Posted: 5/20/2013 3:19:19 PM EDT
| Hello, it is to my knowledge that HB 436 has passed and the only step left is a signature from Gov. Nixon. Is this true? If that is true, how long can Nixon put it off before he has to sign or veto it? |
|
He can sign it into law, veto it, or choose not to sign it (in which case it still becomes law.)
Usually the drop dead date for any of this, is in early July. But if they got it in by a certain day, that date gets moved up into May. Either way, it won't go into effect until late August, unless there's an emergency clause in there. If he veto's it, the vote to override takes place in September. |
|
http://prcnews.org/2013/05/09/veto-proof-second-amendment-preservation-act-passes-in-missouri/
The votes in both the House and Senate are by a strong veto-proof majority. Local activist Matt Radcliffe acknowledged as much when he said, “Governor Nixon can do nothing and it will automatically become law July 1st. Or he can sign it into law. Or he can veto it then his veto will be overridden in the house and it will become law anyway!” I think the best we can hope for is Jay will do nothing making it law. |
|
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. Agreed. Just wish he'd stand behind the 2A. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. Agreed. Just wish he'd stand behind the 2A. We are speaking about Gov. Jay Nixon, right?  
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. Agreed. Just wish he'd stand behind the 2A. We are speaking about Gov. Jay Nixon, right? LOL... A guy can dream though right? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. Agreed. Just wish he'd stand behind the 2A. We are speaking about Gov. Jay Nixon, right? LOL... A guy can dream though right? "It is important that we do not confuse nullification with the states sovereign authority to refuse enforcement of federal laws. Several Supreme Court cases such as Printz versus the United States, New York versus United States, as well as Prigg versus Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has ruled that states are under no obligation to provide assistance personnel or resources to assist the federal government enforcement of federal laws." http://getmessmerized.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/states-take-a-stand-on-second-amendment-2/ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nixon has stated that he's going to "sit on" this one... No veto... And no signature... This way he can be the little bitch he is and try to appease both sides. Could be worse I suppose. If this is the case, then cheer up since it still becomes law on the 28th of August. Agreed. Just wish he'd stand behind the 2A. We are speaking about Gov. Jay Nixon, right? LOL... A guy can dream though right? "It is important that we do not confuse nullification with the states sovereign authority to refuse enforcement of federal laws. Several Supreme Court cases such as Printz versus the United States, New York versus United States, as well as Prigg versus Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court has ruled that states are under no obligation to provide assistance personnel or resources to assist the federal government enforcement of federal laws." http://getmessmerized.wordpress.com/2013/05/29/states-take-a-stand-on-second-amendment-2/ Absolutely correct, but states may NOT interfere with the federal authorities enforcement of federal laws and states may not criminalize that enforcement. On a related subject, I think it still needs to be seen if the federal government may tell states that they MUST NOT enforce federal law -- such as immigration laws. |