Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“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.” ibid
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution – the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Federal law supersedes that of state and local laws; a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron (1958).
again with your opinion,,
are you ever going to show us where the constitution allows that??
again with the pathetic analogies,,,The constitution allows anything not specifically prohibited.
Are you claiming that any gun law at all would be an infringement?
What about someone who wants to conduct target practice while drunk in a casino?
the federal government had to resort to blackmail to get most states to enforce the 55 limit. It threatened to cut all federal highway funds to any state that didn't enforce the limit. I believe Montana was the only state to stand up to the blackmail.Wrong.
Federal law only trumps state law when both have equal jurisdiction.
But since the federal government is totally bared any and all firearms jurisdiction, then there can be no legal federal firearm laws at all.
This is like when the federal government passed the 55 mph speed limit law.
Lots of states just laughed at the feds because that was not legal.
There can be no federal speed limit law.
Traffic with in a state is totally under state jurisdiction.
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,,
whats obvious is irrelevant,, and generalities dont cut it,,The harm in handing a loaded gun to an infant is obvious.
The 14t amendment does not directly mention anything, but only lists generalities.
{...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
...}
Notice the similarity to the 5th amendment?
Which means that the 5th amendment was not considered protection against state and local infringement until after the 14th.
And they are no more legal than the federal laws promoting racial segregation and the return of fugitive slaves were. Just because a law gets passed and a court friendly to federal overreach approves is doesn't make it constitutional or right. Ever since FDR packed the court, SCOTUS has been friendly to the expansion of federal powers over state powers.There can be "no federal firearms laws at all"?
You'd better look closer because there ARE federal firearm laws!
again with the pathetic analogies,,,
the 2nd is about keeping and bearing not randomly shooting in a casino,,
just show the proof?? shpouldnt be that hard,,
whats obvious is irrelevant,, and generalities dont cut it,,
you said the states can rewrite the bill of rights, now show your proof??
If California can void immigration laws. Than yes the governor can void what he wants as well. Even Biden went against a court order on it.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
shooting in a casino is not a gun law dumbass,, its an action of a person,,Laws are generalities intended to be widely applied by judges who understand abstractions.
You are beginning to show a lack of legal understanding.
You just admitted to there being a need for SOME gun laws, which means gun laws are not automatically an infringement.
Again, does in infant have the inherent right to keep and bear firearms?
And I think it is clear the answer is no.
So then laws defining gun rights limits have to be acceptable, as long as they do not "infringe".
not all of the BoR's is a restriction,,No, you are saying the Bill of Rights was absolute and restricted all levels of government, not just federal.
And clearly that is not true, or else slavery would have been instantly illegal in 1786.
And they are no more legal than the federal laws promoting racial segregation and the return of fugitive slaves were. Just because a law gets passed and a court friendly to federal overreach approves is doesn't make it constitutional or right. Ever since FDR packed the court, SCOTUS has been friendly to the expansion of federal powers over state powers.
People ignore God's law that is eternal. Jesus keeps that law through us. Jesus will call for people to keep other laws, that are not his heavenly, peacful, loving laws? People who keep God's laws, will end up being attacked, when people refuse keep God's peacful laws, not talking about them. Love works no ill to your neighbour is one. The lack of a gifting world, not obeying ask and receive, will make people to break that law, when money is used. it is arbitrarily hurting people, who don't have money. It is a punish whoever world. God does not want to see that.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??
shooting in a casino is not a gun law dumbass,, its an action of a person,,
now show your proof like I did when I pointed out the 10th says the people as does the 2nd,,,
where does the constitution allow the states to rewrite the bill of rights??
not all of the BoR's is a restriction,,
and please stop changing the subject and show your proof??
youre dodging again,,As I have pointed out, no one ever considered the Bill of Rights to over ride states until the 14th amendment, and even then is was not automatic.
Obviously the only way to prevent a drunk shooting target practice in a casino is with laws.
thanks for your opinion,, but what we are looking for is proof,,No one considered the Bill of Rights to be anything but federal restrictions until the 14th amendment.
youre dodging again,,
show your proof or stop pushing what you know at this point is a lie,,
thanks for your opinion,, but what we are looking for is proof,,
you gave your opinion,, I gave you proof,,I gave you proof.
If anyone considered the Bill of Rights to apply against states as individual rights protections, then the civil war would not have been 80 years later.
In fact, even now all those in jail by BATF arrests is proof that they do not consider all the federal gun laws to be an "infringement".
You and I think they are wrong, but that is only an opinion.
As for "proof", you are looking at this backwards.
The Bill of Rights did not and can not "create" rights.
Rights have to always exist, and what you need to do is get a consensus, so that they these rights can be defended by legislation.
It will always be subjective what different people consider to be inherent rights, so there can never be what one would consider "proof".
After all, amendments like Prohibition have later been proven wrong and repealed. Nothing is sacred or carved in stone.
We are all just trying to figure out what might be best, not just now, but forever.
