Tag Archives: gun humpers

Eric Schmitt (r) wouldn’t know the U.S. Constitution if it smacked him upside the head

17 Thursday Jun 2021

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

And he has the record before the U.S. Supreme Court to prove that.

United States Constitution:

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

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

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

It’s there in plain English.

Today from Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt (r):

Attorney General Schmitt, Governor Parson Send Letter to Biden DOJ, Fighting Federal Encroachment on Missourians’ Second Amendment Rights
Jun 17, 2021, 14:15 PM by AG Schmitt

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Governor Mike Parson today sent a letter to President Biden’s Department of Justice fighting back against potential federal overreach and encroachment on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.
[….]

“Missourians’ and Americans’ Second Amendment rights are enshrined in the Constitution – I will defend those rights at every turn,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “Our letter to Biden’s Department of Justice sends a clear message: we will fight any attempts from the federal government to encroach on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

“The Second Amendment Preservation Act is about protecting law-abiding Missourians against government overreach and unconstitutional federal mandates,” Governor Parson said. “We will reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property. Throughout my career, I have always stood for the Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, and that will not change today or any day.”

The letter, which is in response to the Department of Justice’s Wednesday letter to both the Attorney General and the Governor on the recently passed and signed Second Amendment Preservation Act, begins with, “Your letter purporting to ask for clarification of this important legislation, which was purposefully leaked to the news media, is riddled with a misunderstanding of the law and falsehoods. We will not stand by while the federal government tries to tell Missourians how to live our lives. Missouri is not attempting to nullify federal law. Instead, Missouri is defending its people from federal government overreach by prohibiting state and local law enforcement agencies from being used by the federal government to infringe Missourians’ right to keep and bear arms.”

The letter argues that, under the Second and Tenth Amendments, the right to keep and bear arms is inalienable, and that Missouri has the right to refuse to enforce unconstitutional infringements by the federal government. The letter states, “Likewise, the Tenth Amendment directly limits the Federal Government’s ability to shift the balance of power within the federal system away from the States… the State of Missouri has every right under our system of government and the Tenth Amendment to place limitations on what state and local officials may do.”

The letter also notes the Department of Justice’s June 16 letter conflicts with their own policy toward “sanctuary cities,” stating, “On his first day in office, President Biden rescinded President Trump’s executive order that prohibited federal grant awards to sanctuary jurisdictions that refused to cooperate with the federal government to enforcement immigration laws. In April, the Office of Justice Programs reportedly repealed the Department of Justice’s policy that required recipients of a law enforcement grant to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as a condition of their funding… President Biden and the Department of Justice have decided to reward states and cities that refuse to cooperate with enforcing constitutional immigration laws that protect our citizens against foreign threats, but now they attack Missouri for refusing to cooperate with enforcing unconstitutional gun confiscation laws that put our citizens in danger and degrade their rights.”

The letter ends with, “We will fight tooth and nail to defend the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment, Article I, § 23 of the Missouri Constitution, and the Second Amendment Preservation Act. And we will not tolerate any attempt by the federal government to deprive Missourians of this critical civil right.”

###

He also said the same on social media. Some of the responses:

Is Missouri seceding from the United States? Or by what authority would Missouri be able to reject federal law?

@AGEricSchmitt and @GovParsonMO are profoundly ignorant of constitutional law and this move will cost Missourians money as AG Schmidt defends this poorly written law against the inevitable challenges. @SLULAW you need to come take that JD back from Schmidtt.

Your agenda has nothing to do with Missourians or their rights.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Yeah.

Y’all keep getting your ignorant ass handed to you in court. Y’all keep doubling down on idiotic mistakes. Y’all gonna secede next?
#LostCause #WasteOfMoney

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2018 file photo].

And Mike Parson (r) did the same. Some of those responses:

Nice try. We fall under the federal umbrella like every other state.

Yeah, let me know how that goes consitutionally, pudding.

Has Eric Schmitt ever won one of the dumb fights he picks? You might want to get yerself a new lawyer, Hee Haw.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

Sorry, Heehaw.

Cases of COVID are rising faster here than almost anywhere in the country. And you choose to waste your time on this stupid bullshit? C’mon, man, hike up your big boy pants and SAVE lives instead of making it easier to take them.

I am sure the Biden Department of Justice is just shaking in their boots after receiving a letter from a Traitor like Eric Schmitt. You are useless governor!

You both are just idiots. There’s Noo one trying to take away any weapons.

Hey Gov Nitwit, you are single-handedly making Missouri a laughing stock of America. You realize this, yes?
Why can’t you be an ACTUAL LEADER and convince folks to quit being big freaking babies and get their covid vax?? You are literally the WORST!!!!

Previously:

The Supremacy Clause don’t mean shit (June 12, 2021)

HJR 30 and HJR 31: a gun humper twofer

24 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

It’s all about that magnetometer (metal detector) and security at the public entrance.

Two constitutional amendments, filed today:

HJR 30  
Proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting searches of persons upon entering the Missouri State Capitol or on capitol grounds
Sponsor: Moon, Mike (157)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 1528H.01I
Last Action: 01/24/2017 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 30
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING
[….]

HJR 31  
Proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting searches of persons upon entering the Missouri State Capitol or on capitol grounds
Sponsor: Marshall, Nick (013)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 1333H.01I
Last Action: 01/24/2017 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 31
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING
[….]

It’s empty posturing unless and until minigun emplacements are allowed in the public galleries.

Previously:

HB 96: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage (December 8, 2016)

Rep. Stacey Newman (D): about those guns… (December 12, 2016)

HB 300: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage – redux (December 29, 2016)

HB 300: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage – redux

29 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Another gun bill, pre-filed on December 20th:

HB 300
Provides that if a business enterprise posts to prohibit the possession of concealed firearms on the property, the posting entity assumes responsibility for the safety of a person permitted to carry a firearm if harmed on the property.
Sponsor: Moon, Mike (157)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number:
0735H.01I
Last Action:
12/20/2016 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 300
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
[….]

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 300 — BUSINESS LIABILITY FOR PROHIBITING FIREARMS
SPONSOR: Moon
This bill makes a business that posts signs prohibiting concealed firearms liable for injuries or damages sustained by individuals, who would otherwise be authorized to carry firearms, while on the premises of that business. By posting signs prohibiting firearms the business would assume a duty to defend its customers. The business would be held responsible for the intention or reckless conduct of third parties, including trespasser. The bill authorizes the injured individual to sue the business and if successful, recover attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and court costs. This bill is similar to HB 96 (2017) and HB 2663 (2016).

“…This bill is similar to HB 96 (2017)…” Ooh, with refinements. Because freshman right wingnuts shouldn’t have all the fun.

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 300 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE MOON.
0735H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to liability for concealed firearm exclusion in certain locations.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.068, to read as follows:
571.068. 1. Any business enterprise authorized to post signs on property prohibiting the possession of a concealed firearm by a person authorized to carry a concealed firearm under sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall assume absolute custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of the endorsement or permit holder while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise and on any property owned by the business enterprise that the endorsement or permit holder is required to traverse in order to travel to and from the location where the endorsement or permit holder’s firearm is stored. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or to private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, “business enterprise” means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public. 2. The responsibility of the business enterprise for the safety and defense of the endorsement or permit holder shall extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, or employees of the business enterprise.
3. (1) Any firearm carry endorsement or permit holder who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, property damage, or any other compensable loss as a result of the conduct occurring on property where signs are posted prohibiting concealed firearms shall have a cause of action against the business enterprise posting such signs so long as such person is an invitee on such property. In addition to damages, such person shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness costs, and other costs necessary to bring the cause of action.
(2) The statute of limitations for an action under this subsection shall be two years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.
4. Any notice or sign prohibiting concealed firearms on the property shall also contain language citing the provisions of this section and stating that any endorsement or permit holder on the posted property is under the custodial responsibility of the business enterprise.
5. To prevail in an action brought under this section, the plaintiff shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that:
(1) The plaintiff was authorized to carry a concealed firearm under sections 571.101 to 571.121 at the time of the incident giving rise to the action;
(2) The plaintiff was prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm on the property where the incident occurred because signs were posted prohibiting concealed firearms on the property;
(3) The property was not required to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms on the property by state or federal law but was posted by choice of the defendant; and
(4) The business enterprise’s prohibition on carrying concealed firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
6. This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purpose.

[emphasis in original]

Yep:

….Here’s what should and will probably happen if this moronic bill becomes law: Business owners who post “no guns” will require anyone with a gun (who is not a commissioned peace officer) who they will not allow to enter with that weapon to sign a legal waiver before they are allowed on their premises without the gun….

Previously:

HB 96: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage (December 8, 2016)

Rep. Stacey Newman (D): about those guns… (December 12, 2016)

HB 96: gun humpers in the General Assembly want to hold everyone else hostage

08 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 6 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

A bill filed by a right wingnut republican freshman:

HB 96 
Allows persons authorized to carry firearms under chapter 571 to sue for certain injuries sustained on the property of business enterprises that voluntarily prohibit firearms.
Sponsor: Schroer, Nick (107)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 0523H.03I
Last Action: 12/01/2016 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 96
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

Think about that for a second. He wants to impose open and conceal carry on every business.

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 96 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE SCHROER.
0523H.03I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to firearms.

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

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.069, to read as follows:

571.069. 1. Any business enterprise electing to prohibit the possession of firearms or other arms by the placement of signs as authorized under section 571.107, or other provisions of chapter 571, shall assume custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any person who is authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 while such person is on the premises of the business enterprise. The provisions of this section shall not apply to private property not used for commercial purposes or private residences of any type. For purposes of this section, “business enterprise” means any business that sells or provides goods or services to the general public.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the requirement to ensure safety and defense under subsection 1 of this section shall include a mandatory and explicit duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 against the intentional or reckless conduct of third parties including, but not limited to, persons who are trespassers, employees, customers, or other invitees of the business enterprise. The requirement to ensure safety and defense shall also include a duty to defend persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms against vicious animals and wild animals. The duty to defend such persons under this subsection shall apply only to the defense against conduct that could reasonably have been prevented by the use of arms in lawful self defense. If a business enterprise restricts the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571, then such business shall post, together with the notice and sign required under section 571.107, notice stating that persons authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 are under the custodial responsibility of the business entity.
3. A person authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571 who is injured, suffers bodily injury or death, incurs economic loss or expense, or suffers property damage as a result of conduct breaching the duty to defend such person shall have a cause of action against a business entity prohibiting the possession of firearms or other arms under chapter 571.
4. The standard of proof for tort actions under this section shall require that a plaintiff show by preponderance of the evidence that:
(a) He or she was authorized to carry firearms or other arms under chapter 571;
(b) He or she was lawfully prohibited from carrying firearms or other arms by reason of a sign voluntarily posted by a business enterprise under section 571.107;
(c) He or she was prohibited from carrying firearms by a business enterprise that is not required to prohibit firearms or other arms under state or federal law or by a rule or policy enacted by a political subdivision or the state contracting with such business entity; and
(d) The business enterprise’s prohibition on carrying firearms or other arms was the proximate cause of the damages, loss, or injury suffered by the plaintiff.
5. If a plaintiff is successful in a lawsuit under this section, then he or she shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness costs, and court costs.
6. The statute of limitations for an action under this section shall be two years from the date of the occurrence giving rise to the damages, loss, or injury.

[emphasis in original]

Here’s what should and will probably happen if this moronic bill becomes law: Business owners who post “no guns” will require anyone with a gun (who is not a commissioned peace officer) who they will not allow to enter with that weapon to sign a legal waiver before they are allowed on their premises without the gun.

Here’s what I plan on doing, even in our present environment. If I’m shopping at a business establishment and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned peace officer) I will abandon the items I intended on purchasing from that establishment where I stand and promptly exit. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my consumer dollars elsewhere. In a world where on-line shopping is easy this does not present a particular hardship for me as a consumer. It does present a hardship for a brick and mortar business establishment which relies on actual customers buying stuff on their premises.

If I am at a restaurant and I observe someone openly carrying a gun (who is not a uniformed commissioned officer) I will promptly leave the establishment, not waiting to order or complete my meal if at a later stage. I will not return to that establishment. I will inform the management/owner that I will take my business elsewhere.

Money talks and walks.