Missouri
once had a reputation for lawlessness. The state was part of the
guerrilla war being waged in Bloody Kansas between Free Staters and
pro-slavery forces. During the Civil War, gangs led by men such as
William Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, and Cole Younger, made
reputations as ruthless murderers on behalf of the Southern cause, and
they were not alone, as others plundered and murdered for the Union. Far
from being the “Show Me State” – unless it was to show a gun – in the
1870s Missouri earned a reputation as the “robber state” thanks to new
bands of outlaws like that of Frank and Jesse James. During the
Prohibition-generated gangster era, the Ozarks became a refuge for
machine gun-toating outlaws like Bonnie and Clyde.
Now Missouri repugicans – already making racism an official state policy and entertaining the return of the gas chamber – seem determined to bring those terrible days back.
If
the repugican-dominated legislature has its way, Missouri residents
will not only be able to own machine guns – federally regulated since
the gangster era – but federal agents would be arrested if they tried to
do anything about it.
House Bill 436, the so-called
Second Amendment Preservation Act, which passed the Senate 26-6 and the House 116-38, states,
(1)
All federal acts, laws, 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
Constitution and Article I, 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.
(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:
(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;
(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;
(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm
accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services
which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those
items by law-abiding citizens;
(d) Any registering or tracking of
firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling
effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding
citizens;
(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms,
firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect
on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of
any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding
citizens; and
(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.
It would also prohibit background checks and publication of any information about a gun-owner.
That
there are serious problems with this thinking is recognized even by
Second Amendment-friendly Democratic Governor Jay Nixon, who has vetoed
the legislation,
saying that is in violation of the Supremacy Clause, which gives federal laws precedence over state laws.
This
unnecessary and unconstitutional attempt to nullify federal laws would
have violated Missourians’ First Amendment right to free speech – while
doing nothing to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun
owners. In fact, under this bill, newspaper editors around the state
that annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest
their first turkey or deer could be charged with a crime.
It is also opposed by St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson,
who points out
that, “(We are) basically saying to criminals, ‘OK criminals, it’s OK
to come to Missouri. We won’t prosecute you to the fullest extent of the
law.’”
Federal agents, on the other hand, would be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law – for trying to uphold federal law.
The
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence explains the reasons the federal government came down on the ownership of machine guns:
The National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”) imposes a tax on the making
and transfer of machine guns and certain other weapons, as well as a
special occupational tax on persons and entities engaged in the business
of importing, manufacturing and dealing in those weapons. (The NFA
distinguishes between “making” a weapon, and “manufacturing” a weapon.
Only a registered NFA manufacturer can “manufacture” a machine gun;
other persons who construct machine guns are “making” them, according to
the NFA. (26 U.S.C. § 5845(i); 27 C.F.R. § 479.11) ) As detailed below,
the law also requires the registration of all machine guns.
While
the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax,
the underlying purpose of the law was to curtail, if not prohibit,
transactions in machine guns and certain other weapons. (Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Dept. of Justice,
National Firearms Act Handbook 9-15, June 2007) Congress found these
firearms pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use
in crime, and the $200 making and transfer taxes were considered quite
severe at the time and adequate to discourage or eliminate transfers in
these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
Probably
one of the most offensive consequences of federal law is that “Any
machine gun involved in a violation of the NFA is subject to seizure and
forfeiture. Forfeited machine guns cannot be sold at public sale, but
may be destroyed or transferred within the federal government, or to a
state or local government.”
At the moment, Missouri is known for places like Branson,
where people go to have fun. If repugicans have their way, Missouri
will again become a refuge for criminals and be known once more as the
“robber state.” Who then will care to risk their lives to travel to
Branson?
The Missouri legislature will vote, in essence,
to secede from the Union, as they meet to override Gov. Nixon’s veto.
The bill’s proponents raise all sorts of bizarre defenses of the bill,
claiming it does not add guns to the street, and
CNN quotes one gun owner as saying,
“There are people saying this is the same as seceding from the Union.
Missouri did not secede from the Union in 1862, and it does not do so by
passing this law.”
Missouri may not have seceded but it supplied
soldiers to both the Union and Confederate armies just as it provided
men to both the pro- and anti-slavery movements, and the guns wielded by
lawless men then and through the Civil War and beyond, murdered men,
women, and children without remorse. That is not a reputation any state
should aspire to.
Don't
click the link thinking you'll see a scholarly article that you can
pick apart and argue about. These are differences that almost anyone can
spot, but if you play, you'll nod knowingly while chuckling. A sample: 
