Category Archives: State’s Rights

A paradigm shift?

Posted on by

I didn’t watch Obama last night. I wasn’t interested in listening to his pontifications and lies. Listening to the top-of-the-hour news this morning, I was vindicated in skipping Obama’s brag fest.

Instead, I went to a small meeting to listen to a friend who is a political activist and heads a state-wide organization. I’d rather listen to him than Obama.

I’ve heard my friend speak before. He’s always been knowledgeable and has numerous inside contacts in Jeff City. He original topic was the upcoming legislative session in Jefferson City. I was particularly interested in HB 188, a bill designed to attack grassroots organizations, like the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance, by forcing them to disclose their membership lists and donors.

That was his intent. And…he did cover a few of the items coming forth in Jeff City. We were a small group last night. Many of the usual members didn’t come. Some are snowbirds and were out-of-state in more warmer climes. When questions started from the floor how we, as individuals, could be more effective lobbying in Jeff City, his planned talk went out the window.

In retrospect, the diversion was good. He explained the legislative process that many did not understand. How opinions of legislators can be changed. He cited the successful veto-override effort for SB 523 in the last session. We discussed various techniques how individuals can influence legislators…and how some tactics, yelling at staffers over the phone, can back-fire.

The discussion spread far and wide and as I listened I began to hear an underlying concept, something I’d heard from others outside Missouri…the federal government is becoming irrelevant. Every new tyranny from Washington has an opposite and equal reaction within the states. The result of the reaction is more ‘nullification’ bills being filed in state legislatures. More states joining the Convention of States movement. More states resisting, and in many cases, succeeding, edicts being issued from Washington.

Prior to the Civil War, an individual’s primary loyalty was to his state. After that war, a person’s loyalty, supported strongly by the triumphant North, was to the country as a whole and to the central government. That viewpoint has continued until Obama was elected. (For some, it was earlier but I’ll not argue the point.)

What I am hearing from many across the country is a return to the primacy of state loyalty. The growing view that it must now be the states who defend their citizens from the tyrannical acts of the central government. It matters not the issue, be it education and common core, the EPA and water-rights, Obamacare and the forced expansion of medicaid, or the failure to secure our borders. Here, there, people’s loyalties are shifting and I don’t yet think the liberals have noticed. Yet.

I’m of two minds on this paradigm shift. I was born, as was my wife, in Illinois. I have relatives who live in the oppressive state, still. But, I’m glad my wife and I left over forty-five years ago. Missouri is now my state, my home, and I’m proud of it and our ‘Pub controlled legislature.But I’m still loyal to the nation as a whole—not the FedGov, but to the United States. I once swore an oath to defend the nation and the Constitution. I’ve not recanted that oath. But the Constitution no longer rules the federal government. Loyalty to the Constitution is not loyalty to the FedGov.

Note above, I said ‘Pub controlled state legislature, not conservative controlled. Not all of the ‘Pubs in Jefferson City are conservatives. It’s a work-in-progress to change them to conservatives…or replace them with conservatives.

I’m sure the libs will call those who have shifted their primary loyalty to their states racists, fascists, Nazis, the usual liberal diatribe. They overlook one central fact: conservatives can live quite well without the federal government in their lives. The liberals and social parasites, cannot. That, perhaps, may be the real divide within this nation.

Facebook

A Productive Session for Firearms from the Missouri Legislature

Posted on by

I doubt that it’s a record but the Missouri Legislature produced a bumper crop of legislation this year—bills that reined in the scope of the FedGov while addressing school safety and increasing the state’s support for the 2nd Amendment.

The summary below was created by Marc Perez, a Missouri 2nd Amendment activist.

HCS/SB 75 – This act modifies provisions relating to public safety.

SHERIFFS: This act provides that no person will be eligible for the office of sheriff unless he or she holds a valid peace officer license under Chapter 590. Any person filing for the office must have the license at the time of filing. These provisions do not apply to St. Louis County or St. Louis City. (Section 57.010)

Every sheriff must maintain, house, and issue concealed carry permits beginning January 1, 2014. (Section 57.100)

The sheriff of any first class county not having a charter form of government, second class county, third class county, or fourth class county may employ an attorney to aid and advise the sheriff in the discharge of his or her duties and represent him or her in court. (Section 57.104)

Under current law, prisoners in a county jail must pay the costs of their board. This act requires the circuit clerk in each county to report to the Office of State Courts Administrator the names of people certified by the sheriff as being delinquent in the payment of money owed for a period of imprisonment in a county jail. Whenever a person has satisfied his or her debt or begun making regular payments to the sheriff, the sheriff must notify the clerk that the person is no longer considered delinquent. (Section 221.070)

The sheriff of any county may establish and operate a canteen or commissary in the county jail for the use and benefit of the prisoners. The revenues received from the canteen or commissary must be kept in a separate account and must be used to acquire the goods sold and other minimum expenses of operation. Any excess moneys must be deposited in the Inmate Prisoner Detainee Security Fund. (Section 221.102)

These provisions are substantially similar to HCS/HB 464 (2013) and HCS/SCS/SB 42 (2013).

ASIRT: This act establishes the Active Shooter and Intruder Response Training for Schools Program (ASIRT).

By July 1, 2014, each school district and charter school may train teachers and school employees on how to respond to students with information about a threatening situation and how to address a potentially dangerous or armed intruder or active shooter in the school or on school property.

Training may be conducted on an annual basis. Initial training may be eight hours in length and continuing training may be four hours in length. All school personnel must annually participate in a simulated active shooter and intruder response drill conducted by law enforcement professionals, as described in the act.

Program instructors must be certified by the Department of Public Safety’s Peace Officers Standards Training Commission. (Section 170.315)

EDDIE EAGLE GUNSAFE PROGRAM: Each school district and charter school may annually teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program to first grade students, or use a substantially similar or successor program of the same qualifications.

The purpose of the program will be to promote safety and protection of children and emphasize how students should respond if they encounter a firearm. School personnel and program instructors must not make value judgments about firearms. Firearms are prohibited from the teaching of the program. Students with disabilities will participate to the extent appropriate. (Section 171.410)

FIREARMS OWNERSHIP RECORDS: Any records of ownership of a firearm or applications for ownership or an endorsement that allows a person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm are not open records and will not be open for inspection except by order of the court to persons having a legitimate interest. Any person who violates this provision is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. (Section 571.011)

CONCEALED CARRY PERMITS: Under current law, a person seeking to carry concealed firearms must apply to the sheriff for a certificate of qualification for a concealed carry endorsement. Upon the issuance of the certificate, the person must then present the certificate to the Department of Revenue, which issues a driver’s licenses or nondriver’s licenses with a concealed carry endorsement.

This act repeals the provisions requiring the person to present the certificate to the Department of Revenue for a driver’s license or nondriver’s license with a concealed carry endorsement. Instead, the permit issued by the sheriff authorizes the person to carry concealed firearms. (Section 571.101)

Concealed carry permits will be valid for five years from the date of issuance or renewal. A concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 must continue for a period of three years from the date of issuance or renewal, as described in the act. (Section 571.101)

This act changes the eligibility requirements for a concealed carry permit. Non-citizens who are United States permanent residents are eligible. Currently, an applicant must not have pled guilty or pled no contest to certain crimes punishable by a prison term of one year or less. This act increases the prison term to two years. This act adds closed records to the documents in which a person cannot have engaged in a pattern of behavior considered dangerous to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Applicants must also not otherwise be prohibited from possessing a firearm under section 571.070 or 18 U.S.C. 922(g). If an applicant is not a U.S. citizen, the application must include his or her country of citizenship and any alien or admission number issued by the federal Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement.

An applicant must show a government-issued photo identification only for the purpose of verifying the person’s identify for permit renewal. (Section 571.101)

The concealed carry permit must specify only the following information: the permit holder’s name, address, date of birth, gender, height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes, and signature; the signature of the issuing sheriff; the date of issuance; and the expiration date. (Section 571.101) The permit must be no larger than two inches wide by three and one-fourth inches and must be of a uniform style. The permit must be assigned a Missouri uniform law enforcement system county code and must be stored in sequential number. (Section 571.101)

Biometric data is prohibited from being collected from the applicant. The sheriff must perform an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. If no disqualifying information is identified, the sheriff must issue the permit.

However, if the required background checks are not completed within forty-eight hours and no disqualifying information has come to the sheriff’s attention, the sheriff must issue a permit. The permit will be valid until the sheriff issues or denies the certificate of qualification. If the background checks identify a disqualifying record, the sheriff must revoke the permit. (Section 571.101)

Sheriffs must keep a record of all applications for concealed carry permits or permits. Any record of an application that is incomplete or denied must be kept for a period not to exceed one year. Records of approved applications must be kept for one year after the expiration and non-renewal of the permit.

Beginning August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must not keep any records of applications for concealed carry permits. Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to an application for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must be given to MoSmart and the sheriff of the county in which the applicant resides. (Section 571.101)

Certain personal protected information is required to not be batch processed for query and is only available for a single entry query if an individual is a subject of interest in an active criminal investigation or is arrested for a crime. In addition, the distribution of bulk downloads or batch data to federal, state, or private entities is prohibited, except to MoSmart as provided in the act. Any state agency that has retained any documents or records, including fingerprint records provided for a concealed carry endorsement prior to August 28, 2013 must destroy them upon successful issuance of a permit. (Section 571.101)

For purposes of chapter 571, the term “concealed carry permit” will include any concealed carry endorsement issued by the Department of Revenue before January 1, 2014 and any concealed carry document issued by any sheriff or under the authority of any sheriff after December 31, 2013. (Section 571.101)

If a permit holder is convicted, as described in the act, the court must forward the permit to the issuing sheriff. (Section 571.104)

To renew a concealed carry permit, a renewal application must be completed. In lieu of the fingerprint requirements and firearms safety training, the applicant need only display his or her current concealed carry permit. A name-based background check, including an inquiry of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, must be done for each renewal.

The process for renewing a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013 will be the same as for renewing a concealed carry permit except that the applicant need only display his or her current driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing an endorsement in lieu of the fingerprint and firearms safety training requirement. (Section 571.104)

Late fees assessed for a renewal and notice of expired certificates to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system and the individual are extended to concealed carry permits. Also, when a permit or endorsement holder’s permanent address changes and he or she reports the address change to the sheriffs, the sheriff of the new jurisdiction may charge a fee for processing not to exceed ten dollars.

If the person has a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, he or she must also furnish proof to the Department of Revenue. The sheriff must report the residence change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. A ten dollar fee may be charged for the replacement of a lost or destroyed permit or a driver’s license or nondriver’s license containing a concealed carry endorsement.

A sheriff may charge a fee not to exceed ten dollars for name changes. The sheriff must report the name change to the Missouri uniform law enforcement system. (Section 571.104) This act repeals the requirement that a concealed carry endorsement suspension be reinstated at the time of the individual’s driver’s license. (Section 571.107)

FIREARMS SAFETY INSTRUCTION: This act reduces, from fifty to twenty, the number of minimum rounds of live firing an applicant must do to receive a certificate of firearms safety training course completion by a qualified firearms safety instructor. Certificates from a firearms safety instructor course approved by the Department of Public Safety must be notarized.

This act allows a qualified firearms safety instructor to submit a copy of a training instructor certificate, course outline bearing a notarized signature of the instructor, and recent photograph to the sheriff of the county in which he or she resides. The sheriff must collect an annual ten dollar fee from an instructor who chooses to submit the information and must retain a database of qualified instructors.

This information will be a closed record except for access by any sheriff. Any firearms safety instructor who violates any provision of section 571.111 will be prohibited from instructing concealed carry permit classes and issuing certificates. (Section 571.111)

OTHER CONCEALED CARRY CHANGES: The forms used to petition a court to revoke an individual’s concealed carry permit or endorsement will be updated to incorporate changes in the law, including: the previously mentioned allowable increase in prison term from one year to years’ imprisonment; the effect of the issuance of a provisional certificate of qualification; and disqualification based on 18 U.S.C. 922(g). (Section 571.114)

The term “concealed carry endorsement” is replaced, or supplemented with, the phrase “concealed carry permit” throughout to reflect the change from the issuance of a concealed carry endorsement to a concealed carry permit. The terms “provisional certificate of qualification” and “certificate of qualification” are changed to “permit.”

In addition, “permanent resident” is added in conjunction with “United States citizen” or “U.S. citizen.” (Sections 50.535, 302.181, 571.030, 571.037, 571.107, 571.114, 571.121)

PROHIBITION ON SHARING RECORDS OR DEVELOPING DATABASES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: This prohibits state agencies, departments, contractors and agents working for the state from constructing, enabling, maintaining, participating in, developing or cooperating with the state or federal government in developing a database or record of the number or type of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories that an individual possesses. This provision is also contained in HCS/HB 787 (2013). (Section 571.500)

MOSMART: Any information collected by the Department of Revenue related to a concealed carry endorsement must be given to the members of MoSmart. In addition, on August 28, 2013, the Department of Revenue must begin transferring any records related to the issuance of a concealed permit to MoSmart for dissemination to sheriffs. (Sections 571.101 & 650.350)

This act creates the “Concealed Carry Permit Fund” within the state treasury. The director of the Department of Public Safety must distribute all funds annually in the form of grants approved by MoSMART. The Department must administer all MoSMART grant deposits. Grant funds must be spent first to ensure county law enforcement agencies’ ability to comply with the issuance of conceal carry endorsements, including but not limited to, equipment, records management hardware and software, personnel, supplies, and other services. (Section 650.350)

REPEALED SECTION: This act repeals section 571.102, which governed the effective date of the law based on the date when the Department of Revenue begins issuing nondriver licenses with conceal carry endorsements. (Section 571.102)

This act contains an emergency clause on Section 650.350. (MoSmart) Provisions in this act are similar to HCS/SS/SB 252 (2013) and HCS/HB 787 (2013).

SCS HCS HB 436 — FIREARMS: This bill changes the laws regarding firearms. SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT The bill establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act which specifies that although several states have granted supremacy to laws and treaties under the powers granted under the United States Constitution, the supremacy does not apply to federal laws that restrict or prohibit the manufacture, ownership, and use of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition exclusively within the state except to the extent that they are necessary for the regulation of the land and naval forces of the United States Armed Forces.

The bill specifies that all past, present, or future federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations that 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 are invalid, will not be recognized, are specifically rejected, and will be considered null and void and of no effect in this state. It is the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of the state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of the state, and no public officer or employee of the state has any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right.

Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Any state citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms under these provisions will have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting the enforcement.

OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS – (My personal contribution—Marc Perez.)  In any jurisdiction that prohibits the open carry of a firearm by ordinance, the prohibition is lifted if the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or a permit from another state that is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times, he or she displays the endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer, and the firearm being openly carried is 16 inches or less in overall length. In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun cannot be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest. Any concealed carry endorsement holder who violates these requirements may be issued a citation for an amount of up to $35, but it will not be a criminal offense.

SCHOOL PROTECTION OFFICERS: Any school district may designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer, whose responsibilities and duties are voluntary and in addition to their normal responsibilities and duties. Any compensation for serving as a school protection officer must be funded by the local school district without using state funds.

The bill authorizes a school protection officer to carry concealed firearms in any school in the district, but he or she must keep the firearm on his or her person at all times while on school property. A person violating these provisions must be removed immediately from the classroom and is subject to employment termination proceedings.

A school protection officer may detain any person the officer sees violating or any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated any state law or school policy. Any person detained for violation of a state law must, as soon as practically possible, be turned over to a law enforcement officer. Any person detained for a violation of a school policy must be turned over to a school administrator as soon as practically possible. However, a person cannot be detained for more than four hours.

The bill specifies the requirements to be designated as a school protection officer, including requesting the designation in writing to the school district superintendent, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, and submitting a certificate of school protection officer training program completion from a program approved by the Director of the Department of Public Safety. Any school district that designates a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer must notify the department director in writing within 30 days that includes specified information.

A school district may revoke the designation of a person as a school protection officer for any reason. The district must immediately notify the person in writing and must notify the department director in writing within 30 days of the revocation. The department director must maintain a listing of all persons designated as a school protection officer and make the list available to all law enforcement agencies. However, any identifying information collected is not considered public information and is not subject to an information request under the Open Meetings and Records Law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law.

Any school employee who discloses any information to anyone, other than those authorized to receive it, will be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and will be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district. Currently, a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement cannot carry a concealed firearm in any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body or a school official or the district school board. The bill exempts any teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who has been designated by his or her school district as a school protection officer and is carrying a firearm in a school within that district from the requirement of obtaining consent. The substitute requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission must establish minimum standards for the training of school protection officers, the minimum number of hours of training, and the curriculum for training programs and specifies the minimum training requirements. The commission must also establish minimum standards for school protection officer training instructors, training centers, and training programs.

The director of the commission must develop and maintain a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs and make the list available to every school district in the state. The bill specifies the information that must be submitted by each person seeking entrance into a school protection officer training center or program. A certificate of school protection officer training program completion may be issued to any applicant by any approved instructor affirming that the person has taken and passed a program that meets all requirements specified in the bill and that the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

FIREARM OWNERSHIP INFORMATION: A person or entity cannot publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or who is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement that allows the person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm. Any person or entity violating these provisions is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

A licensed health care professional cannot be required by law to inquire if a patient owns a firearm, document or maintain in a patient’s medical records if the patient owns a firearm, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on his or her status as a firearm owner. These provisions cannot be construed as prohibiting or restricting a health care professional from requesting or documenting the information if it is necessitated or medically indicated by the professional’s scope of practice and it does not violate any other state or federal law.

CONCEALED CARRY ENDORSEMENTS: The bill changes the minimum age at which a person can be issued a concealed carry endorsement from 21 years of age to 19 years of age.

SURRENDER OF FIREARMS: No county, municipality, or other governmental body or an agent of the entity may participate in any program in which an individual is given a thing of value in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the entity unless it has adopted a resolution, ordinance, or rule authorizing the participation in the program and the resolution, ordinance, or rule provides that any firearm received must be offered for sale or trade to a licensed firearms dealer. The proceeds from any sale or gains from a trade must be the property of the entity unless the proceeds are collected by a sheriff, in which case the proceeds must be deposited in the county sheriff’s revolving fund. Any firearm remaining in the possession of the entity after it has been offered for sale or trade to at least two licensed firearms dealers must be destroyed.

HB 533 — FIREARMS This bill specifies that a person who is found guilty or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a prior felony offense and who commits a subsequent felony offense in which the person possesses, displays, brandishes, threatens to use, attempts to use, or discharges any firearm will be guilty of the offense of unlawful possession or use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The offense will be in addition to and not in lieu of any underlying felony offense or other offense for which the person may be charged. The bill specifies that a person who commits the offense by possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 10 years imprisonment; by displaying, brandishing, threatening to use, or attempting to use a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 20 years imprisonment; and by discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to a term of life imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment must be imposed consecutively to any other terms of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.

The bill exempts law enforcement officers or United States military personnel who are performing their lawful duties or who are traveling to or from their places of employment or assignment from these provisions.

The bill specifies that a person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly possesses a firearm while also knowingly in possession of controlled substances that are sufficient for a felony violation.

This bill specifies that the state cannot prohibit any state employee from having a firearm in his or her vehicle on state property, provided the vehicle is locked and the firearm is not visible. These provisions apply only to the state as an employer, when the state employee’s vehicle is on property owned or leased by the state, and the state employee is conducting activities within the scope of his or her employment.

That’s a long list. I congratulate Marc Perez for documenting all the firearms related changes passed during this session. These bills are now on Governor Jay Nixon’s desk. Early reports appeared to indicate that he would veto these bills en mass. That would require another legislative vote during the Legislature’s Veto Override session in September.

However, a new report as been published that opines that Nixon will let the bills sit, unsigned nor vetoed. That action will allow the bills to pass by default.

On May 22, the Second Amendment Preservation Act (HB 436) was sent to Governor Jay Nixon. As of this writing, Nixon, a Democrat, has not indicated whether he plans to veto or sign the bill.

Earlier this month, both houses of the Republican-controlled state legislature passed the bill by an overwhelming majority.

When asked about Governor Nixon’s intention, a source inside his office told The New American that in an effort to avoid multiplying the several scandals already plaguing his administration, Nixon would likely let the bill sit on his desk without signing or vetoing it, thus allowing the measure to become law without his participation. — The New American.

Yes, a very productive session this year, indeed!

Facebook

Missouri HB 436 passes

Posted on by

The Missouri Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB 436, has been passed by the Missouri House by a vote of 116 to 38. The bill and it’s Senate counterpart, SB 325, now passed in both houses and merged into the final bill, is ready for Jay Nixon’s signature.

I am not holding my breathe. I expect him to veto it. It will be returned to the legislature and, if the original supporters hold faith, the veto will be overridden and become effective August 28, 2013.

The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act was only one of several bills passed in the evening session. Another bill that would nullify the UN’s Agenda 21 also passed, as did a bill to prohibits judicial rulings based on foreign law. One motivation of the judicial prohibition is aimed at blocking any implementation of Sharia law in the state.

All of the bills above have high interest from the media and Missouri’s citizens. I doubt there is any segment of the state’s population that won’t be affected, positively, I believe, from one of these bills. The 2nd Amendment Preservation act has acquired national interest after the events of Sandy Hook and the failure of Senator Feinstein’s attempted rape of the Constitution. In reality, the Missouri bill is a reaction to Feinstein, Schumer, Bloomberg and the rest of the cabal who seek to eliminate 2nd Amendment rights across the county. One of the key items of the bill is that it provides some teeth to those whose rights may be infringed. The bill allows for civil damages against any person or entity who violates the terms of the bill.

MO House Bill 436 has a number of components. The summary below is taken directly from the bill’s legislative webpage.

HCS HB 436 — FIREARMS (Funderburk)

COMMITTEE OF ORIGIN: Committee on General Laws

SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVATION ACT

This substitute establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act in which all past, present, or future federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations that infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by both the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution, are invalid, will not be recognized, are specifically rejected, and will be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

The substitute specifies that it will be the duty of the courts and law enforcement agencies of the state to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms within the borders of the state, and no public officer or employee of the state has any authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any of the infringements on the right. Any official, agent, or employee of the federal government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep or bear arms is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any state citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms specified will have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting the enforcement.

OPEN CARRY OF FIREARMS

The substitute specifies that in any jurisdiction that prohibits the open carry of a firearm by ordinance, the prohibition is lifted if the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement from this state or another state that is recognized by this state in his or her possession at all times and displays the endorsement or permit upon the demand of a law enforcement officer and the firearm being
openly carried is 16 inches or less in overall length. In the absence of any reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity, a person carrying a concealed or unconcealed handgun cannot be disarmed or physically restrained by a law enforcement officer unless under arrest. Any concealed carry endorsement holder who violates these requirements may be issued a citation for an amount of up to $35, but it will not be a criminal offense.

SCHOOL PROTECTION OFFICERS

The substitute allows any school district to designate one or more elementary or secondary school teachers or administrators as a school protection officer, whose responsibilities and duties are voluntary and in addition to their normal responsibilities and duties. Any compensation for serving as a school protection officer must be funded by the local school district without using state funds.

The substitute authorizes a school protection officer to carry concealed firearms in any school of the district, but he or she must keep the firearm on his or her person while on school property. A person violating these provisions must be removed immediately from the classroom, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor, and is subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district.

A school protection officer may detain any person the officer sees violating or the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated, any state law or school policy. Any person detained for violation of a state law must be turned over to a law enforcement officer. Any person detained for a violation of a school policy
must be turned over to a school administrator. However, a person cannot be detained for more than four hours.

The substitute specifies the requirements to be designated as a school protection officer, including requesting the designation in writing to the school district superintendent, holding a valid concealed carry endorsement, and completion of a school protection officer training program approved by the Director of the Department of Public Safety. Any school district that designates a teacher or administrator as a school protection officer must notify the director in writing within 30 days.

The substitute allows a school district to revoke the designation of a person as a school protection officer for any reason. The district must immediately notify the person in writing and must notify the department in writing within 30 days of the revocation.

The substitute requires the department to maintain a listing of all persons designated as a school protection officer and to make the list available to all law enforcement agencies. However, any identifying information collected is not considered public information and is not subject to an information request under the Open Meetings and Records Law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law.

Any school employee who discloses any information to anyone, other than those authorized to receive it, will be guilty of a class B misdemeanor and will be subject to employment termination proceedings within the school district.

Currently, a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement cannot carry a concealed firearm in any higher education institution or elementary or secondary school facility without the consent of the governing body or a school official or the district school board. The substitute exempts any teacher or administrator of an elementary or secondary school who has been designated by his or her school district as a school protection officer and is carrying a firearm in a school within that district from the requirement of obtaining consent.

The substitute requires the Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission to establish minimum standards for the training of school protection officers and specifies the minimum training requirements. The commission must also establish minimum standards for school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs. The director of the commission must develop and maintain a list of approved school protection officer training instructors, centers, and programs, and make the list available to every school district in the state. The substitute specifies the information that must be submitted by each person seeking entrance into a school protection officer training center or program. A certificate of school protection officer training program completion may be issued to any applicant by any approved instructor affirming that the person has taken and passed a program
that meets all requirements specified in the bill and the person has a valid concealed carry endorsement.

FIREARM OWNERSHIP INFORMATION

The substitute specifies that a person or entity cannot publish the name, address, or other identifying information of any individual who owns a firearm or is an applicant for or holder of any license, certificate, permit, or endorsement that allows the person to own, acquire, possess, or carry a firearm. Any person or entity
violating these provisions is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

The substitute specifies that a licensed health care professional cannot be required by law to inquire if a patient owns a firearm, document or maintain in a patient’s medical records if the patient owns a firearm, or notify any governmental entity of the identity of a patient based solely on his or her status as a firearm owner.

UNLAWFUL POSSSESSION OF A FIREARM DURING A FELONY

The substitute specifies that a person who is found guilty or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a prior felony offense and who commits a subsequent felony offense in which the person possesses, displays, brandishes, threatens to use, attempts to use, or discharges any firearm will be guilty of the offense of unlawful
possession or use of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The offense will be in addition to and not in lieu of any underlying felony offense or other offense for which the person may be charged.

The substitute specifies that a person who commits the offense by possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 10 years imprisonment; by displaying, brandishing, threatening to use, or attempting to use a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to 20 years imprisonment; and by discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony will be subject to a term of life imprisonment. The terms of imprisonment must be imposed consecutively to any other terms of imprisonment imposed for any other felony offense.

The substitute exempts law enforcement officers or United States military personnel who are performing their lawful duties or who are traveling to or from their places of employment or assignment from these provisions.

CONCEALED CARRY ENDORSEMENTS

The substitute changes the minimum age a person can be issued a concealed carry endorsement from 21 years of age to 19 years of age.

Facebook

Liberals War on the Constitution

Posted on by

Nancy Pelosi won’t let an opportunity to weaken the Constitution pass.  What opportunity?  Why it’s the People’s Rights Amendment that she and congressional democrats are pushing.

The phrase “stunning development” is used far too often in our politics, but here is an item that can be described in no other way: Nancy Pelosi and congressional Democrats, frustrated by the fact that the Bill of Rights interferes with their desire to muzzle their political opponents, have proposed to repeal the First Amendment.

That is precisely what the so-called People’s Rights Amendment would do. If this amendment were to be enacted, the cardinal rights protected by the First Amendment — free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances — would be redefined and reduced to the point of unrecognizability. The amendment would hold that the rights protected by the Constitution are enjoyed only by individuals acting individually; individuals acting in collaboration with others would be stripped of those rights. — Boston Herald.

What triggered this anti-constitution action by the democrats?  Their loss in the Citizens United v. FEC suit before the US Supreme Court.

Business Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

The Democratic party’s temper tantrum over Citizens United v. FEC has ratcheted up to a new level – now, instead of arguing that the ruling is wrong and the constitution doesn’t protect corporate speech, they’re arguing that the first amendment does protect corporate speech, so they’re going to change it! At least this time, they’re following the process prescribed by the Founders. The problem is, if you listen to Pelosi‘s explanation for why they’re doing it, it’s a bit…strange:
The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment,” and its goal is to explicitly allow Congress to regulate corporate speech however it wants:

The effects of this amendment would effectively eliminate Free Speech.

Rep. Donna Edwards, a Maryland Democrat, nonchalantly concluded that the amendment would of course strip even political campaigns of the First Amendment rights: “All of the speech which, whether it’s corporations of campaign committees and others engage in, would be able to be fully regulated under the authority of the Congress.” The entire point of having a Bill of Rights is that there are some things Congress may not do. “Congress shall make no law” is a phrase that Democrats cannot abide, apparently. — Boston Herald. 

But this act would have an even further reach.  It would effectively eliminate the free press, if there is such a thing anymore, as well.

The so-called People’s Rights Amendment would have some strange consequences: Newspapers, television networks, magazines and online journalism operations typically are incorporated. So are political parties and campaign committees, to say nothing of nonprofits, business associations and the like. Under the People’s Rights Amendment, Thomas Friedman would still enjoy putative First Amendment protection, but it would not do him much good inasmuch as The New York Times [NYT] Co., being a corporation, would no longer be protected by the First Amendment. — Boston Herald.

Attacks against the Constitution also start at the state level, too.  One such attack is the so-called, “Direct Election of the President/Vice President.  That movement wants to eliminate the Electoral College.

JEFFERSON CITY, February 2012 — The National Popular Vote bill (HB 1719) was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives by a bipartisan group including House Speaker Steve Tilley (R), Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D), House Elections Chair Tony Dugger (R), as well as Representatives Pat Conway (D), Stephen Webber (D), Clem Smith (D), Dave Hinson (R), and Sue Entlicher (R).

In April 2011, the National Popular Vote bill (HB 974) was introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of five Republican and five Democrats, including House Speaker Steve Tilley (R), Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D), Assistant Minority Floor Leader Tishaura Jones (D), Minority Caucus Secretary Sarah Lampe (D) and House Elections Chair Tony Dugger (R) as well as Representatives Pat Conway (D), Dave Hinson (R), Lincoln Hough (R), Todd L. Richardson (R), and Stephen Webber (D).  — National Popular Vote.

This movement would effectively eliminate one of the last bastions of State’s Rights—the ability, as a state bloc, to elect the President and Vice-President.  The result would be the elimination of the balance of power between the larger, more populous states and the smaller or less populous states.  There is a reason, besides the poor travel conditions in the late 18th Century, for the creation and power of the Electoral College.
I am ashamed that some so-called conservative state representatives actually signed this state bill.  The 10th Amendment was been marginalized since the Civil War.  This “popular election” tactic is another attack, not directly against the 10th Amendment, but at another provision of State’s Rights.  The states have already lost a major facet with the 17th Amendment that created the direct election of US Senators.  Let’s not repeat that error with eliminating the Electoral College.

Remember, if it weren’t for the Electoral College, Al Gore would have won the 2000 Presidential election.  He had a small popular vote margin but he didn’t have the Electoral votes to win.

History: it’s not for dummies.  Learn it or rue it.

Our Constitution: the Dems hate it, the ‘Pubs are too spineless to support it.

Posted on by

I’ve long thought that the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution was a mistake.

Amendment 17 – Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The establishment ‘Pub Senators are preparing to roll-over and give away our best weapon to curb the dem’s spending—blocking the federal debt limit increase.

Cornyn Says Republicans May Accept ‘Mini’ Deal on Raising U.S. Debt Limit

By Angela Greiling Keane – Jul 4, 2011 8:01 AM CT
Republicans might accept a “mini” deal with the Obama administration on raising the debt limit, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican leader, said yesterday on “Fox News Sunday.”
The idea may delay politically difficult decisions if it’s structured to postpone action on a larger package of spending cuts or revenue increases until after the 2012 election cycle, an analyst said.

What the establishment ‘pubs hope is that they can make all the dem counter-attacks wait until after the election.  They think that if they’ll cave on blocking the debt limit increase, they’ll remove an arrow from the dem’s quiver.

Stupid!

The time to show resolve, the time to show some backbone is now.  Not, in 2012 when it’s too late.  

The dems are helpless if they can’t spend to keep their protected voting blocks satiated on taxpayer money. Chuck-U Schumer (D-NY) is already planning options in case the ‘pubs don’t cave.  Ignore congress and spend anyway.  They claim the 14th Amendment makes any such spending limit unconstitutional.

Chuck Schumer: 14th Amendment Option ‘Certainly Worth Exploring’

WASHINGTON — Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Friday that invoking the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states that federal debts “shall not be questioned,” to continue paying government obligations is a strategy worth considering should a debt-ceiling deal remain elusive. 
In late May, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner read directly from the 14th Amendment to a crowd of reporters, emphasizing the clause “shall not be questioned.” And rank-and-file Senate Democrats are increasingly looking to the 14th Amendment as a way out of the debt-ceiling impasse, as HuffPost reported on Tuesday.
When asked about the Constitution’s 14th Amendment during a conference call with reporters, Schumer, who leads Senate Democrats’ communications effort, said, “It’s certainly worth exploring.”

The spinelessness of the ‘pubs and the statist agenda of the dems scream for a change.  The real purpose of the 17th Amendment was to weaken the power of the states.  the cry was for more “democracy.”  That was a diversion of the real purpose behind this amendment.  The United States is NOT a democracy.  It is a republic and for very good reasons.  

Jefferson, I believe, said that the republic form of government was chosen to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Madison and de Tocqueville echoed those thoughts.

With examples of senatorial integrity like Schumer (D-NY) and Cornyn (R-TX), we have to perfect examples why the 17th Amendment was a mistake.  Let’s repeal and put the power back into the hands of the states—as it was originally.  The sole reason that each state had two Senators was to balance the power of the states against one another and to provide equal representation of the states in Congress.

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed—not elected, by the state legislators.  What the states could appoint.  A vote of the state legislature was all that was needed.  I admit in some states that could be difficult.  On the other hand, we have the example of Wisconsin earlier this year.

State control of Senators would restrain any accesses by Senators that ran contrary to the best interests of the states. Given the nature of the state of Texas, its Governor and of the ‘pub majority in the statehouse, I strongly doubt Cornyn would have made such an outrageous state has he did on considering a “mini” debt limit increase.

Every day, it seems, we see another example how wise and how much foresight the Founders had when designing our Constitution.  And we see more and more attempts by those who hate our country and our Constitution working to destroy both. That is all the more reason to revert to our government’s original design.

The first "shot" of the 2nd Revolution?

Posted on by
Since the beginning of this year, and before that as well, the arrogance and thuggishness of the federal government has continued to grow.  And it appears to be increasing.  The term, “gangster government“, is now spoken across the cable networks, news websites and the internet.  It’s become common in use.

It seems to be a weekly occurance that we have another governmental act against our lives and liberties.  Recently, we had the killing of an innocent military veteran in Tucson when Sheriff’s Deputies invaded his home.  The one they were looking for wasn’t there.  According to many reports-denied by the Sheriff, the subject was never there.  When thugs began pounding on his door, screaming, he grabbed a rifle to protect his children. When the thugs broke in, they shot him.  His rifle still had the safety on.


These acts of tyranny, and others, are creating a backlash.  A more ominous one was repeated by a recent review of the terms “Waco Rules” and Romanian Rules.”  Less ominous but perhaps more viable is a resurgence of State’s Rights and emphasis on the 10th Amendment.

Texas Governor Rick Perry, at the Republic Leadership Conference this last week expanded on his earlier remarks.  Many think this is one of Perry’s steps toward entering the 2012 Presidential race.

As another shot over the Federal government’s bows, Perry is moving forward with bringing the TSA under control and banning, on pain of arrest, groping of passengers without valid cause.

Perry adds anti-groping bill to special session

Gov. Rick Perry in New York City
Gov. Rick Perry announced he had added legislation that would make it illegal for TSA agents to engage in “intrusive touching” at airports security checkpoints without probable cause to the list of items for the legislature to consider during the special session.
The measure had previously failed to pass in the Texas Senate after the Justice Department wrote a scathing memo against the bill that threatened legal action against the state and the bill became enmeshed in Senate politics.
There are questions about what affect the legislation might have since airport security is a federal matter.
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who was accused of lobbying against the bill in May said he was “pleased” by Perry’s decision.
“I’m very pleased that Governor Perry agreed to add this legislation to his Special Session call,” Dewhurst said. “Addressing unreasonable and unlawful searches of innocent travelers by some TSA employees is an issue that affects all Texans who use air travel, and it should not wait until next Session.”

Before the Senate took up the bill initially, the Justice Department sent a letter to state advising that passage of the bill would result in immediate legal action by the federal government and that it could result in airline flights to and from Texas being delayed or cancelled.

…

Some of these incidents reminds me of scenes from Tom Kratman’s book, A State of Disobedience.  In that book, the Surgeon General’s Riot Police surround some pro-live protesters in a church, when they refuse to come out, the Riot Police attack and sets fire to the church burning it down killing those inside, mostly young children.  The D of Ed’s SWAT team terrorizing a father and his young children over unpaid student loans comes close to the events from Kratman’s book.

The time remaining for us to recover out liberties, regain our rights and the rights of our states that have been usurped by the federal government is growing less. The consequences of our failure to do so are extreme and the probability of a future second civil war will grow.

Repeal Amendment?

Posted on by

I’ve heard about this proposal, although not much. It’s an interesting concept for a go-around of Congress—something we’ve desperately needed these last four years. The proposal, basically, would be a constitutional amendment that would allow federal legislation to be repealed by 2/3s vote of the states.

Here is a writeup about the proposed amendment.

By Matthew Boyle – The Daily Caller
Conservatives are planning to propose an amendment to the Constitution at some time in the next few weeks aimed at allowing states to repeal legislation without the approval of Washington.

The proposal, dubbed the “Repeal Amendment,” if approved and ratified, would be only the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution in more than 220 years, out of only 33 amendments approved by Congress for ratification. More than 10,000 amendments have been proposed to Congress since the Constitution itself was ratified, but barely any actually hit the floor for a vote.

The Repeal Amendment calls for allowing states to band together to repeal, or overturn, federal legislation. As it is written now, if approved and ratified, two-thirds of states’ legislatures would need to vote in favor of a repeal.

The proposed amendment reads: “Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/20/constitutional-amendment-proposal-to-streamline-leglislative-repeals-to-hit-congress-soon/#ixzz162FohnH3

I’m always leery of any amendments to our Constitution. This one could be a 2-edged sword if the libs every gain control of enough statehouses. On the other hand, consider how much better off if we could have repealed TARP, the Stimulus Graft Bills I & II, the Dodd Banking Bill, and last but not least, Obamacare.

It’s about enough to make me change my stance.