Governer of Misery Fires Blunt and Hawley

[jaF0]

Seems the Governor of the State of Misery says they no longer recognize US law which can only mean they no longer have representation in Congress.



Parson will sign Second Amendment bill declaring federal gun laws 'invalid' in Missouri

St. Louis Post-Dispatch|5 days ago

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri police will be barred from enforcing federal gun laws that regulate weapons registration, tracking and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders under a bill Gov ...

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_de8df2f8-5d00-50a9-91ef-6dbacb523d6a.html

 

[CornusKousa]

Most of the country, and a still growing number of jurisdictions, are giving you and your gun grabbing comrades the finger via "2A Sanctuary".

If you guys get to ignore federal laws, so do we!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_sanctuary

 

[SyLent]

But Sanctuary Shitties are ok?

fuck you Oh PEE poster

 

[ll74]

Seems the Governor of the State of Misery says they no longer recognize US law which can only mean they no longer have representation in Congress.



Parson will sign Second Amendment bill declaring federal gun laws 'invalid' in Missouri

St. Louis Post-Dispatch|5 days ago

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri police will be barred from enforcing federal gun laws that regulate weapons registration, tracking and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders under a bill Gov ...

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_de8df2f8-5d00-50a9-91ef-6dbacb523d6a.html

I have no issue with Sanctuary cities. If the Feds don't specifically fund local and state law enforcement to assist in Federal enforcement, then they should leave it up to the feds.

 

[Rightguide]

Seems the Governor of the State of Misery says they no longer recognize US law which can only mean they no longer have representation in Congress.



Parson will sign Second Amendment bill declaring federal gun laws 'invalid' in Missouri

St. Louis Post-Dispatch|5 days ago

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri police will be barred from enforcing federal gun laws that regulate weapons registration, tracking and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders under a bill Gov ...

The Federal government cannot violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The states are simply enforcing the Constitution as their oaths of office require.

 

[Rightguide]

I have no issue with Sanctuary cities. If the Feds don't specifically fund local and state law enforcement to assist in Federal enforcement, then they should leave it up to the feds.

Both the Feds and the States must enforce the Bill of Rights.

 

[pecksniff]

The Federal government cannot violate the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The states are simply enforcing the Constitution as their oaths of office require.

But the states don't get to decide what's constitutional. They don't get to override Congress. They can file lawsuits, but that's all. Nullification is a dog that wouldn't hunt in 1833 and has been rotting in the pet cemetery ever since.

 

[jaF0]

I have no issue with Sanctuary cities. If the Feds don't specifically fund local and state law enforcement to assist in Federal enforcement, then they should leave it up to the feds.

Ahhh, but they do. The Feds provide many, many millions of dollars every year in support of state and local police services. Everything from direct grants to agency support including FBI and DHS.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Ahhh, but they do. The Feds provide many, many millions of dollars every year in support of state and local police services. Everything from direct grants to agency support including FBI and DHS.

Another waste of my tax dollars that needs to stop.

 

[ryan8558]

Seems the Governor of the State of Misery says they no longer recognize US law which can only mean they no longer have representation in Congress.



Parson will sign Second Amendment bill declaring federal gun laws 'invalid' in Missouri

St. Louis Post-Dispatch|5 days ago

JEFFERSON CITY — Missouri police will be barred from enforcing federal gun laws that regulate weapons registration, tracking and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders under a bill Gov ...

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local...cle_de8df2f8-5d00-50a9-91ef-6dbacb523d6a.html

so that means full auto ARs will be available in MO!!!!

 

[pecksniff]

so that means full auto ARs will be available in MO!!!!

Aren't they now?

"I'm from Missouri, ya gotta show me!"

"Sure!" RAT-A-TAT-TAT-TAT-TAT.

 

[njlauren]

The second amendment does not preclude federal regulations over guns and the like, that is the same NRA bullshit that says you can't regulate guns. The right to own guns does not preclude regulations on deciding what weapons people can own or laws about how they can buy or keep them; the only thing that is forbidden is an outright ban.

States can argue jurisdiction, but there is one big thing that changes that. Guns are inherently interstate commerce, they are made in one state and sold in others, and because guns can and are transported and or /sold across state lines, the federal government has the right to regulate them. Through this they also can set up regulations like the background check requirements and reporting sales to the ATF. The interstate commerce clause is in the constitution and it has a long trail of precedent I doubt that even the conservatives on the court would tamper with, even for 'precious' gun rights. If they invalidate the extensions that have been made to federal power through the interstate commerce clause, a lot of the red states are going to be in deep shit, more than a few of the programs that have benefitted them were gotten in through the ICC (for example, the TVA, government building and running power plants..because the project affects multiple states, was allowed under ICC by Scotus).

 

[Rightguide]

But the states don't get to decide what's constitutional. They don't get to override Congress. They can file lawsuits, but that's all. Nullification is a dog that wouldn't hunt in 1833 and has been rotting in the pet cemetery ever since.

You need to bone up on your SC jurisprudence:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

 

[pecksniff]

You need to bone up on your SC jurisprudence:

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. "
Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no right; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed."
Norton vs Shelby County118 US 425 p.442

"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177, late 2nd, Section 256

None of that goes against what I wrote. The states do not get to decide the question of constitutionality.

 

[Rightguide]

None of that goes against what I wrote. The states do not get to decide the question of constitutionality.

Again, you are not a serious person. So those state officers who take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution are forbidden from doing so and must tolerate unconstitutional edicts of unelected federal bureaucrats and officers for whatever amount of years it takes to get a judgement from the SCOTUS? You forget who actually owns and runs this country. The states are much closer to the American people, the ultimate sovereigns, in America. We didn't establish a rampant government, we ordained and established the Constitution for the United States of America within which is the limited framework the government must operate. Re-read those SCOTUS findings I provided you with. They re not meaningless.

 

[pecksniff]

So those state officers who take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution are forbidden from doing so and must tolerate unconstitutional edicts of unelected federal bureaucrats and officers for whatever amount of years it takes to get a judgement from the SCOTUS?

Yes, that is the law of the land.

You forget who actually owns and runs this country.

That would be the plutocracy, most of whom have no vested interest in either side of the gun-rights issue.