Other State US Supreme Court won't revive Missouri law targeting federal gun curbs

[The Heretic]

US Supreme Court won't revive law targeting federal gun curbs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to revive a Missouri law that bars state and local officials from enforcing certain federal gun restrictions that the Republican-crafted law had claimed to nullify for violating firearms rights protected by the Constitution's Second...

news.yahoo.com

Read More

 

[arakboss]

This is another sign that the robes won't save us.

 

[Alexx1401]

Stomper among others has LONG been trying to warn people here to NOT depend on the courts to come clean up their mess. Too many gun owners sit on their hands and make trying to get support like herding cats. MANY of them love to say "but the constitution says..........." Does not matter what it says, it mattes what some black robe says it means. People need to stop expecting other black robes to clean up the mess.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Remember those Connect-The-Dots games with all the dots numbered and sometimes it was pretty easy to tell what the picture would be and other times you really couldn't tell until almost all the lines were drawn in? The rulings (and lack thereof) from this court are like that, except there are no dots and everytime it just about looks like the picture is going be of the Constitution they draw another line and it starts to look more like the menu from a Denny's

 

[Stomper]

Remember those Connect-The-Dots games with all the dots numbered and sometimes it was pretty easy to tell what the picture would be and other times you really couldn't tell until almost all the lines were drawn in? The rulings (and lack thereof) from this court are like that, except there are no dots and everytime it just about looks like the picture is going be of the Constitution they draw another line and it starts to look more like the menu from a Denny's

All those dot 2 dots were easy for me to figure out before even touching them, as well as every single Rorshack ink-blot test that I ever took.




The secret answer was always…. BOOBIES!

 

[Hawaiian]

I understand that States can not override Federal law. Now apply the same rule to sanctuary cities/states for illegal immigrants'. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Stomper]

Stomper among others has LONG been trying to warn people here to NOT depend on the courts to come clean up their mess. Too many gun owners sit on their hands and make trying to get support like herding cats. MANY of them love to say "but the constitution says..........." Does not matter what it says, it mattes what some black robe says it means. People need to stop expecting other black robes to clean up the mess.

Not just "black robes"….. LAWYERS in black robes.

 

[Stomper]

I understand that States can not override Federal law. Now apply the same rule to sanctuary cities/states for illegal immigrants'. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

It's already a precedent that the Feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law, but they can always cut federal funding to "rebellious" states who don't "play ball"…. therefore, not many (if any) state can take that kind of hit to their income streams.


Deal with the devil, get burned in the end.

 

[Alexx1401]

It's already a precedent that the Feds cannot compel the states to enforce federal law, but they can always cut federal funding to "rebellious" states who don't "play ball"…. therefore, not many (if any) state can take that kind of hit to their income streams.


Deal with the devil, get burned in the end.

This has LONG been how the feds keep states in line. Don't toe the line the feds just turn off the money spigot.

 

[Hawaiian]

Then there should be no Federal funding for the sanctuary cities that are now crying the blues because their cities are receiving immigrants in numbers that are costing them big buck to care for. They created the problem and the rest of us tax payers should not have to fund their stupidity.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Pretty sure that the Fed can only withhold funding for issues related to the Federal funding in the first place. Like set the speed limit at 55 or no Fed money for Fed funded interstate highways. There has been limited to no success cutting off funding in general for sanctuary laws because no fed money is given to the states for those laws which is the point the states are relying on: "You don't pay us to do this, so we aren't going to"
The same would apply to gun sanctuary laws and the enforcement of fed gun laws I would think, your local PoPo won't come knocking on your door, but the ATF still can

 

[ma96782]

I understand that States can not override Federal law. Now apply the same rule to sanctuary cities/states for illegal immigrants'. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yup. BUT, But, but......

"Sanctuary Cities"

Aloha, Mark

PS.....maybe, it's more of a case where......

"Who is in charge at the DOJ?"

Rrrrright...... Brandon, gets to make the call.......as to where and when, JUSTICE in AMERICA is found/applied.

 

[The Heretic]

I understand that States can not override Federal law. Now apply the same rule to sanctuary cities/states for illegal immigrants'. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

And as I have said numerous times, such laws/etc. are a distraction and a waste of time/effort for everybody.

1) They do nothing to prevent federal LEOs from enforcing the laws/rules/regs - which is what really needs to happen.

2) They give people a false sense of security - sometimes resulting in prison time (e.g., Kansas and its "silencer" law, Montana had something similar, Texas tried something similar?).

3) It is just political "virtue signaling" - just like "sanctuary cities".

 

[salmon creek gary]

Here's the part of the reasoning that really frosts my cake:

"While purporting to protect citizens, (the Missouri law) exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the federal government's ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens,"

"Designed by Congress"? Only in a broad sense; the unconstitutional devil lurks in the over-reaching, restrictive details written by unelected bureaucrats catering to the administration agenda.

"For the purpose of protecting citizens"? Gun control laws do not protect citizens at all. Realistically & demonstrably, those laws are simply ignored by those who actually pose a threat to the safety of citizens. That leaves only one logical conclusion: gun control laws and their devilish interpretations are actually written for the purpose of restricting and punishing law-abiding firearms owners, the ones who aren't any threat whatsoever to public safety.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

And as I have said numerous times, such laws/etc. are a distraction and a waste of time/effort for everybody.

1) They do nothing to prevent federal LEOs from enforcing the laws/rules/regs - which is what really needs to happen.

2) They give people a false sense of security - sometimes resulting in prison time (e.g., Kansas and its "silencer" law, Montana had something similar, Texas tried something similar?).

3) It is just political "virtue signaling" - just like "sanctuary cities".

And don't forget there have been more than a few cases where local governments or LEO's in areas with sanctuary laws went right ahead and worked with Fed LEO's when it suited them to do so

 

[ma96782]

Rrrrright.....
Like......

"One man's manga is just another man's hentai."

WAIT, Wait, wait.......

Aloha, Mark

 

[wired]

The Courts are where eyou go to get sentenced. Expecting anything more than that out of them is folly.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The Courts are where eyou go to get sentenced. Expecting anything more than that out of them is folly.

Only for criminal Courts, not civil Courts I've never heard of SCOTUS sentencing State or Federal officials to prison