Confusing headline? Hang in there–all will be made clear.
When Missouri Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed HB 436, the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” which nullifies any federal gun law that violates the right to keep and bear arms (just about every federal gun law, in other words), he claimed that he did so because the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause means that state laws that override federal laws (as HB 436 would do, along with criminalizing those laws’ enforcement) are unconstitutional.
His explanation, of course, made no attempt to address the fact that federal gun laws are themselves unconstitutional, by “virtue” of their clear contempt of the Second Amendment’s shall not be infringed, nor did he show any interest in explaining how federal laws regulating things over which the Constitution has not delegated the feds any power could comport with the Tenth Amendment.
According to the Associated Press, a number of Democrats in both chambers of the Missouri legislature have expressed agreement with Nixon’s rather . . . peculiar position–but plan to vote to override his veto anyway:
Several of Nixon’s fellow Democrats confirmed to The Associated Press that they would vote to override his veto when lawmakers convene in September, even while agreeing with the governor that the bill couldn’t survive a court challenge. Many of them noted that in some parts of Missouri, a “no” vote on gun legislation could be career ending.
“We love our guns and we love hunting. It’s not worth the fight for me to vote against it,” said Rep. T.J. McKenna, D-Festus. But, he added, “the bill is completely unconstitutional, so the courts are going to have to throw it out.”
Wow–talk about sticking to convictions–the ones they don’t have.
The intent here is not to criticize their earlier votes for passage of the bill, and their apparent plans to vote for override of Nixon’s veto–St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is enthusiastically on board with state’s efforts stand up for their citizens’ rights under the Second Amendment, and to assert the states’ prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment.
The problem–the contemptible, lower-than-snake-excrement shamelessness that this column hopes to illustrate–is the fact that these officials are openly, publicly admitting that in the interests of political self-preservation, they are willing to take action that they evidently believe violates their oath to uphold the Constitution–the most solemn, sacred obligation of any public servant.
Does the fact that they’re utterly wrong about the supposed unconstitutionality of HB 436 mitigate their crime? That depends on one’s point of view. Is “attempted oath-breaking” less heinous than success at that crime?
Meanwhile, Gun Rights Across Missouri–a group who knows that upholding the Second and Tenth Amendments–and indeed, enforcing them against the federal government–is in no way unconstitutional, is planning a September 11 rally at the Missouri State Capitol in support of the override attempt that will be made that month. Perhaps some Democrat legislators will learn enough to not only support the override effort, but to do so for the right reasons.
- Missouri House Democrat implies desire to sell citizens’ gun rights to feds
- Missouri House resoundingly passes strong ‘Second Amendment Preservation Act’
- Gun bill veto override action expected on both sides of Mississippi