Missouri Legislature Set To Nullify Federal Gun Laws

0 Shares
Image (1) new_handgun_image.jpg for post 12062

In what would be one of the most far-reaching peacetime attempts by a U.S. State to negate a Federal law that imposes restrictions exceeding those found in the Constitution, the Missouri State Legislature is expected to override a Governor’s veto and criminalize the enforcement of Federal gun laws throughout the State.

The Republican majority in the Legislature is being joined by a handful of Democrats in overriding Democratic Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 436 — also known as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act” — last month. Nixon had rejected the bill on the grounds that, predictably, it violates the Supremacy doctrine and also includes punitive provisions — such as allowing for citizens to sue reporters who connect them with gun ownership or to sue officers who attempt a Federal gun arrest — that violate the 1st Amendment.

Observers believe, though, that when the Legislature convenes on Sept. 11, both chambers will have the numbers necessary to override Nixon’s veto. In the original vote, the measure passed the House 116-38 and the Senate 26-6.

Legislative Democrats seem to favor the bill because it’s politically expedient to satisfy the will of people.

“Being a rural-area Democrat, if you don’t vote for any gun bill, it will kill you,” House Democrat Ben Harris told FOX News. “That’s what the Republicans want you to do is vote against it, because if you vote against it, they’ll send one mailer every week just blasting you about guns, and you’ll lose.”

In addition, some Democrats see a vote in favor of overriding the veto as a no-harm, no-foul proposition, since many feel that a subsequent court challenge would succeed in striking down the nullification law.

Part of the Federal-State battle is a principled conflict over government infringement on the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. But for many Republicans both in Missouri and nationwide, it’s about Federal encroachment on State powers generally, whether over gun rights, State voter-approved medical marijuana use or the nullification of Obamacare in some States.

A Montana law that sought a lesser measure of State control over unConstitutional Federal gun laws had been in effect since 2009. That law, the Montana Firearms Freedom Act, exempts from Federal regulation any gun (with exceptions for fully automatic guns and large-bore military firearms) that has remained in the State since the time of its in-State manufacture, dating back to October of 2009. But even though that law was worded specifically to comply with the Constitution’s interstate commerce provisions, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck it down just last week.

Personal Liberty

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • HueyDude

    “many feel that a subsequent court challenge would succeed in striking down the nullification law.” If that is the case, then a precedent has already been set in other states, primarily CA and CO for allowing the use of pot, which is in violation of federal law, and the states that have nullified Obummercare, which I still believe is unconstitutional based upon the fact that SCOTUS deemed the penalties as a tax, and any act that levies a tax must originate in the House. Obummercare, as far as I know, did not originate there. The MO law, on the other hand, is a valiant attempt at prohibiting the federal government from violating people’s 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendment rights. Way to Go M-O.

    • Robert Messmer

      And the DEA has stated that “in their opinion there is no medical benefit” from pot. It is still a Class 1 drug and they will arrest, prosecute, and jail anyone they wish, state law to the contrary notwithstanding. Just because for now they have not done so, does not mean that any one is safe from them doing so when ever they feel like it. And of course if they need another distraction from another phony scandal….

  • Jim Read

    What the power hungry clowns do not understand, there are enough gun owners with the guts to do what is necessary, I just hope its done before the 2014 election!

    • Vis Fac

      The only thing missing is quality organization. We might have the means but coordination and communication is key. One on many is seldom effective. Coordination of a few changes the game. Coordination of many wins battles.

      The quandary the world faces is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people full of doubts” Bertrand Russell

      America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our liberties, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.– Abraham Lincoln

      The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

      A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president… The United States is no longer a republic!

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch with the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Liberty comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”

      A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      Semper-Fi

      • Charlie

        Well ,,, for One that has heard God speak to them ,,, and you can’t figure out that The Kingdom of King Jesus Christ is A well disciplined Military “”Organization”” ??? Then you better read some American history book of The early states that tell you The Bible “IS” The First “Constitution” for America and that a Pilgrim named William Bradford lead America under Biblical Law for the first 31years of American life… King Jesus Christ told His Men to Pray His Kingdom into place at Matthew 6:9–13 ,,, Are You Praying that everyday ? IF? not? You are out of “Order” ……….

        • Jim Read

          So what happened, did God leave the pilgrims? Did God talk to the founding fathers and tell them this isn’t working you need to rebel?
          I am so tired of so called bible thumping christians spouting “their” christianity. I am not as “biblical” as you so I can’t give you the scripture but God did lead the Isrealites in many battles and if you believe the red sea story, HE killed most of the Egyptian soldiers. You “christians” try to spread “peace” and “love” is the only way. If I read the bible correctly he has wrath. He also destroy Sodom and Gamora (I know it’s not spelled correctly) and crumbled the walls of Jerico.
          Just one last question. How do you “Christians” know God is not telling the American people to rebel?

          • Charlie

            Jim ,,, IF? ,,, you have not accomplished Acts 2:38 ? … Then your spiritual eyes have not been opened to be able to harmonize Scriptures … Therefore you will most of the time be missing a part of the Puzzle of any question that come from so called “Christians”… Define the term “rebel”? because King Jesus does tell us to fight against the anti-Christ …………………….

          • Jim Read

            Glad you prefaced with the big “IF ? ,,,” ! What amazes me is you call Jesus King, very few do which leads me to believe you are one of two things, a bible thumping know it all christian or the member of a brain washed cult? Since you do not know what it is to rebel you can google the word and it will explain it to you. You wanna be “Christians” forget Jesus got mad and he destroyed the inside of a temple full of merchants, explain to me why he didn’t pray to God to remove them. The reason is SOMETIMES PHYSICAL ACTION IS NEEDED. Now sir you need to turn your computer off, get in a corner, put your head between your legs and kiss your butt good bye if you are not willing to take the action that is needed.
            BTW I was baptised over 55 years ago.

          • Charlie

            Jim ,,, Every time you write something or say something , you expose your intelligence or lack of it ,,, AND ,,, you expose your “”Personality”” … Most people know little or nothing about The psychology of “Personality Clash”” and most don’t want to learn , especially from some one they have a clash with …
            So here’s some Bible info that you don’t know or understand …
            King Jesus was born a King and lived as a King and The Son of God come to Earth to do what He did , with ALL The “”Authority”” that God has … That why I ask you to define the term “”Rebel””,,, BIG,, difference between a Rebel and Revolutionist … A rebel is some one that rebels against some well established “”Authority of Law”..
            King Jesus gave a “Show” of His “Authority” to a bunch of corrupt merchants that were in gross disrespect of The Temple of God,,,IF? the merchants had rejected His “Order” King Jesus could have killed them with just words.
            But His point was to educate them ,, not kill them,,, unless they rejected Him… See Luke 19:27…
            Now ? just being Baptized will NOT save you UNLESS it is Accomplished within “The Law” AND with Knowledge and understanding of Acts 2:38… So? IF? you were baptized as a kid , below age 20 and did it as a social event,,. better redo it PER Paul at Acts 19….

          • Jim Read

            OH, the holier than thou has spoken with the supremacy of King Jesus. Jesus did not live on this earth as KING and if you think he did then you better read the whole bible again. Gods purpose for Jesus was to be born as a man, live as a man, die as a man and rise up as a savior, you are not talking to someone as dumb as you. I really doubt you have a better understanding of the bible than I, you may be able to spout chapter and verse better so just take your holier than me attitude, go to your church, sit and pray. I adhore people who call themselves christians and then spout scripture and verse to someone they know nothing about just on their own assumption the other is a lost soul who NEEDS saving. I say that because you have no idea whether I repented or not. My baptizism was not a social event, other than the membership gathering by the side of the river to watch. Now, you have no idea that what I am looking to acheive is not from God unless that is you think you are God and you told me to sit idly by and let happen what will happen, which your aren’t and I wouldn’t listen to you as you are just a human being with no divine authority. Your cultist blabbering will turn more people off than bring them to Jesus who no man shall enter the gates of heaven without believing in. Now don’t bother responding because I have read all your jibberist that I am going to.

          • Charlie

            Bye ,,,, Meanwhile… Praise King Jesus for Salvation and Healing… Acts 2:38 is salvation … PER The King’s Law Book……………………………………..

      • Jim Read

        You are correct about the organization and I wish I had the means to organize. Do you wish to help? I know what a republic and democracy are and I also know what a tyrannical government is. Are you willing to help? As Roosevelt said “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”. It takes guts to do what our founding fathers did and it will take guts to do what needs to be done today. Do you have the guts it will take? Are you part of the lamb or are you part of one of the wolves?
        You do have a lot of quotes but do you have guts. The guts it takes to do what you KNOW needs to be done knowing that you stand to loose everything if you do it?

        • smilee

          The founding fathers did so on a relatively equal basis, today you and your organization would be committing suicide if you took on the US military big talk nothing else..

          • Jim Read

            Sir, for all you know we have military with us and I did not say anything about taking on the military. What I said was march into Washington and put the Constitution back as the law of the land.
            Your last phrase says it all, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE GUTS WHICH MEANS YOU ARE NOT A PATRIOT EITHER!
            I’m tired of reading all you gutless, lilly livered cry babies bitching about the government. If the revolutionaries had been like you we would stayed under the tyranny of England.

          • smilee

            Come in armed and you will be met by the military and they will crush your silly little butt. Where did you get that all upper caps statement as it is not mine. Again you prove your nothing but a liar. There you go again it is not I who bitches about the government, just more of your lies

          • Jim Read

            You don’t know how to read these post do you. The all caps was to get your attention and again your silly little mind can’t comprehend what I wrote. Your last phrase I mentioned “big talk nothing else” still means the same, you do not have the guts to risk loosing everything to fight for your country, plain and simple. Now do you understand?

          • smilee

            Wired all I said about your words in caps was that they were not my words as you claimed it had nothing to do wit comprehension and that seems to be you problem here. I understand your an idiot as your whole post makes that clear.

          • Jim Read

            You are calling me an idiot, you should read your comments particularly the last one, it reads like a kindergartner wrote it. Typical marxist drinking Obama’s kool-aid, when you are proven wrong you resort to name calling. Yes, I did say “I’m tired of reading all you gutless, lilly livered cry babies bitching about the government” and I will say I did miss state a little, I haven’t seen you complaining so that confirms my previous sentence in this comment. Don’t bother responding because I have read the last of your idiotic comments. Done.

          • smilee

            Can’t I even say good bye and good riddance ???????

    • Robbie

      Hey Jim, got your fire arm all ready then? why not get out there and get things rollin’?

      • Jim Read

        What kind of fire arm you got for me? I’m ready, are you willing to join me or are you just another talker with no guts and I only say that because your comment reads pretty derogatory.

        • Robbie

          There’s no way you’ll find me by YOUR side. It’s you who’s doing all the talk about gettin’ out there with other gun owners with guts to do what is supposedly necessary to get the clowns to understand. So I’m waiting to see you out there on the news gettin’ stuff a happenin’. Or is it just hot air?

  • JoeySasa

    Nullification? That was settled in 1865 at Appomattox…

    • Bill

      Joey,
      That is just your perception. Grant was the only Union General that had some sense. While the other three union generals were set on total annihilation of Lee and his armies, Grant was sending messages to Lee trying to convince him of surrendering.
      Lee asked what conditions was he proposing and he said just one, that the south laid down their weapons. Lee also asked if his soldiers could keep their horses because most southern soldiers supplied their own, Grant agreed and Lee showed up to surrender to Grant only.
      During they surrender, Grant went one step further and allowed Lee and all of his officers to keep their weapons, therefore allowing them to surrender with dignity.
      The civil war was about taxation, or loss of it, nothing else

      • Charlie

        How about that? another “Confederate” that knows history ………… The stars and bars will fly forever ……………….

      • Robbie

        The Civil War was about slavery.

        • Bill

          Robbie,
          No it was not, it was about taxation. Lincoln wrote a letter to a newspaper publisher named Greely stating that slavery was not his main concern. History is always revised to state political points

          • Jim Read

            Robbie, you are still wrong. Taxation was not what the civil war was about but you are correct Lincoln was not concerned about slavery he was more concerned about preserving the Union than he was anything else.

          • Robbie

            Yes, Lincoln wanted to preserve the union. We know that. Most historians agree that the rights of states was high on the list of concerns by the southern states. But just by coincidence the right to have SLAVERY was the right the southern states were most concerned about. So when all is said and done the issue was slavery.

      • smilee

        It was about states rights and considered the biggest state rights was slavery so the war was about slavery and the dred scott decision was the last straw as it promoted more slavery and declared all blacks slaves property of which the free states could no longer protect and it struck down the Missouri Compromise thus expanding slavery in new states. This created a firestorm of reaction and the reason the south found themselves in the minority and Lincoln in the white house in 1861 so they pulled out of the country. This was all about slavery and the war started four years after dred scott brought it front and center and the country reacted against it and the war resolved the issue and ended it but southern backlash continued for another century before the black got some real relief.

        • Jim Read

          Smilee, you really need to learn how to read and you need to learn history. The U S Civil War was not about slavery. It had to do with slavery yes but it was not about slavery. The South ceceded because of states rights but the war was about preserving the Union.

          • smilee

            And that included getting rid of slavery before it could be concluded so it was about slavery

            The U S Civil War was not about slavery. It had to do with slavery yes but it was not about slavery.

            SORT OF CONFUSED THERE ARE YOU NOT YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

            The North wanted to preserve it but not the South or they would not have seceded and they had to be beaten into submission to preserve it and then had to give up slavery

          • Robert Messmer

            Lincoln said the war was not about slavery. His interest was preserving the Union-with Slavery or without Slavery he didn’t care as long as the Union was preserved. Read Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamation. It only applied to slaves under control of the CSA. In other words, it had no real effect since at that time the Union Army had not won.

          • smilee

            You ignore that he refused to accept a surrender until congress passed the 13th amendment and sent it to the states. He twisted a lot of arms in the US house to get that passed and he could have ended the war earlier as the south wanted to negotiate an end to the war but he would not until the House passed it, the senate had passed it some time before. It was the ratification of the 13th amendment that ended slavery not the Emancipation Proclamation. Very shorty after Congress passed the 13th amendment he accepted the surrender of the south. He said that for political reasons but in the end he very well meant that slavery had to end to end the war. It was about slavery just like Clinton’s impeachment was about sex despite claims that it was not and they lost the case because they tried to fool the senate in to believing it was not about sex but the senate was not fooled by their rhetoric. Lincoln stuck to the facts and the real facts in the end, it was all about ending slavery first then ending the war.

      • Jim Read

        The civil war was about the UNION, the south ceceded from the union and Lincoln wanted to keep the states united, yes, the south fired the first shots, I know this is contrary to history taught today, the civil war was not about slavery even though it was the basic reason the south ceceded because they didn’t want the north telling them they could not have slaves. The revolution was about taxation. Just a clarification. I love how history changed itself from the time I went to school and now!

        • Bill

          Good comment, Jim
          I am a student of history and I rely on many sources. I feel so sorry for the kids that go to school today and only hear the socialists version how they think it should have been instead of what actually happened.
          It is the old story of the revisionists re-writing history to fit a political agenda. History repeats itself and if are not aware of history, we are doomed to make the same mistakes.
          I read the story recently from one of my marketing mentors about how Grant persuaded Lee to surrender to him and he let him walk away with his dignity. It is similar to how many Asian cultures will never let someone lose face during a negotiation and then every one wins.
          A funny story; I recently took a Chinese client with me to visit an old friend in Oklahoma. My client practices allowing people to save face. We have a group of people in the US that are the most well mannered and a pleasure to be around, and that is our home bread cowboys. Yes sir, no sir, can I help you with that. My client who practices “saving face” was a wonderful fit with the Oklahoma cowboys and it was a great experience

  • Alan

    If more states dont step up to stop the feds from grabbing all powers from the states it will surely get worse.

    • Vis Fac

      The Peoples Republic of Mexifornia New York and Illinois will not give up gun control the jury is out on the rest.

      The quandary the world faces is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people full of doubts” Bertrand Russell

      America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our liberties, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.– Abraham Lincoln

      The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

      A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president… The United States is no longer a republic!

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch with the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Liberty comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”

      A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      Semper-Fi

    • Robbie

      Federal law trumps state law.

      • smilee

        These are political laws which always get challenged in the courts and struck down and this one will too, the feds have this power and it is the states that are trying to assume powers reserved for the feds. Robbie is right unless a fed law is found unconstitutional like the DOM act.it will survive over the state law every time. Alan just does not understand the Constitution

        • Jim Read

          The Feds have a limited amount of power which they have overstepped which is why the states are starting to do one of two different things. Force the Feds to enforce the federal laws or force the feds to do away with the federal laws. Each state is responsible for its own citizens not the feds. State sovereignty, ever heard of it?

          • Robbie

            I’ll repeat: federal law trumps state laws. Read your Constitution.

          • smilee

            Robbie is right as she understands how constitutional law works and you do not. Some states are doing that by suing the feds and so far they have been losers and will continue to be because as Robbie says federal laws trump state laws. The civil war and the 13th, 14th, & 15th amendments ended state sovereignty. The far right is trying to resurrect it but they have failed in every attempt as courts enforces the Constitution which THE FAR RIGHT IS trying so hard to change without amending it. IT WILL NOT WORK.

  • securityman

    I for one , am not going to obey a law that goes against the constitution. I have talked to the chief of the town that I live in and he will not permit his officers to enforce those laws . it looks like obummer is getting set for a real battle and, as far as I am concerned, he can damn well have one…………………I fought for this country once and , even at my age now, I can fight for it again. !!!!!!!!!

    • Old Wolf

      Talk to your local officers, (including the sheriff) about title 28, section 1343, USC, title 18, section 242 USC, and title 42, sections 1983 and 1985, USC. It is actually a felonious act to deprive any person in any state, territory, district, or possession of any right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under constitution or laws of the united states, if that act is done under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom. The prohibition is general. There are numerous court cases on the subject, the most recent being McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, but also going through Monroe v. Pape, and numerous others. The act dissolves any official immunity, and places the individual outside the office where they may, by federal statute, be sued due to the deprivations caused by the act.
      It is a vested protected property interest in the right to have rights, and these particular laws were the reason the 14th amendment was created, to allow for their enforcement. Title 28 provides for a direct, automatic federal jurisdiction if under color of state law the rights are deprived, and title 18 provides criminal penalties (up to and including the death penalty) for the act of willfully causing the deprivation of the right.
      McDonald v. Chicago established a specific precedent, stating that not only was the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection an individual right, but part of the reason for the act of 1871 (which these laws come from) but also for the fourteenth amendment.
      The courts deal in persons or property. Human beings cannot lawfully be property, therefore they are persons in the law. If they are persons, they have these rights. The slavery debates of the 1800s centered around if the slaves were persons or not, and in the Prudence Crandall case, if black free men were citizens or not, for if they were citizens, they had these rights as immunties of citizenship.The fact that if Dred Scott was a citizen, and not a slave, that he would have those rights, to travel without license, to work at any lawful business without permission, to keep and bear arms wherever he went, was the reason that Dred Scott had to remain a slave, according to the Taney court. they were the privileges and immunities of citizens spoken of in Article 4 of the Constitution.
      The 1871 act, and the 14th amendment, were established to preserve the 1866 civil rights act, and to allow the criminal prosecution of any ‘officer’ purporting the authority to deprive those rights. If the court had been honest with the original intent of the law, and the amendment, none of the ‘jim crow’ laws, or the ‘separate but equal’ precedents would have been able to continue. We also have a right, under article 1, sections 9 and 10, to have general law only, not applied to any particular individual or group (Bills of attainder, bills of pains and penalties included in that doctrine, Cummings v. Missouri, Ex parte garland, Aptheker v. Secretary of State, US v. Brown)

    • Old Wolf

      Talk to your local officers, (including the sheriff) about title 28, section 1343, USC, title 18, section 242 USC, and title 42, sections 1983 and 1985, USC. It is actually a felonious act to deprive any person in any state, territory, district, or possession of any right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under constitution or laws of the united states, if that act is done under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom. The prohibition is general. There are numerous court cases on the subject, the most recent being McDonald v. Chicago, 2010, but also going through Monroe v. Pape, and numerous others. The act dissolves any official immunity, and places the individual outside the office where they may, by federal statute, be sued due to the deprivations caused by the act.
      It is a vested protected property interest in the right to have rights, and these particular laws were the reason the 14th amendment was created, to allow for their enforcement. Title 28 provides for a direct, automatic federal jurisdiction if under color of state law the rights are deprived, and title 18 provides criminal penalties (up to and including the death penalty) for the act of willfully causing the deprivation of the right.
      McDonald v. Chicago established a specific precedent, stating that not only was the right to keep and bear arms for self-protection an individual right, but part of the reason for the act of 1871 (which these laws come from) but also for the fourteenth amendment.
      The courts deal in persons or property. Human beings cannot lawfully be property, therefore they are persons in the law. If they are persons, they have these rights. The slavery debates of the 1800s centered around if the slaves were persons or not, and in the Prudence Crandall case, if black free men were citizens or not, for if they were citizens, they had these rights as immunties of citizenship.The fact that if Dred Scott was a citizen, and not a slave, that he would have those rights, to travel without license, to work at any lawful business without permission, to keep and bear arms wherever he went, was the reason that Dred Scott had to remain a slave, according to the Taney court. they were the privileges and immunities of citizens spoken of in Article 4 of the Constitution.
      The 1871 act, and the 14th amendment, were established to preserve the 1866 civil rights act, and to allow the criminal prosecution of any ‘officer’ purporting the authority to deprive those rights. If the court had been honest with the original intent of the law, and the amendment, none of the ‘jim crow’ laws, or the ‘separate but equal’ precedents would have been able to continue. We also have a right, under article 1, sections 9 and 10, to have general law only, not applied to any particular individual or group (Bills of attainder, bills of pains and penalties included in that doctrine, Cummings v. Missouri, Ex parte garland, Aptheker v. Secretary of State, US v. Brown)

    • Vis Fac

      Any law contrary to OUR constitution is illegal and not valid. Only those who chose to obey validate said law.

      The quandary the world faces is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people full of doubts” Bertrand Russell

      America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our liberties, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.– Abraham Lincoln

      The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

      A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president… The United States is no longer a republic!

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch with the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Liberty comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”

      A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      Semper-Fi

  • Bill

    Go for it, Missouri
    I hope more states follow your example

  • me

    I live in kansas.
    a couple months a bill like that one was passed at the capital. The Gun-Runner- accessory to murder, Holder threatened to sue the state. Isn’t there something in the consitution about soverienty of states or has that been robbed from us too?

    • Vis Fac

      It’s called a republic. where everyone has a voice not just the elite politicians.

      The quandary the world faces is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people full of doubts” Bertrand Russell

      America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our liberties, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.– Abraham Lincoln

      The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

      A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president… The United States is no longer a republic!

      Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch with the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Liberty comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”

      A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect.

      Libertas inaestimabilis res est

      Semper-Fi

  • Charlie

    Missouri ,,, the show Me state ,,, is showing U S that “”State Rights”” still exist,,, and that Cowboy Clowns can wear any mask they want… We’ve heard that The Lone Ranger , now lives in Missouri……………………..

  • Timothy Butterworth

    Gov. Phil Bryant for President!!! Congrats Mississippi on HR 2, Lawful open carry with out a required permit!! Maybe we can get a VP from Missouri. Rand Paul, Rick Perry and Ted Cruz have yet to achieve any the pro-gun talk they claim.

  • Vis Fac

    The quandary the world faces is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people full of doubts” Bertrand Russell

    America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our liberties, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.– Abraham Lincoln

    One needs to be leery of any title containing the words preservation or affordable, These words should raise serious red flags as they are liberal terms for some form of control and often diametrically opposite of what the title proclaims.
    The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing–Edmund Burke

    A republic is defined as a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president… The United States is no longer a republic!

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch with the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Liberty comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.”

    A democratic government that respects no limits on its power is a ticking time bomb, waiting to destroy the rights it was created to protect.

    Libertas inaestimabilis res est

    Semper-Fi

    • Timothy Sullivan

      Another word I am extremely leery of is “reasonable!”