DEMOCRATS JOIN GOP IN MISSOURI ON HIGH-PROFILE GUN BILL

[FarmerRick]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/jul/28/tp-democrats-join-gop-in-missouri-on-high-profile/

DEMOCRATS JOIN GOP IN MISSOURI ON HIGH-PROFILE GUN BILL
Would nullify federal laws in state, make criminals of federal enforcement agents

By DAVID A. LIEB Associated Press

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — With the help of a few Democrats, Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature appears to be positioned to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a high-profile bill that seeks to nullify federal gun-control laws in the state and make criminals out of federal agents who attempt to enforce them.

Several of Nixon’s fellow Democrats confirmed they would vote to override his veto when lawmakers convene in September, even while agreeing with the governor the bill couldn’t survive a court challenge. Many of them noted that in some parts of Missouri, a “no” vote on gun legislation could be career ending.

Nixon said the bill infringes on the U.S. Constitution by giving precedence to state law over federal laws and by limiting the First Amendment rights of media.

The legislation is one of the boldest measures in a recent national trend in which states are attempting to nullify federal laws. A recent Associated Press analysis found about four-fifths of the states have enacted local laws that directly reject or ignore federal laws on gun control, marijuana use, health insurance requirements and identification standards for driver’s licenses. Relatively few of those go so far as to threaten criminal charges against federal authorities.


     ~ See more at link ~

[unfy]

Old thread, I'm aware.  This particular topic has been mentioned in a few other threads as well.

But, there's news.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mo-lawmakers-deciding-veto-override-gun-bill-20224865

Apparently the governor shot it down.  The MO House voted to bypass the veto.  Now it's heading to the MO Senate for the final 2/3rds vote to get past the veto.

Fingers crossed!

[bkoenig]

This would be a nice follow up to the mudstomping in Colorado.

[AAllen]

Unfortunately it sounds like it fail in the Senate by one vote.

[unfy]

Unfortunately it sounds like it fail in the Senate by one vote.

[Husker_Fan]

I'm all for MO making progress by removing the ban on sound suppressors and other stupid restrictions, but I tend to agree with the Governor. The state doesn't have the authority to do what the legislation was trying to do.

[NENick]

I'm all for MO making progress by removing the ban on sound suppressors and other stupid restrictions, but I tend to agree with the Governor. The state doesn't have the authority to do what the legislation was trying to do.

Just what do you believe it was trying to do?

[unfy]

HF: I disagree

[Husker_Fan]

Nullification is a non-starter. We sort of had a war about that. Not to mention the fact that it would violate the first amendment.

[unfy]

Nullification is a non-starter. We sort of had a war about that. Not to mention the fact that it would violate the first amendment.

The war: ...

The first amendment: nope no issues.  You're free to publish the stuff.  That doesn't mean you didn't break the law and shouldn't be punished. 

IE: the Manning and Snowden stuff.

[Husker_Fan]

Your statement is like saying "you have the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean you didn't break the law and shouldn't be punished."

This is different than Snowden and Manning. They signed away their right to publicize classified information when they received clearances. This would be like criminalizing the journalists who published the information even though they had no duty to keep it secret.

[unfy]

Your statement is like saying "you have the right to own a gun. That doesn't mean you didn't break the law and shouldn't be punished."

This is different than Snowden and Manning. They signed away their right to publicize classified information when they received clearances. This would be like criminalizing the journalists who published the information even though they had no duty to keep it secret.

Been quite distracted lately, sorry.

I'll yield on the first amendment argument.  I have valid things to attribute to the contrary, but in the end - information in of itself is not a crime.

On the contrary, a paper publishing the time and place of Normandy invasion a day or two in advance ? Yeah that'd prolly fit the Constitution's definition of treason heh.