Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws

[Iamartiewhitefox]

Sure they can.... Democrats ignore federal immigration laws......and that's not even in the bill of rights........2A is.....can't erase it........no matter how hard you try

Yip, yip, yep. Satan wants to rule people with a dead thing that comes from nothing through people. People become what they behold, treating people as if they are nothing, wanting them to be dead. Democrat's want people to be dead, while at the same time think they are being good to people, contradicting themselves. Jesus is not like that. Jesus judges rightly. Left people are judging wrongly calling it sweet. Some are repenting of doing that. We need Jesus in our mind giving people the right to be like Adam and Eve, in the beginning. Anti - rights are against that, disguised as being rights.

 

[progressive hunter]

The Missouri gov most certainly CAN void federal gun laws.
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear that the federal government can only pass legislation on what it has been specifically authorized to pass in the Constitution.
And not only is the federal government not authorized to pass gun laws, but strictly prohibited by the 2nd amendment.
The Constitution divided jurisdictions between federal and state, with the feds getting zero firearm jurisdiction, and states getting 100% of federal jurisdiction.
So the Justice Dept. is totally crazy, out to lunch, criminal.
There can be no legal federal firearm law.

youre lying again,, as per the 2nd A neither the feds or the state can make legal gun laws,,,

unless of course you can point to where in the constitution the states can over ride federal law like the 2nd A and change it??

 

[progressive hunter]

The Second Amendment explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not to the states; and forbids infringement of this right.

There isno rational nor honest way to read into this Amendment any authority on the part of the states, nor any other level of government, to violate this right.

hes been pushing this lie for yrs and refuses to back it up with proof,,

 

[Rigby5]

That changed with the incorporation doctrine:

Which extends the protection of the Bill of Rights to the states?​

Which extends the protection of the Bill of Rights to the states?​

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution (known as the Bill of Rights) are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.​

I sort of agree in general, but the reason incorporation was not instant or automatic is that what is an individual right and what could infringe upon others is not that clear.
Since firearms could infringe upon other, some restrictions could be necessary.
For example, even though I do not like registration of firearms, if a local law was passed requiring registration, that by itself would not necessarily infringe, but could be defended as a compromise between the rights of all.
So the prohibition against all federal firearm laws is not so clear when it comes to local firearm laws.
Would all local firearm laws be a violation of the 14th?
No, as long as they were fair and useful in defending rights as a whole.

 

[progressive hunter]

I sort of agree in general, but the reason incorporation was not instant or automatic is that what is an individual right and what could infringe upon others is not that clear.
Since firearms could infringe upon other, some restrictions could be necessary.
For example, even though I do not like registration of firearms, if a local law was passed requiring registration, that by itself would not necessarily infringe, but could be defended as a compromise between the rights of all.
So the prohibition against all federal firearm laws is not so clear when it comes to local firearm laws.
Would all local firearm laws be a violation of the 14th?
No, as long as they were fair and useful in defending rights as a whole.

the 14th has nothing to do with the 2nd,,

 

[Rigby5]

Sorry. Where is the evidence that any exceptions are legal?

All gun laws are not automatically bad.
While all federal gun laws are automatically bad, that is only because they should be local.
And why not have local gun laws as the people want, to reflect differences between rural AL and urban NYC?
If for example NYC were to pass laws requiring firearm registration, how would that be an infringement?
It could be useful in terms of trying to trace guns if they are stolen.

 

[Rigby5]

youre lying again,, as per the 2nd A neither the feds or the state can make legal gun laws,,,

unless of course you can point to where in the constitution the states can over ride federal law like the 2nd A and change it??

How would a reasonable gun law, like requiring guns be kept away from infants, such as unloaded or locked, be an "infringement"
The 2nd amendment does not say there are to be NO gun law, just that gun rights should not be "infringed".
A law requiring safe storage does not "infringe" in my opinion.

 

[progressive hunter]

All gun laws are not automatically bad.
While all federal gun laws are automatically bad, that is only because they should be local.
And why not have local gun laws as the people want, to reflect differences between rural AL and urban NYC?
If for example NYC were to pass laws requiring firearm registration, how would that be an infringement?
It could be useful in terms of trying to trace guns if they are stolen.

you have the same views as hitler ,stalin and other despots,,,

 

[Rigby5]

hes been pushing this lie for yrs and refuses to back it up with proof,,

A right to keep arms does not mean laws can't be passed to say how those armed are to be kept.

 

[progressive hunter]

How would a reasonable gun law, like requiring guns be kept away from infants, such as unloaded or locked, be an "infringement"
The 2nd amendment does not say there are to be NO gun law, just that gun rights should not be "infringed".
A law requiring safe storage does not "infringe" in my opinion.

we dont care about your opinion,,,
fact is any law that restricts, limits or controls is an infringement,,

 

[progressive hunter]

A right to keep arms does not mean laws can't be passed to say how those armed are to be kept.

what do you think the word "KEEP" means??

again your opinion means nothing,,

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

I sort of agree in general, but the reason incorporation was not instant or automatic is that what is an individual right and what could infringe upon others is not that clear.
Since firearms could infringe upon other, some restrictions could be necessary.
For example, even though I do not like registration of firearms, if a local law was passed requiring registration, that by itself would not necessarily infringe, but could be defended as a compromise between the rights of all.
So the prohibition against all federal firearm laws is not so clear when it comes to local firearm laws.
Would all local firearm laws be a violation of the 14th?
No, as long as they were fair and useful in defending rights as a whole.

We need to not even think of gun laws. Swords were the guns in Christs day. Jesus wanted a sword to be in gethsemane. It has to do with the mind that has gun, or sword.

 

[AZrailwhale]

It would be nice if conservatives would at least READ the US Constitution before they pass laws that won't be upheld upon a court challenge, thereby wasting everyone's time in the process. Instead, it would be nice if they spent their time actually working to get things done for the people. But I guess that's too much to ask..

__________________________________________________________

Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws​

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can’t ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

“The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

President Joe Biden has made gun control laws a priority of his administration, and the House has passed two bills requiring background checks on firearms sales and an expanded review for gun purchases, though they face a tough road in the Senate. But states, including Missouri, have increasingly worked to loosen gun laws, including abandoning requirements that people get training and pass background checks to carry concealed handguns.

Missouri’s law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce any federal laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.

Republican lawmakers who worked to pass the bill have said they were motivated by the potential of more restrictive gun laws in the Biden administration. But state Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and have predicted it would not pass a challenge in the courts.

The Justice Department argued in the letter that the state lacks the authority to shield any Missouri businesses or citizens from federal law or to prevent federal law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties.

Boynton said the bill “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Eric Schmitt, the state’s attorney general, clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.

Six states have passed legislation removing or weakening concealed-carry permit requirements this year, most recently Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Wednesday. About 20 states now allow people to carry concealed weapons without a license. At least three other states have passed legislation banning police from enforcing federal gun laws, a preemptive shot at any new measures passed by Democrats.

Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws

The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can’t ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules. In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S...

www.aol.com

Actually he can forbid local and state LEOs from enforcing federal law. It's been done by several states, including California, with regards to federal immigration law. If the Feds want to spend the manpower, he can't stop them, but even then he can make it hard for them to do so by things like not allowing the Feds to use local and county jails to warehouse the gun owners they arrest.

 

[bendog]

Interesting but irrelevant. The federal government relies on local law enforcement to refer immigration violations to them and detain immigration violators until federal LE can respond. Your fellow DemoKKKrats in the "sanctuary cities" derelicted those duties and instructed their officers to ignore the laws.

You are trying to make an analogy between a state/local govt refusing to use it's tax funds to enforce a fed law and a state fining police for enforcing a fed law. One is legal the other is not. Whether the policy is good or bad is the issue you choose to bypass.

 

[Iamartiewhitefox]

We need to not even think about gun laws. Swords were guns in Christs day. Jesus wanted a sword to be in gethsemane. It has to do with the mind that has a gun, or sword. Jesus will judge whoever, not the Unseen Father. Fear him.

 

[Rigby5]

the 14th has nothing to do with the 2nd,,

Of course the 14th has something to do with all the Bill of Rights.
The 14 is saying that the Bill of Rights is no longer just restrictions on the federal government, but also on all governments and inviduals.

An example is the right to trial of the 5th amendment.
{...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[95]
...}
Were Blacks in the south accorded 5th amendment rights?
Of course not.
So then clearly the Bill of Rights was not considered protection of individual rights until the 14th amendment.

If you mean the 2nd amendment meant absolutely no firearm laws at all, federal, state, or local, that would be illogical.
That would mean someone could hand a loaded pistol to an infant, and the police could do nothing about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

Of course the 14th has something to do with all the Bill of Rights.
The 14 is saying that the Bill of Rights is no longer just restrictions on the federal government, but also on all governments and inviduals.

An example is the right to trial of the 5th amendment.
{...
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[95]
...}
Were Blacks in the south accorded 5th amendment rights?
Of course not.
So then clearly the Bill of Rights was not considered protection of individual rights until the 14th amendment.

If you mean the 2nd amendment meant absolutely no firearm laws at all, federal, state, or local, that would be illogical.
That would mean someone could hand a loaded pistol to an infant, and the police could do nothing about it.

your pathetic analogies has nothing to do with the real world,,,
whats wrong with handing a gun to an infant??? unless it does something illegal with it no harm is done,,

the only way to change or repeal the 2nd is with an amendment that directly does that and the 14th doesnt mention the 2nd,,

 

[Rigby5]

More rightwing ignorance of the law – or contempt for the law.

Only Congress can enact Federal firearm regulatory measures, not the president.

Congress is strictly prohibited from enacting federal firearm regulatory measures.
Only state and local are at all legal.

 

[progressive hunter]

Congress is strictly prohibited from enacting federal firearm regulatory measures.
Only state and local are at all legal.

again with your opinion,,

are you ever going to show us where the constitution allows that??

 

[AZrailwhale]

And no one is stating otherwise.

But should Congress enact a new AWB, prohibiting the sale of AR 15s, then that becomes the law of the land, states and local jurisdictions will be subject to that law, and there won’t be anything state governments can do about it.

Commercial gun dealers must operate pursuant to a Federal firearms license (FFL).

If an FFL violates the new AWB and sells AR 15s, he’d be subject to Federal prosecution, enforced by Federal authorities.

Indeed, state authorities aren’t expected to enforce Federal firearm laws to begin with, rendering this ‘sanctuary’ state nonsense moot and irrelevant.

Possession of Marijuana is a federal crime. Exactly how many local and state governments are enforcing THAT law? In most states it's either completely legal, or a ticket at worst. Liberals can't have it both ways, they can't force local and state governments to enforce restrictions on gun rights while not forcing state and local governments to enforce federal drug laws.