This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon: The National Rifle Association hasn't been shy about touting Missouri-based bills that earned its support.
When Gov. Matt Blunt signed the so-called Castle Doctrine and 鈥淗unting Heritage Protection Areas Act鈥� bills, NRA lobbyist Chris Cox joined the Republican chief executive on his signing tour. Cox said in
Earlier that year, Blunt signed legislation barring firearms confiscation at the NRA鈥檚 national convention in St. Louis. Cox
But compared to its loquacious nature in 2007, the NRA has been downright silent about the 鈥淪econd Amendment Preservation Act.鈥�
that "all past, present, or future federal acts, laws, orders, rules, or regulations that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms" are "invalid, will not be recognized, are specifically rejected, and will be considered null and void and of no effect in this state." It also states that 鈥渁ny official, agent, or employee of the United States government鈥� who enforces or attempts to enforce 鈥渁ny of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included [in the bill]鈥� is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill -- also known as HB 436 -- earlier this summer, . The legislation
Some detractors of the bill have cited the bill to showcase how the so-called 鈥済un lobby鈥� has run amok. After Nixon's veto, Melissa Brooks of the St. Louis Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America thanked the governor for
But if prominent gun rights groups such as the NRA had a hand in getting HB 436 across the finish line, they aren鈥檛 saying much about it. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam never returned a call from the Beacon asking whether his organization had an opinion on the bill or considered it a 鈥渞ated鈥� vote.
According to a committee summary, the By comparison,
The NRA鈥檚 relative silence on the bill appears to be par for the course. When ProPublica wrote about similar legislation The group鈥檚 spokesman also didn鈥檛 respond to the publication鈥檚 request for a comment.
In a telephone interview, Funderburk, R-St. Charles, told the Beacon he鈥檚 been studying the idea of the states actively combating overreaching federal laws for some time. While he said other groups and individuals have shared their thoughts and ideas, he added that the NRA had no role in getting his bill passed.
鈥淭he NRA has had absolutely no involvement with this effort whatsoever and has never indicated that they would like to have any involvement,鈥� Funderburk said 鈥淚鈥檓 not saying that they don鈥檛 support it, but I鈥檓 definitely saying I don鈥檛 know if they do.鈥�
鈥淚 think it might fall a little bit outside of what their scope and their mission is,鈥� he added. 鈥淭he NRA has kept its distance from this type and kind of efforts and are still doing so today. And I鈥檓 OK with that.鈥�
ProPublica noted that a group known as the Tenth Amendment Center has been supportive of 鈥済un nullification鈥� efforts. That organization to use. and Concerned Women for America of Missouri also support the proposal.
Rep. Jeremy LaFaver, D-Kansas City, said last Wednesday that the lack of comment from the nation鈥檚 largest and most powerful gun rights group sends a strong message to people considering overriding Funderburk's bill.
鈥淚 think that more rational Second Amendment believers are looking at this and going 鈥榳ell wait a minute 鈥� maybe this doesn鈥檛 make the most sense,鈥欌�� LaFaver said. 鈥淎nd certainly when the NRA 鈥� the NRA of all organizations 鈥� is going 鈥榶eah, we鈥檙e going to stay clear of this one,鈥� I think that should give people some pause.鈥�
But after noting that his bill has been more of a 鈥済rassroots鈥� effort than a top-down push by a powerful interest group, Funderburk said his bill 鈥� and the likely pursuit to override Nixon鈥檚 veto 鈥� have received broad support from the public.
He said the bill鈥檚 detractors 鈥渨ant to look at people like me as a layperson that doesn鈥檛 know what he鈥檚 talking about and try to make a mockery of my efforts.鈥�
鈥淎nd that鈥檚 fine,鈥� Funderburk said. 鈥淏ut this is the effort of thousands of people from all over the country. I have been contacted by eight different state legislatures who are interested in this legislation.鈥�
鈥淎nd they are all sitting back waiting to see if we鈥檙e going to override the governor鈥檚 veto,鈥� he added. 鈥淎nd we are.鈥�
Override anyway
Indeed, it鈥檚 increasingly likely that lawmakers will override Nixon鈥檚 objection when they return on Sept. 11 for veto session.
Funderburk said he put the bill forward because he wanted 鈥渢o make sure that Missourians are protected from the vacillations鈥� and 鈥渨ild schemes鈥� out of 鈥渨hat has proven to be, especially over the last 6 or 8 years, an incompetent Congress.鈥� House Speaker Tim Jones, R-Eureka,
And it鈥檚 not only Republicans like Jones that feel that way. Both and reported that a number of House Democrats 鈥� some from rural parts of the state -- that are poised to override Nixon. Even Democrats in safe districts 鈥� like Rep. Keith English, D-Florissant 鈥�
But if a major political and organizational force like the National Rifle Association isn鈥檛 engaged in the bill or isn鈥檛 promising political retribution for non-support, then why are Republicans and some Democrats so eager to override Nixon鈥檚 veto?
鈥淭hat鈥檚 a great question. I don鈥檛 know why,鈥� LaFaver said. 鈥淚鈥檝e been a hunter ever since I was little. I don鈥檛 get it. I really don鈥檛 understand it.鈥�
When posed with a similar question earlier this month, Rep. Mike Colona, D-St. Louis, responded 鈥渢he Grand Old Party鈥檚 very good at these wedge issues. And that鈥檚 what this is. It鈥檚 a wedge issue.鈥�
鈥淵ou know, you come down to Tower Grove where gun violence has increased and you ask my constituents do we want to relax gun control laws? Heck no. You ask a law abiding gun owner if they want to make it easier for convicted felons to have guns? Heck no,鈥� . 鈥淏ut I think what happens is you have folks that push the wedge issues for pure political position. And then you have folks like Rep. Funderburk who truly believe in what he鈥檚 doing.鈥�
Some Democrats 鈥� including Rep. T.J. McKenna 鈥� have faced some backlash. McKenna, D-Jefferson County,
But Colona said 鈥渋t took more guts for him to say what he said than for him to say 鈥榦h no no. I鈥檓 going to vote to sustain the veto because principally it鈥檚 the right thing to do.鈥欌�� He went onto say that Republicans could target Democrats in competitive districts for voting against anything labeled a 鈥済un bill.鈥�
鈥淲e have principle and then we have practicality,鈥� Colona said. 鈥淎nd for Rep. McKenna to say 鈥業鈥檝e got to be practical here. My district really wants this. And if I鈥檓 going to come back and represent these people, I got to vote my district.鈥�"
On his own?
If Funderburk鈥檚 bill comes up for an override vote, at least one Republican plans to vote against overturning Nixon鈥檚 veto.
After noting that 鈥渙ur first duty is to defend the Constitution,鈥� Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, told the Beacon that Funderburk鈥檚 鈥渂ill is clearly unconstitutional.鈥�
鈥淎s I said to the AP, the Constitution is not a cheap Chinese buffet. We don鈥檛 get to pick the parts we like and discard the ones that we don鈥檛,鈥� Barnes said. 鈥淓ach part of the Constitution has meaning. There鈥檚 two centuries of jurisprudence that shows it鈥檚 unconstitutional. It鈥檚 an easy vote.鈥�
Among other things, Barnes joined others contending a provision restricting publications from publishing somebody鈥檚 gun ownership or conceal and carry information was unconstitutional. He went onto say that the bill embraces an idea 鈥渢hat the Missouri General Assembly is going to dictate in a bill that we passed which federal laws are constitutional and which are not.
鈥淎fter we have made that determination for which we have no legal authority to make, the bill makes it a crime for a federal official to enforce federal gun laws 鈥� including a federal ban on the knowing sale of a firearm to a convicted felon and to a person adjudicated mentally incompetent,鈥� said Barnes, who is an attorney. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 another area of unconstitutionality. 鈥� We cannot criminalize the carrying out of federal law by federal law enforcement officials.鈥�
Asked about the NRA鈥檚 lack of involvement with the bill and why he thought his colleagues planned to override, Barnes said: 鈥淎s to the first question, I can鈥檛 speak for the NRA. As to the second question, I can鈥檛 speak for other individual members. You鈥檙e asking me to speak for others. And the only person I can speak for is myself.鈥�
For his part, Funderburk praised Barnes as a 鈥済reat guy鈥� and a 鈥渟mart guy.鈥� But he also said 鈥淚 continually try him remind him that he is a product of more recent education and indoctrination.鈥�
鈥淭hey want to wipe away the 10th Amendment and say we all should bow to the crowns in Washington, D.C., and the states are almost irrelevant and shouldn鈥檛 be involved in the decision making process,鈥� Funderburk said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 pretty much what they鈥檙e taught in law school today. I tell Jay 鈥榶ou鈥檝e been recently educated and indoctrinated. But I鈥檓 looking at the teaching of the Founding Fathers.鈥欌��
On the Trail, a weekly column, weaves together some of the intriguing threads from the world of Missouri politics.
