O'Fallon City Council Hears First Reading of Gun Rights Bill
The bill was sponsored by Councilmen Jim Pepper and John Haman.
Last week, the O'Fallon City Council heard the first reading of a bill supporting the U.S. Constitution's 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
According to the bill, laws infringing on gun ownership would be invalid in the City of O'Fallon.
The bill, sponsored by Councilmen Jim Pepper and Alderman John Haman, says the "Governing Body of the City of O’Fallon swore an oath to support the Constitution of the United States," and that:
The Governing Body of the City of O’Fallon within the state of Missouri declares that all federal, state, or local acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, or executive orders – past, present, or future – prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms, arms accessories, or ammunition are a violation of Amendment 2 of the Constitution of the United States along with Article 1 of the Missouri Constitution -Bill of Rights - Section 23 and violate the true meaning and intent of both as given by the Founders and Ratifiers and are hereby declared to be invalid within the City of O’Fallon and all of its boundaries, shall not be recognized by this City or within all of its boundaries, are specifically rejected and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in the City of O’Fallon within all of its boundaries . . .
The bill echoes legislation proposed in the Missouri House of Representatives by Rep. Casey Guernsey (R-Bethany). Guernsey's Firearms Protection Act is similar to a another gun rights bill proposed in Wyoming.
O'Fallon's bill will be up for a second reading at the next meeting, which is scheduled for March 28. City staff say that they expect some of the wording to change before a final vote is taken.
Reverend Scott E. Lee
12:14 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Well, that is certainly going to be a waste of City funds if it passes. The City will be forced to defend this moronic piece of legislation against claims that the City cannot preclude Federal laws that are deemed to be constitutional.
It's amazing that the council will try to invalidate any perceived threat to the 2nd Amendment, but they seem to have no problem with The Patriot Act. Why not pass a bill that invalidates any laws passed by the feds that violates the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments. Where is the legislation to protect us from the federal overreach on that?
There is no way that this turd of a bill survives legal scrutiny. If the law firm that the City hired to vet its laws for constitutionality gave this thing a thumbs up, maybe it's time to find new representation.
Why would the City even contemplate something like this? It should have never made it to the floor.
If it DOES pass, I will challenge it myself. Get ready City Council.
Jim Frain
1:16 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
This Bill was drafted by two city councilmen with the help of a resident. It is my feeling that it has not been reviewed by our City Attorney Kevin O'Keefe. It is my feeling from what I have listened to from the council chambers that some of the city councilmen do not want it reviewed by our city attorney. It has been stated by one city councilman that it has already been reviewed and approved by competent attorneys. I have asked for the council to have this reviewed by our attorney for any possibilities of major expenses or legal actions against our city. I hope that it will be done. Many of these councilmen are my friends and I know that they are not happy with me. It is nothing personal but I want them to do their jobs as city councilmen/councilwomen and focus on our city.
Reverend Scott E. Lee
1:38 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I would hope that the first words out of any competent attorney's mouth would have been, "Really? You think this will stand up to a challenge?"
If this thing passes and it does go to court, let's make the City Council pay the legal fees out of their (soon-to-be) new-found personal wealth.
Maybe we shouldn't trust them with anything more complicated than accepting streets into the city and renaming streets?
Cheryl Rowland
9:53 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
I am trying to understand why any gun owner needs to have guns (that should only be in the hands of the military) or magazines that even exceed what our police officers are allowed to carry. I used to joke with people when they would say that they needed these types of guns for hunting that "I had yet to see Bambi shoot back" and this was before the shootings of Representative Giffords, the Aurora Theater and Newtown Elementary School. I have read in Letters to the Editor that people say that they will need more than 10 bullets to defend their family, do these people realize that we have a police force and military that have the job of protecting us? I am tired of hearing that if you don't allow people to have the types of guns they want then you are against the 2nd Amendment, I am not against people owning guns, I just want to see people be responsible owners. When the 2nd Amendment was written, there were no semi-automatic or automatic guns, only single shot and reload guns.
Sscott
12:45 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
I dont think council should by pass our own city attonery On anything
or what do we pay him for?
I thank them for trying to protect our 2nd Amendment but as said above
the federal law would over ride.gun owner or not its our Constitition being attacked lets start there.As many am still waiting on the first interviews,first pictures to the sandy hook shooting that started this to begin with ?? And smokers thought they had a battle.yep just one more of our rights given up.So you know I dont smoke and dont own gun but I stand on my right to.
Reverend Scott E. Lee
2:00 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
If you remove the 2nd Amendment factor from this bill, it is still a stupid idea. Saying that the City of O'Fallon is capable of exempting itself from a federal regulation or law or part of the USC is insanity on its face.
Don't like the 13th Amendment? Fine! The City of O'Fallon will now allow indentured servitude and slavery. You know, because until the enactment of the 13th Amendment, everything was going swimmingly.
But that's a Constitutional Amendment, so that's different. Let's compare apples to apples. How about ... Okay, let's see if this one flies.
"The City of O'Fallon, in order to provide relief to its citizens in this time of economic hardship, does not recognize the authority of the United States government to levy taxes on its populace with regard to Social Security and unemployment insurance programs. All businesses within the corporate limits of the City of O'Fallon are directed to immediately cease these withholdings and any currently calculated withholdings are to be returned to the employees from which they were taken."
There. How well do you think that one would go over? Do you think there MIGHT be a few lawsuits flying around after this passed?