Missouri Senate Bill 39

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
25,336
Reaction score
34,090
Location
Edmond
Missouri Bill Would Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future

A prefiled in the Missouri Senate would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

Sen. Eric Burlison (R-Battlefield) filed Senate Bill 39 (SB39) on Dec. 1. The bill is identical to two bills filed in the House.


Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any entity or person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances” that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.c...I3jTGzkr78yTrCTIk-bOI_1XkW-Huu65GM1upN-Hord8s

 

Judi

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 27, 2017
Messages
2,441
Reaction score
5,252
Location
Near E. C.
FREEDOM !!!! ............This is what America is about ....Freedom !

223273_5_.gif
 

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Tulsa
Does it define infringement? Does it define arms? Does it provide for an individuals defense against the feds when they enforce things? If it's just that statement, it sounds good but there's no end of legal issues with just that.

And technically it's my understanding that OK already has a provision that says we won't recognize federal crap more stringent than we enact.
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
25,336
Reaction score
34,090
Location
Edmond
Does it define infringement? Does it define arms? Does it provide for an individuals defense against the feds when they enforce things? If it's just that statement, it sounds good but there's no end of legal issues with just that.

And technically it's my understanding that OK already has a provision that says we won't recognize federal crap more stringent than we enact.


You should read the linked piece before you comment, and it is better than the dreams of a militia changing things.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:
  • taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
  • registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
  • any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
  • any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
 

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Tulsa
You should read the linked piece before you comment, and it is better than the dreams of a militia changing things.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:
  • taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
  • registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
  • any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
  • any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
Perhaps you still missed my points. The definitions of things like "firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition" needs a specific definition. And sure it says that it gives an individual the right to sue, but who is going o pay for the legal fees? Sure it says that officers in the state can lose their jobs but they can't fire the feds. There's still a lot there that could be picked apart. Let's say it passed... do you want to be the first person bafte takes in with and illegal SBR or machine gun thinking the state will protect you?
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
25,336
Reaction score
34,090
Location
Edmond
Perhaps you still missed my points. The definitions of things like "firearms, firearm accessories and ammunition" needs a specific definition. And sure it says that it gives an individual the right to sue, but who is going o pay for the legal fees? Sure it says that officers in the state can lose their jobs but they can't fire the feds. There's still a lot there that could be picked apart. Let's say it passed... do you want to be the first person bafte takes in with and illegal SBR or machine gun thinking the state will protect you?


What it is saying is no one from the state can or will arrest you. IE, the state will not corporate with the feds.
 

Rez Exelon

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
3,483
Reaction score
3,343
Location
Tulsa
What it is saying is no one from the state can or will arrest you. IE, the state will not corporate with the feds.

So they are basically creating a sanctuary state for Missouri like most of the people on the boards here hate. I mean, it sounds like they are creating a "sanctuary state" for the 2A which is well liked here, but there's a certain amount of duplicity in saying how awesome that is when railing on liberal states for being "sanctuary states" for issues like illegal immigrants.

At best, the bill --- in my reading of that article, and keeping in mind that I'm not a lawyer --- says what you stated: that they won't cooperate with the feds. Great --- but again, do you want to be the first person that the feds arrest with an unregistered SBR or machine gun? Because it does NOT say that the state will pay your legal fees. That it will shelter you, and protect you and save you from federal custody. So again, cool idea bro, but that doesn't exactly "Take on All Federal Gun Control: Past, Present and Future" until they're going to have a strike team ready to bail Joe Bob out for his illegal possession of (fill in the blank here).

Here's another hypothetical --- would they stop doing 4473s up there? They could say alllllll they want that the FFL's don't have to, but I'd wager that the FFL's would still do them even if it is an infringement that the state doesn't recognize. Why? Because of the first "F" in FFL. Their license is Federal and they'd be arrested and tried by the Feds for not complying.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom