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

[ThunderKiss1965]

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

This is incorrect.
If you read the Constitution, the 9th and 10th amendment clearly say that congress can only pass laws on areas where congress has been explicitly be authorized to do so by the Constitution.
And the only mention of firearms in the Constitution, is the 2nd amendment which apparently prohibits any and all federal firearm jurisdiction.

Not only can Missouri void federal gun laws, but anyone sworn to uphold the constitution has to.
The constitution clearly gave absolutely zero firearms jurisdiction to the federal government.
The law is quite clear, and the federal government is clearly in violation of the constitution, which is superior to Congress.

it also restricts the states from making gun laws,,,

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.

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

and as the 10th clearly says,, the people,, and since the 2nd says the people,, neither the feds nor the states have any say as to arms,,

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.

that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

dont let them control you and fight for your rights,,

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.

States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.

Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

And before the 14th amendment, they absolutely could and did.

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

Shall not be infringed. Any law passed by the Federal, State and or local government that interferes with a law abiding citizens right to bare arms is unconstitutional and should be ignored.

Interferes with a law abiding citizens right to 'bare' arms (like sleeveless Ts?), according to who?

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.

I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.

It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.

Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.

And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period that's it. Any law that limits that right is an infringement. There is no other way to interpret it. You want to play word games and shit because you have no real argument.

I see this and it's not quite correct. The Constitution also lays out the process that one may have their rights removed from them. The Constitution also grants the right of free association but if you are in prison, you no longer have that right.

The right to own a gun can be infringed but it has to be done through proper due process.

My first comment mentioned law abiding citizens.

 

[progressive hunter]

Texas should declare machine guns legal to purchase and own by residents of Texas and tell the DOJ to suck a fat dick and to try and stop it!

Why not missile launchers than can bring down planes? Why not nuclear weapons. I mean, they're all 'arms', according to you, yes?

we should have those also,,, cant defend a country with slingshots,,,

So you're advocating for the private ownership and use of missile launchers and nuclear weapons by private citizens?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme with the nuke bullshit??

if it were me they wouldnt exist,, but since they do you dont have a problem with just democrats and republicans having them,, me not so much,,

as for the rest of the personal arms issue,, we should be allowed to have what ever can be used against us,, not sure how you protect a country with slingshots,,

Why not nukes? Bazookas? Machine guns? RPGs? Should't any random person be able to purchase a shoulder mounted missile launcher that can take down an airliner?

I mean, arms are arms, right.......isn't that what you're arguing?

what is it with you guys and nukes and big shit,, we are talking about simple arms that a person can carry into battle,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is it that you are having trouble understanding?

Where is the power granted to the states, or to any part of government, to infringe this right which belongs to the people?

The 2nd amendment was not clear what the right of the people was, so it is hard to say what state or local restrictions may be reasonable.
For example, if there were to be local firearm registration, like there is in Switzerland, I am not sure that is any hinderance?

IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!
"the right to keep and bear arms"

a registration would be a hinderance if I refused to register,,

The courts have never found this to be the case. So what constitutional violation are you referring to?

the courts have discredited themselves to the point they no longer matter unless youre a useful idiot,,

 

[InspectorDetector]

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

This is incorrect.
If you read the Constitution, the 9th and 10th amendment clearly say that congress can only pass laws on areas where congress has been explicitly be authorized to do so by the Constitution.
And the only mention of firearms in the Constitution, is the 2nd amendment which apparently prohibits any and all federal firearm jurisdiction.

Not only can Missouri void federal gun laws, but anyone sworn to uphold the constitution has to.
The constitution clearly gave absolutely zero firearms jurisdiction to the federal government.
The law is quite clear, and the federal government is clearly in violation of the constitution, which is superior to Congress.

it also restricts the states from making gun laws,,,

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.

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

and as the 10th clearly says,, the people,, and since the 2nd says the people,, neither the feds nor the states have any say as to arms,,

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.

that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

dont let them control you and fight for your rights,,

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.

States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.

Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

And before the 14th amendment, they absolutely could and did.

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

Shall not be infringed. Any law passed by the Federal, State and or local government that interferes with a law abiding citizens right to bare arms is unconstitutional and should be ignored.

Interferes with a law abiding citizens right to 'bare' arms (like sleeveless Ts?), according to who?

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.

I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.

It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.

Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.

And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period that's it. Any law that limits that right is an infringement. There is no other way to interpret it. You want to play word games and shit because you have no real argument.

I see this and it's not quite correct. The Constitution also lays out the process that one may have their rights removed from them. The Constitution also grants the right of free association but if you are in prison, you no longer have that right.

The right to own a gun can be infringed but it has to be done through proper due process.

Nonsense. The fascist left has been trying to make the 2A invalid for the lost 50 years. Hasn't happened yet. Matter of fact, the 2A has gotten stronger each and every time the Fascists have taken it to the SCOTUS.

 

[Mustang]

I'm so tired of conservatives saying how much they revere the US Constitution and then passing laws that attempt to circumvent the very constitution they claim to revere.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm so tired of conservatives saying how much they revere the US Constitution and then passing laws that attempt to circumvent the very constitution they claim to revere.

gun laws are a clear violation of the constitution,, so I'm thinking your anger is misdirected,,

 

[Mustang]

I'm so tired of conservatives saying how much they revere the US Constitution and then passing laws that attempt to circumvent the very constitution they claim to revere.

gun laws are a clear violation of the constitution,, so I'm thinking your anger is misdirected,,

You are certainly free to spend as much of your money as you please to promote your view in the court system that gun laws are a clear violation of the US Constitution. But if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, what you say just looks like rhetorical nonsense.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'm so tired of conservatives saying how much they revere the US Constitution and then passing laws that attempt to circumvent the very constitution they claim to revere.

gun laws are a clear violation of the constitution,, so I'm thinking your anger is misdirected,,

You are certainly free to spend as much of your money as you please to promote your view in the court system that gun laws are a clear violation of the US Constitution. But if you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is, what you say just looks like rhetorical nonsense.

I put my life where my mouth is,,

but thanks for your opinion,,

 

[pknopp]

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

This is incorrect.
If you read the Constitution, the 9th and 10th amendment clearly say that congress can only pass laws on areas where congress has been explicitly be authorized to do so by the Constitution.
And the only mention of firearms in the Constitution, is the 2nd amendment which apparently prohibits any and all federal firearm jurisdiction.

Not only can Missouri void federal gun laws, but anyone sworn to uphold the constitution has to.
The constitution clearly gave absolutely zero firearms jurisdiction to the federal government.
The law is quite clear, and the federal government is clearly in violation of the constitution, which is superior to Congress.

it also restricts the states from making gun laws,,,

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.

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

and as the 10th clearly says,, the people,, and since the 2nd says the people,, neither the feds nor the states have any say as to arms,,

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.

that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

dont let them control you and fight for your rights,,

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.

States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.

Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

And before the 14th amendment, they absolutely could and did.

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

Shall not be infringed. Any law passed by the Federal, State and or local government that interferes with a law abiding citizens right to bare arms is unconstitutional and should be ignored.

Interferes with a law abiding citizens right to 'bare' arms (like sleeveless Ts?), according to who?

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.

I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.

It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.

Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.

And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period that's it. Any law that limits that right is an infringement. There is no other way to interpret it. You want to play word games and shit because you have no real argument.

I see this and it's not quite correct. The Constitution also lays out the process that one may have their rights removed from them. The Constitution also grants the right of free association but if you are in prison, you no longer have that right.

The right to own a gun can be infringed but it has to be done through proper due process.

Nonsense. The fascist left has been trying to make the 2A invalid for the lost 50 years. Hasn't happened yet. Matter of fact, the 2A has gotten stronger each and every time the Fascists have taken it to the SCOTUS.

I have no idea how anything you said addressed anything I said.

 

[Batcat]

Then why do we have sanctuary cities for illegal aliens if the Federal government is so damn powerful?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

Only the feds have immigration and naturalization laws.

and states were telling their law enforcement agencies to ignore those laws.

There are 50,000 differences between the sanctuary city issue and the Missouri law fining officers who cooperate with federal authorities.

no difference at all try again
BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS LAW OF THE LAND

Actually, huge difference. Selective enforcement is well recognized as a power that any law enforcement agency has.

But actually punitive fines for following the law? That's where Missouri crossed the line. That's where their law became unenforceable.

And why they lost.....while Sanctuary Cities remain.

the only difference is one is a Constitutionally protected right and say shall not be infringed

Who says its being infringed? Not the courts, not the DOJ

a may issue state is infringing upon the rights of people trying to get an infringing permit to carry a firearm

 

[Leviticus]

There's nothing illegality constitutional about this policy. States are not required toenforce federal law. thatburden falls with the federal government alone. As long as they don't impede federal authorities, this this constitutional.

 

[Concerned American]

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

"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

I live in a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county.

 

[Concerned American]

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

That is an OPINION by the justice department. The constitution specifies NO RESTRICTIONS specifically on gun ownership so wtf are you referring to in the constitution and implying that the right doesn't understand it?
The current administration can not impose restrictions that overrule specifically outlined constitutional rights. I mean they obviously can but that does not make them right or law binding until a court arbitrates the legality of the issue.

What part do you not understand about the fact that individual states cannot choose to override federal law and cannot pass laws in an attempt to do so?

It is not the states responsibility to enforce federal law. If that was the case, why would we need an FBI? The MO law does not override fed law--it just has taken the stance that it will not enforce it and they have no requirement to. Much ado about nothing.

 

[366h34d]

I'm so tired of conservatives saying how much they revere the US Constitution and then passing laws that attempt to circumvent the very constitution they claim to revere.

I guess you don't understand the idea of US consitution. The constitution is used to gov't the Feds

 

[justinacolmena]

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.

U.S.D.O.J. is out of its jurisdiction for gun control within the state anyways, barring INTERSTATE COMMERCE across state borders.

And even in the realm of INTERSTATE COMMERCE, the U.S.D.O.J. is breaking a whole host of other laws and international principles of human rights by maintaining and enforcing a jailbird list of PROHIBITED PERSONS on NICS and other federal and international blacklists.

Identify Prohibited Persons | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is...

www.atf.gov

Firearms Checks (NICS) | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) conducts background checks on people who want to own a firearm or explosive, as required by law.

www.fbi.gov

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

MI is a 2A Sanctuary State, same way CA and NY voided Federal Immigration laws

 

[Rigby5]

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” is it that you are having trouble understanding?

Where is the power granted to the states, or to any part of government, to infringe this right which belongs to the people?

The 2nd amendment was not clear what the right of the people was, so it is hard to say what state or local restrictions may be reasonable.
For example, if there were to be local firearm registration, like there is in Switzerland, I am not sure that is any hinderance?

IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!
"the right to keep and bear arms"

a registration would be a hinderance if I refused to register,,

Not necessarily a hinderance at all.
For example, the state constitution likely already says that all able adult men are obligated to serve if called upon, and a registration of firearms could be a great aid for them to know how many more guns they would have to then supply for their organized militia if it needed to be called upon?

that has nothing to do with the 2nd A,,

why are you ignoring the last 4 words in the 10th and the 2nd where its specific to the people??

Lots of rights are "to the people", but that does not mean they can't have state or local laws.
For example, it does not infringe upon you self defense right to be armed if the state prohibits arms in a courthouse.
The armed police there already make it safe enough so that you don't need to bring in your own.

The right of free speech is "to the people", but that still does no mean there can't be laws prohibiting slander, libel, hate speech, inciting violence, etc.

youre playing semantics,,, the 10th specifies whos authority it is and the second specifies whos right it is,, THE PEOPLE,,

as for your free speech claim,, no where does it say free speech, only that the government cant make laws restricting it, and it also doesnt specify THE PEOPLE like the 2nd does,,,

try applying your logic to other rights like due process,, can a state change due process and execute people without a trial?? no they cant,,

Wrong.
There are 2 different aspects of laws involved here, and the point is to keep them separate.

One is jurisdiction.
The Constitution what divides jurisdiction between federal and anything else, thus limiting or banning federal legislation in any area where the federal government is not specifically authorized by the constitution.
Then and only then is government, meaning the federal government only, absolutely restricted.

The second is infringement on individual rights.
This was not an issue until after the 14th amendment when the SCOTUS became the arbiter of conflicts over state and local government, concerning individual rights. Since the 9th and 10th amendments were only restrictions on the federal government, and ensured local and state jurisdiction over everything else, then until the 14th amendment, the 9th and 10th do nothing to restrict state and local regulations at all. And after the 14th, it was up to the SCOTUS to decide at what point state and local regulation went too far. But obviously all rights can and must still have SOME state and local regulations. Unlike the absolute restriction on federal laws over firearms, there is not and can not ever be an absolute restriction on state and local laws over all rights. The limit of state and local laws over any right has to be decided by the SCOTUS.

Your example, "can a state change due process and execute people without a trial" is wrong. It is an extreme example but yet intended to falsely prove state and local laws can not be made at all. And even that is also wrong because state and local laws have been upheld that due process can be ignored in some circumstances, such as shooting looters without arrest or trial can be legal due to the danger of the situation.

You keep saying "to the people", and that is redundant. The reality is government never has any authority at all of its own, and it only borrows delegated authority, from the people, in order to defend the rights of the people.
So any action by any government that can not be justified as being necessary in order to defend rights of the people, is illegal. That is why nanny laws, like the War on Drugs actually is totally illegal.

 

[Rigby5]

Texas should declare machine guns legal to purchase and own by residents of Texas and tell the DOJ to suck a fat dick and to try and stop it!

Why not missile launchers than can bring down planes? Why not nuclear weapons. I mean, they're all 'arms', according to you, yes?

we should have those also,,, cant defend a country with slingshots,,,

So you're advocating for the private ownership and use of missile launchers and nuclear weapons by private citizens?

why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme with the nuke bullshit??

if it were me they wouldnt exist,, but since they do you dont have a problem with just democrats and republicans having them,, me not so much,,

as for the rest of the personal arms issue,, we should be allowed to have what ever can be used against us,, not sure how you protect a country with slingshots,,

Why not nukes? Bazookas? Machine guns? RPGs? Should't any random person be able to purchase a shoulder mounted missile launcher that can take down an airliner?

I mean, arms are arms, right.......isn't that what you're arguing?

Yes, no absolute or arbitrary government ban on anything is legal.
But there is nothing wrong with local or state laws that protect your neighbors from you buying and storing 1000 lbs of dynamite in your garage. But that can not be absolute. You neighbor has to be allowed to buy and store 1000 lbs of dynamite if they have enough space, facilities, need, etc.

So then yes, if a person can demonstrate the means of preventing harm to others or a reasonable need, then they do have to be allowed to have nuke, bazookas, machine guns, RPGs, etc.
You can't arbitrarily make absolute prohibitions.
For example, bazookas are often used by private ski lodges in order to get rid of potential avalanche sites.
Private ownership of nukes has to be possible so that we can have companies building nukes for the government, or for nuclear power generation.
Government can only reflect the will of the people in protecting the people from unnecessary risks, not anything arbitrary or absolute, ever.

 

[Rigby5]

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

"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit.

Only the feds have immigration and naturalization laws.

and states were telling their law enforcement agencies to ignore those laws.

There are 50,000 differences between the sanctuary city issue and the Missouri law fining officers who cooperate with federal authorities.

no difference at all try again
BUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS LAW OF THE LAND

Actually, huge difference. Selective enforcement is well recognized as a power that any law enforcement agency has.

But actually punitive fines for following the law? That's where Missouri crossed the line. That's where their law became unenforceable.

And why they lost.....while Sanctuary Cities remain.

But Missouri should have won.
The federal government has ZERO firearm jurisdiction, so any attempt by any federal agent to enforce any gun law should result in their arrest.
And I do not mean by just state police, but absolutely anyone.
Any federal firearm enforcement is a felony and must be stopped immediately when ever it is seen.
Same with the federal War on Drugs.
States can have jurisdiction, but the federal government can not unless it is explicitly authorized in the Constitution.
The interstate commerce clause is not sufficient.