Missouri set to override Gov. Nixon's veto of federal firearms laws nullfication

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Jerchap2

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2013
    7,867
    83
    Central Indiana
    According to the article, "most experts say the courts will strike down the measure." I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of men and women in black robes, appointed for life, with "we the people" unable to get rid of them, who impose their will on society, even when an overwhelming majority of citizens agree on something. They have way too much power.
     

    mrjarrell

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 18, 2009
    19,986
    63
    Hamilton County
    As Kirk would say, (he should be along any moment now), this is a matter that was settled by the War Between The States. It's just a silly little gesture that has no teeth and no ability to back it up when push comes to shove.
     

    jbombelli

    ITG Certified
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    May 17, 2008
    13,010
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    According to the article, "most experts say the courts will strike down the measure." I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of men and women in black robes, appointed for life, with "we the people" unable to get rid of them, who impose their will on society, even when an overwhelming majority of citizens agree on something. They have way too much power.


    We all thought the courts would strike down the Hughes Amendment, too.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell
    The courts will tend to move in the direction of public sentiment/pressure. These laws may be unconstitutional by today's interpretations but to say they are a waste of time is a bit short sighted and defeatist. Keep beating the drum; this particular law may lose this skirmish but wars can be won even if many battles are lost along the way.
     

    jve153

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 14, 2011
    1,022
    36
    bargersville, in
    the comments are shockingly awful on that article. the state is basically saying that the federal laws are unconstitutional and therefore will will not abide by them. sounds fair to me.
     

    mjlcobra

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 3, 2013
    52
    8
    Fort Wayne
    According to the article, "most experts say the courts will strike down the measure." I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of men and women in black robes, appointed for life, with "we the people" unable to get rid of them, who impose their will on society, even when an overwhelming majority of citizens agree on something. They have way too much power.

    I agree, let's get some term limits, aye? Whether this dies or not, it's good too see the movement. I try not to get too caught up in right/left nonsense. I prefer to go by the "if I agree with this, then I support it" policy. With that being said, I agree with what MO is trying to do. Can't wait to see how this unfolds. Thanks for sharing, OP.
     

    Libertarian01

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jan 12, 2009
    6,006
    113
    Fort Wayne
    To All,

    The problem with elections for Judges is that it turns them into puppets of the mob, just like other politicians.

    While I agree that there is an overwhelming majority in that State supporting the law - SO THE HECK WHAT???

    The proposed law is in direct contravention of established law and precedent. Sometimes (oftentimes?) the majority is wrong. This is why judges are appointed in some cases for life. So that they make rulings without worrying about politicians, the public or external pressure. This helps them exist within a protective bubble and judge a case on its merits without worry of repercussions.

    If judges feared the public law and order would not exist! People who make critical decisions will sometimes (oftentimes?) make the mob mad and fear should not be factor in making such a decision. Important decisions should be made based upon the merits and facts presented without emotion. This leads to better decisions.

    If the State of Missouri really wants to challenge the status quo they should go for some type of law that allows fully automatic machineguns to be manufactured, sold and transferred only within the State of Missouri, thus avoiding the Commerce Clause. This would have a far better chance of remaining instead of a feelgood measure.

    All of what I said aside, I do agree that there should be some limit on judges. Perhaps a term of 20 years then out of law forever? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be too hasty to change our current system without a really well thought out plan to replace it.

    Regards,

    Doug
     

    buckstopshere

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Jan 18, 2010
    3,693
    48
    Greenwood
    I would like to point out, in case folks are unaware, judges can and have been removed from the bench via impeachment. There was a judge in Louisiana impeached a couple years back for accepting bribes. SCOTUS is not immune from impeachment either.
     

    mjlcobra

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Aug 3, 2013
    52
    8
    Fort Wayne
    To All,

    The problem with elections for Judges is that it turns them into puppets of the mob, just like other politicians.


    and


    ... I do agree that there should be some limit on judges. Perhaps a term of 20 years then out of law forever? I don't know the answer but I wouldn't be too hasty to change our current system without a really well thought out plan to replace it.

    Great post in it's entirety. These two tidbits are my favorites. Thank you for your input.
     

    jwh20

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    28   0   0
    Feb 22, 2013
    2,069
    48
    Hamilton County Indi
    I find it interesting (in a perverted way) that we now see the Obama administration via Eric Holder saying that STATE LAW TRUMPS FEDERAL LAW with respect to marijuana. Of course I'm sure that argument won't hold water with firearms but it would be interesting to see Holder argue out of both sides of his mouth were this to make it to the courts.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    We have term limits. Ever since FDR, no President has served more than two terms. That's not proof, you say?

    OK.

    Jimmy Carter.

    He sucked. So what happened on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of 1980? Ronald Reagan was elected when the people limited Jimmy Carter's terms of office to "one".

    That's how term limits SHOULD work. It requires a public official who is hated by the press or it requires an electorate that is educated enough to vote intelligently.

    Why people want to have government force them to vote out a good politician even when he's doing a good job just because some arbitrary number of days has passed is beyond me.

    Yes, I realize that we're not talking about Presidential term limits here, but the same concept applies, unless the people are duped as, for example, in NYC, where they voted to change the law to allow Bloomberg to serve as mayor for a third term.

    You want to impeach a judge or even a Justice, it can be done. I'm not sure the exact process, but one exists.

    Keep your power. Don't give it away to the people you don't trust.

    Blessings,
    Bill
     

    cobber

    Parrot Daddy
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    Sep 14, 2011
    10,225
    149
    Somewhere over the rainbow

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    As Kirk would say, (he should be along any moment now), this is a matter that was settled by the War Between The States. It's just a silly little gesture that has no teeth and no ability to back it up when push comes to shove.

    What else would you have them do? States have very little control over the machinations of the federal government. This is one of the few ways to show disapproval of the federal power grabs. It won't stand, but sends a message and forces the federal government to defy state legislatures instead of pretending we're one big happy family. What else can they do, petition for a Constitutional Amendment that declares the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,582
    113
    Mitchell

    Big Muddy

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 13, 2012
    24
    3
    Jasper County
    According to the article, "most experts say the courts will strike down the measure." I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of men and women in black robes, appointed for life, with "we the people" unable to get rid of them, who impose their will on society, even when an overwhelming majority of citizens agree on something. They have way too much power.

    It was the intention of the Founders, that Judges measure issues based upon Constitutional law; but the system has devolved into one which now now looks to "Courtstitutional" law for justification!
    Rather than going back to the Constitution as was clearly the intent of the Founders- judges use decisions made by other judges -or, case law- which in itself may have been pyramided off of previous case-law, based upon previous case-law (etc.,etc.)
    This means that a poor decision made by a politically-motivated judge 100 years ago, is in many cases given equal -or greater- standing, than that Dcuments upon which our nation-states agreed to form the Union!
     
    Top Bottom