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

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
 
The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.

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

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

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

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

The courts have never found this to be the case. So what constitutional violation are you referring to?
 
Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws.
Correct.

“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.
 
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.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
 
It 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.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

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


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

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

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.
nothing in the 14th has to do with the 2nd A,,

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

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.
that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

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

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.
States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.
 
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.


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

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

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.
nothing in the 14th has to do with the 2nd A,,

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

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.
that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

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

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.
States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.
Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

And before the 14th amendment, they absolutely could and did.
 
It would be nice if conservatives would at least READ the US Constitution before they pass laws that won't be upheld upon a court challenge, thereby wasting everyone's time in the process. Instead, it would be nice if they spent their time actually working to get things done for the people. But I guess that's too much to ask..

__________________________________________________________

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


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can’t ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

“The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

President Joe Biden has made gun control laws a priority of his administration, and the House has passed two bills requiring background checks on firearms sales and an expanded review for gun purchases, though they face a tough road in the Senate. But states, including Missouri, have increasingly worked to loosen gun laws, including abandoning requirements that people get training and pass background checks to carry concealed handguns.

Missouri’s law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce any federal laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.

Republican lawmakers who worked to pass the bill have said they were motivated by the potential of more restrictive gun laws in the Biden administration. But state Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and have predicted it would not pass a challenge in the courts.

The Justice Department argued in the letter that the state lacks the authority to shield any Missouri businesses or citizens from federal law or to prevent federal law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties.

Boynton said the bill “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Eric Schmitt, the state’s attorney general, clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.

Six states have passed legislation removing or weakening concealed-carry permit requirements this year, most recently Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Wednesday. About 20 states now allow people to carry concealed weapons without a license. At least three other states have passed legislation banning police from enforcing federal gun laws, a preemptive shot at any new measures passed by Democrats.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.
Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.
 
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.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.
Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.
And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.
 
Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.

Violate the constitution.....according to who?

Spoiler alert: its not you.
Spoiler alert. It is also 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?
Asked and answered.
The SCOTUS then? The SCOTUS hasn't found gun laws in question to be a violation of the constitution.

So I ask for a third time, 'violate the constitution' according to who. Its not the SCOTUS. Who then?

This is where you get uselessly vague again in an awkward attempt to avoid the question.
No one has managed to bring gun laws before the Supremes. That does not mean they are Constitutional. The few times gun laws have gone before the courts, the courts have ruled in favor of the people, not the gun haters.
 
Bad news sunshine. The FEDS are NOT permitted to violate the Constitution.

Violate the constitution.....according to who?

Spoiler alert: its not you.
Spoiler alert. It is also 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?
Asked and answered.
The SCOTUS then? The SCOTUS hasn't found gun laws in question to be a violation of the constitution.

So I ask for a third time, 'violate the constitution' according to who. Its not the SCOTUS. Who then?

This is where you get uselessly vague again in an awkward attempt to avoid the question.
No one has managed to bring gun laws before the Supremes. That does not mean they are Constitutional. The few times gun laws have gone before the courts, the courts have ruled in favor of the people, not the gun haters.

Seems like we're making some progress. As you're acknowledging that it will be th Supreme Court that will determine the constitutionality of a given law.

And not your feelings.

And the Supreme Court has not found the guns laws that Missouri is protesting to be a violation of any contitutional right. Leaving you with just your feelings.
 
Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws.
Correct.

“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.
They can do whatever they want....as long as they can get away with it.
 
Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws.
Correct.

“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.
They can do whatever they want....as long as they can get away with it.
Is this where your murder fantasies kick in again?
 
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.


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

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

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.
nothing in the 14th has to do with the 2nd A,,

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

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.
that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

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

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.
States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.
Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

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

It would be nice if conservatives would at least READ the US Constitution before they pass laws that won't be upheld upon a court challenge, thereby wasting everyone's time in the process. Instead, it would be nice if they spent their time actually working to get things done for the people. But I guess that's too much to ask..

__________________________________________________________

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


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can’t ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

“The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

President Joe Biden has made gun control laws a priority of his administration, and the House has passed two bills requiring background checks on firearms sales and an expanded review for gun purchases, though they face a tough road in the Senate. But states, including Missouri, have increasingly worked to loosen gun laws, including abandoning requirements that people get training and pass background checks to carry concealed handguns.

Missouri’s law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce any federal laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.

Republican lawmakers who worked to pass the bill have said they were motivated by the potential of more restrictive gun laws in the Biden administration. But state Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and have predicted it would not pass a challenge in the courts.

The Justice Department argued in the letter that the state lacks the authority to shield any Missouri businesses or citizens from federal law or to prevent federal law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties.

Boynton said the bill “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Eric Schmitt, the state’s attorney general, clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.

Six states have passed legislation removing or weakening concealed-carry permit requirements this year, most recently Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Wednesday. About 20 states now allow people to carry concealed weapons without a license. At least three other states have passed legislation banning police from enforcing federal gun laws, a preemptive shot at any new measures passed by Democrats.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.
Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.
And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period that's it. Any law that limits that right is an infringement. There is no other way to interpret it. You want to play word games and shit because you have no real argument.
 
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.



I have read the Constitution backwards and frontwards a thousand times. States CAN most definitely ignore federal law. It's been done dozens of times by different states (think California) when they do not believe that the "law" is acting in its' people's best interest.

If Dementia Joe suddenly decides to institute a gun consfiscation or "buy back"mandatory program - 48 states would ignore the law, not to mention the 350 million LEGAL gun owners in this country.

Dementia Joe can kiss my Lilly white conservative ass.
Guess again!

I've done some additional research. and here's what I've found:

HB 85 or the Second Amendment Preservation Act was signed into law by MO Governor Mike Pasron on Saturday at a gun store and shooting range called Frontier Justice.

The law declares federal laws and regulations "that infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment must be invalid in this state."

Parson said in a press release release that the legislation "draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property."

While it would be his decision whether or not the state would enforce federal law, it's not his decision to determine if something is Constitutional or not.

Sometimes one does need to challenge a law to find out.
 
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.


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

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

The 2nd amendment does not explicitly restrict the states from making gun laws.
The only means by which the states are restricted is through the incorporation process of the 2nd amendment, initiated by the 14th amendment.
And that then is up to the SCOTUS.
And obviously the SCOTUS has never remotely indicated that states could not pass firearm laws like restricting felons, requiring registration, or pretty much whatever states want to pass.
About the only thing states have been prevented was total bans on home firearms for defense.
nothing in the 14th has to do with the 2nd A,,

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

You misunderstand.
It was the 14th amendment that allowed the courts to attempt to define individual rights at all.
And "incorporation" is the process by which the SCOTUS used the Bill of Rights to help determine what individual rights should be.
Its called the "Penumbra Effect". Meaning that although we do not know what individual rights may be, we can tell something about them by the shadow they cast in the framing of the Bill of Rights.
It is the 14th amendment which allows anyone to challenge the constitutionality of any state law when it comes to individual rights.
The 2nd amendment says "right shall not be infringed" but that does not mean you can't have lot of state laws, but just that they can not infringe. For example, states could require all firearms to be registered, and that does not have to be an infringement.
that might apply if not for the last 4 words in the 10th A and the specifics of the people in the 2nd A,,

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

Sure, I agree firearms are an individual right.
But it is just no so clear what state and local gun laws there can or should.
The only thing clear is there should be no federal gun laws at all.
But I would expect different gun laws in outback Alaska, vs crowded NYC.
States can not pass laws that restrict a Constitutional right.
Restrict a constitutional right.....according to who?

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

It would be nice if conservatives would at least READ the US Constitution before they pass laws that won't be upheld upon a court challenge, thereby wasting everyone's time in the process. Instead, it would be nice if they spent their time actually working to get things done for the people. But I guess that's too much to ask..

__________________________________________________________

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


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state can’t ignore federal law, after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

“The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

President Joe Biden has made gun control laws a priority of his administration, and the House has passed two bills requiring background checks on firearms sales and an expanded review for gun purchases, though they face a tough road in the Senate. But states, including Missouri, have increasingly worked to loosen gun laws, including abandoning requirements that people get training and pass background checks to carry concealed handguns.

Missouri’s law would subject law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforce any federal laws to a fine of about $50,000 per violating officer.

Republican lawmakers who worked to pass the bill have said they were motivated by the potential of more restrictive gun laws in the Biden administration. But state Democrats have argued the law is unconstitutional and have predicted it would not pass a challenge in the courts.

The Justice Department argued in the letter that the state lacks the authority to shield any Missouri businesses or citizens from federal law or to prevent federal law enforcement officials from carrying out their duties.

Boynton said the bill “conflicts with federal firearms laws and regulation” and federal law would supersede the state’s new statute. He said federal agents and the U.S. attorney’s offices in the state would continue to enforce all federal firearms laws and regulations. He asked that Parson and Eric Schmitt, the state’s attorney general, clarify the law and how it would work in a response by Friday.

Six states have passed legislation removing or weakening concealed-carry permit requirements this year, most recently Texas, where Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill Wednesday. About 20 states now allow people to carry concealed weapons without a license. At least three other states have passed legislation banning police from enforcing federal gun laws, a preemptive shot at any new measures passed by Democrats.

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

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

If we're talking the SCOTUS, then I agree with you. If laws are merely something you decide if you have to follow.......then not so much.
I don't give a shit what the SCOTUS or any level of government decides. The 2nd Amendment is clear. The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. There is no other way to interpret that.
It doesn't really matter what you 'give a shit about'. Your personal opinion about constitutional violations have no relevance to the law.

The authoritative judgment of the SCOTUS most definitely does.

So you're not making a legal argument. You're just giving us your feelings about the constitution. And your feelings don't define constitutional authority or constitutional violations.
Shall not be infringed you fucking loon. That's not my personal opinion or feelings . Its written out clear as day to anyone with more than half a brain cell.
And what, pray tell, is 'infringement' under the constitution? And according to who?

Remember, your feelings aren't a legal argument. When you have anything relevant to say about the actual law, I'm all ears.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period that's it. Any law that limits that right is an infringement. There is no other way to interpret it. You want to play word games and shit because you have no real argument.

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

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

Missouri doesn’t void them, they will not enforce them. If the national government wishes it’s tyrannies enforced, let them do it. Nullification, a tried and true response to federal overreach.
 
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.

Really? How do you explain state legalization of marijuana?
 
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.

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.

Try "bear" arms.
 

Forum List

Back
Top