Quantcast

Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill that Nullified Federal Gun Laws

Screen shot 2013-07-05 at 3.14.33 PM

Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed legislation Friday that would have made it a Missouri crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce federal gun laws in the state and could have landed journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners.
The Democratic governor said the bill passed by the Republican-led Legislature violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which generally gives preference to federal laws over conflicting state ones. He said it also infringed in the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.
Some supporters of the legislation had proclaimed it one of the most gun-friendly bills ever passed by a state legislature. Nixon, however, said it could have had extreme consequences.
“Under this bill, newspaper editors around the state that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime,” the governor said in a written statement announcing the veto.
Legislators would need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to override Nixon’s veto when they return to session in September.
The legislation would have made it a misdemeanor crime for federal agents to attempt to enforce any federal gun regulations that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.” It also sought to invalidate some specific federal laws, including a 1934 law that imposed on tax on transferring machine guns or silencers.
The measure would have made it a misdemeanor to publish the names of gun owners.
Other provisions in the bill would have allowed school teachers and administrators with concealed-gun permits and special training to be designated as a “school protection officer” capable of carrying hidden guns into schools.
Missouri’s age to obtain a conceal-carry permit would have been lowered to 19 instead of the current 21, and the bill would have allowed people with concealed gun permits to openly carry firearms up to 16 inches long — even in jurisdictions that have ordinances against the open display of guns.

Read more at Fox News

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • wminaz

    Democrat. Figures.

    • Rattlerjake

      Did the Missouri legislature really think that this POS libturd wouldn’t veto it?

  • catman

    Another pos

  • MH Snider

    Guilty of treason. After the 2nd revolution line him up with the others to be shot or hung.

    • ADRoberts

      This DEMOCRAT apparently has never studied the constitution or he would know about state nullification. Just exactly where do the authority of the Federals that WAS LIMITED by the constitution stop now. And when they EXCEED that authority, why would anyone imagine that the illegal federal law would trump a state law.
      Only marxist/Democrat/communist/Bilderbergs would think that is rational thinking.

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      Shot or hung is too easy for these “people”. I would prefer something that made them suffer, and they could think about what they have done while they were suffering. Apparently this POS now thinks he is a SCOTUS justice and he knows what is or isn’t Constitutional. This isn’t about turkey hunting you jerk.

  • ADRoberts

    Sounds like this Bilderberg controlled governor needs to be removed from office ASAP.
    Nixon was right about one thing. The bill would have resulted in extreme consequences LIKE 2nd amendment Rights.
    The ony thing I saw that was wrong was that the action of Federal agents should have been a FELONY and not a misdemeanor.

    • violater1

      Agreed!

    • Jim28thReg

      The FBI and this clown obviously don’t understand the difference between the Constitution and a made up statement burped by some parasitic criminal hired to destroy the republic and kill off it’s people.
      Weird how stupid people continue to get into positions of power .

      • Raymond – Jesus is Lord.

        “The FBI and this clown obviously don’t understand the difference between the Constitution and a made up statement burped by some parasitic criminal hired to destroy the republic and kill off it’s people.”

        They do understand, it’s just that they bat for the other team.

    • Raymond – Jesus is Lord.

      “Missouri Governor Vetoes Bill that Nullified Federal Gun Laws”
      Once again evil supports evil.

      It’s clear this Governor is not loyal to America.

      • K

        I believe Gov. Jay Nixon is WRONG about the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, giving preference to Federal Laws over conflicting State ones.
        Unless I’m understanding this wrong myself. I don’t think I am but, I’m not a Constitutional Scholar either.
        What I believe Gov. Jay Nixon is attempting to do is, confuse people into believing that; Federal Law Supersedes State Law via the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution

        Myth #2: Federal Law Supersedes State Law
        http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/04/myth-2-federal-law-supersedes-state-law.html
        “The belief that all federal law supersedes all state law is derived from the Supremacy Clause found in Article VI, Clause 2.
        This clause is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
        Not “all” federal law supersedes State law. We must remember that the federal government’s legislative powers are limited to those laws that are authorized by the Constitution.
        Any federal law that is not within the authorities granted are unconstitutional laws, and therefore are laws that the States do not necessarily have to worry about.”

        Please read it yourselves and see what you think.

  • Peter Resz

    By By you are gone at the next election

    • USMC and America proud

      Folks in MO need to follow in the footsteps of CO! Impeach this @&#£$ now! He just hid behind children, like Obama! “Well some of my “journalist” friends may be charged with a crime by publishing a turkey shoot involving young hunters!” He KNOWS that the press can publish anything that’s public without fear, but MUST get signed releases to publish names!!

      I find it ‘interesting’ that his name is Nixon! Fire him now, NOT LATER!

    • boccagalupe

      Nope… the spooky folks in St.Louis, & Kanss City will come to his aid.

  • Work2SnowSki

    Yet he has armed security.

    • violater1

      That is because they have a lot to fear from being Stupid assses!

  • junkmailbin

    recall him. Colorado it busy clearing out the liberal traitors.

  • machodog

    As always they keep saying that federal law trumps state laws. Well, that’s true EXCEPT when the federal law is unconstitutional, which ANY gun law is an infringement, therefor it ranks under the unconstitutional category and is not enforceable by the federal government. It’s amazing how many officials don’t know that.
    I hope that you Missourians remember this veto in 2014 when it’s time to elect governors… otherwise you will deserve him for an other term.

    • BigUgly666

      federal law only trumps State law when it only effects federal property …. land that has been ceded to and purchased by The United States from one of these united States of America.

      • DontTreadOnMe11

        Or stolen by the feds!

    • machodog

      Go perform a physical impossibility on yourself.

  • mrsgunnut10

    Nixon may have vetoed this Bill but he didn’t gain anything either. I understand there were enough Pro-Gun Votes on this Bill that a veto overide is possible. Hope they were right. We will find out in September. Thank you for your time. TSgt., USAF Retired.

    • violater1

      hope you are right!

  • HappyG

    The poor bastard probably never heard of state’s rights…

    • violater1

      Dumbasssed liberals do not believe in States rights!

  • BigUgly666

    The Democratic governor said the bill passed by the Republican-led
    Legislature violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution,
    which generally gives preference to federal laws over conflicting state
    ones. He said it also infringed in the First Amendment rights of free
    speech and press.

    Maybe the “governor” should read the Constitution, as it seems he is not in the least bit familiar with it.
    As regards the First Amendment …… freedom of the press does not entitle them to willfully put people at risk …. maybe someone should publish the “governor’s” home address and phone number along with the ages of his children and pictures of his entire family.

  • jb80538

    So override the veto!

  • Jed54

    Just like a scarecrow.. “If I Only Had A Brain”

  • violater1

    Either get the 2/3rd majority or missourians need to enact a recall on this Demoncrat moron!

  • Lance Stinson

    A Letter to the Editor titled “Civil
    War settled governor’s nullification notion” and declares federal supremacy
    – or did it? In The Cap Time – Your
    Progressive Voice, James
    Kroneman writes:

    “In response to the Tariff Act of 1828, South Carolina threatened to
    ‘nullify’ the law, saying that it did not apply to South Carolina. In 1832,South
    Carolina codified the Nullification Act by formally stating that ‘if the federal
    government moved to enforce the Tariff Act, it would be met with the secession
    of South Carolina from the Union.’ This war of words would continue until the
    Southern states, under the guise of ‘states’ rights,’ seceded from the Union and
    brought about the Civil War, which established the concept of the United
    States we know and love today.

    “After the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, our governor, along
    with other officials, declared that he would not enforce the act in
    Wisconsin.

    “Now I ask you, just who in hell does he think he is? Has he not learned one
    thing from history, or have he and others simply decided that they are more
    knowledgeable than anyone else? This concept of the governor was debunked in the
    1860s. A federal law applies to ALL the states. And if the governor needs more
    proof of what he thought he could do, I suggest that he sit down and read the
    U.S. Constitution.”

    Well, I will agree with James Kroneman on one point – he needs to “sit down
    and read the U.S. Constitution”. Yes, he was referring to the Governor of
    Wisconsin, but in this case, I think the governor has a better understanding of
    the Constitution than Mr. Kroneman, who seems to believe that “might makes
    right” and the “Supremacy Clause” in the Constitution settles everything.

    In “A
    Question of Supremacy” I refuted the assertions of another writer who also
    claimed that the states have no right to nullify federal “laws” because that
    would violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But as I stated in that
    article, the people who wish to cite the Supremacy Clause always skip right over
    a couple of words proceeding the words “shall be the supreme law of
    the land”. So, what are those “inconvenient” words they don’t want
    you to read, “shall be made in pursuance
    thereof”.

    The Supremacy Clause in the United States Constitution states:

    “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, anything in the
    Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” (Emphasis
    added)

    Definition: In pursuance thereof – in accordance with

    This seems to be the part of the “Supremacy Clause” that gets glossed over
    when they declare those who object to actions of the federal government which as
    stated by James Madison in Federalist 45 are not part of the enumerated powers
    of the Constitution.

    ”The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal
    government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State
    governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised
    principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign
    commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be
    connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects
    which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and
    properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of
    the State.” (Emphasis added)

    Or Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist No. 33;

    “But it is said that the laws of the Union are to be the supreme
    law of the land. But what inference can be drawn from this, or what
    would they amount to, if they were not to be supreme? It is evident they would
    amount to nothing. A LAW, by the very meaning of the term, includes supremacy.
    It is a rule which those to whom it is prescribed are bound to observe. This
    results from every political association. If individuals enter into a state of
    society, the laws of that society must be the supreme regulator of their
    conduct. If a number of political societies enter into a larger political
    society, the laws which the latter may enact, pursuant to the powers intrusted
    to it by its constitution, must necessarily be supreme over those societies, and
    the individuals of whom they are composed. It would otherwise be a mere treaty,
    dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a government, which is only
    another word for POLITICAL POWER AND SUPREMACY. But it will not follow
    from this doctrine that acts of the large society which are not pursuant to its
    constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of
    the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be
    merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.
    Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of
    the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth,
    which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal
    government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it expressly
    confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution; which I
    mention merely as an instance of caution in the convention; since that
    limitation would have been to be understood, though it had not been
    expressed.“ (Emphasis added)

    Or Thomas Jefferson: “Whensoever the general government
    assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of
    the act is the
    rightful remedy.” (Emphasis
    added)

    If laws are passed that exceed those listed as a power held by the federal
    government are “supreme” then the discretion of the federal government and not
    the Constitution will set the limit on its own power. Therefore, only those laws
    that are made in accordance (in pursuance) with the
    enumerated powers listed in the Constitution are and shall be the
    supreme law of the land.

    As for James Kroneman’s other argument that the “Civil War” settled
    everything, he simply advocates “might makes right”. Basically, if I beat you
    into submission, you will do what I tell you to untill the end of time. So,
    violence trumps the Constitution and the enumerated powers The Bill of Rights,
    which includes the Tenth Amendment. A very poor argument.

    In brief ,any “good” lawyer will tell you that if you are forced through
    violence, or the threat of violence, to do what someone wants you to do, that is
    coercion and as such is not legal.

    Sorry, Mr. Kroneman, but yes, the governor “and others” including Jefferson
    and Madison are “more knowledgeable than” you and we know that nullification is
    the “Rightful Remedy.”

  • Lance Stinson

    The importance of states’ rights.

    Contrary to popular
    discussion, America is a Republic, not a democracy. Representatives of the
    people are chosen to represent them on the state level and also on the national
    level. We have an electoral college that selects the president, not a popular
    vote.

    In a Republic, the most qualified individuals from among the people
    are chosen by the citizens to represent them in government.

    In a
    democracy the people represent themselves. These distinctions are important when
    looking at national politics and then looking at politics on a state
    level.

    The Founding Fathers wanted the states to govern themselves, with
    a loose Federal Government protecting them from outside threats and making
    decisions concerning multiple states, treaties with foreign governments and
    regulating commerce.

    The term “state” always meant nation. France was a
    state, Great Brittan was a state all the nations of Europe were individual
    states. The modern use of the term is something closer to “province” because the
    true power of the states has been squelched by those who believe in strong
    central and national government.

    The Founding Fathers knew better than
    this, which is why they added the 10th amendment to the constitution that
    expressly states that all powers not given to the Federal Government, are given
    to the States and the People respectively.

    State governments are much
    closer to the people they represent and thus have much less bureaucracy. Also if
    a state became destructive to the rights of the people, the citizens could
    simply move to another state that was more consistent wit their
    beliefs.

    If New York wanted to start taxing its middle class and
    businesses to provide services for other citizens, New Yorkers could simply
    move.

    If the policies of New York’s high taxation were damaging business
    there, the businesses could more to a more business friendly state like Virginia
    and all the other states could watch the experiments of state governments and
    determine if they would like to implement those changes in there own
    states.

    Bad decisions were not supposed to punish the entire
    country.

    This is the advantage of a Republic over some form of a pure
    national government.

    Obviously the values of California are not the same
    as the values in Montana, so why should they be under the same blanket federal
    laws pertaining to morality such a drug use or prostitution?

    If states’
    rights were still respected, individual freedom would be greater in some states
    then others and individuals would make a conscious choice on which state best
    reflected their values and move there, or fight tooth and nail within there own
    state to make the changed they believe in.

    The Federal Government was
    never intended to impose whatever it wanted across the entire
    nation.

    Massachusetts is not South Carolina and the people there should
    not be governed by the same blanket legislation, they should be able to choose
    the laws they wish to live under in their own state legislatures
    respectively.

    • DontTreadOnMe11

      And the states lost their power with the 17th Amendment.

  • KenNamVet

    Override the veto, or start the paper work to hold a recall.

  • RedMeatState

    didn’t violate the 10th amendment though, did it?

  • QuincyUDX

    This sounds like a good time for a recall petition.

  • Juan

    We need to have a recall on the idiot nixon! Fire him and put a 2nd amendment friendly republican governor in office! Bet all of yall are sorry you voted for nixon. Yall should have voted for Dave Spence like I did! At least Mr. Spence would never have allowed the state patrol to give obummer any phone records! And he would have signed the bill into law. So that any federal agent trying to enforce any illegal gun laws would be in violation of Missouri law. Same for any liberal media journalist. Hopefully legislators can get the two-thirds vote to override nixons veto! Jay Nixon has never ever been a friend to the 2nd amendment or Missouri gun owners. I for one support open carry for those who want to carry openly.

  • Jaime Cancio

    Once again damn the will of the people and let just one, that is just one man, determine what will be enforced or ignored in law. Time to vote this man out and time also to insure a vote that overrides his veto power. They claim to represent the will of the people and then do as this man has done in direct agenized bias to the will of the people. Time to vote this man out of office – where oh where are the days of tar and feathering and running bad men out of town in disgrace on a rail. Next we will see this governor doing just as Obozo-ssA is doing and asking Russia for 15,000 Russian troops to safe guard his continuity in office to insure his dictatorial power in office.

  • Timur

    I hope the Missouri voters veto his governorship.

  • GQ4U

    Governor Nixon!!! What is about that name that causes a god complex?

    I hope their congress overrides it in September.

  • Jim28thReg

    Someone has to tell this idiot it doesn’t do any good to try and shine up to The Monkey Man. He already has a steady = Jay Carney.
    He’s cuter

  • SFS444

    Hope you fine Missouri folk get rid of this dirty demolib in the next election.

  • Randy

    This governor sounds like a jerk. How about the media publish the names and address of the governors family members and grandchildren if he has any yet. The people have the right to know where he lives with his family and the people have the right to know where they go on vacation. lets see how these people that provide these laws like them when it is there family and business that is getting printed in the paper.

    • PSALM37

      Psalm 12

      3 The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:

      • Bighoss

        “The blithering half wit who posteth scripture irrelevant to the issue at hand shall see his credibility slide down a rathole.”
        Journal Of Bighoss, Volume 8, Chap. 5, page 27.

        • PSALM37

          Following my King’s example for dealing with Satan.

          As your Satan’s his minion it is appropriate that you be subject to the same.

          Mathew 4
          4 But he answered and said, It is written….

          11 Then the devil leaveth him….

          You and your masters day-o-reckoning will be soon hoss.

  • HappyClinger

    He must not be up for re-election. Or maybe he is – Missouri is politically weird.

  • Lilu Kanine

    They can override his veto. No big deal. And they will.

  • USPatriotOne

    Just two words….Recall NOW…!!!

    • PSALM37

      Psalm 12

      8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

  • Jim28thReg

    You may also be interested to know that there is no supremicy clause. lieing S.O.B.

  • Joe

    I hope that Nixon’s veto is overturned & HE is overturned OUT of office!!