Missouri Seeks to Nullify Obama’s Federal Gun Laws

Shopping at the Missouri Gun and Knife Show at the Show Me Center.

Shopping at the Missouri Gun and Knife Show at the Show Me Center.


In Missouri, there is a strong pro-gun movement going on that gun rights supporters and lawmakers believe is necessary to counter the federal government’s attack on the Second Amendment. Republicans in the legislature began the push for a comprehensive pro-gun bill after Obama’s heightened demand for expanded background checks and a ban on assault weapons. 


While courts have established that states cannot nullify federal laws, it has not stopped some from attempting to stop what they see as a federal takeover of their state sovereignty. According to their proposed legislation, certain gun control policies would be deemed ‘null and void’. It would also penalize anyone caught enforcing them with the possibility of a year in jail, a fine of up to $1,000, and other civil penalties.

The Missouri push against Obama’s anti-Second Amendment agenda is not without controversy.  Some doctors are upset with the limits that it places upon them in communication with their patients and documentation of said communication.

From FOX News: Schaaf said he was concerned about regulating what a physician can ask a patient or include in a medical record. The Missouri Academy of Family Physicians and the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians echoed Schaaf’s sentiments and said the legislation could lead physicians to unknowingly break state law when talking with patients.

The bill’s sponsor said he was open-minded about changing the measure’s language to meet the physicians’ concerns, but added that the provision is necessary to protect a patient’s privacy when it comes to gun ownership.

There are also major changes planned by the bill’s author in regards to concealed weapons.

Like last year’s version, the legislation would also allow designated school personnel to carry concealed weapons in buildings. Another provision would let holders of concealed gun permits carry firearms openly, even in municipalities with ordinances banning open carry. It would also lower the minimum age to get a concealed weapons permit to 19, down from 21.

But Nieves’ bill is less specific about which federal laws it seeks to nullify. It removes references the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts while keeping generic references to fees, registration and tracking policies that “have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership” of guns and ammunition by law-abiding citizens. 

(Read more at FOX News.)

  • Robert S

    Complete waste of time.
    This issue was settled a few years ago.

    • Snake

      Robert S
      Global warming was settled a few years ago too.

      • Robert S

        It cost 600,000 American lives to settle the issue of nullification.

        • FIRE1949

          ……and millions more lives may be lost in the continuing quest for freedom…….

          • Robert S

            Still holding out for a CSA victory?

          • FIRE1949

            If you took the time to study true history, you would find the southern states were subject to oppressive treatment in many ways by the government strongly influenced by northern industrial states.
            The patriotic freedom fighters of the 1800′s may have lost the war of “Northern Aggression”, but the spirit of freedom is still strong.
            The Confederate Battle Flag incorporated in my avatar represents the quest for freedom from a tyrannical government.
            The script above and below the flag basically says,
            “If you don’t like it, TOUGH SH*T”.
            Not that you care, but I can spell Constitution without using a “K”.

          • Robert S

            That’s nothing.
            I can spell Constitution without the number 9.
            Have fun at your civil war! Shot lots of fellow Americans!

          • FIRE1949

            Yep, …and I can spell stupid, “r-o-b-e-r-t -s” without using a “p”.
            Try getting a real education in American history.

          • Robert S

            Please, oh master, why don’t you tell me the real reason for the civil war?

          • FIRE1949

            Now that you have assumed your lower position, I, the master, instruct you, grasshopper, to do your own research. You may leave now.

          • Robert S

            Oh, you don’t know what caused the civil war.
            Why didn’t you just say so?

          • Robert S

            So you don’t know what caused the civil war?
            Why didn’t you say so?

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            This guy’s just here to disrupt and obviously has his a** handed to him in every back and forth he instigates, yet is one that always thinks in his own warped mind that he’s winning arguments. The fact is, I bet this guy has NEVER offered an interesting informative post on any of these threads. He’s just the worst kind of tool – a dull one.

    • Bouncerquinn

      You are just stupid!!

      • Robert S

        Yes I am.

        • patriot2

          finally got something right?

  • Nick

    More states need to nullify Obama. They need to work together to stop federal intrusion

    • Liberty’s Advocate

      It is not illegal for states to nullify federal law where that federal law intrudes on the people’s UNALIENABLE right to their own lives (which cannot be separated from their right to DEFEND their lives) and their INALIENABLE rights under the 2nd amendment to acquire the tools necessary to “effect their safety and happiness”.(Declaration – 1776)

      • Robert S

        Those “inalienable” rights were given up long ago.
        If you support the death penalty, you support losing your inalienable rights.

        • Gnowark

          What are you talking about? The Right of the People is about making laws that effect the PEOPLE in general, NOT a person convicted of a crime who has those rights (to liberty, freedom, voting, or life) removed as a consequence of anti-social actions, convicted by jury of peers. Your statement is: the rights were given up long ago, so if you support death penalty, you have nothing to lose? OK, I’m convinced, I’m FOR the death penalty!

          • Robert S

            in·al·ien·a·ble
            1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

          • Bouncerquinn

            YOU ARE JUST STUPID!!

          • Robert S

            Yep.

          • Carl Schouten

            Whatsa’ matter Bouncerquinn, can’t think of nothin’ to say?

          • Bouncerquinn

            Nothing to say about what? Are you stupid too?

          • stablepar

            hahaha bouncerquinn can’t help herself. She is heading to a well known position in the village.

          • TA

            robert s is a liberal troll

          • Gordon Waite

            Name calling shows ignorance! If you can show a person is wrong with logic, speak up. Otherwise you are just being childlike.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            And you are being the internet cop, which is child-like.

          • Bouncerquinn

            Actually, it’s not name calling. It is making a valid point. The guy spouts off nonsensical lines and that is stupid. It’s also quick and to the point, so as to waste as little time as possible. And while you try to sound intelligent with your remark, you actually just show yourself to be gullible. You just did what you claim to speak against.
            Calling someone ignorant or childlike is no less name calling than stupid. But I won’t make the mistake of calling that name calling. I will add naivity to your gullibleness.
            Can you find the misspelled words?
            I doubt it!!

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            “And while you try to sound intelligent with your remark, you actually just show yourself to be gullible.”

            I told him the same thing and saw the same thing in his comment – naivety.

            Gordon Waite – being naive toward obvious trolls’ intentions isn’t being ‘fair’; it’s being a door mat.

            Bouncerquinn, good retort. I agree – obviously.

          • Bouncerquinn

            That wasn’t the only word that I spelled wrong. But that is cool, I doubt if he got it with out spell check. I don’t use it. Don’t need it!!

          • stablepar

            get off mommy’s computer quinn. Go to bed your tired and very irritating

          • Bouncerquinn

            You are a fool!!

          • stablepar

            Sticks and stones will break my bones but calling me names will never hurt me

          • Bouncerquinn

            No, that’s what you were doing with your silly, petty, juvenile antics.
            I was simply stating the obvious!!

          • stablepar

            the only thing about you so far is your inability to engage in adult discourse and immediately fall back on sophomoric name calling. you should immediately adopt the belief that it is better to remain speechless and let everyone think you are ignorant that to open your mouth and remove all doubt

          • Bouncerquinn

            I see that you copied a comment from somewhere and pasted here in an ill-fated attempt to sound intelligent!!

          • stablepar

            Seeing that you’ve had some one else point out one of your obvious flaws, I.E. name calling, I detect a trend here

          • Bouncerquinn

            You didn’t see anything. Go back to sleep!!

          • Connie Alsip

            Grow up, quinn.. geeze louise.. all that??

          • Bouncerquinn

            yOU ARE PATHETIC. iS THAT THE BEST YOU CAN DO? Yes, I believe it is!!

          • joe1cr

            It’s Unalienable Rights

          • Robert Hutson

            You are right…huge fight between Jefferson and Adams over this point.

          • Robert S

            You are correct. That’s the old spelling. Inalienable means the same thing.

          • joe1cr

            At first glance the two terms seem pretty much synonymous. However, while the word “inalienable” is “not subject to alienation,” the word “unalienable” is “incapable of being aliened”. I believe the distinction between these two terms is this:

            “Unalienable” is “incapable” of being aliened by anyone, including the man who holds something “unalienable”. Thus, it is impossible for any individual to sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of an “unalienable Right”. it is impossible for you to take one of my “unalienable rights”. It is likewise impossible for me to even voluntarily surrender, sell or transfer one of my “unalienable rights”. Once I have something “unalienable,” it’s impossible for me to get rid of it. It would be easier to give up the color of my eyes or my heart than to give up that which is “unalienable”.

            That which is “inalienable,” on the other hand, is merely “not subject to alienation”. Black’s 2nd does not declare that it’s absolutely impossible for that which is “inalienable” to be sold, transferred or assigned. Instead, I believe that “inalienable” merely means that “inalienable rights” are not subject to “alienation” by others. That is, no one can compel me to sell, abandon or transfer any of my “inalienable” rights. I am not “subject” to compelled “alienation” by others.

            But that leaves open the question of whether I may am entitled to voluntarily and unilaterally sell, transfer, abandon or otherwise surrender that which is “inalienable”. Thus, while it is impossible for me to abandon, or for government to take, my “unalienable rights,” it is possible for me to voluntarily waive my “inalienable” rights. I strongly suspect that our gov-co presumes that our rights are at best “inalienable,” and that since we have not expressly claimed them, we could have and therefore must have waived them.

          • Robert S

            Every online dictionary that I looked at shows the two words as synonyms for other.
            un·al·ien·a·ble
            another term for inalienable.

            un·al·ien·a·ble
            Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable:

            Main Entry: un·alien·able
            Date: circa 1611
            : inalienable

            “To find the origins of the word unalienable, we can look at the root, alien, which comes from the Latin alienus, meaning “of or belonging to another.” This provides the basis for our word, with the prefix un- providing the turnaround “not,” and the suffix -able providing the idea of capability. Therefore, we get “not able to be denied.” Oh, and if you are wondering about the common argument as to whether it is “unalienable” or “inalienable,” either is correct.”
            http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/unalienable

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            Read the red letters above.

          • Robert S

            Glitch/Tminus,
            Good morning.
            Did you enjoy your one-day suspension? Did you do lots of high demand consulting?

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            OK, dude. You’re even worse off than I could tell from this thread. You’re a nut job.

          • Robert S

            Yep.

          • Robert S

            Your Posts Sucks,
            My apologies, I mistook you for different fool.
            Sorry.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            My guess from your posts that this “different fool” probably ain’t a fool but just someone who got under your skin. How about NOT doing that to the next guy or better yet just leave. It’s way too obvious you’re just a smart a** troll with nothing to say.

          • Robert S

            No way! This place is way too entertaining.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            Arrogance without displaying any knowledge or wit. A quick scroll down the page shows unequivocally that is all you know to do. The problem with arrogant a**es like you is no one can teach you anything. That”s how you wound up so stupid. Sod off, troll.

          • Robert S

            Was that post directed at me, or yourself?
            Kinda hard to tell…

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            Read the red words, moron.

          • Robert S

            Two words for you:
            Decaffeinated coffee.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            I sure hope someone’s paying you to troll this site because if you waste all your time doing this without AT LEAST having something correct and intelligent to offer, then you really are as pitiful as you appear to be.

          • Robert S

            I’m just following your example.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            You’re just a lib troll sowing discord. It’s why you’re here. I’ll engage you on equal ground and fairly when you admit that you’re here in solidarity with TP principles. But you’re obviously not. That is by definition, trolling. You’re a libtard troll here to disrupt. that is indisputable and proved by what you write.

          • Robert S

            Oh, so you’ll only discuss topics with people who are in complete agreement with you?
            And you started this little discourse by attacking me first, remember?
            What makes you think I’m interested in being ‘engaged’ with you?

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            “in complete agreement with you”

            I never said that, troll.

            “In solidarity with TP principles” is what I said.

            You don’t show me you are intellectually imbued to ‘engage’ on any discussion requiring objective reason. Like all liberal robots, you have no objectivity – only pastel flowery dreams of utopia, where all is reduced to the lowest common denominator. Communism is your real bag. At least have the cahonies to admit it. You’re a commie. And a commie would only be here to disrupt and deflect.

          • Robert S

            Have fun in your little world.

          • Robert S

            Joe wrote:
            “You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, … cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken, except as a just punishment for violating someone else’s unalienable rights.”
            Joe,
            This statement contradicts itself.
            You say “cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken” but then you list a circumstance when they can be taken.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            I hate to make my first posts here about someone else, but you are just a perfect example of a below to average git who is out to prove to the thread that you are above average, but just don’t have either the knowledge nor the IQ to back it up. something tells me you spend all your time saying really stupid stuff trying to act smart instead of just having an actual point of view and expressing it. I’m betting, from what you said on this thread, you’re a black guy who spends all your time trying to convince everyone that a black guy can be smarter than whites. You fit the profile, troll. You never say anything that is actually a novel and true idea. You’re just sad.

          • Robert S

            Glitch/Tminus,
            What’s the matter? Having a bad morning at work?

          • Gordon Waite

            Wow! I did not get any of that from the post of Robert S. I might say though, that I believe I am able to imply quite a bit about you, having read your post.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            The correct word would be ‘infer’ where you wrongly used ‘imply’. I can ‘infer’ that you are just easy to fool.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            Um…..no. But don’t let that giant ‘back door’ you just created for yourself to slither out of, slap your *ss on your way back to your trailer.

          • Robert S

            You just don’t have any self-control or will power, do you?
            Too funny!

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            You make a target rich environment and I have some time to kill – which fortunately just ran out. You’ve managed to say nothing all day.

            Congratulations, troll! You met your objective, which is to say and be nothing. bu bye.

          • Robert S

            You’re funny, come back soon.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            False. During the drafting of the Declaration, the founders created a distinction by their actions that has been upheld by the courts numerous times, as well as being drawn by Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, Page 1523.

          • stablepar

            …shall not be infringed. Semper Fi

          • Robert S

            Here’s a bumper sticker if like to see
            What Part of
            “A Well Regulated Miltia”
            Do You Not Understand?

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            ” … without the CONSENT of the possessor.”

          • Robert S

            Uh, no.
            You are adding to the definition.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

            Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

          • patriot2

            me too,fry the murdering bastards

        • Robert Hutson

          I personally believe that a death sentence should not be considered punishment. It should be considered an action for the protection of civilized society. If a person has amply proven that they cannot live peacefully within society then after conviction and a year period ; where the case is reviewed by the US Supreme Court as the final arbiter the sentence is carried out.

          • Robert S

            Then you don’t believe that life is an inalienable right.

          • Robert Hutson

            Actually I do believe that life is an unalienable right that can be taken away if a person proves they can’t live in civilized society. I believe very strongly that this right should be quickly removed if a person has proved they are not able to live in society with violating another’s unalienable right.

          • Robert S

            If a right can be taken away or given away, then it is not unalienable or inalienable.

          • John

            Life ,Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights.If you take them away you destroy the individual. A gun is a inalienable right. You can take it away from a person and that person can still protect himself in other ways. It does not destroy him. He can still pursue happiness,and liberty.

        • Liberty’s Advocate

          UNALIENABLE.

          The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

          Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their
          sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856
          Edition

          “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that
          is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

          You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the Creator to the individual at the individual’s creation and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken, except as a just punishment for violating someone else’s unalienable rights. All individuals have unalienable rights.

          Neither can they be taken by coercion, Executive Order, legislation or treaty. Neither Man nor his governments have any power or jurisdiction over UNALIENABLE or Natural Rights.

          INALIENABLE

          Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

          You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
          their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
          effect their safety and happiness.” – DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

          Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,- ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That
          property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if he devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. – BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

          What you have said is a nonsequitor. The Death penalty is connected to our UNALIENABLE Rights (Life) from the Creator and has nothing to do with INALIENABLE Rights given up by consent (vote). Society is justified in ridding itself of individuals who have violated the UNALIENABLE (Natural) Rights of another through murder, rape, kidnapping, torture or other crimes against HUMAN RIGHTS that it may so designate.

        • Gordon Waite

          You are against killing a murderer. I suppose you also support murdering a baby in the womb. What does that say about your type?

          • Robert S

            Gordon,
            It makes me hypocrite, same as you.
            Either it’s acceptable to take a human life or it’s not.
            I’ve only met two people in my life that were against both abortion and the death penalty.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            Your argument is called a false moral equivalency and is commonly deployed by agents of the left.

            Conservatives’ arguments generally do not require that moral equivalency be used to buttress their positions on ethical issues, as more intelligently formulated arguments can easily be brought to bear.

            Robert S is indeed a lib tard, but at least in this very rare instance he admits to being a hypocrite, which universally characterizes leftist dogma.

        • Ogrrre

          Robert, what universe do you live in? The people, through the government, can deprive a person of life or liberty after “due process of law”. After you take a remedial course in reading comprehension, read the Declaration and the Constitution.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            It’s a troll. I fed it a 9 course meal today, but have fun….

          • Robert S

            Then those rights aren’t very unalienable, are they?

      • Gordon Waite

        Read the Constitution to find the truth. Robert S and Your_Post_Sucks, you guys need to get a room! I do not mean a hotel room, I mean a separate room!

      • Yeahwhatever

        Not so fast. States laws are trumped by Federal law. The constitution and SCOTUS apply the constitutional test to all laws when desired. Therefore your post seems incomplete at best. The federal laws on guns already trump state laws, not going to change. Missouri can not nullify federal gun legislation but can challenge the authority on constitutional basis. They will never just nullify however through state law. This is how the law works under the constitution.

        • Liberty’s Advocate

          That not true, Kemosabe. If you are referring to my post waaaaaay above, the federal government is CONSTRAINED by the Organic Law of the United States, consisting of the Declaration, The Northwest Ordinance, The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States. You are referring to the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution. I am referring to the Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based and the Natural Rights of the people over which the federal government has NO POWER. The state may assert the feds are ABUSING their power and refuse to comply, passing state laws which make it a crime for any of its citizens or state officers, including LEO’s, to carry out or enforce laws that violate the Natural Rights of its citizens.

          • Yeahwhatever

            Well, not really. The constitution is typically the final arbiter of whether or not a law is in fact legal when SCOTUS, the final arbiter, finds facts. So Missouri has zero chance of passing a law that nullifies federal law. Zero, although you can pretend it is not so by reaching into “natural law” discussions and the Declaration. I think that will never fly although it is amusing.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            I find nothing amusing about the seriousness of a discussion involving abuse of our Natural Law Rights by a Government bent on replacing God in our lives so they may render the CONCEPT of Natural Law void.

            If you had READ the Constitution’s various parts you, too, would understand and KNOW that the SCOTUS

            has certain specified instances where its original jurisdiction is unchallenged and judicial power that extends to “all Cases in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–” What does “their” mean with respect to Authority? The “several states” perhaps?

            That’s why under Article lll, section 2, it states: “in all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the CONGRESS shall make.”

            You love that term “final arbiter’, so tell me again, “Who is the final arbiter ?” It appears to me that the PEOPLE are, through their elected representatives in the Congress. And Congress can amend or rewrite laws to go around Supreme Court decisions, as well.

    • stablepar

      57 to be exact

  • Peggy

    Good for them, at least they are standing up for what they believe–

  • lrighctilg

    Great investment of time. The issue will probably never be ‘settled’

    Important dates in 2nd amendment history (for those who don’t make moronic unsupported blanket statements that ‘the issue was settled a few years ago’)

    1791: The Second Amendment is Ratified
    1871: NRA Founded
    1822: Bliss v. Commonwealth
    1856: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right
    1934: National Firearms Act
    1938: Federal Firearms Act Requires License for Dealers
    1968: Gun Control Act Ushers In New Regulations
    1994: Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban
    2004: Assault Weapons Ban Sunsets
    2008: D.C. v. Heller is a Major Setback for Gun Control
    2010: Gun Owners Score Another Victory in McDonald v. Chicago

    • Patriot

      Accurate historical facts! Some very unfortunate for freedom loving Americans!

    • Robert S

      Glitch/Tminus,
      The title of this article is:
      “Missouri Seeks to Nullify Obama’s Federal Gun Laws”
      Then near the top of this article, it says:
      “While courts have established that states cannot nullify federal laws…”

      What part you not understanding?

      • Carl Schouten

        Don’t be so sure.

        • Robert S

          Care to explain?

      • Ken

        read the bill of rights. You may learn something.

        • Robert S

          I’m very stupid.
          How about if you just make your point?

          • Ken

            I just did!

          • Robert S

            See, I’m so stupid I just don’t get the joke.
            Oh well, thanks for playing.

          • Ken

            You’re welcome!

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            You ARE RIGHT, Robert S. You either definitely are stupid, or you are intentionally being difficult in order to make your obscure point. That amounts to the same thing as being intellectually dishonest. For the life of me, I cannot understand why ANYONE would ARGUE AGAINST the existence of Natural Rights the Government CANNOT take away from you (unalienable).

            Then, on the other hand, be unable to apply that concept in order to understand the Natural Order of things, that the Creator created Man, and in that creation gave him certain ‘unalienable’ rights (Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness). You cannot separate your right to self-defense from your right to your own Life – it is impossible. One Right cannot exist without the other and are therefore equal.

            Man created Government, so neither Man nor his Governments have any power over Natural Laws of the Creator (God). All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights and are considered INALIENABLE. (Cannot be sold or transferred except with the CONSENT of the person(s) possessing the rights. Your VOTE is considered your consent. That is why the integrity of elections is so important and voter fraud (I think) should be punished SEVERELY.

            But evil exists in this world and, recognizing that, the founders made our individual rights inalienable (subject to government regulation), even though they can ALL be argued to have as their foundation, the UNALIENABLE rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

            If a criminal (i.e., child molester) was incarcerated, he could argue that his ‘Unalienable’ right to self-defense was being violated in jail and he should be allowed to have a gun. Instead, he has an ‘Inalienable’ right to self-defense, the unalienable side of which is available to the Law Abiding citizen.

            It is not illegal for states to nullify federal law where that federal law intrudes on the people’s UNALIENABLE right to their own lives (which again cannot be separated from their right to DEFEND their lives) and their INALIENABLE rights under the 2nd amendment to acquire the tools necessary (including guns and ammunition) to “effect their safety and happiness”.(Declaration – 1776) Law Abiding people, in order for their Unalienable Right to their own lives to be fully secured, need to be able to project that defense to a distance that AFFORDS them that safety.

            They are, of course, responsible for any damage or harm caused to innocent bystanders by the projection of that force of self-defense. Personal responsibility is a necessary part of the exercise of Liberty and freedom.

          • Robert S

            Feel better after getting that rant out?

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Interesting how you view thoughtless,sniping, drive-by comments like yours as worthy of respect, but comments you apparently lack the intellectual acumen to refute and that have required thought and research to assemble you term a “rant”. More leftist Hypocrisy on parade.

          • Robert S

            It’s been my experience that the longer a post is, the less of a point it has.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            It has been MY experience that people who lack the ability to reason must deal in conjecture and have a sound-bite mentality..

          • Robert S

            Please make up your mind.
            Is self-defense inalienable:
            “he has an ‘Inalienable’ right to self-defense”,

            Or is self-defense unalienable:
            “…the people’s UNALIENABLE right to their own lives (which again cannot be separated from their right to DEFEND their lives) …”

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Asked and answered completely above, before you characterized the answer as a “rant”. You DO have a problem reading for content, don’t you?

    • Robert S

      Glitch/Tminus,
      Nice job plagiarizing again.
      You sure have a bad case of sticky fingers.

    • patriot2

      2014:obama removed from office for treason
      2014:all obamas legislation & executive orders voided,along with most idiot gun laws that don’t help anything.

    • Bucko25

      2014: All the of the obama cabinet and czars from his administration along with the RINO’s are round up and put on trial for Treason and Crimes against America. Found guilty and are on death roll!!

  • steven

    We need to nullify obama and most of Congess.

    • patriot2

      I think about 95% of elected officials are already on the take or they wouldn’t be always trying to erode our rights.they KNOW how po’d the public is at their bad “leadership”,yet continue to push the same failed agenda,an example of which is the illegal alien “amnesty” & obamacare.they know neither is a popular idea yet they continue to push for both.you’re right steven,they all need to go(no pensions)& be replaced with people that represent the population,not crooks on the take.

  • bill sexton

    I seem to be drifting away from a “law abiding citizen” to one who is protecting myself against the law that is supposed to be protecting my rights. I feel my gov is foreign and anti “me”! I feel different because I am white and of conservative type leanings. I feel my gov hates me, is against me, and will do what ever it can to see me and others like me extinguished off the face of the earth. I am starting to feel living in other countries might be safer than living in the USA. I blame Obama and his corrupt, racist, immoral, authoritarian, power grabbing, constitution breaking administration.

    • Bouncerquinn

      It is. Most Dims and Reps in Washington are New World Order Progressives, intent on making the USA subservient to the UN and international law!!

      • patriot2

        the un (small letters intentional) is an idea who’s time has past.they do nothing to stop genocide in the world & have a nasty habit of blaming Israel for their problems with muslims when it’s the islamist radicals(which is most of them) that generally start the fights.the US would be much better off defunding the un & use the building for homeless Americans & especially homeless veterans that put their lives on the line for their country.

    • Steve Mcdonald

      never leave ,fight back

  • Lothar Baier

    Any law that violates the constitution whether it was passed by the federal government or not is null and void !

  • Lothar Baier

    Its time to send a signal to DC , its time for civil disobedience !

  • godscountery

    We should take this country back from this ALIENS.

  • Guy Serving Away

    The Fed is letting states decide on marijuana, they should be able to decide on firearms too.

  • Madfoxx

    States cannot trump federal law but they can ignore executive orders, they have no teeth! And the next president can void every one of Obama’s executive orders!

    • ckirmser

      I can’t find “executive order” anywhere in the Constitution.
      They are unconstitutional by default..

      • Your_Post_Sucks

        The Constitution is not about US law. Check the US Code which codifies law under the US gov. If you knew this already, then disregard, but people are always confusing the Constitution with codified law.

        Any EO’s this criminal makes are bound to be unconstitutional as he couldn’t care less about following it or his oath of office.

        • ckirmser

          The Constitution is the, to quote, “supreme law of the land.”

          So, yes, it is law.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            You don’t know what you’re talking about but whatever…

          • ckirmser

            If you are denying that the Constitution is law, I suggest that you actually read it someday.

          • Your_Post_Sucks

            You won’t find the words of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution either. I guess all that’s covered in that is ‘unconstitutional’ too. Your post was just wrong, and now you have to resort to ‘suggesting’ that it is I who needs to do this or that. No, it is you who needs to accept that your post is just wrong.

          • Robert S

            Genius,
            The Bill of Rights is part of the constitution.

          • ckirmser

            Good lord, are you an example of the ignorance coming out of public schools?

            Yes, the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. They are amendments which means they amend the document, changing it accordingly.

            Perhaps, when you finally read the Constitution, you’ll pay note to Article V.

        • Liberty’s Advocate

          That is why the distinction between UNALIENABLE and INALIENABLE Rights is so critical for you to understand. Google “Unalienable vs Inalienable Rights”

      • Liberty’s Advocate

        Except that George Washington was the first President to use such a power.

        • ckirmser

          I should amend; unconstitutional, if not done merely as instructions to Executive Department members.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Correct, but the arrogant dictates of a tyrant assuming the role of a lawmaker by fiat, ARE NOT Constitutional.

          • ckirmser

            True.

            I am unfamiliar with such a thing by Washington; elaborate?

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Specifics fail me, but it is known that Washington issued at least 8 Executive Orders thus ushering in the principle.The recording of E.O.’s didn’t begin until the late19th or early 20th Century.

          • ckirmser

            Well, without specifics, how can it be “known?”

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            The lack of specifics is MY failing, as I said above. I didn’t say the specifics weren’t known.

          • ckirmser

            But, if you do not know the specifics, how, then, can you reasonably claim that it is known?

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            One can know GENERALLY that specifics exist without knowing the specifics themselves. Why should I allow you to make a claim on MY time to research this, when you have access to a computer?

          • ckirmser

            Because YOU made the claim, not me.

            Not my homework.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Okay, fool, you just made a choice that it doesn’t have to be ‘KNOWN” by you… keep up the good work.

          • ckirmser

            Apparently, it is not “KNOWN” by you, either.

            You made a statement of fact and, when unable to substantiate it, you insult me.

            I don’t care if you research it or not; that’s your issue.

            However, until you do and provide substantiation for your claim, it carries zero weight.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            Get a life, man! I SAID TWICE Specifics were MY FAILING! If you can’t read and comprehend, TOUGH!
            Life is not fair. I wasn’t put here to follow your dictates. I answered your question, telling you that I did not have the specifics and by rote, telling you I HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE SPECIFICS. You seem to have an entitlement mentality which is CONTRARY to the principles I wish to encourage, starting with self-sufficiency. DO IT YOURSELF!

          • ckirmser

            *sigh*

            Such is the reason we have the traitor Obama. Because specifics don’t matter when discussing facts.

          • Liberty’s Advocate

            We have the “traitor Obama” because brain-dead morons with your entitlement mindset VOTED FOR HIM TWICE!

          • ckirmser

            Oh, that’s hilarious.
            So, where do you get the “entitlement mindset” from?
            Or, don’t you know the specifics?

  • 4MeNoRinos

    We need to vote in as many conservatives as possible 2014 or this all is going to get even worse, this despot needs to be stopped, and this congress is not doing that.

  • Freedomrequiresresponsibility

    IF they were truly in favor of following The Second Amendment, they would start by removing the UNCONSTITUTIONAL State Laws and go with Constitutional Carry……permits do NOT follow The Constitution….

  • Mark Huston

    States rights….1oth amendment!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Bo_Kassa

    1860′s a war was fought over state’s rights…maybe a repeat is in order. The federal government today is nothing more then organized crime.

    • Robert S

      Bo,
      That little war was fought over state “rights” to designate an American citizen as property.

      Robert S

      • Bo_Kassa

        Robert your point is well taken however slavery was just one of the state’s right issues. If slavery was the sole or principle cause or issue that you are referring to then how come the emancipation proclamation was not issued until 3 years into the war? How come it pertained only to the states that had seceded? Yes, slavery was an issue but not the procuring cause as so many people have been duped into believing. The primary cause was to establish a strong federal government dictating, ruling and controlling the people and to hold and keep the power away from the individual states. Contrary to what the Constitution had established.

        • Robert S

          Bo,
          Here are some of the “Declaration of Causes of Seceding States”.
          http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#Mississippi

          Here’s Florida’s rough draft (never officially presented)
          http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm

          Alabama:
          http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/Alabama_secession_Speech.htm

          If you read those, each one states that slavery is THE reason for seceding from the union.

          • Bo_Kassa

            I suggest you also read those drafts again and you will see that there was many additional reasons stated. Again the federal government was usurping rights given to the states. Implying that slavery was the only issue is over simplifying and ignoring the main cause and purpose of individual states to determine their own destiny…federal control

          • Robert S

            Every other reason given was secondary to slavery.

          • Bo_Kassa

            Point is there was more then one and slavery, although a big issue, was not the sole purpose for seceding as so many people have been led to believe.At the root of the issue was the federal government telling the states what and how they are to act.

          • Robert S

            No,
            Read those declarations again.
            Most of them say slavery was the issue.
            The declarations that mention state’s right do so concerning one issue: slavery.

          • Robert S

            To paraphrase an old saying:
            You can lead a tea partyer to knowledge but you can’t make him understand it.

  • Bucko25

    God Bless the “Show Me State!”

  • Bucko25

    2014: Take back the Senate, repeal ovomitcare, void all ovomit executive orders, impeach ovomit, arrest obama for Treason along with his commie cabinet. Put them on trial and than hang’em all!! Impeach all the RINO’s….McCain, etc. etc…..

  • edad

    whos fault is it really ?????

    THE FOUNDATION

    “[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted. … If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.” –Noah Webster

  • Spiritwolf Ofthewild

    The
    weather here in Missouri is: cold 9 degrees right now but will be
    getting up to 30 here in about 2 months it will be warm again… I live
    in SW MO.
    OH and this is spiritwolf ofthwild on YouTube…

  • aliswell

    “Show Me” an illegal EO and I’ll show you how to ignore it.

    Go Missouri!

  • Ogrrre

    It is to laugh: the Obama administration wants the states to follow precedent of the courts saying the states cannot nullify federal law, when Obama ignores court precedents and, indeed, court orders, if such precedent or order does not suit him. Since the federal government cannot or will not follow the Constitution, then the federal government is null and void, as are all the federal laws.

  • sfsdgsf

    Awesome. If we could just do this in Tn.

  • techmasterone

    Doesn’t this “state rights vs federal government” sound familiar? Every student of the civil war (actually, the Northern Federal Government’s invasion of the Confederate States of America) knows that this was one of the biggest issues leading to the war. The north “bullied” the south over slavery (which, as a Christian, I would have seen as stain on the south) and forced new states to take a “anti-slavery” stand or not be allowed to join the union. States have rights as surely as the citizens do. Period!

    • Robert S

      You see the slavery as a “stain” on the southern states?
      Wow, that’s a pretty strong word for the forced slavery of human beings, people BTW who were just as much citizens of this country as you are, except for the color of their skin.

  • Connie Alsip

    WE need to impeach the sorry Muslim Communist before he does any more damage, The next thing we need to do is to ban Islam in the United States. The next thing is to follow our immigration law and take a huge burden off the American taxpayer, Those things being accomplished, the wall will be militarized like Texas did. Our troops from Afganistan can immigrant proof wall here in the southwestern states. Our governors need to impeach obama through a state’s convention. He is a traitor. He is anti-American. He is beyond contempt for the fraud he perpetrated through Obamacare. He IS EVIL!