Laughable Missouri legislature on guns
Lewis DiuguidMissouri Republican lawmakers have taken a laughable step to counter Obama administration’s efforts to strengthen gun control.
What are they smoking in Jefferson City? About 70 lawmakers have signed on to a measure that would charge federal agents with a Class D felony if the feds tried to enforce new gun restrictions in Missouri. The Kansas City Star reports that similar bills have been introduced in the Missouri Senate and House.
President Barack Obama responding to mass shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and elsewhere on Wednesday unveiled plans to ask Congress to ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines while expanding background checks and strengthening gun-trafficking laws.
Because the courts have always ruled that federal laws trump state laws, the legislation in Missouri — even if it were to pass — would have all of the force of a belch. Even if every legislator in the state Capitol were to pass that gas, it would just stand out to most people outraged over the mass killings as offensive and nothing more.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months agolewis & yt are twins……
Phil Cardarella
5 months agoI would pay money to see one of these clowns try to make a “citizen’s arrest” of an FBI or ATF agent.
Seriously, folks, this issue was fully litigated in 1861-65. Perhaps they missed that at school.
Tanner Baggett
5 months agoIt makes me sad that so many Americans don’t understand how the Constitution was set up, or the purpose of the Second Amendment in creating a balance of power between the People and the Federal Government.
The Federalist Papers clearly indicate the intent was not to make states wholly subservient to the Federal Government, contrary to what some believe the 10th Amendment actually serves a purpose.
The power to restrict the ownership of firearms was not given to the Federal Government explicitly in the Constitution. Quite the opposite, as the 2nd Amendment clearly prohibits them from doing that. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand?
Therefore it is up to the States to determine laws on firearms ownership, and the Federal Government only has the power to regulate them so far as it applies to interstate commerce.
The Missouri Legislature is simply taking action to define our rights as a State, as granted in the Constitution, and showing the Federal Government that overstepping their Constitutional authority will not be tolerated within our State.
Federal laws never trump state laws they are contrary to the Constitution, as they are not valid in the first place.
If Mr. Cardarella wants to pay money to see the beginning of a civil war as people resist unconstitutional laws, and if Mr. Diuguid wants to imply legislators are on drugs for reiterating boundaries as set in the Constitution, that’s fine.
I, however, take these issues much more seriously and believe symbolic actions like this taken by responsible Legislatures are what will retain the balance of power and prevent horrors like civil war, which some so glibly jest about. Only fools are so ready to throw away Constitutional limitations and allow overreaches of government because of the actions of a few people.
I pose these question to you. Would a weapons ban prevent a massacre using a u-haul packed with fertilizer used as explosives? Would unprotected grade-school children be any safer from a maniac wielding a chainsaw than one with an “assault weapon?” Or would we simply be throwing away a Constitutional check and balance in return for our children being no safer than they are right now? Don’t bother answering, those questions were rhetorical.
Tanner Baggett
5 months agoEDIT: Federal laws never trump state laws THAT are contrary to the Constitution.
I wasn’t able to edit my post to correct that typo.
Tanner Baggett
5 months agoThat still didn’t come out right. Let me try again… if Federal laws are unconstitutional they do not trump State laws.