Video- Missouri House passes red light camera, speeding bill

Davis on gun bill: We have no obligation to obey unconstitutional federal laws

(In a segment of his latest report, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, explains why he supports the Second Amendment Preservation Act.)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When these words were ratified by the early states as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the men who drafted them were understandably wary of a centralized government with no checks on its authority. Patrick Henry warned his fellow Founders:

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Henry wasn’t the only Founder who cited the need to stay on guard against a power-hungry government. George Mason highlighted English attempts to disarm colonists. Noah Webster astutely observed that, “[b]efore a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.” The man many consider the “father of the Constitution,” James Madison, described the kingdoms of Europe with disdain as “afraid to trust the people with arms” and assured his countrymen that the right to keep and bear arms would ensure that citizens would never need to fear their government. And early academic commentaries by noted legal scholars lauded the Amendment, with one saying that the right to keep and bear arms “may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.”

The downfall of civilizations comes when they forget their roots. Sadly, too many in power today have either forgotten their roots, believe that they “don’t apply in the modern world,” or view them with disdain. Luckily, the Founders contemplated this as well, and crafted a government that reserves certain powers for the federal government while preserving all other powers for the states—to ensure that the federal government could never garner enough power to quash the will of the people.

That is why I joined with my colleagues in co-signing HB 1439, the Second Amendment Preservation Act. This is a crucial bill that prevents federal overreach by recognizing the Second Amendment as preserving a right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Further, the bill recognizes the Tenth Amendment as the Founder’s intention to make each as the intended arbiter of the power to make laws regarding the everyday life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

In addition, the Senate has passed a very similar version with SB 613. Today, the House General Laws Committee passed SB 613. It will go to the floor from here. With passage of either bill, any attempt by the federal government to infringe on your right to self-defense will be invalid in Missouri.

Some critics will deride these bills as unconstitutional and an attempt at nullification. They are well-intentioned, but misguided in their belief. While nobody disputes that Congress has the power to regulate true interstate commerce, Congress often uses “interstate commerce” as a catch-all to justify well-meaning but unconstitutional bills that have nothing to do with interstate commerce. There is absolutely no obligation on the part of any state to recognize unconstitutional acts of Congress. This is not overriding federal law—instead, this is a declaration that such laws are not valid or constitutional.

No person in Missouri should ever be put in fear of being made a felon by the simple act of exercising their constitutional rights. With passage of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, they will be able to rest assured that they will never encounter that situation—now, or in the future.

House bill designed to protect funerals from protesters

(In a segment of his latest newsletter, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, addresses a new bill that would protect funerals from the members of the Westboro Baptist Church.)

On April 26, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit struck down a statute passed by the Missouri General Assembly back in 2006 creating the crime of "unlawful funeral protest". The purpose of that law was to protect individuals who were burying their loved ones from the disruption of a small, but radical group who are members of a church in Kansas.

In 2005, this "church" began picketing near the funerals of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines. They claim a right to this activity in a public place so that they may deliver their religious message to their intended audience in a timely and relevant manner. At the soldiers' funerals, members of this group display signs containing such statements as "God Hates Fags," "Divorce Plus Remarriage Equals Adultery," "God Hates Adultery," "God Hates the USA," "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Priests Rape Boys," "Fags Doom Nations," and "9-11: Gift From God." Since 1989, members of this same church have picketed in order to publicize their religious message and to fulfill their asserted obligation to warn society of God's wrath. As a result of this court decision, Missouri residents currently have little protection from this disturbing activity.

Stanley Cox is the sponsor of House Bill 1372 designed to fix the problem in the prior legislation. The obvious challenge is to balance the constitutional protection of free speech for the protestors with the rights of funeral attendees to mourn in peace and privacy. According to the Court of Appeals, the prior language was too broad when it tried to include the “procession” in the protected zone. The language in his bill has been tested in a different case involving the City of Manchester and is not likely to result in the expensive litigation that followed the earlier bill.

The bill’s language states that, " A person commits the offense of unlawful funeral protest if he or she pickets or engages in other protest activities within three hundred feet of any residence, cemetery, funeral home, church, synagogue, or other establishment during or within one hour before or one hour after the conducting of any actual funeral or burial service at that place". A violation of the statute is a B misdemeanor which is punishable with a fine or up to 6 months in jail.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the Patriot Guard Riders for their service all across Missouri and other states. This private organization shows their sincere respect for our lost heroes, their families, and their communities by shielding the mourning family and their friends from interruptions created by any protestor or group of protestors. This organization has done a wonderful service in numerous locations across our state in recent years. Hopefully, this bill will make it through the legislative process, receive the governor's signature and provide even more protection to the families of our fallen service men and service women.

Video- Tim Jones discusses past week in Missouri House

KSN Video- Missouri House passes new child abuse investigation bill

A report from KSN's Sydney Ryan

Charlie Davis: This is the year we will reduce taxes in Missouri

In a portion of his latest newsletter, Rep. Charlie Davis, R-Webb City, talks about legislation passed by the House to lower taxes for Missourians and Missouri businesses.

Last year saw the legislature engage in a public battle with the governor as he fought to deny a tax cut your legislature wanted to provide to hard- working Missourians. His reasoning at the time was based on economic fallacies including a false assertion that cutting the tax rate would jeopardize funding for education. The governor also employed other illogical arguments as he wasted taxpayer dollars in the new taxpayer funded plane he purchased to campaign all over the state against lowering your tax burden. The end result was a veto of the tax cut we passed and a decision made by those of us here in the legislature to revisit the issue this year.

This week we made good on our promise to renew our effort to reduce your tax burden as we approved two bills to lower that burden for both Missouri families and businesses. The first bill (HB 1253) would implement a 50 percent deduction for business income. It also would cut corporate income tax from 6.25 percent to 3.125 percent over a period of five years. For these tax savings to be phased in, state revenues would have to remain above the level they were in 2012 (the largest budget in state history at that time). The bill would reduce the tax burden on Missouri businesses by nearly $350 million per year.

The second bill (HB 1295) implements a reduction of the individual income tax rate from 6 percent to 5.3 percent over a period of seven years. It also increases the current deduction for individuals who earn less than $20,000 annually from $2,100 to $3,100. The bill also includes the business income tax deduction. To protect education funding, the legislation also requires revenues to increase by $150 million annually. In addition, the bill specifies that of the revenue increase, $60 million would go to public schools and $30 million to higher education in each year. The bill is estimated to produce a tax savings for Missourians of more than $700 million annually.

I am excited that we have moved these bills to the Senate so early in the process, and equally thrilled that our Senate counterparts are hard at work on their own versions of a tax cut. This week we also saw Missouri Attorney General Koster publicly support lowering the tax burden here in Missouri because he believes that will create a better business climate. Even more encouraging is that our governor is starting to understand that the public desires a reduction in our tax burdens and so even he is now indicating he will support lowering your tax burden.

It seems like this will be the year that we will reduce taxes in Missouri and open the door for growth and opportunity for families and businesses. We have seen in states like Oklahoma, Kansas and Tennessee where a lowered tax burden actually causes revenues to go up rather than down. As we look to position Missouri for long-term economic prosperity it is imperative that we allow our citizens and businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars so they can reinvest in their communities. After all, you know far better how to spend your money than does the government.

Liberty Republican explains why he thinks term limits should be changed

In his latest report to constituents, Rep. Myron Neth, R-Liberty, explains his bill which would change Missouri's current term limits, and judging from his tone, he is not happy with people who are questioning his motives.

As you may or may not know, I recently filed legislation to give the voters a choice to modify term limits in Missouri. For those of you that I represent, you probably received a flyer in the mail last week criticizing my term limits proposal. While somewhat misleading, this flyer sparked responses from many constituents, most of which have been unfavorable to this legislation.  

 I have attempted to respond to those that contacted me regarding this issue by sending an editorial outlining my arguments for the change along with a list of facts about term limits, both prior and after they were implemented. Although I attempt to present legitimate points and evidence in support of my proposal, I am again surprised by the close-mindedness of individuals unwilling to listen and understand the reasoning behind this legislation. Most of those opposed to me insist that their opinions are the only opinions, and for the most part, that I am an idiotic politician only wishing to further a political career.

 Although I cannot prove it to you now, I promise you that I have no desire to stay in politics long term. Instead, I have the goal to better government and the possibility that elected representatives in Missouri are able to excel at their positions while serving in the legislature. To do this, we need legislators who concentrate on the interests of their constituents, rather than pondering their next step politically or career-wise. We also need to lessen the power of lobbyists and special interests in legislature. Ironically, term limits have steadily increased the power of lobbyists due to the fact that they have been around longer than most legislators and are more knowledgeable about legislative issues. This creates a situation where legislators seek out lobbyists for information, thus making lobbyists' influence even more powerful. At the same time, we need to ensure that lawmakers do not become entrenched and out of touch by allowing voters to elect those whom they feel best represents them but also keep term limits intact.

 To my critics, I understand where you are coming from and you make some good points. However, until you are in my shoes or something similar, it is ignorant for you to quickly assume that I have ulterior motives for modifying term limits rather than simply seeking to improve our legislature. And for those of you that were very abrasive and believe you can do a better job than me, there is an upcoming election. I welcome you to throw your hat in the ring and go for it.

 Forgive some of my bluntness and strong tone at times. However, the longer I am in my position, and I can promise even when I am not, I will always work to relate to our elected officials and the unique challenges that face them.  And although I may not always agree with someone in office, I will always look to respect where they are coming from. I would suggest that there are many sides to an argument and, in most cases, validity on both sides even though there may be disagreement between the parties involved. 

House Committee hears testimony on right-to-work legislation

Video- Missouri House Republicans' Opening Day Press Conference