Quantcast

Two Senate Republicans Vote With Dems Causing Gun Rights Legislation to Fail

Screen shot 2013-09-13 at 12.20.59 AM

The citizens of Missouri were so close to getting the kind of representation they deserve from their state government…. a government that represents the citizens of the state to the federal government rather than representing the federal government to the citizens.
The bill up for a vote would expand gun rights and make federal gun regulations unenforceable …”push back the tyranny of an out of control and incompetent federal government.”
It passed the House…and almost passed the Senate…
ONE vote caused it to fail… One vote short of the required two-thirds majority.
Who would have thought the vote that caused it to fail would come from a Republican.
In fact TWO top Senate Republicans, Tom Dempsey and Majority Leader Ron Richard voted with the Democrats against the legislation. They were the only two Republicans to vote against it.

This bill declared that any federal policies that “infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms” shall be invalid in Missouri. It would have created state misdemeanor charges against federal authorities who attempted to enforce those laws or anyone who published the identity of a gun owner. Another provision could have allowed police and prosecutors to be targeted with lawsuits for attempting to enforce the nullified laws.
Other parts of the bill would have lowered Missouri’s concealed-gun permit age to 19 instead of 21 and allowed specially trained teachers or administrators to serve as a “school protection officer” able to carry a concealed gun.

The Missouri legislation was one of the boldest examples in a nationwide movement among states to nullify federal laws with which local officials disagree.

After scuttling the Missouri bill, Dempsey and Richard both professed their devotion to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, their love of hunting and their history of supporting pro-gun legislation.
Yeah… right..

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.
  • Torch Onepercenter

    MORE two faced politicians… NO REAL surprise there!!

  • Torch Onepercenter

    We need to impeach ALL of them & start over!!

  • Bruce Emmons

    traitor’s !!!!!

  • Capt. B.G. Cory

    This is a perfect example of how we have lost our way through disinformation about our Constitution and our rights. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about the history of our nation. Unfortunately this very attitude is display by millions of Americans including our politicians, mainly due to the way our history books have been re-written by the Progressives.

    If one studies the mind set of our founding fathers, the notes and correspondences from the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the ratification conventions of the 13 independent nations or sovereign states the ratified the Constitution between 1788 and 1792, one can clearly see their belief in the rights of the states for nullification of any law deemed to be unconstitutional by the “several states”, to put it into the very language they used.

    It would be a far reach to construe such nullification as a violation of the First Amendment or a violation of the Supremacy Clause as Governor Nixon attempts to do. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution and the laws in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. A state nullifying a law holds that the law in question is unconstitutional and not “in pursuance thereof.” As William Harper, judge, U. S. Senator, and state representative wrote back in 1830, “the clause declaring that the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law, would, of itself, conclude nothing. The question would still recur – who shall judge whether the laws are made in pursuance of it?”

    The answer to his question is the several states themselves, representatives of their people, must be that judge. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To consider the Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions, would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy [a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution]. They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corps – and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the Elective control. The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal. I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves.” These very thoughts show up throughout the Constitutional Convention and the individual state ratification conventions.

    Furthermore, Article III. Section 2 of the Constitution enumerates the exact authority that the Supreme Court has over its proceedings. Nowhere is it enumerated to controversies between State and Federal Government or the United States. It can also be seen by examining the various state ratification convention’s correspondences and notes, that if they believed that the central government would be the sole arbiter in any dispute between themselves and that government, they would have not ratified the Constitution. And is not the federal judiciary the third branch of the federal government? It is not difficult to find support in our history for the general principle that an unconstitutional law is void. But since the federal courts are themselves a branch of the federal government, how can the people be expected to consider them impartial arbiters? It is the states responsibility and duty to protect their citizens from such laws.