April 25, 2014

HB 1439 Progress Slowed The Past 10 Days.

I SHOULD be reporting to you the final passage of the Second Amendment Preservation Act. I SHOULD be telling you that both the House and Senate have done their part and that the bill is on the Governor's desk, beginning the 15 day window for him to either veto or sign.

But I CAN'T report that good news because it hasn't happened, even though it COULD have.

Nine precious days have passed since the Senate General Laws Committee held the final public hearing and recommended that HB 1439 “do pass”. It took until April 23rd for the Pro Tem to place the bill on the calendar for debate before the full Senate.

Recall that this is the House version of the bill, so although it has been through the entire process in the House, it had to start over in the Senate. It needs one more approval vote in the Senate and then another vote in the House, since the bill has been changed since the House last voted on it.

The Senate vote could have – should have – happened today. The Senate even quit early this morning.

I'm not even sure WHY the bill wasn't taken up today, but I'm sure the latest proposal by Senator Brad Lager to add new language didn't help. The additions necessitated yet another re-drafting just about the time it should have been going to the floor for that final vote.

If there's any hope of overriding a gubernatorial veto by the end of the legislative session, rather than having to wait for the September veto override session, the Second Amendment Preservation Act must be passed and on the Governor's desk by the drop-dead date of May 1st. The last day of session is May 16th .

What can you do at this point?

Call YOUR OWN Senator and Representative and tell them how important it is to you to see the Second Amendment Preservation Act passed before May 1st.  Ask them to tell House and Senate leadership that the folks back home want the bill across the finish line!

April 15, 2014

HB 1439 voted "do pass" by Senate General Laws committee 5 to 2.

The Senate General Laws Committee, chaired by Sen. Brian Nieves, not only held the hearing, but also voted the bill "do pass" out of committee by a party line vote of 5 to 2. The language changes we had hoped for were ALL adopted.

The next step is debate, and possible amendment, before the full Senate. It will take at least a few days before that happens, but so far Senate leadership has made every effort to expedite SAPA, so I am confident they will continue on that path. After the Senate passes the House version, it could go to a "conference committee" -- a small group from both the House and Senate -- to hammer out any differences between the House and Senate versions.

If the version coming out of the conference committee is different than the version voted on by either the full House or full Senate, they will have to vote on it again. Yes, it's a long drawn-out process!

Of course, there is a good chance that Governor Nixon will veto this bill again, in which case the House and Senate will have to vote, one more time, to override the veto. If the House and Senate passes and delivers the bill to the Governor with more than 15 days left in the session, the veto override vote can take place on one of the remaining days. If there are less than 15 days left in the legislative session when the governor gets the bill, the veto override vote will have to take place in September.

April 1, 2014

HB 1439 "perfected" in the House 112 to 41. SB 613 is held in reserve.

Before the General Assembly took a week off for spring break a few weeks ago, the House decided they wanted the House version of the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 1439) to be the one to pass, as was the case in 2013.

Since that time, a lot of work was done on the bill. Most of that work changed very little of the substance and intent of the bill. The very positive changes make the bill a lot less susceptible to legal challenges.

One significant change was made -- the misdemeanor penalty for federal officials who infringe on a Missouri citizen's right to keep and bear arms was removed. Part of the reason it was removed was political -- we are more likely to have the solid support needed to override governor Nixon's veto without that clause.

A more significant reason for removing that clause, however, was strategic.

This is the reality and bottom line: The federal government has the deck stacked against the states. If state charges are brought against a federal agent, the federal courts preempt the case, so it's not even Missouri judges trying the case.

The first thing the defendant would do is file a motion to dismiss based on something called a "Supremacy Clause immunity defense". The federal court are almost ALWAYS going to let the federal agent "skate".

We learned this lesson from the infamous incident at Ruby Ridge, when federal agents cut down the Randy Weaver family. The feds ended up admitting they were wrong and reached a civil settlement with the Weavers worth millions of dollars, but the Idaho manslaughter charges against the federal sniper didn't stick.

Read this 9th Circuit Court ruling (Idaho v. Horiuchi) -- it lays out the constitutional and legal framework for such a case. This 6 to 5 opinion against the Supremacy Clause immunity defense should indicate that Missouri CAN adopt a law which imposes criminal penalties on a federal agent who violates our citizens' constitutional rights.

The court ruled that, in shooting the Weavers without first attempting to negotiate with them, the Weaver's 4th Amendment rights were violated, so the normal Supremacy Clause immunity didn't apply. Of course, that is analogous to a fedeal agent violating a Missourian's 2nd Amendment rights -- he shouldn't be able to claim Supremacy Clause immunity, either.

The problem is, the 9th Circuit Court vacated this ruling 3 months after publishing it.

They didn't vacate the ruling because of unsound constitutional rationale, but because of a dispute about the facts of the case. We have a moral and constitutional basis for criminal penalties in the Second Amendment Preservation Act, but it will take more courage and committment to Founding Principles than our state leaders currently have. Neither Governor Nixon, nor A.G. Koster will provide the fight we need to prevail.

So, the reality of our delema is that without state officials who are willing to face down the feds we need to resort to more reliable tactics.

THE Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

Before HB 1439 now is almost purely and anti-commandeering bill. Based on sound constitutional principles that even the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with, anti-commandeering means that Missouri will not allow any of its resources to be used to implement or assist federal gun control efforts.

That includes our law-enforcement personel.

The federal government can not stop Missouri from forbidding it's officials from participating in federal gun control -- this was established in the Printz v. U.S. and NFIB v. Sebelius cases. HB 1439 does just that and it allows a citizen to sue an official if he breaks that law.

There remains a loophole, however. State peace officers routinely allow themselves to be deputized by federal agencies. That make a Missouri cop a federal agent and then the Supremacy Clause immunity applies to them, too.

We need to amend HB 1439 to close this loophole. One way to do that would to forbid anyone who violates the prohibitions in HB 1439 from serving as a peace officer in Missouri. If they want to work with the feds to violate your 2nd Amendment rights, they lose their Missouri law-enforcement job.

This change will have to be made as HB 1439 move in the Senate.

March 5, 2014 (Updated 03/08/2014)

It's been a couple of weeks since our last update on SB 613 , the Second Amendment Preservation Act, and for good reason – I just haven't known what to report.

The legislative process is not at all like sausage making – it's much messier. Smoke and mirrors keep you wondering who is for you, who is against you and who is for you, but just preoccupied with things they believe to be higher priority.

After some unusual machinations, on February 20th the Senate “3rd Read and Passed” SB 613. That same day, a Thursday, the bill was sent to the House, where it was “First Read”. (The Constitution requires that every bill be read three times, on separate days, in each chamber before it can become a law.) It was “Second Read” on Monday, February 24th.

THE PROCESS

Before SB 613 can be “Third Read and finally passed” by the House and sent to the Governor, here's what must happen with a note about who either makes it happen or keeps it from happening:

1. Be assigned to the General Laws Committee (Speaker Tim Jones) Done! 03/04/2014

2. Have a public hearing in the General Laws Committee (Chairman Caleb Jones) Done! 03/06/2014

3. Be “exec'd” and voted “Do Pass” by the General Laws Committee (Chairman Caleb Jones) Done! 03/06/2014

4. Be reported out of that committee and reported to the Rules Committee (Chairman Jeanie Riddle) Done!

5. Be reported out of the Rules Committee and placed on the House Floor Calendar (Chairman Jeanie Riddle) Done!

6. Be taken up for debate, possible amendment, and a final vote by the full House (Floor Leader John Diehl)

7. Signed and delivered to the Governor (Speaker Tim Jones, Pro tem Tom Dempsey)

As you can see, the fate of the Second Amendment Preservation Act is in the hands of four people.

<more>

SB 613 passes Senate 23 to 9!

February 20, 2014,

The Missouri Senate used an unusual proceedure called "reconsideration of the vote" to reperfect SB 613 on the 17th. In the process, they removed the Nasheed Amendment, a move that saves the House from removing that clause.

They then "3rd Read and passed" the bill by a vote of 23 to 9 on February 20th. The vote was nearly a party line vote, with one Republican voting with the Democrats. (Link to Senate Journal Page)

The House first read the bill on the 20th and second read it on the 24th. (There is a constitutional requirement for all bills to be "read" into the record on three separate days.)

We are expecting SB 613 to be assigned to the House General Laws Committee shortly. That committee held a hearing on the identical HB 1439 and voted "do pass" last week, so it will be a simple matter to take up SB 613 and pass it in just a few minutes.

NRA Fighting Against Second Amendment Prervation Act!

February 12, 2014,

Yes, you read it right -- the NRA has come out against the strongest protections of your 2nd Amendment rights anywhere in the USA.

In fact, today the 10th Amendment Center said this about SB 613: "This bill is THE STRONGEST nullification bill in modern times. By leaps and bounds." (Emphasis in original.)

And Gun Owner's of America continued their endorsement of SB 613.

But the NRA sent out this ALERT, saying,

Wow! I would be against a bill that did all of that, too. But what did the amendment REALLY say?

Here it is: Section 2. "Upon becoming aware that a firearm has been stolen, a person shall have seventy-two hours to report such theft."

Read the complete official amendment here.

That's it. No $1,000 fine, no Class A misdemeanor and no loss of their Right to Carry Permit. How could the NRA get it so wrong? Here's a link to all the actual amendments that were offered. (See amendment 4538S04.24S) As you can see, the NRA really screwed up.

Please call the NRA at (800) 392-8683 and ask them to explain how they could get the facts so wrong.

Also, stay tuned to see how easily this problem is fixed through the normal legislative process.

SB 613 Perfected in Senate - Final Senate passage this week.

February 11, 2014,

The Senate sponsor of SB 613 and his colleagues fought off unfriendly amendments and perfected SB 613 with all the enforcement provisions intact. The bill is as strong or stronger than the 2013 version, HB 436.

A "3rd Read" vote is expected later this week. More later, stay tuned...

SB 613 Placed on Senate Calendar for Perfection

February 1, 2014,

In addition to being voted out of committee this week, SB 613 has advanced the next step and has been placed on the Senate calendar for "perfecting" bills. See http://www.senate.mo.gov/14info/BTS_Web/Actions.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=27723646

Once a bill has been approved in committee, it's up to the president pro tem of the Senate to advance it to the floor. If he wants to, he can delay the bill.

Senator Dempsey did not delay -- just as promised, he is fast-tracking the bill. The next step is for Sen. Richard, the floor leader and co-sponsor of SB 613, to bring the bill up for debate before the full senate. I am confident he will be true to his word and do so promptly as well.  It should only be a matter of days before the bill makes it to the floor.

The "perfection" process is the time amendments can be offered, debated and either adopted or rejected.  The bill can be made better through this process, or it can be "gutted".  Amendments that seem to be friendly can also be added as a "poison pill" -- something that will cause others to vote against the bill when they might have otherwise supported it.

Now is the time to call or email your own senator and tell him how important this bill is to you.   Tell him (or her) to vote NO on any amendment that expands the purpose of the bill.  Tell him to vote NO on anything that weakens the enforcement power of the Second Amendment Preservation Act portion of the bill.

We are getting to the critical stage, so please check your email often and keep an eye on this page for updates..

Use this link to download the Senate Committee Substitute for the original bill.  The General Laws committee made two changes to the originally filed bill. Both changes are positive steps.

1. They removed the two sections dealing with serving warrants (544.xxx) because of concerns that they went beyond the allowed scope of the bill.
2. They modified the language dealing with the authority of medical professionals to document and release information about gun ownership.  The bill no longer prohibits them from documenting what you tell them about gun ownership, but the committee added much stronger prohibitions of the release of that information.  My personal opinion is that it's none of the doctor's business and you just shouldn't talk about guns with him or his staff, not even in passing. Then, there's no personal date to be worried about.

SB 613 passes in first vote of the year

January 28, 2014,

At the conclusion of the second week of testimony on the 2014 Second Amendment Preservation Act, the senate General Laws Committee voted 5 to 1 to "do pass" the bill out of committee and on to the floor for the whole senate to debate.

The hearing room was packed with supporters and over 1100 witness forms were turned in to the committee. Only 6 opposed the bill.

Senate leadership has promised to fast-track the bill from here on out, to ensure that it gets to the governor early enough so any veto can be overridden during the spring legislative session.

Stay tuned... There's still a lot of work to do!

Rep. Doug Funderburk files 2014 Version of SAPA with 33 cosponsors

January 15, 2014,

After fighting a week long illness, the sponsor of the 2013 HB 436 filed his 2014 version of that bill. It has been designated as HB

1439.

This bill is identical to the senate version, SB 613.

Senator Brian Nieves pre-files 2014 Version

December 6, 2013,

As you know, the 2013 Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) was passed by veto proof majorities in both the House and Senate last spring. Governor Nixon vetoed that bill anyway, which meant we had to wait until September 11 to see if the House and Senate would override the veto.

The House overrode the veto, but four senators, including president pro tem Tom Dempsey and majority floor leader, Ron Richard, changed their support and voted with the governor. We missed the override by one vote.

Those two Republicans were greatly affected by a last minute statement issued by Attorney General Chris Koster and the fire storm of opposition that statement generated from the law enforcement community. Although Koster's complaints were largely red herrings, Dempsey and Richard thought it best to take a cautious approach.

Although their switched votes killed our chances of enacting Second Amendment protections in 2013, they also committed to fast tracking a replacement bill in 2014 -- one that addresses the concerns raised by Koster and law enforcement. They have agreed to pass a bill and deliver it to the governor early enough in the session to override any veto before the end of the session in May.

Today (Friday), the first major step has been accomplished to that end.

After a cooperative effort by Sens. Dempsey and Richard, along with proponents of HB 436, a new bill has been drafted and was pre-filed by Sen. Brian Nieves today. It is HB 613.

The new bill is not a "compromise" in the sense that its effectiveness is in any way diminished. In fact, some language tweaks from Dempsey and Richard actually make the bill more powerful in some ways, and the proponents of HB 436 made sure the accountability clauses stayed in the bill.

The official bill page for the 2014 SB 613 is HERE.

The bill text may not be posted for several days, but you can download the official text HERE.

NOTE: Rep. Doug Funderburk is expected to file an identical bill in the House next week.

We'll keep you posted on the latest developments. In the mean time, please pass the word. Ask friends to join Missouri First to get on the email list.

For liberty,

- Ron Calzone

Print the PDF version of this poster. Ask your local gun stores to display it. Tape a copy inside your car or truck window!


2nd Amendment Preservation Act
signs in jpg & pdf

The Main Responsibility of Government Officials
“That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.” (emphasis added) (MO Const. Art. I, Sec. 2)

The Ratification Clause of the U.S. Constitution
"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

The Supremacy Clause
"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” (emphasis added) (U.S. Constitution, Article VI)

Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause
“I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government... but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).

Sponsor of SB 613

Co-Sponsors of SB 613

Click HERE for a larger map with parking tips.

Help will be needed most of the day, so even if you can't make it for the rally, please come for however long you can. Parking advice... We are expecting a VERY LARGE crowd, so allow time for parking and walk to the Capitol. The map to the left will help you locate parking. Check it right before you leave -- we will update it as we find more places to park.

For Immediate Release

CSPOA/Sheriff Mack Press Release:  Dated Sept. 10, 2013

Today the CSPOA learned that the Missouri Sheriff's Association "Board" voted to oppose a strong and correct piece of legislation (HB436) in an effort to override the Governor's veto of a bill already passed by a substantial majority of MO legislators. The MO legislature was absolutely correct in doing so and was actually doing their job to keep unlawful federal gun control statutes off the backs of Missourians!

James Madison said, "We can safely rely on the disposition of State Legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."

We should be able to depend on Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, County Commissioners, and all other local officials to do the same; erect barriers against tyranny and DC corruption. The federal government is out of control and local officials have no obligation to go along with it, quite the contrary. If we do oppose federal usurpations then the feds might just retaliate by cutting federal funding for local programs. What does that make local leaders who compromise liberty to keep federal grants coming in?

We would like to commend the Missouri Sheriffs' Association for mentioning the importance of their oath of office, but they have it entirely backwards. Opposing gun control and keeping the federal government (Biden and Obama) from shoving more of their unconstitutional agenda down the throats of all Missourians, is exactly what our Sheriffs are sworn to do. The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association endorses HB 436 and applauds the legislature for their courageous stand to nullify any effort to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. All law enforcement officers should be on the side of the people and the Constitution. The opposing side is made up of Nixon, Biden, and Obama and a bunch of other politicians who want us to believe that the Constitution no longer applies today. The CSPOA stands firmly against all such propaganda.

Richard Mack, Director
Constitutional Sheriffs and Police Officer Association
PO Box 567
Higley, AZ 85236
(480) 840-9091
staff@cspoa.org
http://cspoa.org/

Sheriff Richard Mack (ret) was one of the two plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case Printz v. United States.
Sheriffs Mack and Printz prevailed in that case, resulting in the court ruling that states could refuse to participate in federal gun control efforts. The Supreme Court's ruling in Printz factored heavily in the portion of the Obamacare ruling that stated the federal government could not force the states to expand Medicaid or punish them with sanctions if they didn't expand existing Medicaid programs.

###

Here are the brave Demcrats who dared to vote FOR the 2nd Amendment in regualar session.
They will be under a lot of pressure to change their votes, so folks from their districts should call and encourge them!

New York Time editorial: Statehouse Swagger in the Gun Debate

“As a measure of the gun culture’s dangerous sway over statehouse politicians, it is hard to top the pending proposal in Missouri that would pronounce all federal gun safety laws null and void in the state and allow the arrest of federal agents who try to enforce them. ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/opinion/statehouse-swagger-in-the-gun-debate.html?_r=0

New York Times: Gun Bill in Missouri Would Test Limits in Nullifying U.S. Law

“The law amounts to the most far-reaching states’ rights endeavor in the country, the far edge of a growing movement known as “nullification” in which a state defies federal power. “

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/us/missouri-gun-measure-pushes-nullification-boundary.html?_r=0

Joplin Globe: Mike Maharrey, guest columnist: Arguments of those opposing gun bill fail  (True history of nullification reveals that, perhaps more than any other thing, it was used to protect black Americans from the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act.)

“As the debate rages, opponents of House Bill 436 make two fallacious arguments. First, they argue the Constitution’s supremacy clause renders the bill unconstitutional. Second, they paint nullification as a discredited tool primarily used unsuccessfully to fight desegregation.”

http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/x250199528/Mike-Maharrey-guest-columnist-Arguments-of-those-opposing-gun-bill-fail

Download poster in jpg & pdf

NEW! We want posters in every gun shop in the state!

Now LibertyMaps has been updated to list virtually every gun dealer in the state. Please print copies (preferably color) of the Rally Poster and take to the gun shops near you.

Click Here:
LibertyMaps - Gun Dealers

Click on the map to list the gun dealers within the specified range (default is 10 miles square).

By default, the map will center on Jefferson City, but click anywhere on the map on the right side to re-center. Scroll down to see the list or click on one of the ballons on the map.

Take some of the "I Support Missouri's Second Amendment Preservation Act" posters, too!

Map tool makes it easy to write letters to editors:

LibertyMaps by LibertyTools helps you find newspapers and other media in your area. Find phone and fax numbers as well as email addresses to send your Letters to Editors.

Click Here:
LibertyMaps - Newspaper

Click on the map to list the newspapers within the specified range (default is 25 miles square). Scroll down to see the list or click on one of the ballons on the map.

Joplin Globe: Mike Maharrey, guest columnist: Arguments of those opposing gun bill fail

Critics of nullifiaiton claim it has racist roots and that nullification has never worked, but Mike Maharrey gives specific examples of it's successfull use defending black Americans from the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act in the 1800s.

This is one of the best written refutations of the objections to the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act.

Aug.26, 2013

By Mike Maharrey (Communications director at the Tenth Amendment Center)

JOPLIN, Mo. — In a few weeks, the Missouri Legislature will consider overriding Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill nullifying federal actions violating the Second Amendment.

Mike & Cynthia Maharrey

As the debate rages, opponents of House Bill 436 make two fallacious arguments. First, they argue the Constitution’s supremacy clause renders the bill unconstitutional. Second, they paint nullification as a discredited tool primarily used unsuccessfully to fight desegregation.

Nixon cited the supremacy clause as his reason for vetoing the bill.

“To me, it is not a gun issue, it is a law issue,” he said.

The supremacy clause affirms that the Constitution and all laws made “in pursuance thereof” stand supreme.

But Nixon and other federal supremacists pretend the words “in pursuance thereof” don’t exist. <read more>

Email Mike: michael (dot) maharrey (at) tenthamendmentcenter (dot) com

###

Rep. Charlie Davis

August 17, 2013
GOP eyes effort to override governor’s veto of gun bill
By Eli Yokley news@joplinglobe.com

When nullification opponents need some conservative cred to back up their arguments, they turn to the Heritage Foundation.

And when Heritage needs to smack down nullification, it turns to its big gun – Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., Vice President, American Studies and Director, B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics.

But despite the impressive sounding title, Spalding doesn’t know squat about nullification, as he’s demonstrated time and again in his confused but emphatic dissertations on the subject.

It remains unclear how a guy working for an organization that brought you the individual mandate and defends indefinite detention under the NDAA has any credibility on constitutional issues. <read more>

This year, in response to national gun control (“citizen control”) efforts led by liberals like President Obama, Senator McCaskill and Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, the Missouri legislature got to work protecting our 2nd Amendment rights.  While widely ridiculed by liberals in the media, their efforts to defend our gun rights and stand up for our constitutionally protected liberties, the Missouri legislature, in a bipartisan fashion, did what was right for America. <read more>

On Monday, we reported that the Missouri legislature may very well sign into law a controversial pro-gun bill with the help of a few key Democrats. Governor Jay Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the "Second Amendment Preservation Act," but Republican backers of the legislation are working to override his veto and implement the new law, which would, among many provisions, criminalize the enforcement of certain federal firearm laws in the state of Missouri. <read more>

July 9 12, 2013

Ironically, Governor Nixon chose July 5th to veto the Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436).

The day after we celebrated the 237th anniversary of our Declaration to King George III that the People are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, the governor became an obstacle to the General Assembly, who are living up to their OATH to defend those rights – the same oath the Governor took.

The Declaration of Independence was precipitated, among other things, by the king's effort to disarm the Colonists. The “shot heard around the world” was fired by – or at – British troops sent to confiscate the arms stored at Concord.

After several grueling years of war, the newly declared sovereign states beat back one tyrant, but they were afraid that the new federal government they were creating might some day also try to disarm and subjugate the People. Some states refused to ratify the proposed constitution without clear, unambiguous statements securing their unalienable rights and limiting the power of the federal government – they demanded a Bill of Rights in addition to language that limited that government to a small set of defined powers.

The full meaning of the Second and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have been ignored too long. A proper understanding supports the General Assembly's decision to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act.

Here are the plain and simple facts that politicians, lawyers and judges have been obfuscating – facts the People need to take back if there's any hope of restoring the Founder's dream:

1. The federal government possesses only the powers specifically granted it in the Constitution and nowhere does the Constitution delegate power to Congress to regulate gun ownership in the states.
2. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights was aimed directly at the federal government, and it explicitly prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.
3. As sort of a punctuation mark to the new Constitution, the Tenth Amendment topped off the Bill of Rights, making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the States or the People have ALL powers not delegated to the feds.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment)

In the spirit and authority of both the Declaration and the Constitution, the Second Amendment Preservation Act is the State of Missouri asserting the powers “reserved” to the States and the People. The Act does not attempt to tell other states what they should do, but is does avow that Missourians' rights will be defended in their home state.

By passing the Act, our state legislators were doing what the Missouri Constitution calls “the principal office of government”, that is, defending the liberty of the People – in this case, from unconstitutional federal edicts. For the state to do less, Article I, Section 2 says, is to “fail in its chief design”.

Governor Nixon's administration's release of the private information of 163,000 CCW holders to the Social Security Administration is reason to believe he is hostile to the People's Second Amendment Rights. Now his veto of the Second Amendment Preservation Act fuels those concerns.

The Governor's claim that the Act violates the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. Art. VI) rings hollow and an examination of that clause, and what the Founders said about it, defies his claim.

The Supremacy Clause, as the text says itself, only applies when a federal law is made “in pursuance” of the Constitution. As Alexander Hamilton explained at New York’s ratifying convention, “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding”. In Federalist 33, referring to “laws” NOT made “in pursuance” of the Constitution, Hamilton said, “These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.”

The governor seems committed to the preposterous notion that only the federal government, itself, can determine when an edict of Congress is “in pursuance” of the Constitution, but that would leave the federal government free to determine the extent of its own power and the states that created the federal government with no say. That's a dangerous doctrine, fit for the subjects of despots, but not free citizens.

Grounded in the principles of the Declaration, the doctrines of interposition and nullification as legal and political tools to fight unconstitutional acts of government is part of the heritage of a free people. The colonists successfully used it against the king's illegal and oppressive edicts, like the Navigation Acts and the Stamp Act.

And the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 & 1799 saved an unknown number of newspaper editors in those two states from fines and prison when they nullified the the unconstitutional federal Sedition Act, which outlawed criticizing the federal government. Besides protecting newspaper men, one happy effect of the Kentucky Resolution was the election of its author, Thomas Jefferson, to president in 1800.

Later, in an era when the U.S. Supreme Court said in the Dred Scott Opinion that it was legal to relegate black men, women and children to sub-human status, several states defended the liberty of accused run-a-way slaves by nullifying the unconstitutional Fugitive Slave Act. In fact, their nullification of the Fugitive Slave Act was so effective that South Carolina listed it in their "declaration of causes" for seceding from the Union.

In increasing numbers, Americans are dusting off the pre-revisionist history books and are waking up to an understanding of the heritage that's been stolen from them. A May 13, 2013 Rasmussen Poll found that a majority of “mainstream voters” now support the use of nullification against unconstitutional federal acts.

The People are once again understanding the meaning of the Missouri Constitution's Article I, Section 1, which says, “That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.”

Fortunately for the People, the General Assembly will likely override Governor Nixon's veto. Unfortunately for the governor, he will go down in history as one who missed the opportunity to prove his campaign claims that he supports gun rights. It's too bad he didn't follow the lead of the governor's of Kansas and Alaska, who both recently signed similar legislation.

###

BREAKING NEWS!

Civil Asset Forfeiture may be the legal tool of choice to confiscate your guns!

Please watch this 2 1/2 minute video, and then read on:

At the last minute, Missouri law-enforcement agencies came out against the Second Amendment Preservation Act. Why?

We think it's because SAPA will prevent them from profiting from a federal program called the Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF).

Although the federal program was primarily used to fight the "war on drugs" in the past, it has been expanded to include every manner of infraction.

If law-enforcement agents even have reasonable suspicion that you have broken a law, they can take your cash, cars, homes, businesses, and your guns!

You don't have to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted, and the burden of proof is on you -- your property is "guilty" until proven innocent.

The government gets to keep your assets and the very police department and prosecutor who took it from you get a cut of the deal.

Under Article IX Section 7 of the Missouri Constitution, this is illegal, but the federal government has supplied a loophole that Missouri's criminal justice system had profited from.

Missouri law enforcement agencies -- including your local sheriff -- have become addicted to this federal program, and that provides a great deal of pressure on them to compromise your rights -- including your right to keep and bear arms.

Read the Institute for Justice comprehensive study:

Policing for Profit

Civil Forfeiture Highway Shakedowns in Tennessee

Forfeiture Abuse: Even Your Drums Aren't Safe From the Police

Now LibertyMaps has been updated to list virtually every gun dealer in the state. Please print copies (preferably color) of the Rally Poster and take to the gun shops near you.

Click Here:
LibertyMaps - Gun Dealers

Click on the map to list the gun dealers within the specified range (default is 10 miles square), then take the Rally Poster to them, along with a roll of clear tape, and ask permission to post it on their doors and counter.

Download poster in jpg & pdf

Print the PDF version of this poster. Ask your local gun stores to display it. Tape a copy inside your car or truck window!


2nd Amendment Preservation Act
signs in jpg & pdf

Good Resources

Nullification for Lawyers. More in depth on Marbury.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/24/nullification-for-lawyers/

In depth look at Fugitive Slave Act nullification
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/03/06/personal-liberty-laws-a-nullification-history-lesson/

This links highlights some of the folks charged under the Sedition Act. Names and brief synopsis,
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Sedition_Act_cases.pdf

SAPA Badge PDF

The Supremacy Clause

“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” (emphasis added) (U.S. Constitution, Article VI)

Hamilton on the Supremacy Clause

“I maintain that the word supreme imports no more than this — that the Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, cannot be controlled or defeated by any other law. The acts of the United States, therefore, will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general govennment...but the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding” (emphasis added) (Alexander Hamilton, at New York’s ratifying convention).