Missouri Legislature Nullifies All Federal Gun Control Measures by a Veto-Proof Majority

Jefferson City, Mo (May 8, 2013) – Tonight, the Missouri State House voted to send Governor Jay Nixon what could arguably be the strongest defense against federal gun control measures in American history.  The vote was 116-38.

HB436, introduced by Representative Doug Funderburk in February, was initially passed by the House in April by a vote of 115-42.  Last week, the State Senate approved the bill with an amendment which did not change any of its nullification aspects. The vote there was 26-6.  The bill then needed one final vote in the house which happened just before 10pm local time this evening.

The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority.  Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st.  Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!”

As law, HB436 would nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books – or planned for the future.   It reads, in part:


Texas’ Firearm Protection Act: Fact and Fiction

The Texas House recently passed multiple gun measures designed to protect Texans from undesired, if not unconstitutional, federal gun laws. Two bills related to federal gun laws, HB 1076 and HB 928, are proceeding and at the time of this writing HB 1076 has passed the final vote in the Texas House, 100-47 and HB 928 has passed as well, 102-31. The bills seek to deny state and local resources for enforcement of federal gun laws and in support of this deny funding to state and local officials that do enforce federal gun laws.

Unfortunately, there is a wealth of misinformation published that obscures the legitimacy of this legislation. For instance, the  Dallas Morning News makes numerous claims inconsistent with facts.

Key statements made in this article are incorrect and mislead the reader regarding the content and legitimacy of the bill’s language. Starting in the third paragraph, Ms. Hoppe begins her summary of a “proposal to nullify new federal gun control laws.”. This is in regards to Steve Toth’s HB 1076.

Ms. Hoppe states: “Those gun laws not already on the books in Texas couldn’t be enforced here under the sweeping and unadjudicated argument that they wouldn’t be constitutional under the Second Amendment.”

It is true that the legislation would reject local enforcement of federal laws. That is the point of the legislation in general. In contrast to the implication, it is very workable in practice as state laws would be put in place as needed. This allows the Texas legislature to draft gun laws that are consistent with the Texas Constitution.

However, Ms. Hoppe’s claim that the legislation challenges the constitutionality of any federal law is false. No such argument is being made regarding the Second Amendment. In HB 1076, Texas is merely refusing to participate in the local enforcement of federal gun laws. In fact, the constitutionality of the gun laws is neither challenged nor validated. They simply deny resources and manpower to enforcement. The Constitutionality of this bill from the federal perspective is clear.  In Printz v. U.S., a 1997 Supreme Court case, Scalia rejected federal comandeering of state and local officers regardless of the constitutionality of the federal law. In other words, the federal government cannot, in any case, force states to uphold federal laws.


They Don’t Know What They Don’t Know

When you work to advance a controversial idea like nullification, you expect to deal with a certain number of hostile opponents.

But I’m not gonna lie; sometimes countering the same ridiculous arguments over and over again gets tedious. I mean, how many different ways can you say “nullification was never used to support slavery?” Or “only federal acts ‘in pursuance of’ the Constitution stand supreme?”

I try to be patient and just keep hammering the facts. Slowly but surely, we are making progress. A Rasmussen poll released this week actually indicates more Americans than not believe states should nullify unconstitutional acts. That’s pretty amazing and extremely encouraging.

But every once in a while, some of these clowns really get under my skin. The ones who sanctimoniously belittle those of us who support nullification, using smears like “wacky” and “demented” and “crackpot,” yet clearly don’t know the first thing about the history of nullification really make me see red. They act like no sane person could possibly support nullification. They don’t even attempt to counter the idea. They just smugly make fun of us with an air of intellectual superiority.

Yet in the process, these brilliant caretakers of conventional wisdom get basic facts completely wrong.

Take this second-rate columnist named Sid Salter. He recently wrote a wonderfully condescending tome condemning nullification.


Butler Co. Passes Resolution Supporting New Kansas Second Amendment Law

El DORADO, Kan. (May 7, 2013) – County commissioners in Butler County, Kan. let Gov. Brownback and the Kansas legislature know they have their backs when it comes to blocking federal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Butler County Commission unanimously passed A Resolution Supporting Our Second Amendment Rights on Tuesday. The resolution pledges county support for the new state law blocking any federal acts violating the Second Amendment signed by Brownback last month.

The Board of County Commissioners of Butler County, Kansas commends the Legislature and Governor of Kansas for their resolute actions in regard to preserving and protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms, and pledges its support in this worthy endeavor on behalf of the citizens of Butler County.

Commissioner Ed Myers spearheaded the effort.

“It was my privilege to draft this resolution in support of Kansas’ resolute efforts to protect and preserve our individual right to keep and bear arms,” he said.

The resolution passed 4-0 with one commissioner absent.