Firearms Protection Act in Missouri -- UPDATE

UPDATE:  Here is the legislator lookup link if you are a Missourian.  I would note that the zip code can be very wrong.  If you have a voter card, your state Senate and House districts are listed -- at least in my county.  Email is usually the Rep or Senator first and last name @house.mo.gov or @senate.mo.gov, e.g., casey.guernsey@house.mo.gov.

Here is the General Assembly site.  Lots of information there.  Call, write, email.

Representative Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany) has introduced legislation, along the lines of a Wyoming bill, to protect citizens of Missouri against unconstitutional attacks on their liberties.  See the Missourinet story here:

Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany) is filing legislation today that he says combats the impending encroachment of our basic Second Amendment Rights. He invited all legislators to co-sign the bill. He says several dozen of them have … all Republican.

The bill is in reaction to Vice President Biden’s task force on gun law reform, and the feeling that President Obama will, by executive order, restrict access to firearms.

 I'm sure if it included language about hunting deer, doves or ducks, those Democrat representatives would get right on it.  We have a "conservative" Democrat governor in Missouri -- but we also have veto-proof Republican majority in both chambers.  We will see if they have more courage than the wimps in D.C.

If Representative Guernsey (for some reason this makes me think of the "Ada the Ayrshire" cartoon that used to run in Hoard's Dairyman) gets this bill enacted, I will gladly meet him in Jeff and buy him all the Arris' pizza he can eat, along with his beverage or beverages of choice.  It sounds like he gets it:

Representative Casey Guernsey says his bill is about guns, but voters should be concerned any time the federal government wants to unilaterally take away rights.

I would not even qualify it with the "unilaterally" part.  The federal government did not give me my rights, and it cannot under any circumstances, by any legal means so much as limit them.  We have allowed ourselves to be hemmed in as we try to get along.  It is way past time to bust down the fence.  We don't have to have a "reason".

Guernsey says his bill says it is unlawful for Missouri authorities or firearms dealers to enforce any federal law relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition.

Amen, brother.  Guernsey modeled his bill after the Wyoming bill which would make federal laws limiting magazine capacity or banning semi-automatic weapons unenforceable within the boundaries of the state.

We see the author's own words in an email, quoting further from Jessica Machetta's Missourinet article:

 “This bill specifies that it is unlawful for any officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision, or any licensed federal firearms dealer to enforce, or attempt to enforce, any federal law relating to a personal firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition that is owned or manufactured in this state and remains exclusively within the boundaries of the state,” Guernsey said in an e-mail. “Any federal official who enforces, or attempts to enforce, any such federal law or order will be guilty of a class D felony. The Attorney General may defend any citizen in violation of any such federal order. Further, any federal law or order created or effective after January 1, 2013, is unenforceable in the state if it attempts to ban or restrict ownership of a semi-automatic firearm or any magazine or require any to be registered in any manner. The bill does contain an Emergency Clause.”

 There are a couple of things about this that render it less appealing -- it seems to apply only to firearms, ammunition, parts, and magazines "owned and or manufactured" exclusively within the state's boundaries [note:  I incorrectly indicated that was a quote when it was an interpretation -- as the commenter below pointed out.  I still think exclusively within the boundaries of the state implies OR AND (it's been one of those days), but that's not what the quote says].  However, the language does seem to indicate that it would defy any future federal law or executive order restricting existing firearms.  It's probably the best that can be done short of open warfare for now.  God bless those who are supporting this effort.