testtest

And you knew this would happen

TidalWave

Professional
Hmm… my understanding - perhaps simplistic - was that MO was only saying “Fed, you’ll have to do your own enforcement if you want it done” and not that MO was ‘voiding’ anything.
I notice the article alludes to Federal funding of other (presumably) unrelated things as their leverage. I mentioned in another thread that this might come up.
Article also says MO bill is trying to ‘shield’ businesses & citizens from Fed law. I’m not aware that the bill goes that far either…???
 

the obsrver

Master Class
They can void it exactly to the extent that others have voided federal law by legalizing pot. ( California started that whole "we do not have to listen to federal law) They can enforce whatever they can not void to the extent that Biden enforced federal immigration law.
That is how it works. That is why things are a slippery slope and many, including lawmakers have no end game. Just like I said about the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and so is voting (there was some debate, but in the end it is). So they should be treated the same, id's and background checks for both.
You see when you run around thinking you are smarter or more morally correct, you are only setting the trap for yourself.
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
They can void it exactly to the extent that others have voided federal law by legalizing pot. ( California started that whole "we do not have to listen to federal law) They can enforce whatever they can not void to the extent that Biden enforced federal immigration law.
That is how it works. That is why things are a slippery slope and many, including lawmakers have no end game. Just like I said about the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and so is voting (there was some debate, but in the end it is). So they should be treated the same, id's and background checks for both.
You see when you run around thinking you are smarter or more morally correct, you are only setting the trap for yourself.
Uhhhh.........clarify please.........who is morally correct???
 

TidalWave

Professional
They can void it exactly to the extent that others have voided federal law by legalizing pot. ( California started that whole "we do not have to listen to federal law) They can enforce whatever they can not void to the extent that Biden enforced federal immigration law.
That is how it works. That is why things are a slippery slope and many, including lawmakers have no end game. Just like I said about the right to bear arms is a constitutional right and so is voting (there was some debate, but in the end it is). So they should be treated the same, id's and background checks for both.
You see when you run around thinking you are smarter or more morally correct, you are only setting the trap for yourself.
“…You see when you run around thinking you are smarter or more morally correct, you are only setting the trap for yourself.”

one of my fave old sayings What goes around, comes around. So often true. Works both ways though.
 

Bassbob

Ronin
Those lawyers didn’t spend 10 plus years designing this bill without knowing a commie AG would try to squash it. Feds will be free to enforce their laws. They can’t require the state of Missouri to do it any more than they can require all these states to enforce federal marijuana and immigration laws.
 

the obsrver

Master Class
Uhhhh.........clarify please.........who is morally correct???
We can start with people who think they can make laws against one right and not another, claiming that it is the morally correct thing to do.
When the government tries selling you something based on feelings or tries to stir emotions about it, it is almost always because it does not pass the logic test. Using emotions has a draw back in that it almost always battles logic and if you wish to set precedence by making laws by invoking emotions and saying it is the moral thing to do, people on the other side will argue the logic side of it. At that point you have to agree that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or either your original argument was false, or you are a hypocrite. In either case. you are not very well equipped to be arguing your opinion much less making laws.
Philosophy is a really good teacher about this very concept. Because at that point you either can not admit you were wrong or you simply will be closed minded and not ever even attempt to understand the other side and think and take responsibility in your actions and what they bring. Not understanding nor having enough fore thought to grasp what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
Last edited:

jfmorris

Master Class
Founding Member
I don't think the fed's can do anything about this. Missouri is free to tell their state law enforcement agencies to not assist in the enforcement of anti-2A policy. They would not block the feds from trying to enforce such changes in law, but there are a limited number of FBI agents to go around to deal with that on the local level...
 

the obsrver

Master Class
I don't think the fed's can do anything about this. Missouri is free to tell their state law enforcement agencies to not assist in the enforcement of anti-2A policy. They would not block the feds from trying to enforce such changes in law, but there are a limited number of FBI agents to go around to deal with that on the local level...
Which is exactly what they did in states that made marijuana legal. It is only legal at the state level. However should the Feds do a crack down, can you imagine the outcry? Targeting an entire state is pretty tough to pull off without there being some serious divide. Especially when like I said it would be hypocritical to do so.
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
We can start with people who think they can make laws against one right and not another, claiming that it is the morally correct thing to do.
When the government tries selling you something based on feelings or tries to stir emotions about it, it is almost always because it does not pass the logic test. Using emotions has a draw back in that it almost always battles logic and if you wish to set precedence by making laws by invoking emotions and saying it is the moral thing to do, people on the other side will argue the logic side of it. At that point you have to agree that what is good for the goose is good for the gander, or either your original argument was false, or you are a hypocrite. In either case. you are not very well equipped to be arguing your opinion much less making laws.
Philosophy is a really good teacher about this very concept. Because at that point you either can not admit you were wrong or you simply will be closed minded and not ever even attempt to understand the other side and think and take responsibility in your actions and what they bring. Not understanding nor having enough fore thought to grasp what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Well I interpret that to mean that Government on any level, when it does something moral, is more of a coincidence than design.
 

BET7

Hellcat
Founding Member
Priceless. The Federal Government argues Missouri Can't ignore Federal laws when it comes to Gun Control:

The Biden administration is firing back at the state of Missouri over the new Second Amendment Preservation Act, arguing that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution requires law enforcement in the state to enforce any and all federal gun control laws.

While the Federal Government itself infringes on the Second Amendment of the Constitution by enacting Gun Control.

And if the Biden administration was so keen on upholding the Supremacy Clause, then why aren't they going after States that have legalized Marijuana or States that have declared their Cities or State's sanctuaries, when it comes to illegal immigration (and thus the Federal Government ignoring its own laws passed by Congress on said matter):

The Second Amendment isn’t the only area of federal law where states have taken a hands-off approach. More than a dozen states, for instance, have already legalized the recreational use of marijuana even though it remains illegal under federal law. Will the Biden administration be sending a similar letter to Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont when he signs legislation allowing residents to purchase and use cannabis? What about illegal immigration? California adopted a “sanctuary state” law a few years ago that bars state and local law enforcement from enforcing or cooperating in the enforcement of most federal immigration laws, and the Supreme Court allowed the law to stand when it refused to accept a legal challenge last June. The Biden Justice Department hasn’t challenged California or cities that have imposed similar sanctuary laws for illegal immigrants. In fact, it’s done the opposite.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that States can't be compeled to enact or administer federal regulatory programs:

And contrary to Boynton’s claims, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the federal government cannot compel states to “enact or administer a federal regulatory program.” As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Printz v. United States

Seems the Biden Administration wants its cake and to eat it too.

Article from which excerpts above were copied:

 
Top