|
|
|
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:
MI: County votes for gun rights
Submitted by:
Corey Salo
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The Alpena County Board of Commissioners voted 8-0 Tuesday to support a resolution that supports the Second Amendment and the public’s right to bear arms.
The resolution is not the same one presented to the county by Second Amendment supporters last month and doesn’t label the county as a “sanctuary” for guns.
The resolution is non-binding. All governments must obey the Constitution, and federal law trumps state law and local ordinances. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/27/2020)
|
"All governments must obey the Constitution, and federal law trumps state law and local ordinances."
Federal law is supreme only if it is "made in pursuance [of the Constitution]". (U.S. Constitution Article IV Section 1. §2)
The purpose of the sanctuary movement is precisely to protect the people from laws that are NOT "made in pursuance thereof."
The argument dismissing 2A resolutions assumes that all state and/or federal laws are constitutional until the SCOTUS rules that they aren't, which is facially ridiculous.
The majority of the people reject that assumption, and the people have the final say. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
