Missouri HB 436 passes

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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

Culture Clashes

In his sermon yesterday, my Pastor mentioned something that triggered a stream of thoughts.  In passing, he mentioned Tradition and adherence to Old Testament Law.  He said more than once that repeated actions will eventually become a tradition and with other traditions can create cultures.

We have examples of three cultures, in conflict, here in the United States.  Eventually, one of those cultures will rise to supremacy.

The first culture is one that, in the past, was recognized by the old slogan, “Mom, Flag, and Apple Pie.”  It was the native American culture of Independence, Individualism, Family, Love of the Constitution, and the free worship of God.  That culture is under attack by the other two.

The second culture had its roots in the writings of Marx and Engels.  In the United States, its first appearance was the formation of unions and unionism in the late 19th Century.  Granted there were many justified reasons for the early unions, but the unions quickly merged their agendas to be concentrated attacks on the free market economy and capitalism.  My family was involved in those early days.  My Grandfather, Uncles, and Father were all miners.  My Grandfather and Father were stewards in the United Mine Workers of America. As the power of the central union grew, the aims, needs and purposes of the local unions were subordinated to the anti-business agenda of the central union.

After a lifetime involvement in the union, my Grandfather and Father withdrew.  Unions have been infiltrated and absorbed by that second culture.  Today, we see the strength of that second culture in the dependency class—those 49.5 percent of the people who are dependent on the largess of government in one form or another.

There is a third culture that has appeared in this country in the latter half of the 20th Century.  It is ignored for the most part by the dependency culture. They don’t see any real conflict between the two because they don’t see any areas of mutual contact.  Instead, when conflicts between the third and first cultures arise, the second culture sides with the third.  They follow that old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In some areas of the country, that alliance is becoming more visible.

Case in point. The second and third cultures do not believe nor support the Constitution.  The second culture views the Constitution as an impediment to their agenda. The third culture views the constitution as irrelevant and contradictory to their culture. Frequently the second and third cultures join forces attacking the first. The most common point of attack is against the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The third culture detests freedom of speech.  They attempt to suppress it at every opportunity.  The second culture detests the free expression of religion—specifically Christian beliefs because those beliefs don’t support dependency but promote self effort and individualism.  

Together, these two cultures violate that portion on the First Amendment concerning the establishment of religion.  I say that because they now use the “rule of law,” or rather the Rule of Judges to promote a specific religion.


Pennsylvania Judge Throws Out Charge For Harassing Atheist While Calling The Victim A Doofus

There is a surprising story out of Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania that seems the perfect storm of religious tensions. You begin with Ernie Perce, an atheist who marched as a zombie Mohammad in the Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. Then you add Talaag Elbayomy, a Muslim who stepped off a curb and reportedly attacked Perce for insulting the Prophet. Then you have a judge (Judge Mark Martin) who threw out the criminal charges against Elbayomy and ridiculed the victim, Perce. The Judge identifies himself as a Muslim and says that Perce conduct is not what the First Amendment is supposed to protect. [UPDATE: The judge says he is not a Muslim despite what is heard by most listeners on the tape. That being the case, the criticism of the comments remains.]

The case, however, then went to District Judge Mark Martin who not only threw out the charge of harassment but ridiculed Perce as a “doofus.” He also proceeds to not only give an account of his own feelings (and say that he was offended personally by Perce’s action) but suggests that Elbayomy was just protecting his “culture.” (Emphasis mine: Crucis) The judge not only points to the Koran in the courtroom but his time in Muslim countries as relevant to his deliberations. Putting aside the problem of ruling in a case where you admit you have strong personal feelings, the lecture given on the first amendment is perfectly grotesque from a civil liberties perspective.

This is not the most egregious example. It’s just the most recent. Mr. Perce, although an avowed atheist, was expressing a belief using his First Amendment rights.  Judge Martin and Mr. Elbayomy violated the First Amendment twice.  That is a direct attack against the Constitution and against the first culture.  The second and third cultures ignore and refuse to recognize that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not Sharia law, nor the Koran.

These culture clashes will continue and grow in strength.  We are already at a crux between the first and second cultures. The coming election in November will be crucial in determining if the first culture, the one of traditions of reverence towards the Flag, Family, Freedom and personal beliefs against the second culture of dependency, statism, corruption and tyranny.

We see the second culture, the culture of the liberals and the dependency class, build traditions, expanding their culture that is contradictory to the native traditions of the first culture.  We all have a dog in this fight. We ignore these clashes at our peril.