Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon vetoes gun laws bill.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Below is a link to the report by the Washington Times on Gov. Nixon's veto. Also, please read the replies, especially a reply by "lakeside227" to another by "Erzatz". lakeside227 wrote one of the best replies I have ever read, concerning the US Constitution, regarding federal and state power. It starts at the 7th reply down right now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ot-federal-gu/

[Tom Servo]

The bill in question is House Bill 436, which would have nullified federal enforcement of gun-control laws. I've heard that there might be enough votes to override his veto, but let's think this through.

First, consider the governor's response [pdf].

Second, let's remember that people will still be arrested, tried, and sentenced on a federal level. Is the state going to rally troops to prevent this? Unlikely. These nullification efforts might play well for the peanut gallery, but the avenues for real and lasting change are the federal courts and legislatures.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Tom,

I agree somewhat, I think this is more a show of states rights, along with Constitutional, in other words, trying to force the feds hand. Plus, according to the article, both sides of the isle was for it, or the majority was. If so, then they may override the veto, or just use this against Nixon and his friends next election, knowing he would do it. I see what Nixon is saying, but I also see where some in the federal government is trying to go around the 2nd amendment too. Maybe a rewrite of the bill would be better, then send it back through?

By the way, I saved that persons reply, it was pure poetry. I almost wondered if they had copied it from somewhere.

[Tom Servo]

in other words, trying to force the feds hand.

But in what way? The people caught in the middle will be the citizens who find themselves in prison.

The issue of nullification has come up before the Supreme Court numerous times since 1809, and they have rejected it every single time. It simply isn't the province of the states to buck federal laws.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Tom,

I know, but Missouri isn't the first state here lately to want to buck the feds. After all, look what the states did with legalized pot, starting with California. I think some states have noticed that they got by with it, and now they want to stretch it that much more.

[csmsss]

Perhaps I'm an idealist, but I'm one of those who thinks that states' sovereignty still matters. Bills like this are meaningful not because they will change any federal agencies' behavior, but because they indicate that there is still a body politic in certain states that believes in the notion of a limited federal government.

[Tom Servo]

After all, look what the states did with legalized pot, starting with California.

Sure, California pushed, but now the federal government is pushing back. They're shutting down dispensaries, and the owners have no real recourse.

The Commerce and Supremacy clauses will be cited, and the courts will back the feds. On the matter of nullification, one only has to look to the Federalist Papers to see that this sort of action is the province of federal courts, not state governments.

Sorry, Missouri. Thanks for playing, but it just doesn't work that way.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

I didn't here about anything the feds did against the pot growers in Ca., as the last I read, they were still growing in number, and I think it was Washington state that was looking at allowing it also. I know pot is still listed as a schedule 1 narcotic, thus illegal for all purposes, and hasn't been changed over it, but that is up to the FDA. Plus, there are labs in some states still doing human testing with pot, and to me, with it still being a schedule 1 narcotic, that would be illegal to do, but they're doing it. However, there may be laws where they're allowed to bypass that too.

I can't remember which state it was, but I'm sure you remember, passed some laws about manufacturing firearms in-state, and said that if they were sold in-state, that they didn't have to be registered, BATFE or not. They were down south if I recall, Tennessee, maybe? They cited the ICC on this, and the law passed if I remember. That's another case of rebellion.

I think several states are feeling that more and more of their guaranteed rights are being taken away, and they're starting to push back. Plus, they see the feds going against some state constitutions, that include and protect 2nd amendment rights, and others for that matter. However, some of these states have anti-gun governors trying it too, like in Maryland. I've not read all the state constitutions, but a few that I have, did include the same as the 2nd Amendment, like Maryland and Pennsylvania, which are some of the oldest.

[vranasaurus]

These efforts make gun rights supporters look dumb. The supremacy and commerce clauses have ben interpreted to allow the feds do regulate a whole host of activities.

I would have no problem with a state's legislative branch passing a resolution urging the federal government to do or not to do certain things. But crackpot ideas about nullifying federal law at the state level are just dumb.

These kinds of things just make us the butt of jokes and give the other side ammunition to convince others we are crazy. Instead of crazy ideas about nullifying federal law how about the legislature pass a campus carry bill? Nope, let's just come up with some crazy idea that will do zero for advancing gun rights in this country.

[Tom Servo]

I think several states are feeling that more and more of their guaranteed rights are being taken away, and they're starting to push back.

Why now? None of this is new. The NFA? 1934. The GCA? 1968. Heck, marijuana? The Boggs act was 1952.

Measures like this are pandering to a certain ideological base, and they're utterly irresponsible.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Tom,

Yes, but those dates (except the NFA) are all for the cases of the Supreme Court that started under Roosevelt, right after he tried to pack the court, but Justice Owen Roberts came in in 1937, and changed everything, and the federalist view went down the crapper with him, thus Congress gained all that ground under the commerce clause for the New Deal. This went on until Rehnquist, and under him, there was a bunch of limits placed back on Congress, and the states have been chomping at the bits to get more of it back ever since. Several states, evidently, feel that from the time of the New Deal, that the feds pretty much said the 10th Amendment didn't mean squat, and if I recall, some justice even went so far as to about say that. This is what I think a lot of this is about, and why some of the states have decided to buck the fed.

The courts rulings on the ICC, from the time of Owen Roberts in 1937, until Rehnquist, pretty much let Congress use the ICC for about anything they wanted to control, and a few justices even accused them of trying to bring about a police state. Who knows, maybe that is what they're after?

It's like the old saying, 'give them an inch, and they'll take a mile'. Don't get me wrong though, as I think a huge number of those laws were needed, especially child labor laws, health, and minimum wage, etc. If they had been in effect when my dad was young, he wouldn't have had to work in a mine at the age of 14, and may have still been living because of it. Our biggest problem is that Congress don't know when to stop.

[Tom Servo]

those dates (except the NFA) are all for the cases of the Supreme Court that started under Roosevelt

Nope. See Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and Ableman v. Booth (1859). The rebuttal of nullification predated Roosevelt by over a century.

This is what I think a lot of this is about, and why some of the states have decided to buck the fed.

Perhaps, but why now? Why not 10, 20, or 50 years ago? And why in such a ham-handed way?

Justice Owen Roberts came in in 1937, and changed everything, and the federalist view went down the crapper with him

Actually, the federalist view would be in line with what I wrote earlier. Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 80 and 82 (among others) that the power to contest laws laid with the federal courts, not the state legislatures.

[Dixie Gunsmithing]

Perhaps, but why now? Why not 10, 20, or 50 years ago? And why in such a ham-handed way?

I guess they feel that they lost too much from Roosevelt until Rehnquist, and they want it all back at once, or that's the only thing I can lay it to. You have to remember that they've actually been slowly doing this since Rehnquist, as they voted for right to work states in the south, etc., about that time, and it seems that every year, it something more.

When referring to what happened under Roosevelt, there was a landslide of new laws using the ICC, instead of several decisions over a good bit of time, and that really torqued a bunch of states. Maybe they just couldn't digest it all at once? I used to have a list of all the laws that came into effect at the time, and it was a ton of them, Social Security being a minority to the others.

[Al Norris]

Up until the Rehnquist Court, the States had no support within the courts, at all.

C.J. Rehnquist started something that didn't get finished. The liberal side of the Court pushed back and it pushed back hard. Even to the point of getting some of the so-called conservatives to side with them (Raich, anyone?).

Since then, we've had 2 cases that have encouraged the States to pass these types of laws. At present, such laws are meaningless and are merely for show. But that may change, as more States pile on and pass more such laws.

Currently however, these acts are symbolic only.

[SilverBulletZ06]

Tom wrote:

But in what way? The people caught in the middle will be the citizens who find themselves in prison.

The issue of nullification has come up before the Supreme Court numerous times since 1809, and they have rejected it every single time. It simply isn't the province of the states to buck federal laws.

Forces the SCOTUS to relook at Miller v. US in the context of every day arms today. Almost every firearm banned is in basic use within the US Military, which was the basis for the Miller Decision.

Is the M4 Full-Auto with a 14.3" barrel in common use? Yes.
Are full auto firearms in common use in general? Yes.
Are SBR/SBS in common use? Yes.
Are silencers in regular use? Yes.

I wouldn't say that it would be so cut and dry if it were brought up.

[Tom Servo]

Forces the SCOTUS to relook at Miller v. US in the context of every day arms today.

They already did that in Heller. They refused to overturn Miller.

If we want to challenge Miller (a prospect for which I'm not too optimistic at the current time), state-level nullification isn't the route to go.

[NJgunowner]

This law was nothing but posturing and vote grabbing unfortunately. It wouldn't have prevented the Feds from doing whatever they planned to do. The governor knew it wasn't worth the paper it was printed on and acted accordingly in my opinion.