|
|
|
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: State aims at gun laws, and drug units recoil
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
When the Buchanan County Drug Strike Force makes an arrest, a federal officer might be nowhere to be seen.
But a federal presence could loom in the background. That’s because multijurisdictional drug task forces, like the Strike Force in Buchanan County or NITRO in Northwest Missouri, have officers who are assigned to federal agencies like the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They aren’t federal agents, but they have authority to enforce federal law. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/6/2021)
|
"the absolutes of gun control on one hand and Second Amendment rights on the other"
When you get that relationship right, we'll be ready to listen. As stated, it's exactly ass-backwards.
The Bill of Rights is the supreme law of the land, not the transient laws passed to enforce political policies that violate it. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
