The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is Back
Home » Legislation » Gun Control » The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is Back

The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is Back

The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is Back

 

25 Nov 2013

Tenth Amendment Center Blog

The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is getting ready for its debut in the 2014 legislative session.

Missouri’s own, Ron Calzone, broke the news from his webpage, Missouri First.

Seal of Missouri.

Seal of Missouri. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Senators Tom Dempsey and Ron Richard released a rough draft for the upcoming legislative session after the Senate failed to over-ride Governor Nixon’s veto of the 2013 Second Amendment Preservation Act.

As Ron puts it, the, “re-drafting process has the potential to result in a bill superior to the bill that passed the House and Senate with super-majorities in 2013.”

The rough draft of the bill can be found on Missouri Firsts’ link here.

Ron critiqued the 2014 rough draft with a fine tooth comb. Following are some of the highlights.

Enhancements for the 2014 Bill

The new bill outlines the purpose of the Supremacy Clause

 Although the several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties made pursuant to the powers granted in the Constitution, such supremacy does not extend to various federal statutes, court orders, rules, regulations, or other actions which restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the borders of Missouri; such statutes, court orders, rules, regulations, and other actions exceed the powers granted to the federal government except to the extent they are necessary and proper for governing and regulating of land and naval forces of the United States or for organizing, arming, and disciplining of militia forces actively employed in the service of the United States Armed Forces.

Improved wording in “which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect”.

 (a)Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms,firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;(b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; and services which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens; (b) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(c) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

According to Calzone, further improvements include,

 

In the original HB 436, this sub-section included in the list of unlawful federal infringements: “Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.”

The SL Draft 2 & 3 adds to that: “without the requirement of a warrant based on probable cause or an exception to such a requirement generally recognized by Missouri state courts.”

The new language seems to be aimed at fixing a problem that didn’t exist in the original HB 436. The original language applied only to federal acts ordering the confiscation of firearms, and only protects law-abiding citizens. The original language would not have precluded a federal officer from disarming a criminal they were arresting for non-firearms offenses, like drug trafficking.

Ron continues his critique on state and federal involvement,

 

1.320.5 – Prohibition of state participation in enforcement of federal infringements of gun rights.

Purpose: This may be the most important of the operative parts of the bill. The theory is that most federal enforcement actions rely on assistance by local law-enforcement, and that without that cooperation they can accomplish very little. The constitutionally of this provision is clear (See Printz v. U.S. and NFIB v. Sebelius), so it will survive court challenges.

This theory isn’t just theory. It’s a fact! The feds don’t have the resources to come into every state. They rely heavily on local and state cooperation. Studies estimate that local and state law enforcement assist eight out of 10 ATF raids.

Continue reading at The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act is Back | Tenth Amendment Center Blog.

Be Sociable, Share!

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

http://ad4.liverail.com/?LR_PUBLISHER_ID=26258&LR_SCHEMA=vast2-vpaid&LR_VERTICAL=preroll&LR_URL=[page_url_macro]&LR_AUTOPLAY=0&LR_CONTENT=6&LR_MUTED=0&LR_VIDEO_ID=[player_videoid_macro]&LR_TITLE=[video_title_macro]