Missouri Bill Would Make It A Felony For Lawmakers To Propose Gun Control Legislation

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by SPECULUM

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.

The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE

Them are justifiable fighting words

Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.

Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.

Thats BS for the simple fact that if that was the case then many states wouldn't have marijuana reforms and firearm allowances for felons within the states even though they were federal felonies where you expect the feds to have your "so called" supremacy

There are many times the federal government does not interfere with what states do. However, and there is no doubt about this, if the federal government passes a law, and the states pass one that contradicts it, and the federal government takes it to court, THE STATE WILL LOSE.

I think you put too much faith in the federal gooberment.
can you imagine the feds controlling The state of Texas who hold all the nuclear stockpile on their soil???
all they would need do is tell uncle sammy the games over....no more Washington

and them nukes need no launch codes

Hi Speculum, Its not faith in the federal government I'm going off of.

Its just tons of precedent from Supreme Court cases and the Constitution. On a side note, Texas doesn't have the majority of Americas nuclear stockplie, I believe its either Nebraska or the Dakotas.

Texas its where they keep all the nuclear decommissioned cores and components and the scientists who do the work

The supreme court isn't the governments personal property, its the peoples court, and although it might be said they are worthless, in a real crisis they might come to their senses before its too late and do the right thing?

Ahhh, I thought you were talking about actual weapons.

Point conceded.

I agree that the Supreme Court has throughout our history, remained above the fray of politics for the most part though their decisions, when taken in context, do reflect the overall ideology of the nation at large during any given point in time.

I'm a huge fan of the Court and I agree that they will always be our last line of defense before the people need to take up arms.

Great post!

Originally posted by SPECULUM
If this bill passes it will be the first time in our nations history outside the posse comitatus act
the ensured protection for the Constitution and the people of one states second amendment right never to be infringed ever again.

I personally feel that it should be a felony for law maker attempts to circumvent the Constitution on any level, and specifically this one.

check it out and give me your input


A Republican state legislator in Missouri has proposed legislation that would make it a felony for lawmakers to introduce legislation to restrict Second Amendment rights in the state.

Legislation introduced Monday by state Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) would make state legislators guilty of a Class D felony if they introduce legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms." Leara said that the bill is needed because he sees a growing number of his colleagues looking to take away gun rights from the state's residents.

“We seem to be having a lot of people willing to further restrict our constitutional rights and take our rights," Leara told The Huffington Post. "It is a push-back to the people who don’t believe in our constitutional rights. There have to be consequences to removing our constitutional rights.”

heres the rest of the article
www.huffingtonpost.com...

Interesting. I wonder if Constitutional protectors are going to make sure the United States Post Office stays in business for us as an affordable way to deliver our mail or are they going to ignore the Constitutional decree as a means to pander to corporate giants like FED EX and UPS ?

Establish a post office.... Responsibility of Congress in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8

I mean if you are going to pick and choose....No one is taking EVERYONES weapons away, just the crazy people and criminals. I know they will still get them but should we do away with traffic laws because people still have accidents?

www.archives.gov...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

"disciplining" lol

reply to post by Hopechest

If you guys keep nesting quotes like this your going to tear the fabric of the virtual universe and suck the entire internet into the singularity that you've created.

...Besides the rest of us will need a microscope to read the posts if the text gets any smaller.

Well I would love if you were right but unfortunately you are not. Federal law trumps state law whenever they are conflicted, per the Constitution, so if the feds make a law restricting guns then states have to abide by it.
Their only recourse is to have the law overturned in the courts.

Wrong. If the firearms are manufactured within a state and sold only in that state, there is no "interstate commerce clause" and no Federal dominance.

This is tyrannical. You should be able to introduce whatever you want. If it gets down voted then so be it. It's ironic to try and fight tyranny with more tyranny.

It actually might violate the first amendment.

The government is banning ideas they don't like......hmmm....... how great. Sad that anyone actually praised this.

This is some liberal legislators "wet dream" but it will never pass in a state like Missouri.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SPECULUM
The government would love to believe it has supremacy over a state but in reality it doesn't, The people do and on this particular issue the constitution wins overwhelmingly.....SHALL NOT INFRINGE;

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

This is cited as one of the primary issues that lead up to the civil war. The States individual rights vs those of the Federal Government. I'm guessing I don't have to tell you which side won the argument.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

edit on 2/24/2013 by defcon5 because: It would help if I could spell, eh?

We know who won and we know how.

Neither in a court of law, nor in the court of public opinion but by force of arms...

The side that has more guns and money is not always the one with a morally superior, legitimate or legal cause.

It just means they are willing to and successful at forcing their beliefs and lifestyle on the side that looses.

Hardly praise worthy IMO.

I am from Missouri, and it's good to see at least 1 of my representatives is standing up for the 2nd amendment actively. Although it sucks another one of my Reps proposed a bill to try and ban AR's all together giving people 90 days to turn them in.

Leara has my support, I think I may go and send him an Email and give him my thanks.

Let us assume it passes...

What then...


well other state governments might decide to pass it...

How many republican controlled state governments are there...


With this in mind a citizen in another state might could sue his state government and the feds under the idea of equal protection...

The state government could hear it and bypass the federal government... reverse erie doctrine... it always could nasty especially if three fourth's the states passed it...

just sayin...

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Let us assume it passes...

What then...


well other state governments might decide to pass it...

How many republican controlled state governments are there...


With this in mind a citizen in another state might could sue his state government and the feds under the idea of equal protection...

The state government could hear it and bypass the federal government... reverse erie doctrine... it always could nasty especially if three fourth's the states passed it...

just sayin...

write your congressman

some say that this bill violates the first amendment... It insures it

Originally posted by Hopechest
Well its a nice gesture but a State cannot prevent the federal government from passing laws on them per the Constitution, specifically the Supremacy Clause.

Ultimately this is just a feel good measure for the State but has no real value.

Not always the case. Take for instance Bond v. United States. In this case, Federal prosecutors attempted to charge Bond with a Federal crime claiming supremacy.

This case presents the question whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute has standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States.

Her lawyers successfully pointed out that the States and by extension, the People have sovereignty over Federal laws and that carte blanche supremacy is not always a given; especially powers enumerated to the State via the Constitution.

Originally posted by WaterBottle
This is tyrannical. You should be able to introduce whatever you want. If it gets down voted then so be it. It's ironic to try and fight tyranny with more tyranny.

It actually might violate the first amendment.

The government is banning ideas they don't like......hmmm....... how great. Sad that anyone actually praised this.

edit on 25-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)

It's tyrannical and unconstitutional to try and take away AR's, or reduce the amount of bullets a gun can carry.

The second amendment states people can bear arms, and shall not be infringed, yet when people propose to take away certain firearms, or reduce the bullet counts of such weapons, its a breach in the 2nd amendment. This would ensure the safety of the second amendment. People who go out and say guns should be taken away are automatically unconstitutional. It's not tyrannical to secure your right to carry firearms. I don't see how it's a breach of the 1st amendment, when your trying to destroy an amendment in the name of another amendment.

Even the representative who introduced the bill knows it won't fly. One does not lose their First Amendment right to redress their government because they become a public servant. Hypothetically speaking, what would happen if this bill were to pass and a lobbying group or citizen lobby proposes a law in effect of what is banned? Do they face felony charges because they redressed their government?