|
|
|
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: Missouri Has Declared Federal Gun Laws Invalid. Can It Do That?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
While states can't invalidate federal law, they can decide the extent to which they assist federal law enforcement.
"Under the 10th Amendment, states do have the right to withhold the use of their resources to enforce federal laws," says Allison Anderman, senior counsel at Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
"We're just simply saying we're not going to lift a finger to enforce their rules," Missouri state Sen. Eric Burlison, a Republican, said of the bill last month, according to The Kansas City (Mo.) Star. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/19/2021)
|
Typical NPR nonsense.
Can they do it?
Hell YES!
All leftist publications conveniently omit that there is a specific requirement to make a federal law supreme. Said law must be made "in pursuance thereof" [i.e., of the Constitution] to be considered the supreme law of the land.
Article IV says so, black-letter.
All MO's law does is to stipulate that federal laws that violate the Bill of Rights will not be sanctioned, nor will any state law enforcement or subdivision assist in their enforcement.
And that is within states' powers protected by the 10th Amendment.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/19/2021)
|
Typo correction:
Article VI, not Article IV. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
