It seems like it should pass.
If it does, I’d consider moving there, as it nullifies the acts of 1934, and 1968, it probably shitcans the Hughs amendment, and I bet it’d enable constitutional carry.
We need to push shit like this in every state we can.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB436&year=2013&code=R
So does that mean if I move to Missouri I can import anything I want provided this thing passes . . . 
I’m curious about that myself. I’m reading the bill right now, and I can’t find any mention of that. But it actually seems so.
Domino Theory 
I agree and approve of your message.
Very well written bill.
Most Impressive
I bet I could probably score a true Swiss SIG for my girlfriend’s dad if it passes. Lol.
For some reason I feel like we shouldn’t be getting our hopes up. Just seems too good to be true.
Why? It has to go through the House again, and the House already passed the original one. 115-41.
That’s non-vetoable majority.
Sorry, but this can not, does not, and will not stop the enforcement of federal law and subsequent prosecution in federal court. This will not void the NFA. All it means is that under state law you may get a pass. This is no different than any other case where something may be legal under state law, but a crime federally. This does not undo supremacy.
The Supremacy Clause doesn’t say that “any law in conflict with federal law” is void. It says that only those laws “in pursuance” of the constitution are supreme.
It sets a legal precedent. And is quite telling of the direction that certain states are heading.
We’ll have to see how it turns out, but my hopes are high, considering how large the majority is.
Supremacy can be undone, if there is sufficient will. Know what I mean?
You’re on the right track. The more states that pass laws like this the better. One day SCOTUS will be brought the right case to rule on and the court will look to what laws are on the books in addition to precedence in making their decision and once they rule our way, it’ll never be undone.
The issue is that the passing of this law does not undo federal laws on the books, nor prevent the enforcement of such.
I guess people really like Montana potfarmers a lot, if they’re willing to join them in a Federal pen!
Other states have already passed similar laws. It’s all well and fine until you decide to roll the dice and be the poster child of prosecution.
What will be interesting is to see how this stuff progresses and if the SCOTUS will then look at the NFA and other stuff.
Well, there is some powerful disagreement with that erroneous conclusion of yours,
“Nullification violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.”
This may be the most foolish, ill-informed argument against nullification of all. It is the reply we often hear from law school graduates and professors, who are taught only the nationalist version of American history and constitutionalism. It is yet another reason, as a colleague of mine says, never to confuse legal training with an education.
Thus we read in a recent AP article, “The efforts are completely unconstitutional in the eyes of most legal scholars because the U.S. Constitution deems federal laws ‘the supreme law of the land.’” (Note, by the way, the reporter’s use of the unnecessary word “completely,” betraying his bias.)
What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.”
In other words, the standard law-school response deletes the most significant words of the whole clause. Thomas Jefferson was not unaware of, and did not deny, the Supremacy Clause. His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land. Citing the Supremacy Clause merely begs the question. A nullifying state maintains that a given law is not “in pursuance thereof” and therefore that the Supremacy Clause does not apply in the first place.
Such critics are expecting us to believe that the states would have ratified a Constitution with a Supremacy Clause that said, in effect, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land.”
Hamilton himself explained at New York’s ratifying convention that while on the one hand “acts of the United States … will be absolutely obligatory as to all the proper objects and powers of the general government,” at the same time “the laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.” In Federalist 33, Hamilton noted that the clause “expressly confines this supremacy to laws made pursuant to the Constitution.”
At North Carolina’s ratifying convention, James Iredell told the delegates that when “Congress passes a law consistent with the Constitution, it is to be binding on the people. If Congress, under pretense of executing one power, should, in fact, usurp another, they will violate the Constitution.” In December 1787 Roger Sherman observed that an “excellency of the constitution” was that “when the government of the united States acts within its proper bounds it will be the interest of the legislatures of the particular States to Support it, but when it leaps over those bounds and interferes with the rights of the State governments they will be powerful enough to check it.”
For further evidence, see Brion McClanahan.
Isn’t marijuana illegal by Federal law?
Again, this will do NOTHING to affect the enforcement of FEDERAL laws in the State of Missouri. Decriminalization on the state side has no bearing on federal law. What this means is there will be no state statute and associated penalty, however, the full force of Title 18, United States Code, Section 9(insert applicable statute section/paragraph here) still carries its full weight. When the badge says, “U.S.” on it, the state law is irrelevant.
Yes and people are charged, convicted, and sentenced for possession and distribution, and conspiracy to possess/distribute even in states where it is legal under state law.