Missouri Has Declared Federal Gun Laws Invalid

Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally.

It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.

> States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate

Both the Constitution and the 10th Amendment make it pretty clear that the Federal government has no business in these area.

This and the Commerce Clause "loophole" can hardly be used to mingle in private state business as long as the firearms don't cross state line.

On the other hand state courts have consistently found federal law doesn't have the right to infringe on the Constitution.

Yes and the states don’t have to help enforce federal law. If the federal government is forced to stick to laws that it can naturally enforce due to interstate or international commerce, and laws they will mobilize the national guard for (like desegregation) then we will live in a better world.

> "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks

There already is background checks in place. Anti-gunners and media who have never gone through it keep spouting that lie.

Waiting periods do the exact opposite - why would anyone want those who need a gun for self defence to wait a month to be able to buy it? Waiting periods also are getting exploited by certain anti-gun states to prevent gun purchases. If you are lets say a woman retiring home from school late at night and need one for self defence because you saw someone following you, you want to wait a month to be able to buy it?

The broader political context is that Biden campaigned on adding AR-15s to the NFA, a law designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the plebs [0], nominated an ATF director who wants to ban AR-15s entirely [1], and has pushed controversial red-flag laws that allow for the seizure of firearms without the accused having any right to challenge the order prior to the property seizure being executed [2]. AR-15s are owned by millions of Americans, mostly Republicans, for lawful purposes such as hunting and target shooting. Rifles of all types are used in only around 2% of all homicides [3], so this would have a very minimal impact on Biden's stated goal of reducing gun violence, but would significantly affect legal gun owners. It's entirely unsurprising that this has prompted a backlash by red states, which are gearing up for a political and legal fight over firearms for the next few years.

[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/16/biden-gun-...

[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/26/davi...

[2] - https://americanmilitarynews.com/2021/06/biden-doj-proposes-...

[3] - https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook.

Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this.

Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.

I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights

I looked up what it is and it is a tool from hell, IMHO. It converts an AR-15 rifle into a machine gun. It can fire a crazy amount of bullets in a short time. No wonder that thing is illegal.

https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/

It's for defence against threats - both domestic and abroad. Domestic threat includes a tyrannical state.

Certain people try to make the claim that "The right of the people" was only referring to the government/law enforcement. This is wrong.

2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

The “right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment and refers to individual freedoms.

1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

"The right of the people" being the crucial part. If people really want to claim that the founders were talking about only the state/militia having arms and not the individual people, then with that logic would mean that only the state/militia has the right to free speech, peaceably assemble or to be secure in their houses free from unreasonable searches without warrants - which obviously makes no sense. Therefore the founders were talking about the individual people.

> Of the many inhuman outrages of this present year, the only case where the proposed lynching did not occur, was where the men armed themselves in Jacksonville, Fla., and Paducah, Ky., and prevented it. The only times an Afro-American who was assaulted got away has been when he had a gun and used it in self-defense.

> The lesson this teaches and which every Afro American should ponder well, is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give. When the white man who is always the aggressor knows he runs as great a risk of biting the dust every time his Afro-American victim does, he will have greater respect for Afro-American life.

— Ida B. Wells. Source: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=3&p...

Well, they are pretty fun to shoot. It’s an activity you can do alone or with friends that’s challenging, just like archery or bowling.

In rural areas they’re almost ubiquitous because they’re used for hunting, animal control (I’ve personally killed a probably-rabid skunk, rabbits that kept getting in the garden, etc.), and self defense.

If a man or two break in to my house I might, and I stress might, have a chance against them unarmed. My wife would not. Our neighbors are far enough away where nobody would hear her scream, and even if she managed to call 911 they would probably take 5-10 minutes to get here.

I had an old classmate and his company do the tiling in our living room a few years ago. A year or two after that he got deep in to meth and ended up breaking in to a girl’s house, tied her up, and raped her all night while threatening to kill her baby. I was happy I keep a pistol in the nightstand after hearing about that, and I make sure my wife trains with it a couple of times a year.

There’s also the whole “keeping the government in check,” and “the second amendment protects the first,” lines of thinking, but I think that’s why some people are adamant about the second amendment itself - not guns.

I think most people actually don't care that much, and it's actually all driven by politicians because it's so easy to invoke emotions over it. It's effortless for any politition on either side to paint the whole topic as an emergency, easy way to stoke fear and reaction and get you some votes.

Similar dynamic for the media. The topic is like hot and cold running clicks and views on tap. They sensationalize everything they can, and this practically sensationalizes itself.

The numbers of actual deaths and injuries do not justify this much attention, but the things the numbers do suggest are the biggest problems are just not easy to sell or even explain, and more often than not they conflict with corporate greed and somewhere along the way to any honest assessment of problems and remedies.

Then there is also the effect of reaction.

I am a Bernie/Warren/AOC-loving leftie, and don't own a gun, and whenever I hear yet another attempt by the left to step all over peoples agency, it makes ME want to go out and buy a gun just out of reaction to protect a right that I consider as fundamental as any other. The different rights protect each other. The more the right tries to infringe on say the right to vote, the more important it is to try to get everyone to excercise that right. Same thing when the left tries to infringe on the right to be armed.

So you get a lot of people seemingly acting crazy like this is the most important thing in the world, when really I think it's more like, they just will not tolerate being stepped on on that.

There are all kinds of things that I don't go around talking about all day every day, but if one day you tried to say I couldn't do something that's none of anyone else's business, that thing would suddenly become the most important thing in the world.

Actually as I re-read this article a second time, it is really one sided in favor of Gun control. Is there a better article that at least tries to be impartial?

I'm not a lawyer or a legislative expert, but the article answers the question.

> The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause essentially says federal law is supreme over state law. And the preemption doctrine means that "valid federal law will always displace a state law, even a state constitutional provision that is inconsistent with that federal law," Vladeck says.

I'm pretty sure that we already know that the constitution is meaningless as shown from the Snowden leaks... so the US Gov. will fight it if they think they can win.

The constitution doesn't say either bullets or guns, it says arms.

Setting up a system that lets the rich continue to do the thing you claim no one should be able to do, is not a very well considered plan.

The government has purchased ammunition in amounts that corners the market.

Of course that just incentivized shooters to hoard ammo and learn how to reload.

Interesting typo--president. I think you meant precedent.

Unlike cannabis and immigration status, there’s a real constitutional amendment involved. I’m interested in the arguments that somehow treat the three of these differently. (Pro-cannabis-choice, anti-immigration-hypocrisy here.)

That precedent is called the 10th Amendment. And it didn't have anything to do with sanctuary whatevers.

This is a statute passed by the Missouri House and Senate, and signed by the Governor. It wasn't an action by the Attorney General.