Missouri House of Reps Passes Powerful Nullification of Federal Gun Grab

The New American ^ | 22 April, 2013 | Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

[marktwain]

The Missouri House of Representatives passed a nullification bill April 18 prohibiting the enforcement of federal gun grabs within the sovereign borders of the Show Me State.

By a vote of 115-41, state lawmakers approved the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436), with nine Democrats crossing the aisle and voting “aye.”

A nearly identical companion bill is currently working its way through the state Senate. It's sponsored by reliable friend of the Constitution, state Senator Brian Nieves.

HB 436, which is sponsored by State Representative Doug Funderburk, was approved by the entire House fewer than 24 hours after passing the first round of approval by the same body. “I think this bill removes the noose the federal government has been gradually putting around the necks of its citizens and pulling it tighter, and tighter, and tighter,” Funderburk said immediately before his bill was voted on by his colleagues.

While their elected representatives debated the matter inside the House chamber, 300 Missourians gathered inside the rotunda of the state capitol building to demonstrate support for the measure.

During the deliberations, a handful of pro-Second Amendment representatives ducked out of the chamber to speak to the crowd. “I was part of the Republican majority that gave Missourians the right to carry-conceal by overriding Governor [Bob] Holden’s veto," Senate President Pro-tem Tom Dempsey (R-St. Charles) informed the throng. “I'm part of the Republican majority that’s gonna protect that right from federal overreach and an apathetic [Governor Jay] Nixon administration.”

The bill, in very plain terms, does just that: It informs Washington that Missouri will not surrender her sovereign right to reject unconstitutional federal acts and will guard her citizens' right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment.

[marktwain]

The details are worth reading. Excellent 10th Amendment logic.

[DoughtyOne]

Excellent.

[ZULU]

GOD BLESS THE GOOD PEOPLE OF MISSOURI.

I hope and pray other states follow. I’m not naive enough to extend that hope to the benighted state I am currently forced to dwell in.

[mosaicwolf]

Interesting that they mention the provisions of the 1934 act. This is the one that was decided in favor of the Feds when Miller, a bootlegger who owned a shot barreled shot gun didn't show up to defend himself because he couldn't afford it.

This is the act that created the foolish size restriction of a shot gun,(The one that entrapped Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge) other rifles and the automatic weapons restrictions. I say restriction not ban as most people think. You just have to fill out the necessary paperwork, go through the background check, and pay the tax stamp. This stamp in 1934 was $200.00 and essentially prevented any citizen from attaining a fully automatic weapon. Think about what $200.00 was worth back in 1934.

I hope the Missouri bill makes this invalid in their state. This is a fantastic start for states to begin telling the Feds to get lost.

[ExCTCitizen]

By a vote of 115-41, state lawmakers approved the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436), with nine Democrats crossing the aisle and voting “aye.”

9 Dems in Missouri are smarter then the Dems (and the RINOS) in Washington, DC?

[deks]

$200 in 1934 = $3,474 in 2013. . . according to

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

[Ben Hecks]

For your info..........

[ChildOfThe60s]

Anyone here see the irony? This is the state that gave the feds their list of concealed gun permit holders.

The feds have been trying to coerce KY into giving its CCDW list to them. As far as I know, hasn’t happened...yet. We have a pretty leftist governor, I don’t trust him AT ALL.

CCDW holders are first on the list when they come after gun owners. The feds are trying hard to get those names from the states. Only a fool would think they won’t be successful in at least some. May as well decide now how you are going to respond when they do.

[Sergio]

bkmk

[supercat]

It might also be good to note that while it's true that any legitimate decision by the Supreme Court will be in accordance with the supreme Law of the Land, the fact that the Supreme Court claims that something is the Law of the Land does not make it so. There is nothing that physically prevents the justices on the Supreme Court from issuing decisions which are contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land. Any decisions which are patently contrary to the Constitution of the United States are illegitimate and should be recognized as such.

[Just another Joe]

Missouri ping

Low volume ping list

FReepmail me to be on, or off, this list.

[greeneyes]

So glad to hear this. Thanks for the ping.

[Lancey Howard]

Great post!