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

you gave your opinion,, I gave you proof,,

and who said the BoR created rights?? it recognizes them and requires the government to protect them,,

No, there is nothing in the bill of rights saying any gov has any responsibility to protect any rights, just to not violate them.
You said the BoR created rights because you said "the people" wording of the 2nd amendment meant there was an individual right to firearms.
And I am saying the BoR creates nothing, and instead is just a promise by the feds they won't encroach over that border.
It is just a contractual agreement between states and the feds.
Since individuals did not sign it, it has no effect on individuals.
We are not party to it, so do not even have standing.
 
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.

/----/

Biden 'ignoring' federal law with sweeping executive ...

https://www.foxnews.com › politics › biden-executive-orders-immigration-texas-border
President Biden is 'ignoring' federal law with sweeping executive orders on immigration he has signed since taking office, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Sunday, creating a "huge risk" for ...

And what about democRATs' Sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with ICE?

Con Job: How Democrats Gave Us Crime, Sanctuary Cities ...

https://www.conservativebookclub.com › book › con-job-how-democrats-gave-us-crime-sanctuary-cities-abortion-profiteering-and-racial-division
**Exclusive CBC Author Interview with Crystal Wright** The Democrat Party likes to pose as the party of compassion. But where is the compassion in "sanctuary cities" that allow foreign criminals to prey on innocent Americans? Where is the compassion in encouraging envy and lawlessness? Crystal Wright isn't falling for the liberal con job any longer. A one-time (2008) Obama supporter herself ...
 
No, there is nothing in the bill of rights saying any gov has any responsibility to protect any rights, just to not violate them.
You said the BoR created rights because you said "the people" wording of the 2nd amendment meant there was an individual right to firearms.
And I am saying the BoR creates nothing, and instead is just a promise by the feds they won't encroach over that border.
It is just a contractual agreement between states and the feds.
Since individuals did not sign it, it has no effect on individuals.
We are not party to it, so do not even have standing.
youre dodging again,,
just show your proof or admitt its all just your opinion??
 
it recognizes them and requires the government to protect
Wrong.

Constitutional case law protects our rights and liberties, not the government.

Indeed, Constitutional case law checks government excess and overreach when the state seeks to violate those rights and protected liberties.

Constitutional case law dictates to government what limits and restrictions it may place on our rights and what limits and restrictions are beyond the scope of government authority.

With regard to the Second Amendment, its case law dictates to government what firearm regulatory measures are permitted and what are not.
 
Wrong.

Constitutional case law protects our rights and liberties, not the government.

Indeed, Constitutional case law checks government excess and overreach when the state seeks to violate those rights and protected liberties.

Constitutional case law dictates to government what limits and restrictions it may place on our rights and what limits and restrictions are beyond the scope of government authority.

With regard to the Second Amendment, its case law dictates to government what firearm regulatory measures are permitted and what are not.
of course you can show me where in the constitution case applies to anything about the constitution??


thats rhetorical because I know you cant because your premise is a lie and we all know case law is what progressives are using to subvert the constitution,,,

now run away you fucking scum sucking progressive mother fucker,,,
 
Last edited:
LIAR
Just as there’s no such thing as Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ states, there’s no such thing as ‘sanctuary cities.’

Whether it’s the enforcement of firearm laws or immigration laws, state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws.

The Federal government is at complete liberty to enforce Federal firearm laws and immigration laws in the states and local jurisdictions.

States cannot pass ‘laws’ that ‘prohibit’ the enforcement of Federal laws by Federal authorities, including Federal firearm laws – the notion is ignorant nonsense.
 
Just as there’s no such thing as Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ states, there’s no such thing as ‘sanctuary cities.’

Whether it’s the enforcement of firearm laws or immigration laws, state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws.

The Federal government is at complete liberty to enforce Federal firearm laws and immigration laws in the states and local jurisdictions.

States cannot pass ‘laws’ that ‘prohibit’ the enforcement of Federal laws by Federal authorities, including Federal firearm laws – the notion is ignorant nonsense.
based on the reality of everything you just said as being wrong your premise must and can only be a lie,,,
 
This is a lie.

Democrats do not ‘ignore’ Federal immigration laws.

Again, elected officials at the state and local level cannot be compelled by the Federal government to enforce Federal laws – whether they’re Democrats or Republicans.
its not so much your premise is a lie as you are just flat out lying now,,
 
How would a reasonable gun law, like requiring guns be kept away from infants, such as unloaded or locked, be an "infringement"
It isn’t.

Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Only the Supreme Court has the authority to determine if a given firearm regulatory measure is un-Constitutional.

And the doctrine of Presumed Constitutionality holds that all laws and measures are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – including firearm regulatory measures.
 
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.

The 2nd Amendment is very clear on the issue it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Any law instituted by the Federal government that interferes with a Constitutional right should be ignored by the States.
 
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.
Not exactly.

An Amendment in the Bill of Rights – or a clause of an Amendment in the Bill of Rights – is not applied (incorporated) to the states and local jurisdictions until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling pursuant to the doctrine of substantive due process.

For example, the Third Amendment has not been incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions; the Second Amendment was not incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see, McDonald v. Chicago).
 

Forum List

Back
Top