|
|
|
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:
Missouri ‘2A Sanctuary’ Law Draws Out Liberal Hypocrisy
Submitted by:
David Williamson
Website: http://libertyparkpress.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Kansas City Star is reporting disagreements among Missouri law enforcement officials over the state’s new Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA) preventing state lawmen and women “from enforcing a variety of federal gun laws,” and at least one Democrat state lawmaker has raised an argument about violation of the Supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(7/6/2021)
|
Lauren Arthur should keep her mouth shut. The law clearly indentifies unacceptable laws as those that don't qualify for Article VI supremacy, i.e. are not part of "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land[.]"
Laws that are outside the government's delegated powers or are prohibited by the Bill of Rights from infringement are not, by definition, "made in Pursuance thereof."
Missouri's law, therefore, does not facially violate the supremacy clause. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
