Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/17/2021 1:02:50 PM EDT
https://www.joplinglobe.com/opinion/columns/our-view-lawmakers-should-listen-to-lane-roberts-on-second-amendment-preservation-act/article_ae7c1cfc-2c56-5689-9253-e498591abb5b.html#//



Our view: Lawmakers should listen to Lane Roberts on Second Amendment Preservation Act

We urge state lawmakers to consider carefully the consequences of the Second Amendment Preservation Act as those consequences were outlined recently by state Rep. Lane Roberts, R-Joplin.

We have always found Roberts, a former Joplin police chief who later was named director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety, to be an insightful, thoughtful lawmaker, and if he warns us about a problem with legislation — particularly in his wheelhouse — we would be wise to listen.

Under the bill, any federal gun law or act that infringes on Missouri residents’ Second Amendment rights could not be enforced by local, county or state law officers.

Roberts told a group Friday during an Eggs and Issues forum that he was concerned about sanctions contained in the bill, which the House passed recently.

Originally, it included sanctions against police officers themselves — Roberts said it took away the officers’ employment, it took away their police license for the rest of their life, it took away what limited qualified immunity they had and made no provisions for how they would defend themselves.

“It’s not like they are overpaid anyway, but they would have had to pay for that defense out of their own pocket,” Roberts said at the forum.

The bill has been modified so that it instead allows sanctions against officers’ employers — police departments, for example. The fine could be up to $50,000.

“The best way to get the department’s attention, and to make sure that they follow this law to protect our citizens’ Second Amendment rights, is to hit them in the pocketbook,” said state Rep. Jered Taylor, R-Republic, sponsor of the House bill, according to the Columbia Missourian. “Hit them where it hurts. Make them think twice.”

Roberts also said he was concerned about the “chilling effect” the bill would have on cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement officers.

“There are times when we need the feds as much as they need us,” he told us.

He said at the forum: “And if a federal agent came to me and said I need your help on this particular thing, and I declined, why then would I expect them to say yes when I need their help? More importantly, if that person then went forward and did what they did and got hurt, I have to live with my conscience.”

He said another consequence of the legislation is that it creates an entirely new category of civil action targeting police officers.

Roberts isn’t the only one raising questions. Greene County Sheriff Bob Arnott said he and other sheriffs across the state also are concerned about the impact this legislation will have. He then noted that his department routinely partners with federal agencies to investigate local crimes that also violate federal laws because it’s better for the community.

“Convictions in federal court generally yield much longer sentences, keeping the most dangerous felons who threaten our communities off the streets for longer periods of time,” he said.

Voting no on this is not a vote against the Second Amendment. Valid questions are being raised about the consequences of this legislation; let’s reconsider the damage it could do.
Link Posted: 2/17/2021 1:05:35 PM EDT

Ex police chief,I'm thinking he might be a little biased concerning this bill.I have the same concerns about the Governor. Unfortunately I feel like a wedge is being driven between our law enforcement officers and the citizens of Mo.and the Sheriffs Assoc. is swinging the hammer.I believe there's a much greater problem staring us in the face than what the people against this bill are worried about. Don't they realize that the same people pushing to outlaw guns are the same people wanting to defund the police. Looks like we need to keep the pressure on the Senate.
Link Posted: 2/17/2021 1:18:11 PM EDT
I don't think this has been posted,If it has---sorry

From Ron Calzone --Mo. First

February 14, 2021 – SAPA UPDATE – GREAT NEWS!

I'm slow getting this update out largely because we needed some clarity before issuing a Call to Action.

The single most important thing you can do to help is now very clear. It will only cost you about 75 cents and a little time, but at this juncture it is the best way you can help.

SEND A REAL PAPER LETTER TO:

Senate President Pro Tem Dave Schatz.

Simply tell him how important it is to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act WITH the enforcement provisions intact.

Mail it to:

Senator Dave Schatz
201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 326
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101

I had a very good meeting with Senator Schatz Wednesday, and I can tell you that he is our friend on this issue. It was Sen. Schatz, after all, who assigned the Senate version of SAPA to a friendly committee.

It's important to send letters (not emails and not phone calls) to Sen. Schatz right now because SAPA is not high on the list of senate priorities, like it is in the House. He doesn't think the threat of new rounds of gun control from the Biden administration is imminent.

Please understand that as President Pro Tem he has a great deal to say about how much opportunity SAPA has to even be considered and debated by the whole Senate.


GREAT NEWS! HOUSE PASSED SAPA 103 YES to 43 NO

The reason Sen. Schatz is so important at this time is the fact that HB 85 has gone completely through the House process and has been reported to the Senate and “first read.”

The House passed SAPA by a vote of 103 yes, to 43 no, with 16 absent. Click here for vote tally.

Note that it's fairly safe to assume that the “absent” votes are people who don't support SAPA. Missing a vote amounts to a no vote.

Besides Rep. Jered Taylor, Speaker Rob Vescovo is our House hero. He has been supportive of SAPA from the start and fostered it through the process.


THE AMENDMENT

The Missouri Sheriffs Association continues to be the greatest obstacle to passage. They claim concerns about working with federal agencies in joint task forces. Their public opposition has been based on their perceived need to charge criminals with federal gun crimes instead of Missouri gun crimes because they can get longer sentences in federal courts.

Of course, SAPA does not prohibit participation in joint task force work with the feds as long as only Missouri gun laws are enforced.

They also complained about penalties that were aimed at individual officials. This complaint was actually resonating with some reps and eroding support for SAPA.

It was not an altogether illegitimate concern. Consider a young cop who is ordered by his superior to enforce some federal gun control law, and his boss claims that their “legal department” checked the SAPA law out and his participation was fine.

Who should be held accountable when it's NOT fine?

If it was something very obvious, like an “assault weapon” ban, then I would say “both,” but there could be situations that require more training and guidance to properly apply the law.

House leadership, which has been fully supportive of SAPA, thought that shifting the enforcement from individual officials to the agency that employs them was a worthwhile change to go from a position where we might barely pass the bill to overwhelming support. We got the overwhelming support, at 103 yes votes, but note the Republicans who still “walked” – that is made themselves scarce so they would not have to vote at all. There were 11 Rs who were absent for the vote.


A GOOD MOVE

Overall, I think the House changes were a good thing. I also think we should try to strengthen the enforcement provisions in the Senate.

Here's the version of HB 85 that passed the House: https://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills211/hlrbillspdf/0767H.03D.pdf

Making SAPA a senate priority, like it has been for Speaker Vescovo in the House, will make it a lot easier to strengthen the bill. And your letters to Sen. Schatz will greatly help make SAPA a senate priority.

Please write your very short letter today.


WHAT'S NEXT?

Since the House version of SAPA, HB 85, has already passed, look for it to advance while the Senate version, SB 39, is held in reserve.

HB 85 will next be assigned to the General Laws committee for a hearing and vote. That committee already easily passed the Senate version – it should have no trouble there, although that might be the place we add some additional strength to the enforcement provisions.

After that comes the hardest part of the whole process. HB 85 will then go to the Senate floor where leadership will have to want it bad enough to allow considerable time for debate and to overcome resistance that is expected from the Democrats and perhaps some Republicans that just don't “get it.”

If the Senate makes any changes to HB 85, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.


THE RIGHT TIMING

It's very possible that those next steps won't take place until we gain overwhelming momentum, like we had in the House. That means your help is needed!

Did I mention that letter to Sen. Dave Schatz? (A real letter, not a phone call or email. We don't want to pester the man or his staff, just let him know this issue is important to Missouri.)


IF YOU WANT TO DO MORE

Besides writing a paper letter to Sen. Schatz, you can:

   Call or email your own senator and tell them SAPA should be their #1 priority, in light of the Biden administration's gun control plans.

   Call or email or visit your sheriff. Get some documentation of his position on SAPA with the enforcement provisions intact. Provide me something in writing from him one way or the other. If he refuses to commit, let me know that, too. I'll add his position on SAPA to the state map of sheriffs: http://www.libertytools.org/issues/sapa/Missouri-Sheriffs.php#Top

In liberty,

- Ron

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works. --  Frédéric Bastiat - "The Law"

Ron Calzone, director
Missouri First, Inc.
http://www.mofirst.org
Link Posted: 2/18/2021 1:06:50 AM EDT
None of these LEOs coming out against it are actually saying what they are afraid of.

1) Losing federal grant money which funds their special units, equipment and overtime pay.

2) Losing out on property/asset seizure laws which kick in with these prosecutions.

The feds have already bought and paid for these guys by building the whole system around money.

How about Missouri Courts jail people for Missouri Crimes.  How about we stop jailing people for being drug addicts and jail people you seem to need the feds to jail.

Fix Missouri, don't rely on the Feds.

Link Posted: 2/18/2021 1:35:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shootindave:

Fix Missouri, don't rely on the Feds.

View Quote


^^^^^^^^ Right there!!! 10,000 fucking percent!!!!

I'd back, fund, campaign for, donate money / time to, any politician who just simply follow those 7 simple words.
Link Posted: 2/18/2021 9:16:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/18/2021 9:32:37 AM EDT by madmacs69]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shootindave:
None of these LEOs coming out against it are actually saying what they are afraid of.

1) Losing federal grant money which funds their special units, equipment and overtime pay.

2) Losing out on property/asset seizure laws which kick in with these prosecutions.

The feds have already bought and paid for these guys by building the whole system around money.

How about Missouri Courts jail people for Missouri Crimes.  How about we stop jailing people for being drug addicts and jail people you seem to need the feds to jail.

Fix Missouri, don't rely on the Feds.

View Quote


Well you missed the bit about having to work... instead of just filing reports AFTER the fact

Then again... it isn't about THEIR needs. It's about the fact that they took an oath, one that "they" seem all too willing to cast aside in favour of a power trip.

Maybe those police chiefs, officers, and sheriffs that dont support it should be looking at why they dont. If that is at odds with the rights of the people, the US constitution, or the Missouri constitution maybe that should find a new job.

Perhaps we should also remove any favourable "rights" that they have as police officers... they are afterall ONLY citizens. As such they should only have those rights afforded to ALL citizens. Let's start with removing LEOSA rights in Missouri and for officers in MO.

Let's not forget of course the Missouri Sherrif's association opposed permitless carry in MO... the same right conferred upon them under the LEOSA.

Oh wait... they're not the same as us... they're above us and OUR rights.

Link Posted: 2/18/2021 10:22:45 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By madmacs69:


Well you missed the bit about having to work... instead of just filing reports AFTER the fact

Then again... it isn't about THEIR needs. It's about the fact that they took an oath, one that "they" seem all too willing to cast aside in favour of a power trip.

Maybe those police chiefs, officers, and sheriffs that dont support it should be looking at why they dont. If that is at odds with the rights of the people, the US constitution, or the Missouri constitution maybe that should find a new job.

Perhaps we should also remove any favourable "rights" that they have as police officers... they are afterall ONLY citizens. As such they should only have those rights afforded to ALL citizens. Let's start with removing LEOSA rights in Missouri and for officers in MO.

Let's not forget of course the Missouri Sherrif's association opposed permitless carry in MO... the same right conferred upon them under the LEOSA.

Oh wait... they're not the same as us... they're above us and OUR rights.

View Quote

HEAR...HEAR!......HERE...HERE!
Link Posted: 2/18/2021 2:19:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mattgunguy:


^^^^^^^^ Right there!!! 10,000 fucking percent!!!!

I'd back, fund, campaign for, donate money / time to, any politician who just simply follow those 7 simple words.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mattgunguy:
Originally Posted By Shootindave:

Fix Missouri, don't rely on the Feds.



^^^^^^^^ Right there!!! 10,000 fucking percent!!!!

I'd back, fund, campaign for, donate money / time to, any politician who just simply follow those 7 simple words.


I love the sound of that, pretty unrealistic unfortunately. Much (most?) of the funding the state receives at virtually all levels is funneled through various federal alphabet agencies.
Link Posted: 2/27/2021 9:48:37 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By madmacs69:


Well you missed the bit about having to work... instead of just filing reports AFTER the fact

Then again... it isn't about THEIR needs. It's about the fact that they took an oath, one that "they" seem all too willing to cast aside in favour of a power trip.

Maybe those police chiefs, officers, and sheriffs that dont support it should be looking at why they dont. If that is at odds with the rights of the people, the US constitution, or the Missouri constitution maybe that should find a new job.

Perhaps we should also remove any favourable "rights" that they have as police officers... they are afterall ONLY citizens. As such they should only have those rights afforded to ALL citizens. Let's start with removing LEOSA rights in Missouri and for officers in MO.

Let's not forget of course the Missouri Sherrif's association opposed permitless carry in MO... the same right conferred upon them under the LEOSA.

Oh wait... they're not the same as us... they're above us and OUR rights.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By madmacs69:
Originally Posted By Shootindave:
None of these LEOs coming out against it are actually saying what they are afraid of.

1) Losing federal grant money which funds their special units, equipment and overtime pay.

2) Losing out on property/asset seizure laws which kick in with these prosecutions.

The feds have already bought and paid for these guys by building the whole system around money.

How about Missouri Courts jail people for Missouri Crimes.  How about we stop jailing people for being drug addicts and jail people you seem to need the feds to jail.

Fix Missouri, don't rely on the Feds.



Well you missed the bit about having to work... instead of just filing reports AFTER the fact

Then again... it isn't about THEIR needs. It's about the fact that they took an oath, one that "they" seem all too willing to cast aside in favour of a power trip.

Maybe those police chiefs, officers, and sheriffs that dont support it should be looking at why they dont. If that is at odds with the rights of the people, the US constitution, or the Missouri constitution maybe that should find a new job.

Perhaps we should also remove any favourable "rights" that they have as police officers... they are afterall ONLY citizens. As such they should only have those rights afforded to ALL citizens. Let's start with removing LEOSA rights in Missouri and for officers in MO.

Let's not forget of course the Missouri Sherrif's association opposed permitless carry in MO... the same right conferred upon them under the LEOSA.

Oh wait... they're not the same as us... they're above us and OUR rights.

This is EXACTLY right.

Link Posted: 2/28/2021 5:08:42 PM EDT
The #1 rule to Politics: ALWAYS follow the money.

Top Top