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

[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

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.

 

[Natural Citizen]

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?

You are in dire need of reeducation.

Start with "Just powers". Federalist #45 and #51 is a great place to start learning.

That said, it's a good thing nobody cares what Brian Boynton thinks, isn't it?

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

 

[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,,

No they don't.
The 2nd amendment does not explicitly apply over states, so the interpretation of the rights expressed by the 2nd amendment have to be determined by the courts.
And the courts have never ruled that states can't ban guns to felons.
I personally do not like these state laws that make felons unequal citizens.
But it is up to the courts to decide.

 

[Mustang]

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.

Wrong.

Federal law only trumps state law when both have equal jurisdiction.
But since the federal government is totally bared any and all firearms jurisdiction, then there can be no legal federal firearm laws at all.

This is like when the federal government passed the 55 mph speed limit law.
Lots of states just laughed at the feds because that was not legal.
There can be no federal speed limit law.
Traffic with in a state is totally under state jurisdiction.

There can be "no federal firearms laws at all"?

You'd better look closer because there ARE federal firearm laws!

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

No they don't.
The 2nd amendment does not explicitly apply over states, so the interpretation of the rights expressed by the 2nd amendment have to be determined by the courts.
And the courts have never ruled that states can't ban guns to felons.
I personally do not like these state laws that make felons unequal citizens.
But it is up to the courts to decide.

courts give opinions that can later be changed,, better to stick to the written word under the original intent,,,

remember we have a responsibility to confront and abolish unjust laws,,

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Wrong.

Federal law only trumps state law when both have equal jurisdiction.
But since the federal government is totally bared any and all firearms jurisdiction, then there can be no legal federal firearm laws at all.

This is like when the federal government passed the 55 mph speed limit law.
Lots of states just laughed at the feds because that was not legal.
There can be no federal speed limit law.
Traffic with in a state is totally under state jurisdiction.

There can be "no federal firearms laws at all"?

You'd better look closer because there ARE federal firearm laws!

you may want to read what you typed and change it,,

 

[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

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

 

[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,,

No they don't.
The 2nd amendment does not explicitly apply over states, so the interpretation of the rights expressed by the 2nd amendment have to be determined by the courts.
And the courts have never ruled that states can't ban guns to felons.
I personally do not like these state laws that make felons unequal citizens.
But it is up to the courts to decide.

courts give opinions that can later be changed,, better to stick to the written word under the original intent,,,

remember we have a responsibility to confront and abolish unjust laws,,

The original intent of the 2nd amendment was just to prohibit federal jurisdiction.
There was never any intent to prohibit all state and local firearm laws.
For example, we don't want children to be armed except in an emergency.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

What you think you know Constitutional would be impressive.... reality is what you really know would fit in a thimble

 

[Natural Citizen]

You know, I really shouldn't be amazed by it, but I really do get amazed at the pure ignorance to reality by so many in the electorate. Even worse, ignorance on behalf of elected and appointed dolts.

These people don't know jack squat nothing about our Republic.

Clearly they're trustees in this recently popularized 'our Democracy' smut. As if it's some form of government we have or something.

America is a 'compound Republic''. Period. Again, see Federalist #51. Under this system, the whole quantity of governmental power is not only limited by written Constitution, Federal and State, but also decentralized so that the vast majority of powers are kept on the State and local levels.

Strictly limited!! Limited for liberty! Learn it! Whether it's learned the easy way or the hard way has historically made no difference to the defenders of the cause of liberty. Not 250 years ago. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day!

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,

No they don't.
The 2nd amendment does not explicitly apply over states, so the interpretation of the rights expressed by the 2nd amendment have to be determined by the courts.
And the courts have never ruled that states can't ban guns to felons.
I personally do not like these state laws that make felons unequal citizens.
But it is up to the courts to decide.

courts give opinions that can later be changed,, better to stick to the written word under the original intent,,,

remember we have a responsibility to confront and abolish unjust laws,,

The original intent of the 2nd amendment was just to prohibit federal jurisdiction.
There was never any intent to prohibit all state and local firearm laws.
For example, we don't want children to be armed except in an emergency.

no it wasnt,, as I said, read the last 4 words of the 10th and then read the 2nd,,,

it is specific to the people,,,

 

[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.

Wrong.

Federal law only trumps state law when both have equal jurisdiction.
But since the federal government is totally bared any and all firearms jurisdiction, then there can be no legal federal firearm laws at all.

This is like when the federal government passed the 55 mph speed limit law.
Lots of states just laughed at the feds because that was not legal.
There can be no federal speed limit law.
Traffic with in a state is totally under state jurisdiction.

There can be "no federal firearms laws at all"?

You'd better look closer because there ARE federal firearm laws!

Yes, and they are all totally illegal, and all those responsible really should be prosecuted.
Just look at the history of federal firearm laws.
The first was:
{...

1927​

The U.S. Congress passes the Miller Act, a law banning the mailing of concealable weapons.
...}

That was legal because it was just effecting mail, which was under federal jurisdiction.

The second was illegal in my opinion:
{...

1934​

The National Firearms Act of 1934, regulating the manufacture, sale, and possession of fully automatic firearms like sub-machine guns is approved by Congress.
...}

The rational was Thompson machineguns used in Prohibition turn wars, but this law was totally illegal and the bursting of the dam. Since they the feds have totally taken over firearm regulation, and the BATF is totally illegal.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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 Constitution in fact specifies restrictions on firearms:

“The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The Federal government, state and local governments, have the authority to enact all manner of limits and restrictions concerning the possession of firearms provided those limits and restrictions are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Missed shall not be infringed didn't you, Gomer?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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 parts of the Second and Tenth Amendments do you not understand?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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

The Second Amendment is the law.

It is any government official making any attempt to violate any free citizen's rights under the Second Amendment who is acting illegally.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

 

[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

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.

 

[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

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.