Missouri State Senate Chamber

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo., February 21, 2014– A Missouri bill which seeks to nullify virtually every federal gun control measure on the books, “whether past, present or future,” passed the Senate Thursday. SB613 would ban the state from enforcing virtually all federal gun control measures, and includes criminal charges for federal agents attempting to violate the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri.

The measure passed 23-10.

SB613 counts as what could be the strongest defense against federal encroachments on the right to keep an bear arms ever considered at the state level. It reads, in part:

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 as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States I and Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution 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.

Federal acts which would be considered “null and void and of no effect” include, but are not limited to:

(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;

(d) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens; and

(e) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens

The legislation specifically bans all state employees from enforcing or attempting to enforce any acts running counter to the proposed law. Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted the same recently when they sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.”

That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs.”  On federal gun control measures, Judge Andrew Napolitano suggested that a single state standing down would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce” within that state.

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic.  Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a way to successfully thwart federal acts.

SB613 now moves on to the state House, where it will first need to pass out of committee before the full House can consider it.

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook and on Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Profile photo of Michael Lotfi

Michael Lotfi

CEO, Political Director at BrandFire Consulting LLC
Michael Lotfi is a Persian-American political analyst and adviser living in Nashville, Tennessee. Lotfi is the founder and CEO of BrandFire Consulting LLC. The firm specializes in public and private technology centered brand development, lead generation, data aggregation, online fundraising, social media, advertising, content generation, public relations, constituency management systems, print and more. Lotfi is the former executive state director for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center, a think-tank focused on restraining federal overreach.Lotfi graduated with top honors from Belmont University, a private Christian university located in Nashville, Tennessee.

Reality Check: Fmr. General Petraeus Wants To Use Al Qaeda Fighters Against ISIS

  • Wootsauce

    Whoa! Way to go Missouri! However, you can expect some serious backlash from this out of control federal government. It’ll be interesting to see where this goes.

    • CMJO

      Like when TX was going to nullify the TSA and Obama threatened to place a no-fly zone over the state, but Perry is a coward and didn’t go through with it.

      • PennyRobinsonFanClub

        Not much point having a TSA-free airport with no airplanes to take people anywhere, hmm? And putting everyone else out of work, to boot. You know – the way 404Care is working.

        • CMJO

          There would still be airplanes. They would have still operated too. Obama would not have dared put a no-fly zone over Texas. It’s an act of war, and the only way to enforce would be to shoot a plane down. Go for it. I’d love to see him try to enforce that.

  • Liberty or Death

    All Americans need to support Missouri in this action by demanding that their state Legislatures follow up with their own legislation using this as their guide. The only way we win back our freedoms is by taking them back.

  • ObamaBinLyin

    BRB, moving to Missouri!

    • CaptainUSA

      We would welcome you :)

  • Micha EL

    Missouri gonna have a boat load of people moving there if they pass this legislation., And My family is ten of them !

  • dddienst

    They know it will die in committee so why not a show vote.

  • CaptainUSA

    I just hope they don’t park it on the shelf and act powerless. Do they still have a veto proof majority?

    • Eric

      so long as the rinos don’t turn yellow again…

  • the one

    Expect a massive civil war within ten years… Probably much sooner when the Feds decide to invoke the supremacy clause and invade those states not compliant with the Federal mandates. DHS is preparing for this and the civil unrest that will come during the economic implosion…

    • robot999

      Supremacy Clause? Please reply to this thread with that text, and explain how it might over ride the 10th Amendment. Thanks.

    • john4637

      I for one am a firm believer, that their knowledge they are forcing a civil war upon America in order to cement the overthrow and conversion of this Republic into a communist hell hole, is the reason for the recent massive ammo purchase’s made by the Obama administration.

  • Heartland Patriot

    The Second Amendment was to keep the American people from being treated like the people of the Ukraine are being treated.

  • funeocons

    This is great. I think those states who have made marijuana legal have also done essentially the same thing. Middle finger to the federal government. Federal money comes into my state to force common core on education. The bill for common core failed at the state level so they gave money to slip it into another bill. Basically one line was changed for an education bill to say and this means common core. Talk about dirty politicians. More states need to step up, mine included. So this is great that a state is going full core to protect the 2nd amendment.


    Obama and HIS Feds will not let this happen.

  • Computer User

    This was tried once and the damn democrat governor vetoed it. So Tim Jones needs a veto busting House majority which he will get now that Nixon has pissed off everyone owning or carrying a gun in the state.

    • Eric

      They supposedly had a ‘veto-proof’ vote the first time thru. Unfortunately, some rinos turned yellow when they went into overturn the veto. Shouldn’t have had to return to it in this session.

      • CaptainUSA

        That’s right. The 2 Reublicrat speakers. If this isn’t through committee before the next elections I hope they are replaced.

  • TKnTexas

    Whiskey Rebellion, ‘nuf said.

    • Tim Franklin

      Not really. Look at the states that refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act or the Alien and Sedition Acts.

  • Professor Emeritus P. Bagnolo

    Yea For Missouri! Threes CHEERS!

  • Professor Emeritus P. Bagnolo

    The True propose of taking away guns is that somewhere down the road, they want to do here what they are doing in Syria and the

    Ukraine but Nationally. The depopulation Idiots Like D. Rockefeller are pushing for massive depopulation through use of the TPP and they want none of us armed when they do it.(90% depopulation).

  • Professor Emeritus P. Bagnolo

    If they pass it, I too will move to Missouri!! Where is the best town in which to live there?

  • Gradivus

    If states could realistically nullify federal laws like this, then presumably when George Wallace was governor of Alabama that state could have passed a law forbidding implementation within that state of the Civil Rights Act. Or am I missing something – what’s the difference here?

    • Draken

      Same problem different topic. Most these proposed nullification laws are themselves null and void under the Supremacy Clause.

      I’ll give the States credit for trying to influence the national debate, and for protecting gun owners, but I also hate that theses laws as basically posturing and nothing more. If the States were serious about changing federal gun laws they should start calling their Senators and Congress men and women in DC and start telling them to do something about it. You know REAL change over this political theater.

      • eyesandears

        Please explain the Supremacy Clause.

        • Gradivus

          The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2, that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as “the supreme law of the land.” The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. The only legal defense against the Supremacy Clause is to try to prove in federal court that the federal law in question violates the U.S. Constitution.

          • eyesandears

            So this Clause necessitates proving in federal court that the laws fall outside of the delineated limited scope of federal responsibility? Thank you, Gradivus; I will look into this further

          • Tim Franklin

            Doesn’t do the feds any good in the case of widespread jury nullification.

          • alan c

            Forbidding implementation within that state of the Civil Rights Act WOULD VIOLATE the constitution, and nullifying federal gun control laws would not. THAT is the difference!

          • Tim Franklin

            That’s all fine and dandy, but the states need not co-operate. See Federalist #46:”Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular
            in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a
            warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of
            opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the
            people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the
            officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the
            State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would
            often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State,
            difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very
            serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining
            States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the
            federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” – James Madison

    • Klaatu Fabrice Aquinas

      That is state’s prerogative under the 10th Amendment. You don’t like it in that state. Leave! You vote with your feet. NYC would love to have you.

      The Constitution affirms “human rights,” not civil rights. (What is “civil” in the first place, re: civil affairs?) Now, as to define what is “human?” I suppose the individual states can do that. What has stopped us so far?

      You really wish to tease your brain? Indulge yourself:

      Dr. Biermann does take emails. That is, those with intelligent questions.

      • Gradivus

        Klaatu, peace be unto you and those of your planet. Is the sky blue there?

      • ilivefreeordie

        “Human Rights” reeks of UN speak. The people of the world enjoy unalienable Rights such as; Association, Speech and Self Preservation to name a few.

    • casterofpeals

      yes he could have nullified it, and he should have–along with all 50 states.

      as horrible as it may sound, you should have the freedom to decide who can do what on your property, and who you can associate with.

      in a state of slavery, you don’t have ownership of your property–just a permission slip to use the owner’s property, so your owner can decide who goes onto the property you borrowed and what they do.

      welcome to the slave states of america

    • Gradivus

      Most of those replying to me are confusing “can” with “should.” These nullification laws are mostly cosmetic. They may stop state cooperation with federal action for a while (as happened in Alabama in the 1960s), but will not stop the feds from enforcing federal law if they want to.

      • Tim Franklin

        If enough states band together, the federal government will not have the resources to oppose them.

    • Tim Franklin

      Look up the ‘Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union’. It cites the refusal of several states to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. It takes more than one state. Several states, working together, can block the enforcement of federal law. Missouri is not the first and will not be the last to pass a bill like this.

  • Jokef1000

    Thank you Missouri.

  • Tchiock

    All States will follow !

  • Mark Anthony Jones

    We DID pass this last year, the governor vetoed it. We lacked two votes – Republicans who flipped their vote to no – causing us to lose in the overide vote. WE CAN DO THIS, this time!

    Symbolic or not… we can never stop standing up for individual liberty to protect our families from criminals who will always disobey laws and an out of control federal monstrosity!

  • Risner Kenneth

    now you’re talkin