Gun law debate

[fishinwrench]

What could possibly be the relevance of this?

https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/state-high-court-to-hear-challenge-to-missouri-gun-law/amp/

 

If there's a federal law that they WANT to enforce.....then why not just make it a STATE LAW ? 

And if there's a federal law that they DON'T WANT to enforce......then DON'T. 

What's the REAL reason for this hearing?   It smells like there is a hidden agenda festering, to me.   

[FishnDave]

Sounds like, just from that brief article, that the issue is when the Feds come to MO to investigate and prosecute crime, they can't do it based on the Federal laws...they have to do it based on the less restrictive MO laws, which perhaps makes it more difficult to charge someone with certain crimes?  Or aspects of crimes?  If they can't make one crime stick...like they can't find enough evidence for murder...they can at least still prosecute and jail someone based on a different crime, like owning a non-registered firearm, or tax evasion. 🤪 Maybe something like that....I have no idea what I'm talking about. 😅

[nomolites]

Feds want to impose on the states, nothing new there really - although a quite valid reason to carefully consider where you choose to live.

i.e., California…despite their favorable climate, not a chance - they make the Feds look conservative and fiscally responsible.

Mike

[tjm]

It's not a gun issue, it's a control issue. Similar to some states not enforcing Federal laws on marijuana. Local police should never be enforcing Federal laws unless those laws are duplicated by state laws, Feds make a law Feds enforce that law and bear the cost of enforcement and prosecution and house  the criminal in Fed jail. It's basically a state's right issue, although most state's right have been traded in  for Federal money.   I think I read that one state made it a crime for local cops to enforce Federal gun control laws. Not that any of this will in any way affect the way criminals use guns or drugs or violate the laws, it's a way for lawyers to earn a living and it keeps them off the street. 

[Nick Adams]

21 minutes ago, tjm said:

I think I read that one state made it a crime for local cops to enforce Federal gun control laws.

That state is Missouri. These articles give more detail. I think many Law Enforcement Agencies don't like because it prevents locals from ever working with Feds on anything because the law was written poorly. I know the Springfield Chief has spoken against it in other articles.

https://www.ky3.com/2022/02/06/reports-missouri-supreme-court-hear-challenge-new-gun-law-monday/

This article gives even more detail.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/challenge-to-controversial-gun-law-set-to-be-heard-by-missouri-high-court/article_80182719-08ec-57ec-b5d7-60688935e1f5.html

[tjm]

I was thinking Kansas,  but its all about power and politics regardless. 

[fishinwrench]

Gun laws are clear as day & night in the constitution.   The shinanigans being attempted to dipsy-dive around them should be done on SOMEBODY ELSE'S dime.   

Not the taxpayers.   

[tjm]

Just about every single thing the federal government does maintain it's power is unconstitutional, including the way they collect taxes, yet we still allow them to do it. I think it was a former president that said the Constitution is just a piece of paper, outdated and invalid in these times. It is used like a placebo to reassure the public that it is not being controlled when it actually is.  

[jdmidwest]

6 hours ago, Nick Adams said:

That state is Missouri. These articles give more detail. I think many Law Enforcement Agencies don't like because it prevents locals from ever working with Feds on anything because the law was written poorly. I know the Springfield Chief has spoken against it in other articles.

https://www.ky3.com/2022/02/06/reports-missouri-supreme-court-hear-challenge-new-gun-law-monday/

This article gives even more detail.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/challenge-to-controversial-gun-law-set-to-be-heard-by-missouri-high-court/article_80182719-08ec-57ec-b5d7-60688935e1f5.html

Correct.

It was originally done to prevent the Feds from imposing Stricter Laws on the Citizens of Missouri than we already have.  Mainly, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms".  If the Feds passed a law stating the private ownership of firearms is not allowed, it will not be enforced by our law enforcement.  And our law enforcement would protect us from the Feds.  Essentially, we would be in a first step of Succession from the United States. 

But the wording has some worried that it would keep Missouri Law Enforcement from working with other groups like the FBI, DEA, Homeland Security.  I don't think there has been any issues.  But someone brought it before the Supreme Court for clarification.

[Nick Adams]

Here's an example of local, state and federal agencies working on a case together. The original charge was a gun charge. Most of the state legislators that right these laws don't think through the ramifications.

Springfield Police Department; Homeland Security Investigations; The Drug Enforcement Administration; the Missouri State Highway Patrol; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives; the Christian County Sheriff's Office; the Webster County Sheriff's Office; the Missouri Department of Revenue and the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney.  

https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2022/02/08/springfield-police-explain-how-they-took-down-catalytic-converter-theft-ring-evan-marshall-arrest/6662715001/