|
|
|
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: Judge denies challenge to Missouri gun law
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In their statement from June 22, Burlison and Taylor expressed confidence that SAPA could withstand any legal challenges.
"From the 1842 court decision of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, to Printz vs. the United States, and most recently, NFIB vs. Sebelius, the courts have consistently ruled that there is a prohibition of federal usurpation, or "commandeering" of state resources," Burlison and Taylor wrote. "Law enforcement agencies cannot be forced into doing the work of the federal government, especially when such work is unconstitutional in the hearts and minds of many Missourians."
Burlison said that some of the legal research leading up to House Bill 85's passage in 2021 dated back to about a decade before the bill's adoption. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(9/2/2021)
|
The Supremacy Clause doesn't create a blank slate, it contains a very specific limitation.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States WHICH SHALL BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF...." (emphasis mine)
Clearly, prima facie federal violations of black-letter constitutional limitations are NOT "made in pursuance thereof," hence cannot supersede state law.
One need go no further than that - it is FULL STOP. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908 [by an Indian extremist opposed to Gandhi's agreement with Smuts], whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defend me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu Rebellion and [World War I]. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. — Mohandas K. Gandhi, Young India, August 11, 1920 from Fischer, Louis ed.,The Essential Gandhi, 1962 |
|
|
