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

[Rigby5]

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.

Of course it does.

This is Constitutional law 101 – see also Cooper v. Aaron (1958); Federal laws and rulings made by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, laws that states and local jurisdictions are subject to.

This idiotic rightwing nonsense about Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ states is meritless political theater.

Oh, I am enjoying the cops faces in Missouri now that felons can carry...

Wrong.
It is always state law that determines if a convicted felon can possess firearms or not.
There are many where they can, but not Missouri.
{...
In 2008, the Missouri legislature altered the laws in regard to convicted felons and firearms. Under this law, convicted felons may not posses any firearm, including concealed handguns, shotguns or rifles, even for hunting purposes. However, convicted felons, once released, are legally allowed to own and operate bows and arrows for the purpose of hunting. Under the law prior to 2008, convicted felons were allowed to use rifles and shotguns for hunting once they completed their sentence, including probation and/or parole.
...}

those laws violate the 2nd amendment,,

The 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition in ANY federal jurisdiction, but was never intended to prevent any or all state or local jurisdiction over firearms.

 

[struth]

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

um they aren’t ignoring federal law. Xiden’s DOJ is dead wrong as usual. The US Constitution does not require States to enforce Federal law.

It would be nice if dembots and the joey xiden admin at least read the US Constitution instead of simply ignoring it

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Wrong.

The Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of may issue licensing policies; until it does, may issue licensing policies are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

And the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of laws requiring a license to possess or carry a gun; such laws are likewise perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

 

[Rigby5]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

No one is saying the individual gun rights of the 2nd amendment are unlimited.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to absolutely and completely deny ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over firearms.
And while it would have been nice if the SCOTUS had upheld the constitution as they should have, what the SCOTUS did by violating the 2nd amendment, by allowing federal firearm laws, was to make themselves complicit in crime.
Now all 3 branches of the federal government have become intolerably corrupt and a clear and present danger to the democratic republic described by the constitution.

Again, individual gun rights are not unlimited, but ONLY by state and local regulations.
Any and all federal firearms laws are a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, and should be considered insurrection against the democratic republic.

 

[bripat9643]

"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years

Wrong.

The Constitution prohibits the Federal government from compelling states and local jurisdictions from enforcing Federal laws, including immigration laws.

Ever heard of sanctuary cities, moron?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Wrong.

The Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of may issue licensing policies; until it does, may issue licensing policies are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

And the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of laws requiring a license to possess or carry a gun; such laws are likewise perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

They certainly are not consistent with the 2nd Amendment. Do you imagine the 1st Amendment allows government to license printing presses or churches?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Wrong.

Missouri should have lost – the notion of Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ is idiocy completely devoid of legal and Constitutional merit:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI, US Cont.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land, preempting state and local laws.

Federal authorities are at complete liberty to enforce Federal laws in any state or jurisdiction.

If anyone’s going be arrested, it will be anyone interfering with Federal authorities enforcing just, proper, and Constitutional firearm laws.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

What part of fuck off don't you understand?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The 14th amendment tells the states they cannot create laws that other citizens in other states have
Remember those Jim Crow laws?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Wrong.

Missouri should have lost – the notion of Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ is idiocy completely devoid of legal and Constitutional merit:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI, US Cont.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land, preempting state and local laws.

Federal authorities are at complete liberty to enforce Federal laws in any state or jurisdiction.

If anyone’s going be arrested, it will be anyone interfering with Federal authorities enforcing just, proper, and Constitutional firearm laws.

there is only one Constitutional gun law and it THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Of course it does.

This is Constitutional law 101 – see also Cooper v. Aaron (1958); Federal laws and rulings made by Federal courts are the supreme law of the land, laws that states and local jurisdictions are subject to.

This idiotic rightwing nonsense about Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ states is meritless political theater.

Oh, I am enjoying the cops faces in Missouri now that felons can carry...

Wrong.
It is always state law that determines if a convicted felon can possess firearms or not.
There are many where they can, but not Missouri.
{...
In 2008, the Missouri legislature altered the laws in regard to convicted felons and firearms. Under this law, convicted felons may not posses any firearm, including concealed handguns, shotguns or rifles, even for hunting purposes. However, convicted felons, once released, are legally allowed to own and operate bows and arrows for the purpose of hunting. Under the law prior to 2008, convicted felons were allowed to use rifles and shotguns for hunting once they completed their sentence, including probation and/or parole.
...}

those laws violate the 2nd amendment,,

The 2nd amendment is an absolute prohibition in ANY federal jurisdiction, but was never intended to prevent any or all state or local jurisdiction over firearms.

That changed with the incorporation doctrine:

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

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

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

No one is saying the individual gun rights of the 2nd amendment are unlimited.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to absolutely and completely deny ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over firearms.
And while it would have been nice if the SCOTUS had upheld the constitution as they should have, what the SCOTUS did by violating the 2nd amendment, by allowing federal firearm laws, was to make themselves complicit in crime.
Now all 3 branches of the federal government have become intolerably corrupt and a clear and present danger to the democratic republic described by the constitution.

Again, individual gun rights are not unlimited, but ONLY by state and local regulations.
Any and all federal firearms laws are a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, and should be considered insurrection against the democratic republic.

The reason for the second amendment was to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms and that includes state government, FYI since the second amendment is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution it places the protection of said right under the authority of the federal government

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Wrong.

The Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of may issue licensing policies; until it does, may issue licensing policies are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

And the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of laws requiring a license to possess or carry a gun; such laws are likewise perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

the 14th amendment struck down all of Jim crows restrictive gun control schemes

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Wrong.

Missouri should have lost – the notion of Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ is idiocy completely devoid of legal and Constitutional merit:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Article VI, US Cont.

Federal law is the supreme law of the land, preempting state and local laws.

Federal authorities are at complete liberty to enforce Federal laws in any state or jurisdiction.

If anyone’s going be arrested, it will be anyone interfering with Federal authorities enforcing just, proper, and Constitutional firearm laws.

Wrong.
You made ZERO argument for any federal firearms laws having any legitimacy.
No declaration by any government body, including the SCOTUS makes something legal or no.
Legality is based on inherent basic principles of individual rights as established by the Declaration of Independence, and no arbitrary proclamations by the SCOTUS can ever change that.
Obviously the Constitution trumps federal legislation, and the Constitution basically prohibits any and all federal firearm legislation.
There are NO Constitutional federal firearm laws, and never can be any without a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

No one is saying the individual gun rights of the 2nd amendment are unlimited.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to absolutely and completely deny ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over firearms.
And while it would have been nice if the SCOTUS had upheld the constitution as they should have, what the SCOTUS did by violating the 2nd amendment, by allowing federal firearm laws, was to make themselves complicit in crime.
Now all 3 branches of the federal government have become intolerably corrupt and a clear and present danger to the democratic republic described by the constitution.

Again, individual gun rights are not unlimited, but ONLY by state and local regulations.
Any and all federal firearms laws are a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, and should be considered insurrection against the democratic republic.

The reason for the second amendment was to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms and that includes state government, FYI since the second amendment is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution it places the protection of said right under the authority of the federal government

While it is true the reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect the people's right to keep and bear arms, it was intended to be a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, but was NOT intended to prevent any local or state jurisdiction.
It is only the 14th amendment that restricts state and local jurisdiction over firearms, but that is not absolute. Some state and local firearm regulation legislation can then be legal. As long as it can be shown to be necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

No one is saying the individual gun rights of the 2nd amendment are unlimited.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to absolutely and completely deny ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over firearms.
And while it would have been nice if the SCOTUS had upheld the constitution as they should have, what the SCOTUS did by violating the 2nd amendment, by allowing federal firearm laws, was to make themselves complicit in crime.
Now all 3 branches of the federal government have become intolerably corrupt and a clear and present danger to the democratic republic described by the constitution.

Again, individual gun rights are not unlimited, but ONLY by state and local regulations.
Any and all federal firearms laws are a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, and should be considered insurrection against the democratic republic.

The reason for the second amendment was to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms and that includes state government, FYI since the second amendment is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution it places the protection of said right under the authority of the federal government

While it is true the reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect the people's right to keep and bear arms, it was intended to be a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, but was NOT intended to prevent any local or state jurisdiction.
It is only the 14th amendment that restricts state and local jurisdiction over firearms, but that is not absolute. Some state and local firearm regulation legislation can then be legal. As long as it can be shown to be necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Wrong.

The Court has yet to determine the constitutionality of may issue licensing policies; until it does, may issue licensing policies are perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

And the Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of laws requiring a license to possess or carry a gun; such laws are likewise perfectly consistent with the Second Amendment, no rights ‘infringed.’

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

What’s clear is the right’s contempt for the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And among the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law is that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment; the Court’s interpretive authority is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

As such, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it’s subject to limits and restriction by government, provided those limits and restrictions comport with Second Amendment case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

No one is saying the individual gun rights of the 2nd amendment are unlimited.
The point of the 2nd amendment was to absolutely and completely deny ANY and ALL federal jurisdiction over firearms.
And while it would have been nice if the SCOTUS had upheld the constitution as they should have, what the SCOTUS did by violating the 2nd amendment, by allowing federal firearm laws, was to make themselves complicit in crime.
Now all 3 branches of the federal government have become intolerably corrupt and a clear and present danger to the democratic republic described by the constitution.

Again, individual gun rights are not unlimited, but ONLY by state and local regulations.
Any and all federal firearms laws are a clear and blatant violation of the Constitution, and should be considered insurrection against the democratic republic.

The reason for the second amendment was to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms and that includes state government, FYI since the second amendment is a protected right in the U.S. Constitution it places the protection of said right under the authority of the federal government

While it is true the reason for the 2nd amendment was to protect the people's right to keep and bear arms, it was intended to be a total ban on any and all federal jurisdiction over firearms, but was NOT intended to prevent any local or state jurisdiction.
It is only the 14th amendment that restricts state and local jurisdiction over firearms, but that is not absolute. Some state and local firearm regulation legislation can then be legal. As long as it can be shown to be necessary in order to protect the rights of others.

It was a ban on any restrictions from any government
It is the authority of the Federal Government to make sure that right is protected via the 14th Amendment.

 

[Batcat]

The DOJ may be right but you can’t force the locals to cooperate with the Feds.

That’s why I expect a move by the democrats to federalize all police.