Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
its very clear when you read the last for words of the 10th A and the specified recipient named in the 2nd A,, THE PEOPLE!!that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,nothing in the 14th has to do with the 2nd A,,it also restricts the states from making gun laws,,,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.
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.
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.
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.
IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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 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?
"the right to keep and bear arms"
a registration would be a hinderance if I refused to register,,
that has nothing to do with the 2nd A,,IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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?
"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,,IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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?
"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?
why are you ignoring the last 4 words in the 10th and the 2nd where its specific to the people??
youre playing semantics,,, the 10th specifies whos authority it is and the second specifies whos right it is,, THE PEOPLE,,that has nothing to do with the 2nd A,,IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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?
"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?
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.
Yeah, but that's . . . . . . . . . . . different.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...
"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
Asked and answered.Spoiler alert. It is also NOT YOU.Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.
Violate the constitution.....according to who?
Spoiler alert: its not you.
This will be appealed and overturn.
I'm not quoting me. I'll stick with the DOJ and the courts.
And the laws that will get you penalties in Missouri if you enforce are thoroughly legal according to both.
So I ask again, 'violate the constitution' according to who?
Moron. The "intellectual reading" of the Constitution consisted of intelligent people (not you) who are scholars in our founding documents AND the SCOTUS, even though they get it wrong sometimes.lolAccording to an intellectual reading of the Constitution.Spoiler alert. It is also NOT YOU.Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.
Violate the constitution.....according to who?
Spoiler alert: its not you.
This will be appealed and overturn.
I'm not quoting me. I'll stick with the DOJ and the courts.
And the laws that will get you penalties in Missouri if you enforce are thoroughly legal according to both.
So I ask again, 'violate the constitution' according to who?
Again, this will be appealed and overturned.
You can’t be serious – true rightwing idiocy and ignorance
Article VI of the Constitution acknowledges the courts alone as determining what the Constitution means and what laws and acts of government violate the Constitution – not the 'intellectual reading' of message board posters.
Moron. The "intellectual reading" of the Constitution consisted of intelligent people (not you) who are scholars in our founding documents AND the SCOTUS, even though they get it wrong sometimes.lolAccording to an intellectual reading of the Constitution.Spoiler alert. It is also NOT YOU.Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.
Violate the constitution.....according to who?
Spoiler alert: its not you.
This will be appealed and overturn.
I'm not quoting me. I'll stick with the DOJ and the courts.
And the laws that will get you penalties in Missouri if you enforce are thoroughly legal according to both.
So I ask again, 'violate the constitution' according to who?
Again, this will be appealed and overturned.
You can’t be serious – true rightwing idiocy and ignorance
Article VI of the Constitution acknowledges the courts alone as determining what the Constitution means and what laws and acts of government violate the Constitution – not the 'intellectual reading' of message board posters.
You, however; are insignificant.
The SCOTUS then? The SCOTUS hasn't found gun laws in question to be a violation of the constitution.Asked and answered.Spoiler alert. It is also NOT YOU.Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.
Violate the constitution.....according to who?
Spoiler alert: its not you.
This will be appealed and overturn.
I'm not quoting me. I'll stick with the DOJ and the courts.
And the laws that will get you penalties in Missouri if you enforce are thoroughly legal according to both.
So I ask again, 'violate the constitution' according to who?
that has nothing to do with the 2nd A,,IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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?
"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?
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.
50,000 differences, actually.Yeah, but that's . . . . . . . . . . . different.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...
"Sanctuary cities" have been instructing their police to ignore federal immigration law for years, so you can fuck right off with that bullshit.
youre playing semantics,,, the 10th specifies whos authority it is and the second specifies whos right it is,, THE PEOPLE,,that has nothing to do with the 2nd A,,IT WAS VERY CLEAR!!!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?
"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?
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.
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,,
Ignore federal gun laws. Make state regulations that make fed gun law enforecement impossible. Get at least 300,000,000 belt-fed squad weapons in civilian hands.
This is how we stop the commie horde. And it will make them shit their pants with fury.
Criminals in the House, Senate, and a billion dollar extortionist in the white house who bragged on his extortion in full video. You may take pride in this scandalous cheater's paradise, but you will regret it on judgment day.And by 'steal', you mean win?If you are a Democrat you should not complain since such disagreements add to the chaos Democrats are plying for in order to shake down the Constitution and make this free nation a communist citizen slave state. We will fight for our freedom if you steal more presidential, house, and senate seats from our candidates. We are locked and loaded to shoot down all that cheating Democrats have been bragging about to each other under the guise of omeurta oaths.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?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?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...
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.
In case you're curious why self identifiction of being GOP has collapsed....its the sniveling, whining, and sore losing.
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?why is it you idiots always go to the most extreme with the nuke bullshit??So you're advocating for the private ownership and use of missile launchers and nuclear weapons by private citizens?we should have those also,,, cant defend a country with slingshots,,,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?
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,,
Violate any free citizens rights.....according to who?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.
