1980 Judge rules it's unconstitutional for states to ignore federal laws that are unconstitutional. (www.reuters.com) posted 82 days ago by HeyBlinkin 82 days ago by HeyBlinkin +1980 / -0 U.S. judge rules Missouri state gun law is unconstitutional A Missouri state law that declared several federal gun laws "invalid" is unconstitutional, a U.S. federal judge ruled on Tuesday, handing the U.S. Justice Department a victory in its bid to get the law tossed out. www.reuters.com 371 comments share 371 comments share save hide report block hide replies
Horseshit. What about those Sanctuary States ignoring Immigration Laws.
Weed is illegal federally
Cannabis isn't in the constitution as being a right, guns are.
It also isn't in the Constitution as something to be controlled by the Federal government, yet here we are
This, the constitution lays out what powers the people have granted to government so that it may act as our representatives in matters of state, government has only those powers and no more, everything else is considered a right reserved by the people as enumerated under the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Meaning anything the federal government does which it has not specifically been granted authority for within the constitution is an unlawful usurpation of the rights of the people and the states.
That's not even addressing infringments upon the second amendment which the federal government is explicitly forbidden from doing. That the federal government seeks to assert power over the very mechanism intented to prevent tyranny, in my opinion, is the canary in the coal mine that government has become tyrannical.
Well spoken, God bless you!
Their response is always "mUh InTeRstAtE CoMMeRcE cLauSe" even though that was not the intention of that clause.
Yeah, if I recall there was some farmer during the depression who lost a case in which the government claimed that by growing extra crops for his own consumption he had effected the market because he wasn't buying the produce.
And somehow from that screwed up precedent government has claimed tons of power it isn't meant to have.
Wickard v. Filburn. One of the most disgusting decisions from the FDR tyranny era.
Bear with me on my pet peeve. Given how well-written and thought out your comments are, I suspect you already know (just a typo or slip), but for the less-grammatically inclined among us:
affect is the verb (and rarely the noun, only in the case of one's expression).
• e.g. "He had affected the market..."
effect is the noun (and rarely the verb, only use when "to bring about" i.e. "effect change in the market").
• e.g. "He effected change in the market" or, more commonly probably, "his own consumption had an effect on the market"
Yes. 10th Amendment.
That part always seems to be missed.
Weed laws are Admiralty Ocean Law which is illegally being used by the Courts on Americans.
Constitutional laws and Rights are based on Natural Law which is based on common sense.
Federal laws controlling individual growth and use of weed are based on (faulty interpretation of) the interstate commerce clause.
Something about a tree needing water from time to time?
Almost everything is pumped off the commerce clause
Those statues are admiralty law, ocean law.
Is that why the Statue of Liberty is in the Ocean? /s
Based on God given rights. Bus is why America sucks. We removed God and somehow thought it was better.
admirality ocean law comes with the corporation dude. won't be rid of it til we end it. us grant did us no favors beginning 1871.
We never agreed to this evil.
See how well that turned out for Darrell Brooks
Didn't you know? The "commerce clause" covers that. Yep, the "commerce clause" is a kind of but you can regulate everything you want using me to attain unlimited power talisman.
/sarc for those who may miss it
That shit has always pissed me off.
"Sure the Constitution is written to specifically limit the Fed govt's power, but they wrote in the Commerce Clause to directly contradict the spirit and letter of the entire fucking document and therefore the Fed govt actually has unlimited power to do whatever the fuck it wants."
Yeah, but the point is states ignore the federal weed laws. According to this, they can't now. It's all illegal now. Sinaloa is going to be pissed, they run weed dispensaries all over the place.
The federal government has no authority to institute any prohibition, it only has the authority and powers delegated to it by the constitution. All other rights are reserved by the people and the states under the tenth amendment.
Which means the states can ignore federal drug laws because the federal government never had the authority to institute those laws in the first place. This is the reason a constitutional amendment was required to institute alcohol prohibition and it's later repeal.
If that's the logic, then since the federal government has no authority to infringe 2nd amendment rights, states can just ignore those laws.
Exactly, and the second amendment has a stronger case because it clearly states that it shall not be infringed.
It's preemptive. The federal government is free to enforce its own marijuana laws, but requiring state agents to enforce federal laws would be unconstitutional commandeering of a state’s resources.
It was written on hemp though.
Constitution is written on hemp
Pursuit of happiness is a right
The federal government has no authority to enact laws concerning weed (or guns).
Ignore the ruling. Arrest the fake Judge.
Great another Judge who never read the constitution but swore to uphold it..... such a very low bar of entry these days.
The threshold, 2/3 legislative vote, for impeachment is too high. Instead, any citizen negatively affected by a Judges' blatant violation of the constitution, should be able to contest the Judge in court and if successful the Judge should be removed.
Now, would Judges hold each other accountable? Not likely in their immediate circle but perhaps special tribunals set up from a nationally representative body.
The founders understood systemic corruption can only be remedied through spiritual revival and the removal of tyrants.
Scotus also allowed roe vs wade to stand for fifty years.
and it was a flat out lie of a case.
Everyone seems to forget that.
The finding was jaw dropping even to Liberal Lawyers back then.
No one has every been able to defend 'Roe' and no one ever tried - they just 'went with it so women could have tons of sex.'
... and finally the Supremes fixed that error.
I was only pointing out that scotus gets it wrong and a scotus ruling is not absolute.
Yeah, I think the point is no one fucking gives a shit what any judge says except the tribunals.
Just another one of many of their idiotic rulings that has bastardized the Constitution (And Scalia was in on this one too).
I didn't say that.
I said SCOTUS has a lot of idiotic decisions (over time).
Every human alive does idiotic things, and makes idiotic decisions at times. Even the most intelligent of us.
I think Scalia let his personal biases get in the way in that particular instance. It certainly wasn't sound legal doctrine.
Nullification is how we restore justice.
THIS is the way.
Also hanging traitors.
So - woodchippers after???
First, then hang them. In mesh bags, like ham.
THEN the woodchippers?
Just don't say you know about it.
And here's hoping Missouri goes back to treating it as illegal. What a great precedent to set.
“Could you send us a few more copies of that ruling judge? We’re running low on toilet paper.”
The federal courts aren't even sending people court papers right now... something is up.
The law in question supposedly made it illegal for the feds to enforce gun laws, which is slightly different than state laws going counter to federal law.
However, in the law suit, the feds cited lack of cooperation from local and state law enforcement as a factor in bringing their suit. To that, I say what about sanctuary cities refusing to help the feds enforce immigration law (and in some cases actively subverting the Feds effort to enforce federal law)?
Missouri should repeal this law and pass a new one that makes all guns legal (which would be akin to state laws legalizing marijuana). Then, continue refusing to assist federal law enforcement. There could be some negative consequences but it would be interesting to see it play out. Of course, another Obama judicial activist would likely twist logic into a pretzel to stop that as well. The states are just fiefdoms to the assholes in DC.
Pot head democrat voters doing the side look meme right now.
It's only bad when we do it.
The sooner people realize that we're at a point in our history where the only thing that matters is power, the sooner we can all start piecing together the puzzle.
That's the way it's always been. The idea of independent, self-reliant people was a radical concept. One that caught on like a firestorm. Directly trying to stamp it out didn't work so now those who would seek power are attempting to do so by subversion and deceit.
Not true, the Left came to power because we used to believe in individual rights.
And responsibilities. Many people want the nanny state to coddle them from cradle to grave.
I read the ending as "piercing this shit with a muzzle"
We are the carbon they want to reduce.
this is why its time for national divorce
I'm in. Won't happen without a war though. They won't let it.
No divorce. You give the left what they want: no place for hate.
The left doesn't want a divorce, they want total compliance and obedience . ..
I'd enjoy watching them go bankrupt and then starve as they realize the ly produce zero food.
It happens with noncompliance.
Where will they get their soldiers from, in the long run? The military are from red areas.
It says so right in the...you know, the thing.
The difference is that sanctuary states are just not enforcing federal law, but they didn’t pass a law ruling the federal law unconstitutional. This goes for all of the sanctuary laws as far as I am aware. I’m not a constitutional scholar (I did stay at a holiday in several years ago however and it sucked), but this ruling honestly meshes with my understanding of the supremacy clause.
The state should be suing to have the unconstitutional laws invalidated per Bruen, demanding injunctions and just not enforce them, nor allow federal LE to enforce them.
States DID Pass Laws making Marijuana legal. Couldn't tax it if they didn't.
Last time I checked, Mary Jane is still Federally Illegal...
Actually it is totally fine in DC federally
DC ain't a State...
DC ain't America, what's your point?
i think the feds could show up and enforce the federal pot statutes if they chose to do so.
The silent part is they don’t because they like those state gibbs
Are National Guards Fed owned, or State owned?
Right, they didn’t pass a law declaring the federal law unconstitutional, they simply ignored it. I think that’s the difference here.
Still, we need more states suing in federal court to overturn existing federal laws in light of Bruen. And the EPA case
Nullification is how we restore justice.
THIS is the way.
No, the judge's reasoning is based on the law's prohibition on state officers assisting the feds.
Supremacy clause: federal law supercedes state law ONLY when it's constitutional.
Anti-commandeering doctrine: states are under no obligation to assist the enforcement of federal laws even when they're constitutional.
In what you quote it says "state or local law enforcement" not feds face the penalty if they enforce those laws
I think you’re misreading the previous poster. He was just acknowledging that the Bill only applied to state agencies
True, he was acknowledging that he misread it, but just responded in a great way about it lol. Robin also agreed with Batman that way when Batman was right.
He is calling u/Blesbok Batman. Are you Batman?
1000% this judge is a partisan piece of shit hack, gargling federal cum....the supremacy clause gives the federal government authority in matters pertaining to a violation of constitutional rights. If we had actual judges and not commie cocksuckers like this one they would be using the supremacy clause to put IL in CA in check over blatant violations of the second ammendment.
Nullification is how we restore justice.
THIS is the way.
Also check out https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/
We need a good old fashioned nullification crisis. Time for the governor to arrest this subversive federal judge!
Since the Constitution clearly says all laws that violate the Constitution are illegal laws to be ignored this useless judge can go F him/her self..
not a prior felon.. you can legally carry
If you're worried about a ex-convict having a gun, then you didn't hold them long enough, or you didn't rehabilitate them at all.
It's kinda sad how many people that call themselves freedom loving 2nd amendment absolutists also agree that because someone made a horrible mistake when they were 18, they should have their right to self defense taken away for the rest of their lives.
For some reason when people think felon, they think of the worst crimes you can commit. There’s a lot of bullshit laws that will give a felony. I’m sure if any of the J6 prisoners ever see daylight again, they won’t be able to own a firearm or vote.
Maybe we ought to fix what is considered a felony and what isn't.
That's the intention of these laws.
To turn normal people into felons.
That's trick in places like NJ and MA. All firearm offenses are felonies ...
Couldn’t agree more. At most it should only restrict people who committed a felony gun crime, or other violent crime, and even they should be able to get their rights back after a period of time if they can prove they’ve turned their life around.
But if you reoffend after your rights are restored, you should also be far more harshly penalized as you have demonstrated that you are not rehabilitated and if you failed rehabilitation once and proceeded to reoffend, you'll just keep doing it.
Exactly. I always tell people harsh punishments should only be for violent crimes or repeat offenders. You shouldn’t do hard time or lose any rights for minor offenses or “accidents.”
There is a process to have rights reinstated.
Yeah, it's called agorism
I don't think they actually process the applications though.
That's what a life sentence is. Having your rights taken away forget. All of them.
Most criminals are not Red from Shawshank Redemption. They're recidivists who have a felony rap sheet a mile long, and commit crimes the day they're released from prison.
The problem isn't whether their rights are fully restored upon release. The problem happens long before that, with sentencing and parole.
Or the ATF would be conducting a ton of their little checks in the inner city where there's a high amount of felons, illegally owned firearms, and loads of gun violence.
Or what they did isnt worth the felon status.
Restricting gun ownership should be limited to violent felons and those who are not mentally capable of the responsibility of gun ownership.
bingo! so the government cant write laws saying ONLY law abiding citizens CANNOT own weapons
As a woman, if I had to turn in my legal firearms to avoid arrest, I would do so and then just buy some off the street. Protecting my home and family is more important than a law. Fuck the state.
That's because it isn't the law that matters it's what the "authorities" say the law is that matters. If the law mattered all gun control would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Laws are just justifications for the socially-accepted mafia to exert its power
Turn in one, at most. The rest, you can claim you sold. You have no record of the sale because it was done in cash and the buyer was not someone you knew personally, so you don't remember their name.
The Mossberg 590 is what you may have owned. It is non-NFA because it doesn't have a shoulder stock, making it okay for the barrel to also be shorter than normal. You can modify it to have a pistol grip.
I’m sure friends and family would be okay with you going to prison if the alternative was you or your family being murdered in a home invasion.
A lot of felons aren't even VIOLENT felons. Drug laws, (stupid and need revision state and federal) taxes (stupid and need revision state and federal) Current immigration status (really fucking stupid and really needs revision)
If you’re not currently in jail, you right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected.
Why didn't you appeal your case?
That's just straight up unconstitutional.
The history of that time feels so real to me for some reason.
Men went to jail once, and turned their shit around back then.
Nowadays, it feels like most who are there are career criminals.
Usually because they became Christian.
Hard to do when their felon status locks them out of most gainful employment avenues and all their active, current employment contacts are criminal. Most felons only have two choices as they exit prison - poverty or career criminality.
It's one of the reasons I think Joe Exotic got done dirty. Say whatever you want about the man and his many dumb choices, but he was one of the only business owners in Wynnewood Oklahoma who'd hire felons above minimum wage.
Exactly. The state fucks you over if you commit one crime. Life becomes nearly impossible.
Yeah, I think he lost the plot in his revenge fueled ideas about hiring a hitman.
Poor criminals go to prison. Rich criminals go to congress.
Usually because they became Christian.
That is deeply naive.
And you’re deeply cynical.
"red flag laws" disagree
The Constitution doesn’t.
I want to agree but Waco/Ruby ridge says otherwise
The Constitution say the agencies that did those atrocities shouldn’t even exist. Like seriously, the Constitution gives the federal government very specific, detailed duties, rights, and tasks and then says whatever is not mentioned here belongs to the states to handle. The fuck says we need a federal investigation agency? A Central Intelligence Agency is not specified in the Constitution, neither is a drug enforcement agency or an agency that deals with alcohol tobacco and firearms. Just think of any agency in the government and then find in the Constitution where it says they can exist. You won’t be able to do it. There’s about 17 of those powers outlined in the Constitution for the federal government and can you believe one of them is for the treasury to coin the money supply???
Might makes right (and rights).
I understand the reasoning for removing that right from felons, the crux comes when you realize who decides which people get charged with felonies.
This. I was involved in a self-defense altercation against six people in a group on a golf course of all places. I was told I could press assault charges on the six who decided to jump me if I accepted felony aggravated assault charges since i beat the living piss out of a few of them with my 7iron. The cop gave me the option to walk away and call it a day. I was happy to go to work the next day vs sit in a cell with indigents spending months defending myself against the color of the city.
cant be more correct!!
The original rating would basically be any criminal lunatic. Not all felons. Basically the criminally insane.
but people that lop off their sex organs are A OK
shall not be infringed is pretty clear
The Judge has made his ruling, now let the feds enforce it.
This is a good outcome as long as the Missouri legislature doesn't become a bunch of cowardly fools. The history is very clear on this. The state can tell the fed to go pound sand once they have declared that the federal law is not constitutional.
The reason it is good is that it reinforces boundaries and gives other states courage. It also begins the breakup.
The Missouri AG is very based & I think the Governor may be, but not totally sure. The AG worked to file a lawsuit along with Louisiana to charge the federal government illegally conspired with social media companies to censor American's free speech, & that suit is currently in court, I believe. The Missouri AG also worked to get that Saint Louis couple pardoned for protecting their home from BLM rioters who threatened to kill their dog & torch their home. So he's a good guy in my book.
Don't lookup MO Family law. This AG is just another cuck in the machine.
Like all cucks, he should be used as the tool he is, nothing more.
But he's a federal judge and hence part of the unconstitutional system. He has no standing, his ruling is moot.
So enforce it with the couple dozen federal agents you have in the state. Good luck.
Emphasis mine. This judge thinks that the federal government enacts laws to protect us. Should be disbarred, then tarred and feathered. Or the other way around, that works, too.
Looking at you, California.
Title says it all
Yep. See you soon supremes!
Translation: The US Federal Govt. Tells States They Have No Sovereignty, "We Own You"
I agree....time for that divorce.
If so we keep the house and kids…. They can pack a bag and get the fuck out
We get the house and kids, they get the credit card bills.
Now rule on illegal immigrants and "sanctuary cities/states".
Either both are illegal, or you're a partisan hack, illegitimate and can fuck right off.
Missouri:"Your opinion has not been noted"
Andthe day goes on...
I don't see how it is a supremacy clause issue since the state didn't take away the power of the federal law enforcement to enforce federal law.
But of course.
All federal gun regulations are unconstitutional.
who cares. Ignore them anyway, tell them to enforce their ruling and then do whatever you want. Keep ignoring them forever!
Soooo....let me see if I have this right.
A state enacted legislation which stipulates that the state refuses to abide by federal laws which it thinks are unconstitutional, and then a federal judge rules that the legislation is itself unconstitutional? How is that even logical? It is the equivalent of the federal government, whose power rests in the federal constitution, denying the states rights which rest in the very same document...a document which mandates that our Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed. They cannot claim the authority to rule by relying on the very document they are denying!
Because the supremacy clause implicitly gives federal judges the last word.
It's the idea of a federation that's broken.
This is simple. Since the left doesn't follow any laws then don't follow the laws. What's the judge going to do arrest the state? Feds come in to bother people arrest their agents. This is where we are headed.
That is how the national divorce will start.
Republican-led states need to start arresting federal agents, en masse, who attempt to enforce unconstitutional laws.
Lol fuck you
Divison between the fed and the states.... getting spicy now.
The whole fucking point of the UNITED STATES is that each state is like an independent country, you know, a republic! Fuck off an die with your tyrannical bullshit.
What is provision to be able to remove a judge that is ass backwards as this one?
It is called impeachment but seeing as you can't get 2/3 of the Senate to throw this fool out, it will never happen.
Pretty sure it's unconstitutional to force states to enforce laws that are unconstitutional.
It an Obama appointment, what did you expect?
Two words: Diversity Hire
Fuck that guy.
The DoI and 9th & 10th Amendment are easily read by anyone who bothers.
All gun laws are unconstitutional, what part of "shall not be infringed" do these people not understand?!
Fuck the Judge. Stay strong MS
2A > *
Fuck the feds. Ignore them anyway.
But MI can issue driver's licenses to illegals so they can travel on interstate roads. Same roads the federalies use to extort States through transportation funding on minimum drinking ages and maximum speed limits. Fuck these shit for brains.
Enumerated powers is why we do not have a federal driver's license. That power is reserved to the states and therefore the federal government cannot require one.
However it sometimes works in reverse. For example your mailman could have his license revoked for driving while intoxicated. However since post offices and post roads are an enumerated power of the federal government, that mailman can continue to drive that postal vehicle without any interference from the state even though his license is suspended.
Notice that states and their cities can't really do anything to postal vehicles in regard to either parking or even red light cameras. There have been numerous cases of the post office department sending letters to State and local governments who operate red light cameras or attempt to enforce parking tickets against mail trucks that state they will not identify the driver and that the postal vehicle is federally protected and exempt from their regulation.
Thank you for the additional context. I did not know that. Very insightful.