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.

Via Twitter:

briannieves ‏@briannieves

Tonight we sent THREE of my pieces of legislation to the governor’s desk! Property Rights, American Laws, & 2nd Amendment Preservation Act!! 10:14 PM – 8 May 13

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!).

We’re all aquiver with excitement at the prospects for the future.

briannieves ‏@briannieves

[….] Thnx Brother! I NEVER Brag about Senator stuff BUT… I just passed the most Hard Core 2nd Amendment Bill, perhaps in the country 10:20 PM – 8 May 13

Well, someone is.

Previously:

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

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

Well, yeah (February 7, 2013)

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

Via Twitter:

Tony Messenger ‏ @tonymess

Today in irony: MO House debating bill meant to limit Muslims religious freedom while MO Senate debates bill meant to protect Catholics 11:38 AM – 27 Mar 12

Uh, yep:

Previously: Will Paul Curtman continue to waste legislative time with his Anti-Sharia bill? (January 11, 2012)

….it was pretty easy to dismiss his anti-Sharia bill out-of-hand, although it’s difficult to say if that will be the case in the lege given some of their recent antics….

They never fail to disappoint:

Missouri House of Representatives

96th General Assembly , 2nd Regular Session

Activity History for HB 1512

Date Jrn Pg Activity Description

1/25/2012 H 168 Introduced and Read First Time (H)

1/26/2012 H 172 Read Second Time (H)

2/02/2012 H 217 Referred: Judiciary (H)

2/08/2012 Public Hearing Completed (H)

2/15/2012 Executive Session Completed (H)

2/15/2012 Voted Do Pass (H)

2/20/2012 H 373 Reported Do Pass (H)

2/20/2012 Referred: Rules – Pursuant to Rule 25(32)(f) (H)

3/08/2012 Rules – Executive Session Completed (H)

3/08/2012 Rules – Voted Do Pass (H)

3/08/2012 H 591 Rules – Reported Do Pass (H)

3/27/2012 Perfected (H)

[emphasis added]

The committee summary of the bill:

Summary of the Committee Version of the Bill

HB 1512 — CIVIL LIBERTIES DEFENSE ACT

SPONSOR:  Curtman

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted “do pass” by the Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 8 to 4.

This bill establishes the Civil Liberties Defense Act which specifies that it must be the public policy of Missouri to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution.

The bill specifies that any court, tribunal, arbitration, or administrative agency decision or ruling which is based, in whole or in part, on foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the decision or ruling the same rights granted under the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution will violate the public policy of Missouri and be void and unenforceable.

A contract or contractual provision which provides for the choice of a law, legal code, or system to govern any dispute which does not grant the same rights under the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution will violate the public policy of Missouri and be void and unenforceable.

A contract which provides for a jurisdiction in a dispute that includes any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties the same rights under the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution will violate the public policy of Missouri and be void and unenforceable.

A claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim must be denied if a court finds that granting the claim would likely violate the rights under the Missouri Constitution or the United States Constitution of the non-claimant in the foreign forum.

These provisions cannot apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than Missouri or the United States.

No court or arbitrator can interpret these provisions to limit the right of any person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution and the United States Constitution.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that the bill contains exemptions and exclusions to alleviate concerns in similar legislation from last session.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Curtman; and Missouri Family Network.

OPPONENTS:  There was no opposition voiced to the committee.

One question:

What does God need with a starship?

Today’s St. Louis Post Dispatch suggests that new lawmakers, voted into office after term-limits removed more experienced legislators, are being taken advantage of by lobbyists. The example that is given is a bill introduced by Rep. Ellen Brandom (R-160) that targets extra large marijuana cigarettes – and that was, it turns out, submitted “verbatim” as written by a “friend” who was, unbeknownst to Brandom, a lobbyist for the cigar industry, which wanted to “throw an elbow at rivals in the rolling paper business that could cut into its sales.”

This story of legislative credulity makes me wonder about  HB708,  introduced by Rep. Paul Curtman (R-105). The bill seeks to ban foreign laws from Missouri courts. Although it specifies international law systems, its focus is, admittedly, Muslim Sharia law – since you never know when those sneaky Muslims will try to take over the legal system.

According to the Turner Report, Curtman’s bill was based almost word for word on a model prepared by a well-known Islamophobe and white supremacist, David Yerushalmi. To give you an idea about how bad Yerushalmi is, Mother Jones, the source of this information, quotes him as saying that “there’s a reason the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.”

So is Curtman sympathetic to Yerushalmi’s views in general? Or is he just naive, poorly informed, and easily misled by by others who have taken advantage of his fantasies of heroically riding the constitution onto the legislative stage? His rhetoric on the issue certainly combines what I have come to think of as that special Curtman mixture of self-congratulation and grandiosity:

I think this is another important step in defending the rights and liberties of our citizens, … Our heritage is grounded in the idea that our government must protect those rights and liberties. This legislation will help make it clear the constitution and laws of our country are the only laws that should be considered when governing our citizens in our country.

However, he also seems more than a little befuddled, since he is unable to offer any substantive examples of creeping Sharia – which might suggest all by itself that his actions are really just motivated by run-of-the-mill xenophobia,

Certainly, those, like Curtman, who seek to thwart Sharia law by banning the intrusion of foreign legal systems don’t always seem to understand all the implications. For instance, there are corporations based in Missouri that do considerable international business. It’s reasonable to suppose that they might need to make contracts based on international arbitration standards that will be honored in Missouri.  

Nor, contrary to Rep. Curtman’s patriotic preening, are there any real constitutional issues to be settled, since, as has frequently been pointed out when the topic of Sharia law arises, the 1st amendment insures that there will be no religious encroachment on our legal system by Muslims, Hindus, or even – gasp – Christians:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s worth noting that this amendment also protects Muslims, Jews, Mormons and others who wish to conform to the legal dictates of their religion in their personal and communal religious lives, as long as they do not violate federal or state statutes. As critics of the Christian nation types have been saying all along, separation of church and state isn’t really about whether or not one says “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays,” but is a necessary principle that serves to protect all religions by protecting our diverse population from overreach on the part of any particular religion.

So when we weigh the evidence, what we have is a proposed law that answers no real present need, could interfere with international commerce, and which is precluded by the actual constitution. It does, however, help exacerbate the current climate of virulent Muslim bashing on the part of the right wing.

Consequently, it seems clear that although Rep. Curtman may indeed be naive, he is not at all adverse to demagoguing anti-Muslim sentiment. Nor does one necessarily have any confidence that he would repudiate the more overt racism of his bill’s original fabricator, Mr. Yerushalmi. No matter how much one is tempted to give him the same pass one might grant the over-wrought adolescent he so resembles, unlike the gullible Rep. Brandom, it’s hard to think of any way he can honestly disavow the obvious goals of HB708.