may be true – as the New York Times reports:

The National Rifle Association, which has praised Mr. Nixon in the past for signing pro-gun legislation, has been silent about the new bill. Repeated calls to the organization were not returned.

Goes to show that when you let ignorant and crazy people write laws, you may get laws so obviously crazy that even ideological fellow travelers don’t want to be associated with them.

Sadly, several Democrats have indicated that they might be willing to vote to override the veto of this bill – not because they believe it’s a good idea, but because they’re so afraid of the gun nuts among their constituents that they believe they can’t afford to vote against gun enabling legislation. It doesn’t seem to bother them that allowing this bill to stand will force the state to pay the costs of the inevitable court challenges, but perhaps if someone pointed out to them that they might not lose NRA points if they voted against overriding Governor Nixon’s veto, it might help sway their minds?  

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Free #Job fair this Thurs in Lebanon. RT if you or a friend is a job seeker. Let’s get #MO back to work! [….] 2:31 PM – 26 Aug 13

And this priceless reply:

Not Sure ‏@adr3n 9h

@RepHartzler override Nixon’s veto of hb436 so we can get some long term manufacturing jobs!! 6:54 PM – 26 Aug 13

On so many levels…

The pseudonym says it all. HB 436 is the gun/federal nullification bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly this past legislative session which was then vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon (D). Uh, members of the U.S. House of Representatives don’t get to participate in the Missouri General Assembly veto session.

Not quite sure if it’s performance art or not.

Previously:

Epistemic closure, still here, alive, kicking, though not quite screaming (August 7, 2013)

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 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)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the right wingnut gun nullification bill today. In his veto message [pdf] Teacher Jay Nixon had to spend time schooling the republican controlled General Assembly since they had obviously slept through all of their class sessions when the U.S. Constitution was covered:

July 5, 2013

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 21.750, 571.030, 571.101, 571.107, 571.117, and 590.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof fourteen new sections relating to firearms, with a penalty provision.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as well as an individual’s free exercise of speech protected by both the federal and state constitutions.

I. Violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. A conflicts-of-law provision, the Supremacy Clause was designed to provide a mechanism to enforce federal acts and to resolve discord between state and federal laws that touch upon the same subject, giving precedence to the laws of the nation over those of the respective states.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the framers proposed a number of ideas to resolve conflict between state and federal law, including the Virginia Plan where Congress would have been given the direct power to “negative” or veto state laws. Ultimately, however, the Supremacy Clause was adopted – an idea derived from Alexander Hamilton’s federalist Paper No. 33 and James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 44, but proposed for inclusion in the Constitution by Anti-Federalist Luther Martin. It states:

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, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause becomes relevant when state law conflicts with federal statute, or when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or, as in the particular case of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, when a state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941), see also Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). By seeking to declare certain federal acts null and void, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 seeks to turn the hierarchy of our national framework of laws on its head in clear violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would deprive a federal agent of his or her authority to enforce certain federal acts within the state; indeed it would make such conduct a crime. The lineage of cases prohibiting this type of legislation dates back to 1819, when Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland, solidified the principle that the Supremacy Clause prevents states from regulating, interfering with, or controlling federal instrumentalities. 17 U.S. 316 (4 wheat.). Decades later, in Tennessee v. Davis, the Court reiterated this position: “No state government can exclude [a federal agency] from the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution….” (100 U.S. 257 (1879)). And, in 1890, the Court ruled that a state does not have criminal jurisdiction over a federal agent who commits an act in the performance of his official functions. In re Neagle 135 U.S. 1.

Notwithstanding McCullough and its progeny, states have, from time to time, attempted to resurrect the pre-Civil war concept of nullification, an argument that individual states, either through legislation or state court ruling, can decide for themselves if a federal law is constitutional, all in an effort to distance a state from the reach of Congress. Counted among such efforts is now Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, which seeks to not only prevent federal agents from performing their sworn duties within Missouri, but to exempt Missouri from a number of named and unnamed federal acts.

Of course, an individual state is not empowered to determine which federal laws it will comply with, nor is it empowered to declare a federal act to be unconstitutional. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the authority to declare a federal act unconstitutional is within the sole province of the federal courts. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821); see also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Notably, the federal acts targeted in the bill for nullification have not been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The doctrine of supremacy is logically sound as it is legally well-established. Consider how our nation’s efforts during the Second World war might have been frustrated if, following the passage of the Burke-Wadsworth Act, individual states could have exempted their citizens from selective service, or how one state’s economic prosperity might have been diminished if one or more contiguous states opted out of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, thereby making it more difficult to bring goods and services to market.

Still, nullification advocates often reference the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts (though the respective states chose not to assert that right). Jefferson and Madison argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters. However, a few years later in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously held that: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Nontheless, from the 1820s throughout the 2000s, nullification attempts periodically surfaced, but consistently failed. Shortly after McCullough, the Ohio legislature passed a resolution rejecting Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling and then legislatively imposed a tax on the federal bank. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Osborne v. Bank of the United States, held that Ohio’s tax was “repugnant to a law of the United States…and therefore void.” 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).

More than a century later in Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court, relying on the Supremacy Clause, rejected attempts by the State of Arkansas to ignore its direction to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education, stating that nullification was not “a constitutional doctrine…[but] illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” 358 U.S. 1 (1958). At the time of the Brown decision, the Missouri Constitution of 1945 contained a provision that required separate schools based on race (Art IX, Sec. 1). However, Missouri properly recognized the legal authority of the United States Supreme Court and, soon after Brown, Attorney General John M. Dalton declared that the State Constitution and any statutes requiring segregation were “superseded by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and are, therefore, unenforceable….” Daugherty, B.J, & Bolton, C.C. With all deliberate speed: Implementing Brown v. Board of Education, 179. University of Arkansas Press, 2008. Also, the state board of education adopted a resolution stating its intent to implement Brown, and Governor Phil M. Donnely joined by stating that Missouri would follow Brown’s requirements.

Even recently, efforts to nullify federal laws have continued without success. The Supreme Court of Montana, swayed by the unique character of its state, mimicked Ohio’s defiance of McCullough in upholding a state law that limited contributions by corporations, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The  U.S. Supreme Court, confronted with the question of whether Citizens United applied to state law, unequivovally affirmed the long-standing supremacy doctrine by stating: “There can be no serious doubt that it does.” American trade partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 132 S.Ct. 2490 (2012).

II. Violates the Free Exercise of Speech protected by the State and Federal Constitutions

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would also infringe upon an individual’s freedom of speech protected by the federal and state Constitutions by making it a crime to publish the name or other information or someone who owns a firearm.

There is no shortage of unacceptable scenarios that could result from this provision. As one example, newspapers around the state annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer. Under this bill, doing so would be a crime. Also, and somewhat ironically, a reporter who prints a photo of a local rally being held in support of gun rights could face up to a year in jail or a thousand dollar fine, or both.

In addition, a reporter would be precluded from writing or tweeting the name of a burglary victim who had his or her firearm stolen, or even from doing a story on a candidate in an upcoming General Assembly election if that candidate owns a firearm. Presumably, a reporter could not even attach her name to any story if she herself is a gun owner. Moreover, there is nothing in the bill’s broad prohibitive language that would prevent criminal charges if a firearm owner is mentioned in court records or police reports, or even by a private citizen on a social networking site. Such a list of examples is conceivably endless. That said, and putting aside the perplexing paradox of seeking to protect one constitutional right by significantly diminishing another, curtailing speech in such a manner clearly violates the free exercise of speech protected by the state and federal constitutions.

Conclusion

In light of Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the guarantee of an individual’s freedom of speech contained in both the federal and state Constitutions, as well as the vast and enduring case law affirming the supremacy doctrine and invalidating the concept of nullification, it can safely be determined that Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 is, in multiple respects, constitutionally impermissible.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

Shorter Jay Nixon (D): maroons.