DOJ Says Missouri Gun Law Is Unconstitutional

[Wake-up!]

Imagine that! Well, what the heck would you expect the Bolsheviks in the Department of Justice to say?

What it has said is this; "HB85 is legally invalid. Under the United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause, the State of Missouri has no power to nullify federal laws." Here is a link to the story; https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-justice-department-says-missouri-161112568.html


Excuse us gun owners, DOJ, but the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to overrule the Second Amendment. No man-made law can overrule Natural Law. So take your so-called Supremacy Clause and go back to Washington DC, where you belong.

But, the DOJ claim is not about guns, the claim is about power. Still, DOJ is wrong for two reasons that I can think of. One, HB85 is not nullifying federal law, it is nullifying an unconstitutional claim only in the State of Missouri, not in the US. Wording is precise and very important in law. The federal law still applies everywhere the federal government holds Constitutionally delegated power (like Washington DC, military bases, legally owned federal properties, and US territories.)

And two, the Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government ANY power over the States. The only power the federal government has over the States are the powers of its limited Delegated Authority set forth in various clauses of the Constitution. That's it. Period. Other claimed powers are null and void, they are without merit. These Supreme Court cases say so;

"No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2s, Sec 256
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137,174,176,(1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.
"An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

What does the Supremacy Clause mean? According to those who wrote the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause tells the States and the federal government that the States will not create a second central government to deal with future issues, the central government they created in the Constitution will be the only one. And that is the extent of the Supremacy Clause, regardless of what SCOTUS, POTUS or DOJ may have claimed since the Constitution was ratified.

Good Lord, the States HAD to worry about a second central authority. In hindsight, one has proven to be bad enough. And the States created the Bill of Rights as further proof of their concern about central authorities. Can you imagine two central authorities raising armies and trying to rule over us like Lords?

Now, the worry is what the Bolsheviks in the Court system will say. I don't count on them being on the side of gun owners.

And BTW, Biden and his cronies are not after illegal guns as Yahoo states, they are after ALL guns.

[redcliffsw]

Supremacy Nonsense: