Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MissouriNet)   Missouri lawmaker decides that he, and not the federal courts, gets to decide which federal laws are constitutional   (missourinet.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass, United States Senate, United States Congress, Former State Rep. Chris Kelly, State Sen. Eric Burlison, bill sponsor, Senate General Laws Committee, Firearm, gun control  
•       •       •

2767 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jan 2021 at 11:31 AM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-01-20 9:01:05 AM  
Burlison also testifies that Missouri shelves are almost bare now, regarding ammunition, courage, logic.
 
2021-01-20 9:06:24 AM  
Second amendment should have died with the southern rebellion.
 
2021-01-20 9:25:05 AM  
So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?
 
2021-01-20 9:32:12 AM  
"Alex's killer was a felon on parole from federal prison. He should never have had a gun," says Marley. "It was illegal for him to have a gun but guess what, he had a gun. No amount of laws is going to keep criminals from having a gun."

People break laws, why have any laws at all!
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-20 10:23:23 AM  
Maybe Biden will just enforce the laws on the books. You know, the ones that a lot of locals seem bound and determined to ignore.
 
2021-01-20 10:29:29 AM  
What must it be like when you're convinced you live in a world where your rural-living ass pays taxes while people in the cities sit on their butts, and that those same city people are going to take your guns so you can't defend yourself when they come for even more taxes?
 
2021-01-20 11:04:26 AM  
Every time I see Missouri in a Fark headline, I die a little.

/Been seeing a lot more lately
//Wish I could GTFO of Missouri
///ocho
 
2021-01-20 11:10:55 AM  

TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?


Which county and state?

My county in Orygun passed it a few years ago.

Basically made the county sheriff a dictator re: gun laws.
 
2021-01-20 11:17:13 AM  
You better listen. Everybody laughed last time and then Obama took our guns away four times!
 
2021-01-20 11:32:16 AM  
These people couldn't name 3 amendments even if their lives were at stake.
 
2021-01-20 11:34:07 AM  
I see the gun fetish loons are hitting the ground running that Biden will take their sex toys.
 
2021-01-20 11:34:33 AM  

LarryDan43: These people couldn't name 3 amendments even if their lives were at stake.


Farkers have a leg up on that question.  That damn fool idea and getting rid of that damn fool idea covers 2, and then we'd all giggle and go "State's rights" for the 3rd.
 
2021-01-20 11:35:14 AM  
"had support from rural garbage Missourians"
 
2021-01-20 11:36:06 AM  

edmo: You better listen. Everybody laughed last time and then Obama took our guns away four times!


That was one of my favorite parts of Obama's last days in office: Driving all my right wing coworkers up the wall by asking them to come due on all the crap they spewed for 8 years. "Well, Obama only has a week left and you told me he was coming for my guns. Is he bringing his own van? I sure hope I get to meet him when he does.
 
2021-01-20 11:39:36 AM  

puffy999: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

Which county and state?

My county in Orygun passed it a few years ago.

Basically made the county sheriff a dictator re: gun laws.


Complete with having the authority to arrest Federal agents who are trying to enforce the law.  I laughed heartily at that, and reeeaaaalllly hope the ATF comes a-knockin' on the various meth-heads' doors down in Coos.  Just try and find out.
 
2021-01-20 11:39:49 AM  
FTA: "No amount of laws is going to keep criminals from having a gun."

LOLOLOL!! The United Kingdom (and many other countries) proves otherwise.
 
2021-01-20 11:40:33 AM  

TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?


The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.
 
2021-01-20 11:41:00 AM  
Cool so he'll support my right to buy a quad mount Ma Deuce on a flatbed to drive around town? My right to own anti-vehicle and anti-aircraft missiles? The 2nd amendment doesn't specify limits after all.
 
2021-01-20 11:44:40 AM  
This is not a repeat of the Nullification crisis of 1832
 
2021-01-20 11:45:09 AM  
Missouri sounds like a grade-A shiathole of a place, if everybody needs to have a gun to protect themselves from the roaming bands of felons and biker gangs.

Maybe we could just nuke it or something.
 
2021-01-20 11:47:11 AM  

Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.


Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.
 
2021-01-20 11:50:34 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-01-20 11:51:43 AM  

LarryDan43: These people couldn't name 3 amendments even if their lives were at stake.


They start at the second and move on to the first but half way through explaining the first they get stuck in a loop screaming the N word over and over until we can get them a ketamine injection.
 
2021-01-20 11:54:10 AM  
"No amount of laws is going to keep criminals from having a gun."

I mean... I'm pretty in favor of individual citizen legally permitted to own guns and capable of storing them and operating them in a safe manner having guns, personally.  Guns are fun and the equipment in a lot of fun sports, as well as good for animal control if you live somewhere that, again, the thing can be safely discharged without danger to your neighbors.

That said, logically speaking there's definitely some amount of laws that'd keep criminals from having a gun.  Universal gun registration, for instance, or just flat-out banning manufacturers from making any sales that they can't trace to an individual end-purchaser.  Or just, y'know, banning types of firearms outright.

Like, this Nirvana Fallacy shiat is such a bad argument that I kind of what this guy to shut the fark up and fark off forever because he's essentially providing a strong argument for the alarmist anti-gun end of this particular issue spectrum.

numbers17: This is not a repeat of the Nullification crisis of 1832


It's not because he outright admits the law would be unenforceable and that it's essentially null.

Which is actually why it wasn't debated.  It's not that everyone agrees with him, it's that no one is going to come in to work in the middle of a pandemic to discuss Joe Nobody's nonbinding resolution for one county clerk to look vaguely disapprovingly in the direction of DC for precisely 15 seconds if the national government does something.
 
2021-01-20 11:54:31 AM  

puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.


Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.
 
2021-01-20 11:57:02 AM  
FTI(diot): "No amount of laws is going to keep criminals from having a gun".

Completely wrong. You are forbidden to have one and you have one? 15 years minimum, no parole, no probation. You get a 15 year bid. Guaran-damn-tee that will be a strong enough detractor.
 
2021-01-20 12:00:42 PM  
Burlison's bill declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

And the ammosexuals who rail against government waste will love it even though it's a complete waste of time and taxpayer dollars. Even if it did what it tried to do, it would be unnecessary. We don't need a law saying unconstitutional laws are unconstitutional.
 
2021-01-20 12:02:33 PM  
Missouri lawmaker decides that he, and not the federal courts, gets to decide which federal laws are constitutional

"He" being the entire legislative body that will vote on the passage of the bill. I see no difference between this proposal and the various "sanctuary" cities and states where federal immigration laws won't be enforced or aided by the local government.
 
2021-01-20 12:02:43 PM  

pueblonative: Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.


It's not their right to prevent Federal law enforcement from enforcing Federal laws, but that's exactly what counties have done here in Oregon.  They'll get their asses handed to them if they try it, but that's neither here nor there.
 
2021-01-20 12:04:04 PM  

pueblonative: puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.

Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.


True. This specific state bill. He goes out of his way to put that in the bill.

But this is the tip of the iceberg and many counties are writing much stronger language in their own little ordinances. I can't imagine how many in Mizzuruh have already done so if several in west coast blue states have done it.
 
2021-01-20 12:05:16 PM  

Kuroshin: pueblonative: Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.

It's not their right to prevent Federal law enforcement from enforcing Federal laws, but that's exactly what counties have done here in Oregon.  They'll get their asses handed to them if they try it, but that's neither here nor there.


https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/bts_​w​eb/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=5424​2152


I see state and local officials referenced, but not federal.
 
2021-01-20 12:07:48 PM  

puffy999: pueblonative: puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.

Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.

True. This specific state bill. He goes out of his way to put that in the bill.

But this is the tip of the iceberg and many counties are writing much stronger language in their own little ordinances. I can't imagine how many in Mizzuruh have already done so if several in west coast blue states have done it.


And if they write one word that restricts federal authorities they'll get smacked down by the courts.
 
2021-01-20 12:08:32 PM  

jjorsett: Missouri lawmaker decides that he, and not the federal courts, gets to decide which federal laws are constitutional

"He" being the entire legislative body that will vote on the passage of the bill. I see no difference between this proposal and the various "sanctuary" cities and states where federal immigration laws won't be enforced or aided by the local government.


Well I'll note for starters that I'm not really familiar with the idea that illegal immigrants are going to commit acts of terrorism.

Gun hoarders in red states?... Yeah. I believe they'd do that.

So yeah. Please use a more apt comparison. This Missouri Congressman wants to protect domestic terrorists.
 
2021-01-20 12:09:51 PM  

pueblonative: Kuroshin: pueblonative: Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.

It's not their right to prevent Federal law enforcement from enforcing Federal laws, but that's exactly what counties have done here in Oregon.  They'll get their asses handed to them if they try it, but that's neither here nor there.

https://www.senate.mo.gov/21info/bts_w​eb/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=5424​2152


I see state and local officials referenced, but not federal.


I was referring specifically to Oregon on this one, as a direct comment on your response to this:

puffy999: These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.

 
2021-01-20 12:10:55 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Second amendment should have died with the southern rebellion.


Thats a funny way of writing War of Northern Aggression...
 
2021-01-20 12:11:41 PM  

pueblonative: puffy999: pueblonative: puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.

Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.

True. This specific state bill. He goes out of his way to put that in the bill.

But this is the tip of the iceberg and many counties are writing much stronger language in their own little ordinances. I can't imagine how many in Mizzuruh have already done so if several in west coast blue states have done it.

And if they write one word that restricts federal authorities they'll get smacked down by the courts.


If we are any example, apparently someone has to try to enforce the BS law before the courts get involved.

Here? The dictator hasn't done anything to draw attention to the law. But it's on the books and hasn't been challenged in court, though I know there have been complaints about the legality.
 
2021-01-20 12:26:01 PM  
People on Fark decide what is Constitutional or not every day - regardless of that the Supremes have said.
 
2021-01-20 12:28:53 PM  

avian: FTA: "No amount of laws is going to keep criminals from having a gun."

LOLOLOL!! The United Kingdom (and many other countries) proves otherwise.


Mexico might have something to say as well.
 
2021-01-20 12:38:57 PM  

puffy999: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

Which county and state?

My county in Orygun passed it a few years ago.

Basically made the county sheriff a dictator re: gun laws.


Does that work in the other way? A sheriff can decide the 2nd amendment is itself wrongly interpreted and just show up to take some guns?

I'll take that trade off and start fundraising for that sheriff.
 
2021-01-20 1:03:27 PM  

puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.


Well, you can't do that (except under the very limited circumstances that are allowed under current Supreme Court rulings of the 10th amendment and Commerce Clause).  But having a formal policy not to enforce a law would be legal; I again use DACA as an example.  There were DACA ID cards and a bunch of other stuff, but it still was just an agreement not to follow a law.

That is, they are being dicks about it, but they could legally accomplish 99% of what they want to do in a non-dickish fashion if they wanted to.
 
2021-01-20 1:05:56 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: puffy999: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

Which county and state?

My county in Orygun passed it a few years ago.

Basically made the county sheriff a dictator re: gun laws.

Does that work in the other way? A sheriff can decide the 2nd amendment is itself wrongly interpreted and just show up to take some guns?

I'll take that trade off and start fundraising for that sheriff.


No.  This is an extension of criminal law in general; IE, in theory, the system is biased towards the defendant.  (The defendant in this case would be somebody owning illegal guns.)
 
2021-01-20 1:09:06 PM  

pueblonative: puffy999: Geotpf: TelemonianAjax: So this bill says that Missouri decides what is covered by the 2nd, not the feds. Sounds like my red county in a blue state declaring itself a "sanctuary county" that would not enforce state gun laws that the sheriff, alone, decided was "unconstitutional." Because that's how this works, the sheriff determines constitutionality when the courts get it wrong.

Why do so many republican gocernment officials not understand how the government works?

The concept of prosecutorial discretion is firmly established.  That is, if any level of law enforcement doesn't want to enforce a criminal law, they don't have to.  This is broadly used.  Examples of this include a cop letting off a speeder with a "warning" or Obama saying he wasn't going to deport millions of people (DACA).

Saying it's for constitutional reasons is bullshiat, but not enforcing these laws is certainly within their power.

Except he's not describing discretion.

These counties - a lot of them, in many states - are trying to enact ordinances which supercede federal and state laws. And some are even including language implying that local officials can arrest higher ups for enforcing those state or federal laws.

Inflammatory intro language at the start aside, it's essentially "state and local officials/employees can't assist in enforcing federal law we don't like". Dumb as fark but it's their right.


Again, similar to (and somewhat copy/pasted from) liberal cities declaring themselves "sanctuary cities" that refuse to help the Feds deport people.
 
2021-01-20 3:32:47 PM  

RolandTGunner: "Alex's killer was a felon on parole from federal prison. He should never have had a gun," says Marley. "It was illegal for him to have a gun but guess what, he had a gun."


I am 100 certain I could pen a combination of gun laws that would seriously limit a criminal's  ability  to access firearms.

Pretty easy actually.  Put the responsibility on dealers who sell them and owners to safely store them.  Want to sell a gun?  Do it through a licensed dealer.  Now yank the licenses of people who sell as a hobby or from their homes.  I'm fine with this being taken more seriously.
 
2021-01-20 3:44:17 PM  

jjorsett: Missouri lawmaker decides that he, and not the federal courts, gets to decide which federal laws are constitutional

"He" being the entire legislative body that will vote on the passage of the bill. I see no difference between this proposal and the various "sanctuary" cities and states where federal immigration laws won't be enforced or aided by the local government.


Then you obviously have no understanding of what a Sanctuary City is.
Being a Sanctuary City just means the local authorities won't notify the Feds based off your immigration status. The local authorities never have had any ability to enforce Federal Immigration laws, which would be required for your analogy to be correct.
 
2021-01-20 3:47:56 PM  

WithinReason: Marcus Aurelius: Second amendment should have died with the southern rebellion.

Thats a funny way of writing War of Northern Aggression...


That is funny! It was the Confederates who attacked Fort Sumter...
 
2021-01-20 6:49:25 PM  
Fark Hawley

i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.