The USGov tries to cancel the State of Missouri

[MountainGirl]

For you legal geeks - and a cautionary tale for those who enjoy the 10th Amendment's sovereignty in Texas.

"This is a huge battlefront because the United States Government is attempting to invade the sovereignty of the State of Missouri; claiming they can do so because they disagree with the factual premise under which (a) law was passed" - even though they admit the passed law itself is constitutional.

 

[BigRed]

Sounds like it is well past time for Missouri to withdraw its delegated authority and cancel the central government.

 

[MountainGirl]

If the Fed prevails on this - we'll all need to.
Hope you get a chance to watch the vid...

For those who cant watch it - short version is Missouri passed a law protecting the 2A rights of it's citizens; DOJ jumped in, said "the law you passed is constitutional but we disagree with your reason for the law". Obama judge said 'sounds good enough to me' - threw out the law. Appealed up, and Kavanaugh has it now.

I'd bet most here can see the implications of this.

 

[seeker_two]

Until state LEOs start arresting and jailing Feds, it's just lip service.....

 

[MountainGirl]

Until state LEOs start arresting and jailing Feds, it's just lip service.....

You mean arresting them for violating a State law? It could happen, but a lot of things would have to happen first. Like... the State realizing it (and it's citizens) send more money in taxes to the Feds than it gets back in grants/services/etc. You know, like Texas.

 

[seeker_two]

You mean arresting them for violating a State law? It could happen, but a lot of things would have to happen first. Like... the State realizing it (and it's citizens) send more money in taxes to the Feds than it gets back in grants/services/etc. You know, like Texas.

That's Phase Two....

 

[MountainGirl]

That's Phase Two....

And your Phase One includes?

 

[seeker_two]

And your Phase One includes?

Haven't you been reading?.....

 

[MountainGirl]

Haven't you been reading?.....

I must have missed where you have it charted out.
Perhaps you could share the specifics again. Thanks!

 

[MountainGirl]

If the Fed prevails on this - we'll all need to.
Hope you get a chance to watch the vid...

For those who cant watch it - short version is Missouri passed a law protecting the 2A rights of it's citizens; DOJ jumped in, said "the law you passed is constitutional but we disagree with your reason for the law". Obama judge said 'sounds good enough to me' - threw out the law. Appealed up, and Kavanaugh has it now.

I'd bet most here can see the implications of this.

This is bad news, people. The Fed prevailed.

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to reinstate a Missouri law that bars authorities from enforcing federal gun laws.

The justices rejected a request by Missouri to overturn a ruling by a federal judge that invalidated the 2021 law, known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act, Reuters reported.

The Biden administration sued Missouri in 2022 to block the law. It had urged the Supreme Court not to revive the measure, arguing that it violated a constitutional provision called the "supremacy clause" that makes federal law supersede conflicting state laws, the news outlet said."

Supreme Court keeps Missouri law on hold that targets federal gun restrictions

The U.S. Supreme Court voted to not revive a Missouri law that bars authorities from enforcing federal guns laws after the state was sued by the Biden administration.

www.foxnews.com

 

[seeker_two]

SCOTUS has made its ruling....let them enforce it.

Missouri should proceed with the law anyway. Time for the Feds to see the inside of the jail cell....

 

[Southpaw]

**Needs more coffee**



https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/hb0436I.HTM

 

[MountainGirl]

The Act doesn't provide for punishment of a federal agent.



https://house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/hb0436I.HTM

Yeah it does - 6. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Thanks for that link!!

I'd not read the Act in full before - it takes everything back to the original meaning of the Second Amendment. OMG. No wonder the feds fought it; no wonder SCOTUS couldn't let it stand. Talk about tipping over the tables.

 

[Southpaw]

Yeah it does - 6. Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Thanks for that link!!

I'd not read the Act in full before - it takes everything back to the original meaning of the Second Amendment. OMG. No wonder the feds fought it; no wonder SCOTUS couldn't let it stand. Talk about tipping over the tables! LOLOL

Thanks, I'll amend my post.

 

[MountainGirl]

Thanks...

Nope, thank you, I owe ya for that link.

Here's Section 3 of the Act.

3. (1) All federal acts, laws, 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 Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, are specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

(2) Such federal acts, laws, orders, rules, and regulations include, but are not limited to:

(a) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1934;

(b) The provisions of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968;

(c) Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(d) Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(e) Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition which could have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;

(f) Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of any type of firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;

(g) Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

 

[oldag]

Thomas did not concur with the majority.

 

[MountainGirl]

Thomas did not concur with the majority.

Is there a link showing which Justices voted which way?