Missouri House Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment

[C_Clayton_Jones]

by Jim Hoft
January 16, 2013

Missouri conservatives proposed a bill that will punish feds violating the Second Amendment with jail time. The Tenth Amendment Center reported: Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill …

The Tenth Amendment Center reported:


Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”




Continue reading →
Missouri House Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment | The Gateway Pundit

Moot law. Any LEO attempting to do so will find himself in federal lockup.

It wouldn’t even come to that.

If signed into law it would be challenged, enjoined, then struck down as un-Constitutional.

This is just more wasteful political theatre.

The Tenth Amendment Center reported:

Funny, the ‘Tenth Amendment’ Center doesn’t know anything about the Tenth Amendment.

 

[jillian]

by Jim Hoft
January 16, 2013

Missouri conservatives proposed a bill that will punish feds violating the Second Amendment with jail time. The Tenth Amendment Center reported: Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill …

The Tenth Amendment Center reported:


Introduced by Missouri State Representative Casey Guernsey, with 61 co-sponsors, is the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. House Bill 170 (HB170) would nullify any and all federal acts, orders, laws, statutes, rules, or regulations of the federal government on personal firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

The bill states, in part:

“Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule, or regulation of the federal government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured commercially or privately in the state of Missouri and that remains exclusively within the borders of the state of Missouri shall be guilty of a class D felony.”




Continue reading →
Missouri House Proposes Jail Time for Feds Violating the 2nd Amendment | The Gateway Pundit

More looniness from the right...Good luck with that....

Nothing loony about it Doc. The federal government has no power to regulate intrastate commerce.

Enforcing Missouri law and upholding the Missouri Constitution is NEVER loony.

it IS loony. the remedy for an action that is in dispute is resolution by the court. the concept of jail time is absurd.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

let's just say we have a different reading of it.

but i guarantee you that if anyone ever tried to arrest a federal official for doing there job that official would walk. every time.

Fair enough, I agree, they would likely not be prosecuted, but it would allow Missouri leverage to combat Federal overreach, which is it's actual purpose.

Thank God for Federalism.

grounds perhaps. the case eludes me, but i believe that the scotus has ruled before that even when an article remains solely in one state the fed can regulate it under interstate commerce.

i think it had something to do with tomatoes in california. someone more versed than me will likely know if that's true or if i'm full of beans.

Correct.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Goods or services produced and sold intrastate only are subject to Federal regulation, as authorized by the Commerce Clause.

 

[Ringel05]

While this "law" can be defined as political posturing and most likely unenforceable, states and localities can, and have, on differing occasions, instructed state and local law enforcement not to cooperate with federal agents. This is legal and constitutional though in order to force compliance the feds can withhold funds, funds which many state and law enforcement agencies rely on to supplement their state and local funding.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There are 5 other states with similar ideas.

 

[Missourian]

Article VI

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

there is a reason they wrote and ratified the US Constitution, replacing the Articles of Confederation - the Supremacy Clause was a defining statement of the New document for the Supremacy of the Laws of the United States superseding those of the States including their constitutions.

That cannot possibly be true.

At least three states have decriminalized marijuana possession.

As marijuana is absolutely illegal under federal law, that supremacy clause must not apply in the way you believe it does.

If it did, those silly people in California wouldn't have bothered to pass laws that decriminalized and allowed legal sale of a commodity that was "banned" by federal law, right?