|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MO: U.S Department of Justice says Missouri gun law is unconstitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
On Wednesday, the United States Department of Justice said Missouri's House Bill 85, or the Second Amendment Preservation Act, is unconstitutional.
This spring, the Missouri Senate passed the bill, which says the federal government should not interfere in state gun laws.
This includes tracking laws, certain prohibitions on the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a specific type of firearm, and confiscation orders as provided in the act.
The DOJ says the bill endangers public safety.
The Associated Press reported Wednesday that 12 of 53 federally deputized officers in Missouri have pulled out of joint task forces because of the law. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(8/20/2021)
|
So, basically the DoJ is saying "If we violate the Constitution to advance public safety, there's nothing you can do about it."
Au contraire, vous mountebanks.
Hey, yo. 'Checked your job description lately? |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
