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)

Supporters of HB436, the happily defunct gun bill that sought to nullify federal gun legislation, have been defending it from hostile criticism that it would prohibit state and local officials from cooperating with federal officials by self-righteously proclaiming that it is only directed at “unconstitutional” legislation. This rather simple-minded defense leaves me with a couple of questions:

— First, if the federal laws to be targeted are unconstitutional, why didn’t these bozos take the issue to court – surely, if they are correct about the constitutional status of federal gun laws in question, they would be vindicated in the court system. Isn’t this the way we do it in this constitutional democracy they seem to be so keen on?  

— Second, since it’s very likely that HB436 itself is blatantly unconstitutional – many of those who considered voting for it even admitted as much – does it mean that, if it had passed, local officials could be arrested for enforcing its provisions? Or is it just federal laws that these GOP legal experts deem susceptible to nullification if Uncle Jim Bob thinks they’re unconstitutional?

Just asking.

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)

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.

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 2013)

National Firearms Act (NFA)

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

Uh that would be sawed off shotguns, fully automatic machineguns, and silencers.

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR

HOUSE BILL NO. 436

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1204S.04T          2013

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.

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

[….]

3. (1) All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, 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, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:

           (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;

           (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968…

[….]

[bold emphasis in original, underline emphasis added]

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

[….]

2273 Journal of the House [pdf]

On motion of Representative Funderburk, SCS HCS HB 436, as amended, was truly agreed

to and finally passed by the following vote:

AYES: 116

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Bernskoetter

Berry Black Brattin Brown Burlison

Cierpiot Conway 10 Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo

Cox Crawford Curtman Davis Diehl

Dohrman Dugger Elmer Engler English

Entlicher Fitzpatrick Fitzwater Flanigan Fowler

Fraker Frame Franklin Frederick Funderburk

Gannon Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey

Haahr Hampton Hansen Harris Hicks

Higdon Hinson Hodges Hoskins Hough

Houghton Hubbard Hurst Johnson Jones 50

Justus Keeney Kelley 127 Koenig Kolkmeyer

Korman Lair Lant Lauer Leara

Love Lynch Marshall Mayfield McCaherty

McGaugh McKenna Messenger Miller Moon

Morris Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson

Pfautsch Phillips Pike Pogue Redmon

Rehder Reiboldt Remole Rhoads Richardson

Riddle Roorda Ross Rowden Rowland

Scharnhorst Schatz Schieber Schieffer Shull

Shumake Smith 120 Solon Sommer Spencer

Stream Swan Thomson Torpey Walker

White Wieland Wilson Wood Zerr

Mr Speaker

NOES: 038

Anders Barnes Butler Carpenter Colona

Curtis Dunn Ellinger Ellington Englund

Hummel Kirkton Kratky LaFaver May

McCann Beatty McDonald McManus McNeil Meredith

Mitten Montecillo Morgan Newman Nichols

Norr Otto Pace Peters Pierson

Rizzo Runions Schupp Smith 85 Swearingen

Walton Gray Webb Wright

PRESENT: 000

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 009

Burns Cross Gardner Haefner Kelly 45

Lichtenegger Mims Molendorp Webber

Representative Diehl declared the bill passed.

Speaker Jones resumed the Chair.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Yes, you got that right. A veto proof majority in the Missouri General Assembly voted to nullify federal prohibitions of sawed off shotguns, fully automatic machineguns, and silencers.

Forget seersucker. It looks like scratchy gray wool uniforms are back in vogue. [That sarcastic reference to the last serious nullification disagreement which was settled almost 150 years ago came from someone else on the Internets.]

There’s even more right wingnutty goodness in HB 436:

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

[emphasis in original]

Oh, that’ll cost a lot of money to litigate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It looks like Representative Dean Dohrman (r) has earned his keep.

And Representative Denny Hoskins (r) is running for a leadership position:

Denny Hoskins, CPA

Missouri House of Representatives

District 54

Capitol Report

May 10th, 2013

[….]

….I am pleased to officially announce my candidacy for Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri House of Representatives. As you may, or may not know, Rep. Jason Smith, current Speaker Pro Tem, is running for the vacant Congressional seat in Missouri’s 8th district. I believe I have the experience, character, and conviction needed to fill the position. Speaker Pro Tem is selected by a vote of my House colleagues, many of whom have already expressed their support of my candidacy….

[….]

Heh. Service is its own reward.    

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

A bill, filed today:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 436

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

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

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

AN ACT

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

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

           Section A. Chapter 1, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 1.320, to read as follows:

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

           2. The general assembly finds and declares that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

           (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;

           (b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

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

           (d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

           (e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

           (f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;

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

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

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

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

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

[emphasis in original]

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

“…Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens…”

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

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

Yeah, you and what Air Force?

“…All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. (2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to: (a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934…”

Is that the entire act? Just asking.

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

National Firearms Act (NFA)

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

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