Missouri bill will ban all federal gun-control laws

I thank God that our Founding Fathers, whose greatest fear was a tyrannical government, had the wisdom and foresight to institute curbs on government power in the form of numerous checks and balances.

One of those checks is the creation of a federal republic, in which the constituent geographic states have their separate powers — a founding principle that is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which spells out the powers of the constituent (geographical) states and of the people.

Unlike centralized polities like the UK and China wherein the central or national government holds all power, and whatever powers regional/local governments have are delegated to them, in a federation the powers of regional/local governments are not derived from the central government and, therefore, cannot be taken away by the central government. In the U.S. federal republic, as stipulated in the U.S. Constitution, it is the American people who grant separate powers to the federal government in Washington, D.C., and to the 50 state governments.

There is a bill in the Missouri state legislature (General Assembly) which, if passed, will ban all federal gun-control laws by preventing all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses and bans.

Sponsored by Rep. Jeff Pogue (R), 37, a Christian and a contractor/carpenter by profession, and co-sponsored by 4 other Republican representatives, House Bill 786: Second Amendment Preservation Act was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 31, 2019.

HB 786’s companion bill in the state Senate is SB 367, which was introduced by Sen. Eric Burlison (R) on February 7, 2019.

HB 786 begins with a powerful ringing reiteration of states’ rights and the limits on the federal government’s power which moved me to tears. The entire bill deserves your reading, and should be recommended to the legislatures of the other 49 states.

HB 786 states:

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, whether 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 United States Constitution is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves;

(4) If the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States 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 a compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the United States Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the United States 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 if 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 under the powers granted in the United States Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statutes, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces;

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

(7) The people of the several states have also granted Congress the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the United States 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 shall not to be so construed to grant unlimited power 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 Constitution of the United States and the Missouri Constitution; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.440. It shall be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of this state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of this state and to protect these rights from the infringements defined under section 1.420.

1.450. No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have the authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances infringing on the right to keep and bear arms as defined under section 1.410.

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

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

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

1.470. 1. Any person while acting as an official, agent, employee, or deputy of the government of the United States, or while otherwise acting under the color of federal law while within the borders of this state, who knowingly, as defined under section 562.016:

(1) Enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410; or

(2) Gives material aid and support to the efforts of others who enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements identified in section 1.410 shall be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.

2. Neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state shall employ as a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers any person who is ineligible to serve in such capacity under this section.

3. Any person residing in or conducting business in a jurisdiction who believes that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers of such jurisdiction has taken action that would render that person ineligible under this section to serve in such capacity shall have standing to pursue an action for declaratory judgment in the circuit court of the county in which the action allegedly occurred, or in the circuit court of Cole County, with respect to the employment eligibility of the law enforcement officer or the supervisor of law enforcement officers under this section.

4. If a court determines that a law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers has taken any action that would render him or her ineligible to serve in that capacity under this section:

(1) The law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall immediately be terminated from his or her position; and

(2) The jurisdiction that had employed the ineligible law enforcement officer or supervisor of law enforcement officers shall be required to pay the court costs and attorney’s fees associated with the declaratory judgment action that resulted in the finding of ineligibility.

5. Nothing in this section shall preclude a person’s right of appeal or remediation, as provided under chapter 590.

1.480. For the purposes of sections 1.410 to 1.485, 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.

1.485. If any provision of sections 1.410 to 1.485 or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such determination shall not affect the provisions or applications ofsections1 .410 to 1.485, which may be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and the provisions of sections 1.410 to 1.485 are severable.

Republicans control both the Senate and House of Representatives of the Missouri General Assembly, so HB 786 stands a good chance to pass:

  • 24 Republicans vs. 10 Democrats in the Senate.
  • 116 Republicans vs. 47 Democrats in the House of Representatives.

According to Max Headroom of The Sentinel, a former version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, SB 613, was passed by the state legislature in 2014, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a Demonrat.

Headroom notes that the current Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 786, SB 367) faces heavy opposition from two surprising groups:

  1. Missouri’s law enforcement community, “which should be no surprise, as Missouri law enforcement agencies raked in $34,462,153 in forfeitures from 2001 to 2008, according to a report by the Institute of Justice.”
  2. The National Rifles Association (NRA) because anti-gun Sen. Jamilah Nasheed had tried to sneak language into SB 367 that would require gun owners to report a stolen firearm to police no more than 72 hours after the discovery of the theft, or face a $1,000 fine and a misdemeanor charge. However, the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed from the actual text of the bill.

See also “Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Second Amendment applies to individuals, not militias, and may include military weapons”.

H/t truckjunkie

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
error0
 

41
Leave a Reply

avatar
18 Comment authors
JCscubanotonmywatchKevin G SagoD3F1ANTTed B Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
William
Member
William

Looks like I may have to move to Missouri if only to vote for Mr. Pogue. But wait just a darn minute..Max Headroom? I note that it is April 1

Brian Heinz
Guest
Brian Heinz

If they pull this off just might be thinking of moving. But you know all the money that is involved they will not allow this to happen.

notonmywatch
Guest
notonmywatch

Nothing for Missouri to “pull off” Brian. What Missouri is doing, actually, is obliging its responsibility to the citizens of that state to uphold the Tenth Amendment. If anything, one could question if the federal government will be able to pull off an end-run around the Constitution (they almost certainly will attempt to), and then what will Missouri’s (and the rest of the nation in kind) response be to that federal usurpation of states’ rights will be. We should all be paying very close attention to this legislation as it moves forward, for We the People are the guardians of… Read more »

TrailDust
Admin

Wow! I am almost tempted to move to a land-locked state!

Auntie Lulu
Guest
Auntie Lulu

I am green with envy when looking at the number of Republicans in their State legislature, as opposed to the number of Democrats. Here in Communist Oregon–our numbers are just about the opposite. I do hope that the people of Missouri can pass this meaningful measure.

Truckjunkie, thank you for bringing to us such a hopeful article.

William
Member
William

Max Headroom was some sci-fi popculture cartoon or something in the 80’s or 90’s. When I saw the name of the Sentinel reporter I thought the article must be a joke. Reading too closely perhaps. Maybe his nom de plume, maybe his real name. Good news regardless

josephbc69
Guest

I’ll copy this out to send to both my MP & MLA, so they can both see what an average person thinks and feels, then get on board with complimentary legislation.

I don’t have high expectations of its near-term success, but I will let you know how it’s handled.

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Excellently written and commented. Thanks. That’s what I’ve been preaching forever. Government’s powers are “enumerated”. If they are not enumerated they do not exist.

Our rights are God-given. Some are so important that they are Constitutionally protected. The Government has NO enumerated power to infringe on the Second Amendment or to interfere with our ability to defend ourselves.

Auntie Lulu
Guest
Auntie Lulu

Lophatt . . . Please just keep beating that drum . . . “Our rights are God-given.” For those who do not know this, the message must go out again, and again, and again.

William
Member
William

Amen

William
Member
William

Reading this got me to thinking about where I live. I think it’s only a matter of time before they grab everybody’s firearms. The governor, RINO Baker, recently pulled 300 or so LTC’s from legal gun owners for no reason, just for sh*ts and giggles. A judge ruled he had no right to do that and ordered them to be reinstated. He ignored the court ruling and he’s still governor. They do that here in various ways, just flex their muscles to remind everybody that The State is boss. Vermont next door is ultra-liberal feel the Bern territory but also… Read more »

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Yeah, I hear ya’. It may be possible to delay this by living in some locations. Somewhere like North Dakota or Idaho, etc.., but ultimately, I think they’ll get them. The only chance of avoiding that would be a huge violent push back.

The only thing that will stop them from carrying out their bosses orders is fear. If it became an issue that made it not worth the effort they might back down. I don’t see that at the moment.

William
Member
William

Neither do I, at the moment. That could change but their strategy is death by a thousand cuts, that way the majority will see no clear and present danger, just a slow attenuation of our constitutional rights. And 2A is the most critical, I think, by far. Everything hinges on Trump remaining in office. There are obviously factions within the DS but there is so much ebb and flow, back and forth, that it’s almost impossible to predict with any precision how this will all shake out. With Trump, to this point, the lines have been more clearly drawn but… Read more »

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

I completely agree. Trump could help, but I don’t really see that. The will isn’t there. That’s how you fight that tactic. You propose a counter offer that is so egregious it frightens them. You know, mandatory full-automatic training for six-year-olds.

What you want is an atmosphere where its risky to propose legislation. It’s like those “Blue Laws” in the New England states. Some of them are silly, but its easier to find ways around silly laws then to take a chance on getting a worse one by proposing a better one.

DCG
Admin

That was my first thought…living in the rural areas. 1) They’ll start with the more populated areas first and 2) sheriffs in the boonies aren’t going to be as anti-2A as bureaucrats in big cities.

A shovel will come in handy for strategically burying components throughout your property…

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

You can buy a little time. They’ll catch up though. That’s what the drones are for. If you live long enough it will be forbidden to live off the grid or in the country generally. Think Ruby Ridge or Waco. I have property for this purpose. I don’t delude myself that I could go unobserved for a long time. Of course I’m already old, so I don’t have as long to survive. It breaks my heart that its come to this, but it has. Nothing to do about it but face it and try to react efficiently. I predict that… Read more »

DCG
Admin

Drones are for target practice!

Living in the south, I’m a “little” more optimistic. The bureaucrats don’t wanna mess with us #2A folk. And there’s A LOT of us down here!

But I get ‘ya. The gun grabbers want nothing more than to rule….

As for the “rations,” that’s why one has to keep plenty of MREs on hand…as well as lead 🙂

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Think of it this way. They are “employees”. Their boss wants something done. They have no morals or principles other than self-interest. That’s the Satanist’s way. I know how it is where you live. My mother was born there. I spent a lot of time there. Still, if they insist they will do what they’re told to do. I go back to Gordon Caul being the first of the “modern” examples. He was essentially a tax resister, although more accurately he was a patriot. They murder him in cold blood and tried to kill his son who is now doing… Read more »

Kevin G Sago
Guest
Kevin G Sago

Refuse and go to prison?? You stand up for your rights and defend them. Even if lethal force is your only option. Would you fall to your knees and beg for mercy or die for whats right on your feet if necessary? That’s what is wrong with Americans today, they don’t have the backbone to stand up for their beliefs and their rights. Your State is ultra blue because of it. Missouri native.

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Where do you get that? “Would you fall to your knees and beg for mercy or die for whats right on your feet if necessary?”

No, I wouldn’t and I haven’t said anything like that here. My advise stands. I know, you’re a “tough guy”. Good luck.

It’s pretty easy to swagger ’round the old keyboard”. I’ll follow my own advise, I encourage you to go ahead and take the martyr’s path. I’m pretty sure I’m as “brave” as you and I plan to make my demise worth something.

William
Member
William

I think he’s talking to me. I was speaking hypothetically. If this ultra-blue state ever tried gun confiscation, and they probably will, I think I’d exercise other options, like hiding my weapon beforehand, or nipping next door to VT, anything short of giving it up. I refuse to do that. If deadly force was my only option in any situation I’d use it without thinking twice; isn’t that the whole point of owning a firearm? But it’s stupid to put yourself into that situation if it can be avoided and there is nothing to gain by doing so. What you… Read more »

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

It may be me, or the fact that I’m old, but tracing the little lines back to whoever the respondent is apparently isn’t working for me. Sorry.

Yeah, I agree with what you said. I’m saying the same thing. It is better to live effectively than to go out in an unnecessary blaze of glory. If it can’t be avoided, so be it.

notonmywatch
Guest
notonmywatch

Get out sooner…before you are behind enemy lines…

Kevin Lankford
Member
Kevin Lankford

I get so tired of reading these proposed “Bills” attempting to renegotiate rights already enshrined and secured by our Constitution, and the limited powers and authority of government. All that truly should be required is a demand that our elected officials honor their oaths to that simple Constitution, and realistic censuring and penalties for their current state of arrogance.

Of course there is just as much ‘policing” needed in every government agency and bureaucracy, county, city, state, up to federal.

chemtrailssuck
Guest
chemtrailssuck

You make an excellent point Kevin! You are right. It seems they just want to erode our Constitution by ignoring it.

Lophatt
Member
Lophatt

Yes, absolutely. In fact we should be threatening them with indictments for violating their oaths. Part of this game is to pretend that The Constitution doesn’t mean anything. If nobody objects it becomes real.

Jackie Puppet
Member

If I thought it would make a difference in Illinois, I’d send this article to legislative “leaders. But they can spin on why the exodus from Illinois continues.

I’d already be in Missouri if it weren’t for family. I’d have no problems being alone, 8 hours away from family – they wouldn’t.

pigpen51
Guest
pigpen51

I have a wife whom I will never do without, no matter what. I also have a 22 year daughter whom I adopted with my wife, who I swore to my Lord that I would take care of until the day I died. So it might some day be that I end up with a daughter out west with a young daughter in tow, trying to teache her to live off the land, and asking for help. No matter, Our trust is always in the one who provides, the one who has always taken care of of us when we… Read more »

sensen22
Guest
sensen22

“and provide for the common defense and general welfare”

The word “provide”. applied to the concept of “general welfare” is what got us in the situation you are trying to nullify. I believe the constitution uses the word, “promote” rather than provide. Big difference.

Ted B
Guest

I hope that other states will repeat Missouri’s lead in reaffirming the Constitution and the founding principles of America.

notonmywatch
Guest
notonmywatch

They had better; the silent majority are growing restless…

D3F1ANT
Guest
D3F1ANT

Missouri will become the safest, most prosperous state in the Union almost overnight. I might be moving there! The last bastion of Liberty in America!

notonmywatch
Guest
notonmywatch

I humbly propose a new motto for the great state of Missouri: Molon Labe!

Heck, Show Me is great also…so, maybe combine the two.

Way to lead from the front, Mizzou!

JCscuba
Guest
JCscuba

Dr. E this is nothing but great, however, I don’t see one state’s new legislation coming in to mess with our already horrible state in CA with their anti gun members of congress. Please help clear up my thinking? Thanks, J.C.

JCscuba
Guest
JCscuba