Missouri taking back state’s rights on gun control
This is somewhat interesting step for states looking to take back powers not prescribed in the US Constitution from the federal government.
The entire problem during the last six-plus decades has been states kowtowing to the federal government and accepting excessive regulation just so they can get their hands on “federal” money. I’ve said this would take decades to resolve since it took decades for the people to get addicted to the flow of federal funds. This vote really does not involve the flow of money – yet – but it’s a step in the right direction when it comes to support of the 10th Amendment.
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.
Seems pretty clear to me. But onward.
HB1439 would make it state law that all federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future” which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms “shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”
AWR Hawkins over at Big Government writes.
HB1439 lists specific federal laws and actions for nullification, including but not limited to “any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearms 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 “any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.”
I do like the idea of a state declaring a federal law null-and-void when they deem there is no constitutional authorization for such a law. I’m all for it! That said, the federal government does have recourse, for the simple fact we’ve given them so much power to distribute federal taxes to state and local governments we are now dependent on the flow of cash. I refer to this as the disease from which all symptoms are derived.
Of course, a state could just ignore the federal law and allow the federal government to “punish” them by withholding funds. Examples go back to 1974, where the federal government passed a nationally-imposed speed limit law of 55 MPH. States could ignore the mandate, but if they did they would be cut off from receiving highway repair funds. They do this all the time. Recently states had to jump through all sorts of hoops to prepare and apply for “Race to the Top” education grants which allowed federal bureaucrats to pick the “winners” and “losers” of federal funds. If the states don’t fully adopt a “set of common college- and career-ready standards” – a.k.a. Common Core – they would not qualify for the funds. “No Child Left Behind” had a similar federal strategy. Meet specific targets when it comes to testing, and you get federal funds. It’s inter-government graft.
States saying “no more” when it comes to mandated regulations in return for cash is easier said than done when it comes to balancing a state budget that has been overly supported by the federal government for decades. But some states have done just that. As of Nov. 2013, five states had elected to not accept Common Core standards and as a result would not be eligible for federal education dollars. Another example is Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid funding that was rejected by 20 states whose residents are paying federal tax dollars into a system set up so if a state does not play by “the federal rules” they “loose out” on millions if not billions of dollars.
Hey, if my wife’s not interested in that chocolate cake we “purchased” together … the more for me! Symptoms of the disease folks, symptoms of the disease…
States have been like welfare queens, dependent on the handouts to their own detriment.? Or maybe alcoholics might be a better comparison.
If fairness ruled (the real kind, not the liberal kind), the federal tax load on states that don’t participate in the federal programs would have their burden lightened proportionately.
I can definitely appreciate what they’re going for, but wouldn’t the correct way to go about this be for the state to bring a Tenth Amendment case before the court??
Sounds very interesting. Here’s an opportunity for Obama to display his leadership!
Bring down the weight of the federal government on the state of Missouri; let Holder ride in and threaten everyone in Missouri. Make a real example of them so no other state ever tries to ignore the federal government. That would lead to a court fight, which might just be the best thing.Let’s see where the sympathies of SCOTUS really lay. The Tenth Amendment, just like the Second, is very plain and easy for just about everyone to understand.
It would be good for those power elites in the federal government, especially the ones riding around in limousines and armored cars, to remember they are giving money away taken from the people. It’s not their money!
(I hope that upsets Obama! But then, liberals hate the truth or have their power thwarted.)
I use the 55 mph speed limit when teaching Article 4 or 5 and the 10th amendment….
Well it’s for sure CT, will never understand this, the Gov and the General Assembly are federal fund junkies. ?Sorry, but I’ve given up on getting them an “intervention for their addiction” We have a one-party regime and it is here to stay.