Missouri Senate in a 23-10 Bans ALL Federal gun control

[Phauxtoe]

As a states rights advocate, I applaud. However, this is a wicked double edged sword for NY residents and others. What's to stop states like NY from swinging the pendulum to the opposite side in direct contravention to the Constitution? Oh, we are there already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

new york signed on to uphold the Bill of Rights, they are Bound by law to Honor it. there is no states rights option in reality.

 

[repete]

I don't see this as good anything. If for arguments sake this is allowed to stand or ruled as Kosher which it's not because a State law cannot supercede a Federal law, there goes the end of the Constitution as no state would have to abide by it.

Think bigger not smaller. Think of all the ways the states can abuse its citizenry since they will no longer have to listen to the Federal government. This would apply for other rights too.

I hate to say it but your right, but it was a nice pipe dream while it lasted.

 

[Marine Cpl]

how do you come by this opinion?
The Law specifically states that any Federal Law which is in conflict to the Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment, will not be enforced. New York would not be able to make that claim, since their Laws directly infringe on the Constitution.
it is a caveat that the Law must first be an infringement, before the State can disregard it.
"“All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States..."

new york signed on to uphold the Bill of Rights, they are Bound by law to Honor it. there is no states rights option in reality.

Sanctuary cities are not protected by the constitution. This is not even close to being the same thing

Unfortunately, our boy Scalia inserted a Trojan Horse into the 2nd Amendment when he said that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right. NY can run with that. So with that ruling, he is following the Constitution since he's letting you have some arms.

Look at Nortatoga's signature if you want to read that part of the Heller ruling that says as such that he likes so much.

 

[Twogunwilly]

Missouri is now the blow me state.

 

[Robin]

The federal government has been cranking out laws at record pace the last forty plus years, many, most, are not the business of the feds, and fall under the constitutional purview of the states. Less centralized government the better.
Think even bigger.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

The federal government has been cranking out laws at record pace the last forty plus years, many, most, are not the business of the feds, and fall under the constitutional purview of the states. Less centralized government the better.
Think even bigger.
Robin

I'm not saying the laws are right that they have been cranking out. But the founders placed the federal government over the states to maintain order and unity. To get rid of that is to get rid of the United States. I don't think you are for that. That would be the end of our country that you fought for.

Think even bigger. If every state became its own country since it would not have to answer to the federal government, every state would be a third world separate country. You aren't thinking big enough. We wouldn't be the United States now would we?

 

[Robin]

The hell it does. the states still have to abide by the constitution of the U.S., as well as any and all federal laws that do not abridge the rights of the states. This is the way it should work, not the politburo of the supreme court deciding everything.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

The hell it does. the states still have to abide by the constitution of the U.S., as well as any and all federal laws that do not abridge the rights of the states. This is the way it should work, not the politburo of the supreme court deciding everything.
Robin

Agreed. But you don't see the point that if states are allowed to ignore the federal government's laws then other states can do so as well thus making a federal government a paper tiger?

I understand that they are just upholding the Constitution. But there is a proper way to to do it via the courts (which happenes to be corrupt. I know.) That has to be fixed. It isn't to ignore the federal government and break it.

If you are going to break it, then declare your Independence. Go all out because once the states have more power than the federal government, there is no United States.

 

[Robin]

That is nonsense.
Robin

 

[Marine Cpl]

That is nonsense.
Robin

Your opinion. I'm of the mind that states cannot ignore the centralized government because if they do, there is no more centralized government.

Example.

Missouri. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

New York. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

See the similarities.

 

[Twogunwilly]

Your opinion. I'm of the mind that states cannot ignore the centralized government because if they do, there is no more centralized government.

Example.

Missouri. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

New York. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

See the similarities.

Perhaps a means to an end, both will likely make it to the SCOTUS.

 

[Phauxtoe]

Your opinion. I'm of the mind that states cannot ignore the centralized government because if they do, there is no more centralized government.

Example.

Missouri. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

New York. We will not follow federal laws on guns.

See the similarities.

its not similar at all!
New york signed with full knowledge of the constitution and to follow the Bill of rights and is NOT!
Missouri signed with full knowledge of the constitution and to follow the Bill of rights and WILL BE!

huge difference!

 

[Marine Cpl]

its not similar at all!
New york signed with full knowledge of the constitution and to follow the Bill of rights and is NOT!
Missouri signed with full knowledge of the constitution and to follow the Bill of rights and WILL BE!

huge difference!

Whether they signed up with whatever intentions they had is not the point. The point is States cannot ignore the federal government whether good or bad. Period. If bad, there a process for challenging it. . When they do whatever they want and render the federal government null and void, there is no more United States.

 

[Shadow2]

Constitution allows states to do this when Fed laws go against the constitution. NY fails the test. Same with sanctuary cities, Illegals do not have constitutional protections ... they have the rights we extend to them as human beings.

As a states rights advocate, I applaud. However, this is a wicked double edged sword for NY residents and others. What's to stop states like NY from swinging the pendulum to the opposite side in direct contravention to the Constitution? Oh, we are there already.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shadow2]

But he said what could not be limited ... guns in common use suitable for militia service. Hello M16, it happens to be the "some arms" he was talking about. Who gets to determine whats good for Militia use? We do.

Unfortunately, our boy Scalia inserted a Trojan Horse into the 2nd Amendment when he said that the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right. NY can run with that. So with that ruling, he is following the Constitution since he's letting you have some arms.

Look at Nortatoga's signature if you want to read that part of the Heller ruling that says as such that he likes so much.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But he said what could not be limited ... guns in common use suitable for militia service. Hello M16, it happens to be the "some arms" he was talking about. Who gets to determine whats good for Militia us e? We do.

It's guns in common use by the citizenry. He deliberately left out "by the military" or else we would be able to have M249 Saws, M16's, grenades, ect and the NFA would have to be abolished.

And guess what happens when they develop heat-seeking lasers and restrict them from the people because they aren't in common use? Or when they develop full bodied armor that can withstand projectile fired weapons that are in common use?

That's not what was intended when the 2A was written. The citizenry had the same small arms as the military. Scalia inserted that Trojan Horse so that we wouldn't be able up have the same small arms as the military. Because of this, the 2A will eventually become null and void for it's actual purpose since we would be severely outgunned by the average military soldier. Fully automatic weapons at one time were able to be had by the citizenry. Now that's not the case since they'll never be in common use.

The 2A never said common use for anything. That was an insertion by a judge that knew what he was doing and the people are naive enough to praise him.

 

[Marine Cpl]

But he said what could not be limited ... guns in common use suitable for militia service. Hello M16, it happens to be the "some arms" he was talking about. Who gets to determine whats good for Militia us e? We do.

It's guns in common use by the citizenry. He deliberately left out "by the military" or else we would be able to have M249 Saws, M16's, grenades, ect and the NFA would have to be abolished.

And guess what happens when they develop heat-seeking lasers and restrict them from the people because they aren't in common use? Or when they develop full bodied armor that can withstand projectile fired weapons that are in common use?

That's not what was intended when the 2A was written. The citizenry had the same small arms as the military. Scalia inserted that Trojan Horse so that we wouldn't be able up have the same small arms as the military. Because of this, the 2A will eventually become null and void for it's actual purpose since we would be severely outgunned by the average military soldier. Fully automatic weapons at one time were able to be had by the citizenry. Now that's not the case since they'll never be in common use.

The 2A never said common use for anything. That was an insertion by a judge that knew what he was doing and the people are naive enough to praise him.

 

[Robin]

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Robin Little

 

[Grimscale]

Did he specifically say "by civilians"?
How does something become "common" if, at some point, it is new and uncommon? That would imply that the 2nd only applies toward muskets, which were common at the time.

Seeing as how our military is made up of volunteers...ie: civilians who decide to serve...that makes anything the military fields "common".

 

[BDinPutnam]

I'm not saying the laws are right that they have been cranking out. But the founders placed the federal government over the states to maintain order and unity. To get rid of that is to get rid of the United States. I don't think you are for that. That would be the end of our country that you fought for.

Think even bigger. If every state became its own country since it would not have to answer to the federal government, every state would be a third world separate country. You aren't thinking big enough. We wouldn't be the United States now would we?

You need to re-read the Constitution.

The federal government didn't make the states, the states made the federal government. For a reason.

 

[MadScientist]

Sadly, it already is worthless to about half the population, from a ruthless, deliberate, and malicious campaign by the Democrat party. Their goal is to kill it completely.

Hey man don’t let the Republicans off the hook so easy. It was a republican president that gave us the patriot act as but one example.
Republicans at the very least feign adoration of the constitution more often then democrats and there are a few good constitutionally minded republicans but both parties often piss on it when it goes against their agendas

 

[Jsmegs77]

new york signed on to uphold the Bill of Rights, they are Bound by law to Honor it. there is no states rights option in reality.

Correct, by their ratification of the Constitution. However, such ratification does not diminish the authority of the states, nor expand that of the federal government. "A sovereign nation, of many sovereign states", as the American's Creed puts it. The states by complacency and lack of action have permitted or encouraged the federal government to expand to what it is today.

Contrast NY's infringement of the Constitution with this MO bill. The former is practically the definition of infringement upon the clearly stated plain language of the 2nd Amendment, while the latter to my understanding upholds the 2A, placing it above all other following laws such as the GCA and NFA (most of which I would characterize as infringement, in varying degrees). As someone with a pretty strong anti-federalist inclination, I believe this is perfectly within the authority of the state of Missouri to do, while simultaneously rejecting the actions of NY (one of the original signatory states to the Constitution) as a gross violation of the Constitution.

 

[Robin]

I'm not sure what you meant by "As someone with a pretty strong anti-federalist inclination". A Federalist is one that believes in a strong state made up of strong 'independent' states, based on the mutual understanding of their constitution.
Robin

 

[nortatoga]

Anti-Federalist vs Federalist - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 

[Robin]

Huh! If so, I have been wrong for many many years. My belief is that they wanted a strong government while respecting states rights as outlined in the constitution. It's hard to get the truth on the internet these days, the lefties have rewritten so many things, and embrace the old communist virtue of using semantics as another tool to bring down our Republic.
Robin

 

[ProgSpear]

Hey man don’t let the Republicans off the hook so easy. It was a republican president that gave us the patriot act as but one example.
Republicans at the very least feign adoration of the constitution more often then democrats and there are a few good constitutionally minded republicans but both parties often piss on it when it goes against their agendas

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I'm BEYOND pissed with the republican party and their almost traitorous "if I roll on my back will you rub my tummy?" approach to the absolutely traitorous democrat party.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Did he specifically say "by civilians"?
How does something become "common" if, at some point, it is new and uncommon? That would imply that the 2nd only applies toward muskets, which were common at the time.

Seeing as how our military is made up of volunteers...ie: civilians who decide to serve...that makes anything the military fields "common".

No he did not. With that said, "Are we allowed to own a brand new M240 Bravo?" Are we allowed to have and carry dangerous weapons that only the military can have? Read his decision below and tell me if it pertains to dangerous weapons used by the military.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

 

[nortatoga]

No he did not. With that said, "Are we allowed to own a brand new M240 Bravo?" Are we allowed to have and carry dangerous weapons that only the military can have? Read his decision below and tell me if it pertains to dangerous weapons used by the military.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Can you point out where the Military was mentioned!!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Can you point out where the Military was mentioned!!!!

I already explained it above.

 

[nortatoga]

I already explained it above.

Sorry but no you did not!