Missouri to ban all federal gun control laws

[nzoner 936]

Missouri may have just made the most monumental step towards freedom and individual liberty since the signing of the Bill of Rights. In an upcoming vote by Missouri’s state senate, the state is expected to pass a bill that would nullify ALL Federal gun laws and regulations, and make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense. Republicans control both U.S. Senate seats and more than two-thirds of the seats in both the Missouri House and Senate.

[Frozenbeernuts 1,652]

Sounds pretty idiotic to me. 

[cbfalcon 824]

Interesting. Hypothetically, could a state just ban all federal laws and regulations and make it a crime to enforce any federal law or regulation?

Would that be a way to essentially secede, yet retain the benefits of being part of the US?

[NorthernVike 2,080]

A victory for Truth, Justice and the American way. 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

1 minute ago, cbfalcon said:

Interesting. Hypothetically, could a state just ban all federal laws and regulations and make it a crime to enforce any federal law or regulation?

Would that be a way to essentially secede, yet retain the benefits of being part of the US?

Nope.  They're just upholding a constitutionally protected right.   

[RLLD 3,455]

Can they do that?

[jerryskids 5,190]

2 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

Can they do that?

I wonder where that line is.  We have things like sanctuary cities and states which have legalized MJ, which seem on the surface to conflict with federal laws. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,575]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I wonder where that line is.  We have things like sanctuary cities and states which have legalized MJ, which seem on the surface to conflict with federal laws. 

seems to me is that gun rights which are constitutionally protected would hold up more than stuff that isnt in the constitution, but seems like states can pretty much do whatever they like

however a state can say that feds cant do anything, but feds themselves can do whatever they want.  They can still arrest illegals in sanctuary cities, and still arrest people in Cali for weed

[RLLD 3,455]

10 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I wonder where that line is.  We have things like sanctuary cities and states which have legalized MJ, which seem on the surface to conflict with federal laws. 

I think there are instances where the Federal Government chooses to turn a blind eye, but I would be really surprised if the Fed's allowed this to go by...

[Cruzer 1,992]

Why stop here? Mizzou should ban Federal Taxes too. More money for guns and blasting stuff. :anarchydeadahead:

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

I'm a staunch 2nd Amendment guy but I don't support a state doing this. The Feds simply HAVE to have authority over certain things. Just as I'm opposed to 3 states trying to make releasing tax returns a caveat to appear on a ballot or Sanctuary Cities.

You're part of a country and the country's laws apply to you. 

[wiffleball 4,636]

The home of Ferguson having unfettered gun access?

Makes sense. 

Seal the state borders.

[Mike Honcho 4,014]

47 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I wonder where that line is.  We have things like sanctuary cities and states which have legalized MJ, which seem on the surface to conflict with federal laws. 

 

36 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

I think there are instances where the Federal Government chooses to turn a blind eye, but I would be really surprised if the Fed's allowed this to go by...

Going from memory but sanctuary cities and legalized weed, which conflict with federal laws are okay because the states choose not to enforce those laws---the feds still can.   IE a city isn't going to use it's resources to look for illegals, a state isn't going to prosecute tokers...FBI or ICE can still enforce those laws.   

This I don't think flies at all "and make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense."   I don't think that a state has the authority to do that.   I'm sure there is a lot more to this than just that though-

Also there might be rulings by SCOTUS already that the fed can create some of these gun laws through commerce clause and a state can't nullify them willy nilly---but this is me just speculating after a good nights rest at a motel 6---so not saying this is a fact or not.   

[ZeroTolerance 582]

https://fox2now.com/2019/03/15/missourians-would-be-required-to-purchase-an-ar-15-under-proposed-law/

 

Quote

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - A bill introduced in the Missouri general assembly is turning a few heads. House Bill 11-08 filed in February by southeast Missouri Representative Andrew McDaniel would require all adults in Missouri between the ages of 18 and 35 to purchase an AR-15 style rifle.

Tax credits would be provided to defray the cost of the weapon. The bill does not currently have any scheduled hearings.

 

[jerryskids 5,190]

22 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

Going from memory but sanctuary cities and legalized weed, which conflict with federal laws are okay because the states choose not to enforce those laws---the feds still can.   IE a city isn't going to use it's resources to look for illegals, a state isn't going to prosecute tokers...FBI or ICE can still enforce those laws.   

This I don't think flies at all "and make enforcement of those laws by federal officers within the State of Missouri a criminal offense."   I don't think that a state has the authority to do that.   I'm sure there is a lot more to this than just that though-

Also there might be rulings by SCOTUS already that the fed can create some of these gun laws through commerce clause and a state can't nullify them willy nilly---but this is me just speculating after a good nights rest at a motel 6---so not saying this is a fact or not.   

That makes sense, but it seems to me that if say Colorado explicitly legalizes weed, and I get arrested by a Fed for toking there, I would have a legal defense that said toking is legal in my state.  I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me like this is an inevitable court challenge, if it hasn't happened already.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

I am not a lawyer, but I would expect that the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago would be applicable here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Basically, states and local governments can't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.  My guess is that the opposite would be true in that the Feds control the enumerated powers around arms. 

[cbfalcon 824]

32 minutes ago, ZeroTolerance said:

https://fox2now.com/2019/03/15/missourians-would-be-required-to-purchase-an-ar-15-under-proposed-law/

 

 

I assumed this was a joke, but fox2now.com is a legit website and the bill is found on house.mo.gov 

I have to say...that’s pretty funny. 

[Thornton Melon 543]

13 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

I am not a lawyer, but I would expect that the 2010 case of McDonald v. City of Chicago would be applicable here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

Basically, states and local governments can't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights.  My guess is that the opposite would be true in that the Feds control the enumerated powers around arms. 

How do the Feds control the enumerated powers around arms?

[cbfalcon 824]

4 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

I assumed this was a joke, but fox2now.com is a legit website and the bill is found on house.mo.gov 

I have to say...that’s pretty funny. 

Ahh, its a ploy to try and make the left look dumb for not liking it.

Quote

A Republican pushed mandatory AR-15s. After mosque shootings, he says it was a ploy to bait the left.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/18/republican-pushed-mandatory-ar-s-after-mosque-shootings-he-says-it-was-ploy-bait-left/?utm_term=.2925a2f85031

[5-Points 2,726]

49 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Also there might be rulings by SCOTUS already that the fed can create some of these gun laws through commerce clause and a state can't nullify them willy nilly---but this is me just speculating after a good nights rest at a motel 6---so not saying this is a fact or not.   

Don't the Fed's only have jurisdiction over interstate commerce? If the guns are manufactured, purchased and reside within the state, do the Fed's have any authority to intervene? I'm sure they do somehow, supremacy clause or some such but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think this stands a chance of surviving the inevitable challenges and subsequent court rulings. 

 

[5-Points 2,726]

30 minutes ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Basically, states and local governments can't infringe on 2nd Amendment rights. 

Somebody should let California know. 

[Mike Honcho 4,014]

58 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

That makes sense, but it seems to me that if say Colorado explicitly legalizes weed, and I get arrested by a Fed for toking there, I would have a legal defense that said toking is legal in my state.  I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me like this is an inevitable court challenge, if it hasn't happened already.

I don't think you would have any defense of that sort(supremacy clause).   The state can say it's legal, but it's still a class 1 federal drug with criminal penalties. 

Quote

 

What is the Supremacy Clause and what does it mean for states’ rights to legalize marijuana?

The idea of federal preemption of state law is based on the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2), which states that the Constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

The Supremacy Clause’s relations to state-enacted marijuana laws has been addressed in a handful of legal articles, including a UCLA Law Review report from 2015:

“The constitutional question that will determine the outcome of any preemption lawsuit seeking to invalidate state marijuana laws is whether state laws allowing the sale, cultivation, and use of limited amounts of marijuana creates an impermissible “conflict” — as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court — with the (Controlled Substance Act) provisions prohibiting marijuana altogether.”

 

 

[taco breath 419]

new zealand > missouri

[Mike Honcho 4,014]

28 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Don't the Fed's only have jurisdiction over interstate commerce? If the guns are manufactured, purchased and reside within the state, do the Fed's have any authority to intervene? I'm sure they do somehow, supremacy clause or some such but it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't think this stands a chance of surviving the inevitable challenges and subsequent court rulings. 

 

I'm way in over my head at this point - I know that interstate commerce has been used to justify gun laws in the past, it's the go to reason for every questionable law in this country---but as far as the nitty gritty, I'm in the weeds. 

 

[wiffleball 4,636]

44 minutes ago, cbfalcon said:

Ahh, its a ploy to try and make the left look dumb for not liking it.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/03/18/republican-pushed-mandatory-ar-s-after-mosque-shootings-he-says-it-was-ploy-bait-left/?utm_term=.2925a2f85031

We have laws against frivolous lawsuits, but...

 

You want to tweak people? Do it on twatter. 

 

A state as effed up and dying as MO?  Should focus on productive legislation. - and Legislators. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

50 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

How do the Feds control the enumerated powers around arms?

I guess they don't.

[5-Points 2,726]

2 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

I'm way in over my head at this point - I know that interstate commerce has been used to justify gun laws in the past, it's the go to reason for every questionable law in this country---but as far as the nitty gritty, I'm in the weeds. 

 

I'm with you. I'm no lawyer or constitutional scholar but it is my understanding that, in general, state laws can be more restrictive but not more permissive than federal laws where the two overlap.

[Mookz 1,287]

Ban gun ban bans. 

[DonS 3,066]

I've always found it confusing how states can sue the federal govt when they don't agree. Seems like the only thing state AG Bob Ferguson in WA does is sue the Trump Administration. He doesn't do sh1t otherwise. 

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Has anyone noticed that this bill is still in committee, has not been voted on, and a similar bill was vetoed by the Governor already? 

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

Take that liberals...the GOP can propose wacky things too!!

[nzoner 936]

2 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Has anyone noticed that this bill is still in committee, has not been voted on, and a similar bill was vetoed by the Governor already? 

It was vetoed by the former Governor

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

8 hours ago, nzoner said:

It was vetoed by the former Governor

Right. But these bills have not been voted on or even made it out of committee. Not exactly what is in the title or OP.

[Mike Honcho 4,014]

2 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Right. But these bills have not been voted on or even made it out of committee. Not exactly what is in the title or OP.

I'm sure there will be the same backlash against the OP for a misleading title as there was the time I did it.    Some people are very sensitive about that.   

[nzoner 936]

2 hours ago, Patriotsfatboy1 said:

Right. But these bills have not been voted on or even made it out of committee. Not exactly what is in the title or OP.

The OP is taken directly from the article and does state "expected to" but looking at it now I should have added proposed bill in the title.Sorry for any confusion.