-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Sanctuary State, SB378, Texas & Missouri SB 367
- Thread starter jff_stvns
- Start date
I'm literally floored that our Representation is unaccountable to *their* oaths of office to protect the Constitution yet they are now making noise as if to fine/jail Sheriffs who are honoring their oaths and refusing to prosecute illegal/unconstitutional laws! The people who pass these laws are *Criminals*....not only that, they are bound by an oath on the Bible to protect the Constitution yet are breaking those oaths and perjuring themselves.
If I put my hand on a Book before a court of law and swear an oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" and I am caught lying/perjuring my testimony I am put in jail! But my Congressman does it and he is above the law? Lying to Congress is a Federal Crime! A Felony if I am not mistaken....
Yet these criminals continue to sit in judgement of law enforcement who refuses to prosecute unconstitutional/illegal laws? What the literal fuck. Criminals are trying to run the country...they *are* running the country and making laws to imprison law abiding supporters of the Constitution?
And we think we are going to vote these fucks out or that we voted for them in the first place?
Folks, I'm unable to convey my disgust and anger. I cannot imagine how America has come to this nor how we are gonna get out of it.
VooDoo
Even if these bills pass, they can be superseded, or overturned by a future law, act, or change to the state's constitution. Even a change to the state's constitution can happen, and happen again. It is sad that even our federal constitution gets mis-interpreted, or flat out ignored by those who don't like what it says.
Unless those who would violate laws and constitutions are brought to heel, there is no reason for them to change their behavior. It is up to the electorate to vote them out of office, or recall those who abuse, mis-interpret, or ignore state and federal constitutions, and laws.
Essentially, it is up to the people to say "Aww, hell no!"
Unless those who would violate laws and constitutions are brought to heel, there is no reason for them to change their behavior. It is up to the electorate to vote them out of office, or recall those who abuse, mis-interpret, or ignore state and federal constitutions, and laws.
Essentially, it is up to the people to say "Aww, hell no!"
Missouri Committee Holds Hearing on Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Apr 4, 2019|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|
JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. (April 4, 2019) – Today, a Missouri Senate Committee held a hearing on a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.
Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 367 (SB367). Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
SB367 includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including, but not limited to:
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”
Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
After being heard in the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee today, the bill will need to be scheduled for an executive session by committee chair Senator Doug Libla, so it can receive an up or down vote. Missouri residents who support the legislation should contact all the members of the committee and request a YES vote on SB367. Find members’ contact info here.
On the House side, Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced House Bill 1039 (HB1039) on Feb. 21
Tags: 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Missouri, SB367
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Apr 4, 2019|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|
JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. (April 4, 2019) – Today, a Missouri Senate Committee held a hearing on a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.
Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 367 (SB367). Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
SB367 includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including, but not limited to:
- taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
- registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
- any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
- any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”
Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
WHAT’S NEXT
After being heard in the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee today, the bill will need to be scheduled for an executive session by committee chair Senator Doug Libla, so it can receive an up or down vote. Missouri residents who support the legislation should contact all the members of the committee and request a YES vote on SB367. Find members’ contact info here.
On the House side, Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced House Bill 1039 (HB1039) on Feb. 21
Tags: 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Missouri, SB367
Missouri Committee Passes Bill to Take on Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Apr 18, 2019|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (April 18, 2019) – Today, a Missouri Senate Committee approved a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.
Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 367 (SB367). Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
SB367 includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including, but not limited to:
Today, the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee approved the bill with a Do Pass recommendation for the full Senate.
PENALTIES
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”
Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
After being passed by the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee today, the bill will need to be scheduled for further debate and votes by the full Senate. Missouri residents who support the legislation should contact their own state senator and request a YES vote on SB367. Find Senators’ contact info here.
On the House side, Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced House Bill 1039 (HB1039) on Feb. 21. That bill has garnered more than two dozen cosponsors, but the House Speaker has yet to even assign the bill to a committee for public debate and consideration.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Missouri, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, SB367
By: Mike Maharrey|Published on: Apr 18, 2019|Categories: Right to Keep and Bear Arms, State Bills|
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (April 18, 2019) – Today, a Missouri Senate Committee approved a bill that would set the foundation to create a “gun rights sanctuary state” by banning state and local enforcement of most federal gun control. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state in practice and effect.
Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) introduced Senate Bill 367 (SB367). Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, or regulations” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
SB367 includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including, but not limited to:
- taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect on firearms ownership;
- registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
- any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
- any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
Today, the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee approved the bill with a Do Pass recommendation for the full Senate.
PENALTIES
The legislation includes a provision that would allow anybody who violates the law and knowingly deprives somebody of their right to keep and bear arms as defined by the law to be sued for damages in civil court.
The bill also includes provisions that would apply to federal agents who knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringing acts identified in the law, or who give material aid and support to such enforcement efforts.
Under the proposed law, they would “be permanently ineligible to serve as a law enforcement officer or to supervise law enforcement officers for the state or any political subdivision of the state.” This would also apply to state or local law enforcement agents working with federal task forces or deputized by federal agencies.
In other words, Missouri law enforcement officers who cooperate with the feds in a violation of a person’s right to keep and bear arms would lose their jobs and never be able to work in Missouri law enforcement again.
EFFECTIVE
The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify in effect many federal actions. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”
Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.
Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.
“Partnerships don’t work too well when half the team quits,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “By withdrawing all resources and participation in federal gun control, states and even local governments can help bring these unconstitutional act to their much-needed end.”
Some gun rights supporters have argued that such a measure is “unnecessary” because it addresses a nonexistent problem with a Republican Congress and an NRA-backed president. Trump’s bump stock ban obliterates this fallacy. Furthermore, the Trump administration actually ramped up enforcement of federal gun laws in 2017.
LEGAL BASIS
The state of Missouri can legally bar state agents from enforcing federal gun control. Refusal to cooperate with federal enforcement rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce any federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine is based primarily on five Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. U.S. serves as the cornerstone.
WHAT’S NEXT
After being passed by the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee today, the bill will need to be scheduled for further debate and votes by the full Senate. Missouri residents who support the legislation should contact their own state senator and request a YES vote on SB367. Find Senators’ contact info here.
On the House side, Rep. Jered Taylor (R-Republic) introduced House Bill 1039 (HB1039) on Feb. 21. That bill has garnered more than two dozen cosponsors, but the House Speaker has yet to even assign the bill to a committee for public debate and consideration.
Tags: 2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, Missouri, Right to Keep and Bear Arms, SB367
I might have to put Missouri on my list of states to look at.. Ozarks maybe
I lived in Springfield for a short stent about 30 min from Branson, and I am seriously thinking about doing it myself.
Have family in the process of escaping CO for MO. Excited to go visit and check it out. Add it to the list of free states.
Texas house passes bill to decriminalize suppressor’s.
Last edited:
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
? if that gets signed into law then I'm buying a lathe. They're doing something with brass knuckles, too.
This is unconstitutional!
States can't just pass laws that are contrary to federal law!
You people act like there is some kind of 10th amendment or something!
States can't just pass laws that are contrary to federal law!
You people act like there is some kind of 10th amendment or something!
Similar threads
