Missouri Declares Itself a Free State
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/0 ... ree-state/

like

So does this mean 'cheap' machineguns can now be had?

If not, we aint free yet are we!

I'm sure it's mostly saber rattling.

It will take the actions of some bold or clueless individual to create the friction that results in challenge.

I seem to recall a story somewhere in one of the states with similar legislation or some citizen entangled in some disagreement over the validity of said legislation.

A step in the right direction!

The bill makes a strong statement but court challenges will take a long time. Hopefully more states will follow suit.

Additionally the bill:

Reduces the age for concealed carry to 19
Preemption for Open Carry in the state (requires a ccw)
Allows Teachers or Administrators to carry in school (with approval from superintendent)
Any gun buyback would require guns to be resold through an FFL (proceeds to go to the municipality)

It's not law yet but hopefully the governor signs it or at least doesn't veto it. If so, it would be law on Aug 28th.

Interesting that a free state of the union feels the need to reiterate it's "freeness".

Suppose it's not a bad thing that Missouri has decided to focus a spot light on the somewhat tenuous bonds that the USConstitution makes legal... the consortium of geographical areas identified as "states" that has become to be known as...the "United States" of America.

We, the States, are united only by the legal agreement of the US constitution. When that agreement becomes voided by a Federal governance usurpation of the individual State authority, all bets are off. In a purely legal sense, when the legal agreement defined in the US Constitution is... usurped/abrogated/redefined by those operating with Federal "governmental authority" go off the reservation, so to speak, it becomes a non legal situation. No authority to implement situation.

Just because the Fed congress (House and/or Senate) enacts legislation, that in itself doesn't make it a legality relative the individual States. It is what it is folks. (thank the God that is a persona in the Pledge of Allegiance my dept. is currently engaging in at briefing.) No... really, we now do the Pledge of Allegiance as an initiative exercise to our briefings.

My offices leadership wants to make sure we understand we operate under the authority of the State of Ohio that, as of now, recognizes the Federal Gov'ts recognition of the sovereignty of the State of Ohio. It is my clear understanding that such a "not needed till now, unusual and defining" exercise, geared toward awareness that such "allegiance" is dependent upon a clear recognition of State Sovereignty. Heaven help us. Are we to be interjected into a situation of Federal vs. State force dominance projection?

I'll follow my Sgt's direction. Doesn't matter what that direction is, as long as it's not a non legal force projection directed against an individual.

Anyone want to change jobs with me?

"free state" ... that's funny

There have been a few examples where the fed's overreach has been allowed. Statements like the one from Missouri have been made since the earliest days of this republic. The act itself is nothing new even if the focus is different.

The struggle between federal dominance and state independence began before the first constitutional convention and it's not likely to stop any time soon. It's the original low boil civil war and it's well on the way to it's 300th year or passed it already depending on how you like to count.