Sponsored by representative Doug Funderburk (R-St. Peters), this bill will invalidate any federal legislation that steps on Missourians' rights to keep and bear arms.
The bill reads, "All federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which 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 shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state."
The bill goes on at great length to clarify that this includes any sort of registration, gun tracking, taxes, stamps, seizures and laws. The bill also lowers the age at which people are eligible to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 19.
This is a significant victory for gun rights advocates in Missouri, though it's still a bit hypocritical. If Missouri won't let the federal government track firearm owners, why should the state require concealed carry permits?
Missouri has long been a champion of gun rights, and the Second Amendment Preservation Act is easily one of the most pro-gun pieces of legislation on the books today. The only question that remains is how well the law will stand up against federal legislation.
With a plethora of federal-level gun control laws and an unambiguously pro-gun law at the state level, it's an inevitability that Missouri will clash with the federal government.
For all of the bill's pro-gun language, it might only amount to so much hot air if the federal government invalidates the law - a fairly likely outcome considering the federal government's muscle and its tendency to overturn assertions of power at the state-level.
When all is said and done, it's hard to gauge just how much of an impact the bill will have until we see how the federal government will react to it. Is this bill a landmark victory for gun rights, or is it simply political posturing that will amount to diddly-squat once the federal government overturns the law?
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter