Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Nixon vetoes bill that would have outlawed federal gun laws | fox4kc.com

It's time to start putting the pressure back on our House and Senate members and get this pushed through without Nixon. Then we need to get Nixon replaced...

Folks, I'd like this to stay on topic since the last thread about this pending legislature got way off the course and ended up getting shut down. Please let's keep this on about the topic, it's important stuff and I'd like to make sure this thread doesn't derail and get shut down like the last one.

Derailed Thread
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Some of the speech clauses in this Bill (as stated in the link cited) justify a veto IMHO.
The main purpose of the Bill I can stand behind, but the Devil is in the details.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Nixon vetoes bill that would have outlawed federal gun laws | fox4kc.com

It's time to start putting the pressure back on our House and Senate members and get this pushed through without Nixon. Then we need to get Nixon replaced...

Folks, I'd like this to stay on topic since the last thread about this pending legislature got way off the course and ended up getting shut down. Please let's keep this on about the topic, it's important stuff and I'd like to make sure this thread doesn't derail and get shut down like the last one.

Derailed Thread
If by "this stuff" you mean nullification, you are pushing a hopeless case. Even if the veto is overridden the Feds will (and rightly so) pay no attention to a nullification law except to arrest, try, and convict anyone who interferes with Federal law
enforcement.

Your governor vetoed the bill for the reason he gave, that it is unconstitutional, and he is correct on that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJB_17

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,498 Posts
The veto will be overridden and it's far from hopeless. In fact, it's the absolute duty of the states to protect their citizens from the federal overreach.
So where does that stop? When the state of Utah declares Mormonism to be the official state religion? When you're required to pay tithes to the state church? When minorities have to go back to "separate but equal" schools?

Not picking on Mormons or the South here, could be Baptist in Arkansas or whatever. Just because you can get a majority of voters to do something doesn't make it a good idea
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Some of the speech clauses in this Bill (as stated in the link cited) justify a veto IMHO.
The main purpose of the Bill I can stand behind, but the Devil is in the details.

Good point. Pressure the legislatures to craft damnably-simple and -clear legislation that's unadulterated by other garbage and riders. That'll make it much more simple, to separate the good bills from the unworthy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
So where does that stop? When the state of Utah declares Mormonism to be the official state religion? When you're required to pay tithes to the state church? When minorities have to go back to "separate but equal" schools?

Not picking on Mormons or the South here, could be Baptist in Arkansas or whatever. Just because you can get a majority of voters to do something doesn't make it a good idea
Considering none of your examples have any relevance to the subject, or the greater act of preserving our Constitutional rights, I don't see much use in addressing them. The fact is the states that are enacting this sort of legislation are doing so to prevent the Federal government from infringing on our rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Every one of your examples is about suppression of rights, which is not the point of this bill or the greater discussion of preservation of our Second Amendment.

And your right, you can get a majority of voters to agree on doing something, even when that something isn't the right thing. That's what got is in this position in the first place :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
621 Posts
Good point. Pressure the legislatures to craft damnably-simple and -clear legislation that's unadulterated by other garbage and riders. That'll make it much more simple, to separate the good bills from the unworthy.
One of the things that made this country great was that the system of Laws were simple and elegant. Everyone knew and understood them.
Sadly we have "evolved" beyond it and Freedom is suffering for it.

If we could get a review on ALL legislation passed and remove everything from every Law that had little to do with each Law's stated purpose, we might be on a path back to
becoming an even greater Nation. (We'd have to somehow keep the pork out of future legislation as well, of course)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,921 Posts
I support this bill and similar laws that have gone through other legislatures. That said, they are blatantly unconstitutional and will be completely ignored when/if the time comes.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Whether a state likes or agrees with federal law is irrelevant. If the law is in place and the judiciary has failed to do their duty through judicial review you're simply out of luck. One violation of the Constitution is no more or less egregious than the other from a legal view.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,955 Posts
Just going a couple of persons thinking here I would have assumed Federal troops or Federal LE would have Gov Quinn of Ill and his minions arrested by now for missing deadline after deadline laid by SCOTUS to get a CC program in place.:blink:

That didnt happen. The opposite wont happen in MO because the RTKAB isnt dependent on 2A. Even a supreme court ruled that itself. So there is the precious meaningless case law some love to back that up. And with that I hope MO gov gets overridden on his Veto and Im out:wave:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
One of the things that made this country great was that the system of Laws were simple and elegant. Everyone knew and understood them.
Sadly we have "evolved" beyond it and Freedom is suffering for it.

If we could get a review on ALL legislation passed and remove everything from every Law that had little to do with each Law's stated purpose, we might be on a path back to
becoming an even greater Nation. (We'd have to somehow keep the pork out of future legislation as well, of course)
Sadly, that is a romanticized view of our history and our laws. It was the intent I think, but something got derailed very
very soon after everyone signed on the dotted line. That is how, over the course of a few years time, former close friends
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson came to hate each others guts. That is why Congress felt we needed the Alien and Sedition
Act of 1798, and why many were convicted under it.

Things weren't simple and elegant in point of fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sig 210

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,418 Posts
He vetoed it because he knows it a pointless waste of time that has absolutely no authority. In every circumstance, state laws and mandates are subordinate to Federal law (and the Us Constitution by extension), this is called the "Ladder of Laws" and is established by the Supremacy Clause. A similar concept structures the judicial system as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
404 Posts
I support this bill and similar laws that have gone through other legislatures. That said, they are blatantly unconstitutional and will be completely ignored when/if the time comes.

Whether a state likes or agrees with federal law is irrelevant. If the law is in place and the judiciary has failed to do their duty through judicial review you're simply out of luck. One violation of the Constitution is no more or less egregious than the other from a legal view.
You've missed a very critical part if that passage you posted:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
A law passed by the federal government is only supreme over state laws if and when the federal government has actually been granted the power to do so.

For example, the federal government could not pass a law forcing a group of people into slavery. Even if they did so, state laws banning such practices would have supremacy because the federal law was not passed "under the authority of the United States".
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
article said:
One was that the bill would have made it a crime for media to publish photos of gun rights supporters at rallies or of young Missourians harvesting their first turkey or deer.

Additionally, a reporter could be subject to jail time or a fine for publishing the name of a burglary victim that had his or her firearm stolen. They could also be barred from attaching their name to any story if they were a gun owner.
What? Why include such idiocy? The original "short form" of a the bill is a pleasant bit of political activism. The long form seems to be asinine. Maybe the goal was to get the veto, but hope the average MO citizen only read headlines, to hurt the Governor?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
What? Why include such idiocy? The original "short form" of a the bill is a pleasant bit of political activism. The long form seems to be asinine. Maybe the goal was to get the veto, but hope the average MO citizen only read headlines, to hurt the Governor?
They didn't put anything like that in there, what they were trying to do was keep CCW information private and avoid what happened in NY a while back. In their haste to get that accomplished, they didn't thoroughly vet their wording and left the door open for that sort of interpretation. Would something like that ever happen? Highly unlikely given that without a complainant, there's little chance that they could prosecute something of that nature.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
I dunno, TX, "Trust us, we won't use the power of the legislation as it is written ..." doesn't make me feel very safe.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top