Missouri Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill

Whoa! But, yes, the Missouri Senate is expected to pass a bill that totally and fully protects the Second Amendment, to the letter. READ MORE

missouri flag

SOURCE: TheSentinel.net

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.

Like its predecessor, SB613, Bill SB367 and its companion, House Bill HB786, would prevent all state agencies and their employees from enforcing any federal law that infringes the Second Amendment in any way, including gun registrations, fees, fines, licenses, and bans. Originally authored in 2014, a former version of the bill was also passed, but vetoed by then Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

Pro-Gun Legislation with teeth
A stipulation of the newly passed bill states:
“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

For added measure, SB367’s authors went into great detail on what federal laws will be “considered null and void and of no effect.”

(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;

(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens

Such language is designed to guarantee that the measure can’t be worked around or misinterpreted by legislators or law enforcement agencies.

Just HiPoint It
The bill passed despite heavy opposition by Missouri’s law enforcement community, which should be no surprise, as Missouri law enforcement agencies raked in $34,462,153 in forfeitures from 2001 to 2008, according to a report by the Institute of Justice. That’s a lot of cash for doing Uncle Sam’s bidding, and now law enforcement officers will have to focus on collecting revenue from actual criminals, instead of stealing it from gun owners.

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.

Here’s where things get interesting. The Missouri bill also includes criminal charges for any federal agent who violates SB367. As per the new law, state and local (municipal and county) law enforcement officers would be given “discretionary power” to determine if they will press criminal charges against federal agents who break the law by enforcing the now nullified federal gun control measures.

But will it hold up in a federal court?
Yes. The bill’s main provision calling on the entire state to cease enforcing federal gun control measures stands on solid legal ground under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Court precedent from 1842 to 2012 stipulates that the feds simply cannot require a state to help them violate your Constitutional rights, and allows states the power to refuse to enforce such federal laws it deems un-Constitutional. Besides, the feds simply don’t have the manpower to do it at the state level without the assistance and partnership of state and local agencies.

Just in case that isn’t enough, Missouri’s Senate also passed a measure supporters say will work hand-in-hand with SB367, solidifying it by codifying the Second Amendment into Missouri’s state constitution. Senate Joint Resolution 36 (SJR36) proposes an amendment to the Missouri state constitution with text obligating the state government to uphold the right to keep and bear arms. It passed the Senate by a vote of 29-4. If passed by the House, it will be entered on the ballot for Missouri voters’ approval this fall. The amendment would elevate the Right to Bear Arms to “unalienable status,” thereby obligating the state, its courts and agencies to defend it as a guaranteed right of Missouri citizens.

We’ll see if they can get it approved by Missouri’s Governor this time.

15 thoughts on “Missouri Bans All Federal Gun Control Laws in Proposed Bill”

  1. It’s nice that Missouri is trying to respect the constitution and bill of rights but it’s pretty darned sad that the state has to pass a law like this when the second amendment is so absolutely clear in its wording. If politicians would actually honor their oaths of office, this law would be completely redundant and unnecessary. All those things prohibited by this law are already unconstitutional and an honorable SCOTUS would declare all such to be obvious violations of the “shall not be infringed” phrase in the second amendment.
    If you have to ask permission, i.e. get a permit, your right has been infringed.
    If you have to pay a fee, your right has been infringed.
    If you are prohibited from buying any type of arms you choose and can pay for, your right has been infringed.
    If you are prohibited from carrying your arms in certain areas of public access, your right has been infringed.
    If you are prohibited or have to ask permission to carry your arms either concealed or open, your right has been infringed.
    Note that the second amendment does not specify “firearms”. It covers all arms. Bows and arrows, crossbows, swords, daggers, flails, maces and mace, slingshots and slings, and since you can carry them any shoulder mount anti-aircraft or anti-tank rockets such as were supplied to the people of Afghanistan to protect themselves from the attack helicopters of the U.S.S.R.
    There are no “except for” this or that type of arms in the second amendment. Lest anyone not remember it’s exact wording, here it is to remind you.
    2nd Amendment: “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.”

      1. Billy unfortunately Texas is too far gone I’m afraid. Unfortunately I see this first hand, too many Yankees moving in, who will not assimilate. But bring the same garbage with them and change it like where they are fleeing from. They are ruining our state.


  2. So the use of an accessory called a “Bumpstock” or a suppressor would be still legal and exempt from tax stamp and/or prosecution?

    1. The so called bumpstock did not kill anybody the felon that did the shooting did the killing and these are the criminals we need to go after not banning ridiculous items.

    2. I believe you are right about “Bumpstocks” and suppressors. There are other states that have legislation at allows, what’s made in the state and sold in the state doesn’t fall under Federal law. Where those laws lack the provision of not allowing the Federal Government to enforce their laws. This legislation seam to take care of that by not allowing the Feds to enforce the laws, to the point of imposing fines. And I’d almost count on the Feds never paying a fine or even trying to make their authority known. They may try to impose sanctions by withholding other Federal moneys.

      It really brings to bear the fact that even if the Fed pass gun laws to the point of confiscation they will have to depend on local and state officials to execute their laws and as I see it living in the GREAT STATE OF MISSOURI I believe it would be next to impossible to get local and perhaps state officials to carry out such laws. As stated in the article there just isn’t enough of them to cover one state let alone 50. And the question also arises, how many of those individual or agency would actually enforce such laws?

      As Jefferson said you have the right and duty to not abide by unjust laws, not the actual quote but you get the idea.

      So as stated “Shall no be infringed” means that the Feds are not granted the right to pass laws or change the 2nd amendment, so those rights not given to the Feds are granted and reserved to the states!!!

  3. I’m glad to see states acting on states rights. The last push for states rights oklahoma city bombing happened. Hopefully other states will follow the lead.

  4. It’s about time we have people ready to risk it all to protect the constitution. Now if we could get these cowards in Ohio to do the same thing it would be a good day.

  5. This is all good and everything but MO isn’t the first state to do something like this, there have been about 10 others. And just because the State agencies won’t arrest you, the Feds certainly will if they find out you’re making suppressors without a stamp.

  6. How would this affect suppressors, either commercially manufactured or home made. Also what about converting to full auto?

  7. gonehunting502@live/com. maybe other states will follow missouri . maybe that would stop all gun ban descussion. i hope.

Leave a Reply