Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Proposed Missouri Law Would Throw Federal Agents in Prison Over Guns
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Sarah Jones wrote here the other day about the unconstitutional responses of Republicans who claim Obama is violating the Constitution. She was addressing the case of Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi. Leave it to the old Confederacy. If you think a person is violating the Constitution, you don’t violate the constitution yourself as a remedy and expect anyone to take you seriously.
But perhaps Republicans are way past concerning themselves with being taken seriously. The Constitution is the law of the land – it stands head and shoulders above state law. Yet unhinged Republicans think they can legislate in their states to ignore the Constitution -while crowing about Obama ignoring the Constitution.
This makes no sense at all. But as I said, they’re unhinged. And Bryant isn’t alone. In Missouri, State Representative Casey Guernsey has introduced the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170). HB170 has 61 co-sponsors, which is kind of surprising but kind of not, because what HB170 does is nullify the Constitution in response to Obama issuing perfectly constitutional executive orders.
Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey told a stunned Sean Hannity Wednesday that Obama’s executive orders so far have been, if distasteful, perfectly legal. This is not something Republicans tell themselves in order to feel better. This is where they plug their ears and do what they want to do anyway: ignore federal law and the Constitution.
Yes. HB170 outlaws federal law and therefore federal agents and employees who “enforces or attempts to enforce” federal laws pertaining to firearms and ammunition.
The bill states, in part:
Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.
A class D felony in Missouri carries a prison sentence of up to 4 years.
The Constitution begs to differ. As Sarah Jones pointed out, the Supremacy Clause Article IV, clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Ignoring this uncongenial fact, the Missouri bill also states that,
Any federal law, rule, regulation, or order created or effective on or after January 1, 2013 shall be unenforceable in the state of Missouri if the law, rule, regulation, or order attempts to:
(1) Ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine of a firearm; or
(2) Require any firearm, magazine, or other firearm accessory to be registered in any manner.
So stock up on those rocket launchers, modern sons of Dixie. If the Feds come asking you about them, we’ll throw them in prison where they belong!
You can’t get much more warped than thinking outlawing the Constitution is somehow going to save the Constitution. But hey, they’re Republicans. You can’t have high expectations of the post-Goldwater GOP.
Remember when I said yesterday that the only two amendments Republicans approve of are the Second and Tenth? Yeah…about that. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “Tenth Amendment Center national communications director, Mike Maharrey summed up the sentiment”:
When you’ve got people like Feinstein talking about major bans and Biden telling us that all they need is an executive order, you know these folks are willing to go all the way. So, it’s good to see these folks in Missouri go all the way as well, all the way in support the 2nd Amendment without any ifs, ands, or butts. The feds have absolutely zero constitutional authority to make any laws over personal firearms. Period.
That’s funny. Really. None of these people were complaining when George H.W. Bush issued an executive order concerning gun control in 1989. His son, George W. Bush, issues executive orders all over the place and ignored every law he wanted to simply because he said he could, and not a Republican complained.
But of course, those guys were Republicans. And white. Obama, they’re quick to point out, is not.
According to the Tenth Amendment Center, always happy to advance the cause of rebellion and insurrection, “The bill was introduced on January 15, 2013 and read for the first time in the House. It has yet to be assigned to a committee. But, with 61 co-sponsors, strong grassroots pressure will help get this bill moving forward.”
Oh, and they have more good news for the unhinged:
Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect a number of other states considering similar legislation in the coming weeks.
That’s hardly a surprise. We haven’t seen conservatives so riled up since they were told they had to free their slaves.
Image from NPR.org
Related Posts :
Republican Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi is calling for an unconstitutional remedy for what he see ...
Missouri's Republican state Rep. Eric Burlison shot Democrat-sponsored House Bill 545 full of holes. ...
In a fight fire with fire moment, Missouri Democrats responded to a Republican proposal to make gun contro ...
Republicans are threatening to impeach Obama over executive action on gun control, but many presidents h ...
North Carolina proposes establishing State Religion A lifelong Spanish citizen and wise man raised and e ...
40 Responses to Proposed Missouri Law Would Throw Federal Agents in Prison Over Guns
Public Service Advertisements
Virginia
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 10:41 am
Once again, I must beg to ask for an answer to the question, WTF is wrong with these people!
Tommys_girl
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 10:48 am
Great article!! I love the tongue-in-cheek lilt! I’m a northern liberal trapped in a red state. Although I love living here, I just watch what I say and stay home a lot!
Reynardine
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 10:53 am
In Missouri, they used to raise mules. Now, they elect them to the legislature.
Mr Sippi
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
A mule is the product of a jack ass and a female horse. I think the folks in Missouri are electing. the mule’s father.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 11:01 am
The gun culture of this country is so embarrassing its hard to go to the Supermarket. Its not enough that no one is touching or even effecting their right to own normal weapons, they have to go into fits of paranoia because they cant have assault weapons.
If this is what it means to be American for them, that is truly sad. This is not what AMerica is. Its no wonder the rest of the world looks in and wonders why we attack others for the same thing. We are an embarrassment to the world. The rest of the world gets along just fine owning pistols, rifles and shotguns. We have a breed here who is obviously sexually disfunctional and needs that gun to be men
The GOP. Now getting the lowest ratings in recorded history. And letting the NRA drag them deeper into the slime while negatively affecting this coutnry
tom potter
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 11:14 am
I applaud and support Mo. HB 170, it makes the case that the Supreme Court must take up the states rights issue once again. It is inevitable the clash against us who think the 2nd amendment is untouchable by any Congress, as is/was the intent by the framers of our Republic and expressed clearly within their own letters and debates, and the clear language defining the right to keep and bear arms, any and all arms by the way, for this is the peoples teeth to keep it’s government on the straight and narrow, and as I see it right now, is anywhere but straight and narrow. Possibly evil and destructive. I, and many others, support HB170. May it succeed!
robyn ryan
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
We fought a civil war over federal precedence. Federal rights cannot be abridged by states.
The Fed is the wall between organized private interests, religious and secular, and the citizen.
A woman’s right to equal protection and Federal remedies to protect them from religious wackos trumps state laws attempting servitude and forced labor. Why should my uterus be more heavily regulated than WMD?
I have the right not to be killed by a gun worshipper.
Civil rights are rights – you don’t get to vote on who is allowed to have them.
I have the right not to be killed by a gun worshipper.
Shiva
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Wrong. The 14th is the citizenship article and says directly at the bottom that Congress can enforce it.
GeneralLerong
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 12:51 pm
How embarrassing for you to have to post something like this.
candilu
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
You typed: “It is inevitable the clash against us who think the 2nd amendment is untouchable by any Congress, as is/was the intent by the framers of our Republic and expressed clearly within their own letters and debates, and the clear language defining the right to keep and bear arms, any and all arms by the way, for this is the peoples teeth to keep it’s government on the straight and narrow…”
The 2nd Amendment actually says, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
My understanding is this militia is/was to provide security to the state and/or federal government.
Some people are being fed untruths and the misguided ones are running with it. The right to keep and bear arms was not meant as a means to be able to fight or attack our government!
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
They are paranoid and grasping at any straw they can find. Like Obama is taking their guns away.
Stupid people
Kyle S.
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 9:14 pm
You know, in crazy-ass Evangelical religious school in the 90s, even then we were taught that the Second Amendment was just effectively establishing the constitutionality of the National Guard.
Isaac Ovchinikov
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
~George Washington
”A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
~George Washington
”The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
~Thomas Jefferson
There is a wealth of knowledge pertaining to the preservation of our free republic, please do proper research before running around spreading fear like the media. Every gun owner I know is a responsible and productive citizen who obeys laws and makes a positive impact on the society to the best of their means. The only irresponsible gun owners I’ve heard of are either mentally unstable or are the criminals who break the already existing laws by acquiring their weapons illegally to commit more crimes. I’m not trying to stir up a hornet’s nest or anything like that, but just trying to bring some reason to the table.
Shiva
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 1:56 pm
You quote people that were living ina society where guns were used as tools for food and for fighting. Those quoited dont really apply today in a culture where guns mean more to some like your self then their liberty and who dont mind taking others liberty to preserve their own.
You can give up the tyranny thing.
From Jefferson
““The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Tomas Jefferson”
do the wingnuts who love to bring up that quote, have any CLUE that –
- the quote does not refer to the American Revolution; it refers to Shay’s Rebellion, held in Massachusetts in 1787
- the farmers in Shay’s Rebellion were only in conflict with the US federal gov’t over the matter of taxes levied against their land; they were not attempting to overthrow the federal gov’t {which wasn’t yet in existence}
- Jefferson himself was not in the US at the time; the quote appears in a letter he wrote to William Smith while in France
- the quote, when taken in context:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.”
indicates that Jefferson believed that the farmers motives in Shay’s, while honorable and necessary in a fledgling democracy, were nonetheless borne of ignorance — and, in the cases of that ignorance, it was the gov’ts duty to inform the citizenry:
“The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.”
Being in permanent, bloody rebellion was NOT, contrary to wingnut opinion, a statement of desirable policy by Thomas Jefferson.
Shiva
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 2:00 pm
Wrong. It applied to the representation of the people of the states. I guess thats why there is no 4th article in the constitution
SCOTUS says the fed can regulated certain style guns. You are carrying on with old arguements
Shiva
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 1:29 pm
The gun problem is that people use guns to kill people. It has nothing to do with the constitution. 1000 people have died by the gun since Sandy Hook and we cant blame the constitution for that
DJ
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 6:05 pm
I think a lot of the aforementioned quotes are very valid, even in today’s day. The fact that anyone would ever assume there government to have anything BUT tyrannical intentions, especially given all the actions (Democrat and Republican), is just naive. The amendments were put there to allow people the right to protect themselves OR revolt (under extreme circumstances) if the government does become too oppressive. I direct you to the American Revolution, I promise it wasn’t fought with knives and sticks.
The simple fact of the matter is that the bill itself is more than likely symbolic rather then something that anyone will enforce. The notion of throwing an FBI agent in jail is absolutely ludicrous. More often than not, bills like this are passed as a measure of demonstration and protest to show that the American people truly do not want this legislation.
As for not owning an assault weapon…. show me a criminal that will listen to laws? Sandy Hook being a prime example… Killed so many people… how many laws do you think he was concerned with? Honestly, i believe that if the bad guys have the weapons we should too… even the playing field. I support the bill and what it stands for.
craig thomson
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 11:38 am
“Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey told a stunned Sean Hannity Wednesday that Obama’s executive orders so far have been, if distasteful, perfectly legal.”
Hannity is one of the people who oppose gun legislation because “criminals don’t follow laws.”
Dumbest argument ever? Murder laws don’t stop murders. Let’s repeal them. Rape laws don’t stop rapes. Let’s repeal them. Abortion laws don’t stop abortions. Let’s repeal them.
Twenty times someone has attempted to assassinate the President. Four were successful (so much for America’s tradition of a “peaceful transition of power”), and two wounded the President. Studies have concluded that, in most of these cases, the attackers were EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR LEGALLY INSANE. Think Adam Lanza or James Holmes.
That’s who Obama, myself and others like me DON’T want to have guns. Nobody is trying to take guns from law-abiding citizens, or keep law-abiding citizens from getting new guns.
It’s hard to teach an old dog new tricks. But, speaking as a slightly left-of-center Democrat who’s fond of Eisenhower, I insist Moderate Republicans pass a Leash Law to reign in the Far Right Wing.
MrsGunka
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
If all those idiots want these guns and accessories, they can join the Army and go to Afghanistan and use them. Send those young guys home so they can have a long, productive life. Let’s see them be so brave when they don’t know what is coming at them! What did those kids do to cause them to be killed? They weren’t in the military or those young people sitting in that theater or the people out shopping for gifts or the people in their church worshiping the way they chose. Does that give anyone the right to use a military weapon to wipe them out? We need to level the playing field so no one has these weapons of multiple death!
Kurt Hofmann
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 12:59 pm
Perfectly sensible law. Only possible improvement would be for the state to make enforcement of federal gun laws a capital crime, but maybe we can just count on a bunch ofjackbooted BATFE stormtroopers dying while “trying to escape.”
timbo
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Ever heard of the word “sedition”. Your comment stating “…maybe we can just count on a bunch of jackbooted BATFE stormtroopers dying while “trying to escape” is not only stupid but dangerous. Calm down, man. No one is talking about taking you guns away.
Dan
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 2:43 pm
They are successfully muddied the waters to the point where it’s no longer about common sense laws that will benefit us all. They’ve made the debate about tyranny, and liberty, and kings. This is a clown show. They did the same crap with healthcare. Stir everything up to the point where people don’t know what we were originally fighting for. Good job GOP. Way to endanger us all, and set us back a few more years. How bout all the way back to 1863? Morons.
robbiecc
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 6:01 pm
Personally I think any state official that trys to interfer with the administration of federal law should be
A) arrested
B) releived of their official duties-evidently they don’t know what they are
C) prosicuted to the fullest extent of the law
If you have a problem with the law, that’s what the supreme court is for. You just don’t disreguard any law that you don’t agree with. There’s a whole bunch I don’t necessarly agree with and if i chose to do what some of these state officials are doing, I’d probably find my butt in jail.
Where do these mental midgits come from and how do they get elected-I find that thought alot more frightening than i do gun control.
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 18th, 2013 at 6:29 pm
I bet you are talking about the GOP voter restrictions?
Guy Thrift
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 1:43 pm
Your comments are well taken. Why should we even have the states today?
Jason
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:10 pm
wow well i am sure i am gonna get banned cuz i think you are and idiot Shiva, u are so one sided. if our country had there group put together with the mentally ill, more support programs for people there wouldnt be as much of a problem,, soon when guns are gone they gonna ban cars that can exceed a certain speed. after that knife lengths will be regulated. We arent saving anyone getting rid of assault rifles, the person that would of killed with the gun would do it anyways with a hand gun or a car, or a knife. we need to go back to the root of things. “We have a breed here who is obviously sexually disfunctional and needs that gun to be men” really?? that makes no sense assault weapons for a law abiding citizen is a collection its a hobby. nothing more just having a car collection. or a rock collection. and even though i may not understand why the neighbor collects knifes, it doesnt mean he is gonna use them to kill people. although the guy across town might and when he does do we take the knifes from my neighbor?? lets take care of the root and stop blaming the guns. it is our right and always will be to carry firearms of what we want . why punish us because we happen to like assault rifles not to be a man?!?!?! but because its an interest/hobby for us. anyways i realized i am talking circles i been up all night i just kept quiet for so long about these issues and had to get it out
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Who is taking the guns away?
A hobby is easily stolen and used for a crime. There is no need on earth for a person to own assault type weapons
The sexual remark does make sense when you realize many use guns to make up for their dysfunctions
Jason
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:32 pm
just because you dont see the reason why they want an assault weapon doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed the right to own one. i am sure i am probaly inaccurate with some of this but as far as i know most the crimes involving weapons of either assault or even handguns through investigation had a mental background record, and if that is the case do you believe by eliminating an assault rifle would save lives? or do you think they would go in with a pistol, knife, run a car in the school. look i respect your opinion all i am saying is this proposed ban isnt helping anything if they cant fix the root. and by eliminating rights to fix outcomes isnt gaining any ground.the problem isnt the device used to kill its the people causing the harm and there should be new criteria or rules on testing people , maybe if you want to own a gun of any sort you have to pass some test or have an evaluation i mean still yes there will be complaints about that i am sure also. but ok the point i am making is people shouldnt understand why people has the hobby they have or the likes they have.. our diversity is what makes us so unique, but if the person isnt hurting no one, and is a law abiding citizen. people shouldnt care whether they own one or not. and do you really believe personally the ban of assault weapons is gonna make any difference at all to a person that is gonna go and do a crime? they will do with or without the assault rifle
Shiva (Moderator)
Jan. 19th, 2013 at 1:36 pm
An assault weapon is a weapon of mass murder. The SCOTUS allows for the fact that the government can regulate such weapons.
Diversity doesnt mean owning weapons that can kill many in a few short seconds. It is not the fact that we can put 1 rounds in a6 year old in less then a couple seconds that makes us diverse. That makes us embarrassing to the rest of the world
Donna
Jan. 20th, 2013 at 11:18 pm
Such bitter, ugly remarks dirrected at those who uphold the Constitution. Folks, do you see what the president is doing? Wake up. Missouri is just one state trying to protect rights given by our Constitution.
Shiva
Jan. 21st, 2013 at 12:18 am
Throwing agents in jail is upholding the constitution? All based on theory? Swallow propaganda much?
John Taylor
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:27 am
Great idea. Excellent Missouri.
I can see many states following their lead, who are fed up with Washington and Obama.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:37 am
This is called nullification and that question was settled.Yesterday I celebrated.Today I am at work.I am not playing.Now if you do not believe in the Constitution.If you dont believe in our democracy to save me time and you embarrassment this is not the site for you.You have been warned
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:51 am
An excellent case of throwing thew constitution out just to preserve the right to a gun.
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:58 am
It seems those two are together, for everything we hold dear I hope they don’t procreate.
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:59 am
If tney do, I bet the babys are born chewing tobacco
Taylor Wooten
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:27 am
Rock on Missouri!
Just do it!
djchefron(Moderator)
Jan. 22nd, 2013 at 10:38 am
Ditto for you
dee
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 1:05 pm
as a Missourian, I am glad they are pushing this bill. Will it be constitutional? Nope, and the legislature of Missouri knows it. Will it force the issue of the constitutionality of Executive Orders vs. Laws in front of the Supreme Court? They will have to take the challenge that will be issued with the passage of this bill up because to ignore it is to acknowledge that it is legal. This is not an attempt by a bunch of hicks to threaten government employees, it is a sneaky, underhanded and totally brilliant way to forch the Supreme Court to have to weigh in on the validity of Executive powers being misused, no matter which party you happen to belong to!!
Shiva(Moderator)
Jan. 24th, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I think you will find that other lower courts will find it unconstitutional to start with. I would be very very surprised that the Supreme Court ever heard anything about this or put it on their docket
Executive orders have been used by presidents going back many many years. And now all of a sudden the Republicans and the gun freaks don’t like it. The Republicans must remember that they will win this if they ever run up against a Democratic Congress.
This is a very stupid move on the part of the states that are going to do this. Especially when no guns are being taken away, just a few high-powered weapons banned