MO Senate passes a "no federal gun laws allowed" bill
Here is a copy and paste about news of the MO Senate passing a bill SB367 outlawing all federal gun control laws in the state. The copy and paste is just one of numerous examples of how the anti-NRA crowd can later falsely claim that the "evil, secretly anti-gun NRA" actually is fighting against gun rights :
"The bill?s other stiff opposition came from an unlikely source: the NRA. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed tried to sneak language into SB367 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 actual text of the bill included no such language.
Bill author Senator Eric Burlison and bill saboteur Senator Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed earlier this week, thus satisfying the source of NRA opposition."
There was obviously some confusion during the legislation, this is not uncommon. And during that confusion, the NRA took the appropriate stand, believing it was standing against the gun rights bill because of the anti-gun Senator Nasheed trying to sneak some anti-gun language into the bill. As the article says, when it became obvious to everyone that Nasheed gave up his efforts, then the NRA supported the bill. But years from now, after most people have forgotten this fact, the NRA haters can drege it back up again and claim that the "NRA was against a marvelous gun rights law."
"The bill?s other stiff opposition came from an unlikely source: the NRA. Anti-gun Senator Jamilah Nasheed tried to sneak language into SB367 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 actual text of the bill included no such language.
Bill author Senator Eric Burlison and bill saboteur Senator Nasheed agreed to reconsider and the stolen firearm reporting clause was removed earlier this week, thus satisfying the source of NRA opposition."
There was obviously some confusion during the legislation, this is not uncommon. And during that confusion, the NRA took the appropriate stand, believing it was standing against the gun rights bill because of the anti-gun Senator Nasheed trying to sneak some anti-gun language into the bill. As the article says, when it became obvious to everyone that Nasheed gave up his efforts, then the NRA supported the bill. But years from now, after most people have forgotten this fact, the NRA haters can drege it back up again and claim that the "NRA was against a marvelous gun rights law."
0
-
NRA 'haters' are not that shallow.
Good to see you posting, Mr. Fox.
I haven't read the complete text, but supposedly it protects the possession of NFA restricted weapons as suggested by this section:
(a) 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;
This specifically nullifies much of the NFA within the state of Missouri.
A simple reading would suggest that someone who possess an unregistered full auto weapon would be immune from prosecution, and any State or Federal Agent who would try to enforce the requirements of the NFA would be subject to prosecution.
My personal opinion is that the NFA is not Constitutional, and therefore am in full agreement with the proposed legislation. There will obviously be issues regarding the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, as the Constitutionality of the NFA has been unsuccessfully challenged in the past.
All that said, the 2nd Amendment does not include any 'law abiding citizen' caveat. The Missouri Bill includes this caveat, and thus is straddling the fence regarding the interpretation of the 2nd. If this bill becomes law, it will obviously be challenged. Will be interesting to see upon what grounds it is challenged, and how the courts craft their decisions.0 -
Don, as you are aware, such state laws have thus far not worked out as well as envisioned. Consider the Kettler case in KY, taken up by GOA. So far Kettler is up s. creek.Don McManus wrote:NRA 'haters' are not that shallow.
I haven't read the complete text, but supposedly it protects the possession of NFA restricted weapons as suggested by this section:
(a) 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;
This specifically nullifies much of the NFA within the state of Missouri.
A simple reading would suggest that someone who possess an unregistered full auto weapon would be immune from prosecution, and any State or Federal Agent who would try to enforce the requirements of the NFA would be subject to prosecution.
My personal opinion is that the NFA is not Constitutional, and therefore am in full agreement with the proposed legislation. There will obviously be issues regarding the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, as the Constitutionality of the NFA has been unsuccessfully challenged in the past.
All that said, the 2nd Amendment does not include any 'law abiding citizen' caveat. The Missouri Bill includes this caveat, and thus is straddling the fence regarding the interpretation of the 2nd. If this bill becomes law, it will obviously be challenged. Will be interesting to see upon what grounds it is challenged, and how the courts craft their decisions.
https://gunowners.org/gun-owners-of-america-funds-challenge-to-national-firearms-act-in-u-s-supreme-court/
I wholly support State Nullification efforts and while the NRA is on the correct side THIS TIME, there's such a long history of being on the wrong side it's hardly compensating for the harm they've done over the years. Consider bump stocks as just the most recent example, a device that we recently discover has never been confirmed to have been used in the commission of a crime, but here we are, shredding them along with our rights at the NRA's behest.0 -
That would get sticky a State Official prosecuting a Federal agent. Where as the opposite will actually happen.. The Feds will pull the owner and the state official into Federal court within the state. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
3 comments